year. this cannot continue. this is one of those bills that comes along not because you're excited about doing it, but because you've got to do it. because if we don't act -- i repeat -- two things are going to happen. one is that the postal service, either the postal service will become insolvent and begin having to cut back and separations. or, two, the postmaster will use authorities he has under the current law to close a lot of post offices and mail processing facilities and cut back service. and i know members across party lines don't want that to happen precipitously. let me now describe some of the major parts of of the substitute bipartisan bill that's come out of our committee. the bill includes two measures that will relieve some of the immediate financial pressure on the postal service. the first is based on an office of personnel management determination that the postal

service has overpaid its contributions to the federal employee retirement system by roughly $11 billion. call it a misunderstanding, call it a clerical error. it is fortuitous for the postal service and the trouble it's in. our bill directs o.p.m. to refund its money to the postal service and then directs the postal service to use this money to provide retirement incentives to employees and to pay off some of its debt. let me explain what i mean about those incentives. s. 1789, the substitute would direct the postal service to use part of these refunds from the federal employee retirement system to reduce its labor costs which make up about 80% of its budget. there is no way the postal service is going to get back in balance without continuing to do what it's been doing. tens of thousands, reducing the number of employees it has.

but the aim here is to do that as a result of a voluntary buyout program. the fact is that approximately half of the postal service's current work force is eligible for either full or early retirement. if 100,000 workers took advantage of the program, which is below the full amount eligible, the postal service would save $8 billion a year. that's the single most significant saving item in the package that we bring before you today. and we set a goal here which is that the postal service should aim to reduce its work force by this incentivized retirement program by approximately that 100,000 workers or 18% of its current work force. our bill also reduces the amount the postal service must pay into

its retiree health benefits account over the next 40 years. the current formula or schedule of payments was part of the postal reform passed some years ago. we conclude that the payments required are larger than is necessary to sustain the viability of the retiree health benefits plan, so we mandate an updated amortization schedule based on projections of what will be needed to fund postal retirees' health care in the future. not just an arbitrary number. that we think means that the postal service is likely to see a significant cut in its annual $5 billion bill to prefund retiree health care, which, of course, would take further stress off the postal service's annual operating budget. we expect as this debate goes on to have as close as possible of an exact projection of how much that change would save from the

postal service itself. now, let me talk about some of the proposals that the postal service and the postmaster have made that have been most controversial. first, saturday deliveries and canceling most saturday deliveries. the postal service has said it can save $3.1 billion a year by canceling saturday deliveries to individual homes and businesses. not something you want to do, but if you're looking to get this institution back into balance and keep it alive, it's one of the things that we're probably going to have to do. the postal rate commission agrees that ending most saturday deliveries will save a lot of money but says their estimate is $1.7 billion a year as opposed to the $3.1 billion that the postal service estimates. either way, we're talking about a substantial reduction in costs and one that we may have to face.

our bill recognizes that ultimately it may well be necessary to switch to five-day delivery. i say it's going to be necessary personally to switch to five-day delivery. but we require the postal service to follow a path over the next two years before that significant step six to five days is carried out. they have first got to determine, according to our bill, if the other cost-saving measures in the bill have made canceling saturday service unnecessary. we can hope that that would happen. i'm skeptical that it will. if a five-day schedule is deemed necessary, the postal service must then submit a plan to congress, g.a.o. and the postal rate commission on how it plans to cushion the negative effects on the businesses and communities it serves. g.a.o. and the p.r.c. will then submit their own studies to congress on this matter. if the p.r.c., postal rate commission, and the controller general conclude that the change

is necessary to allow the postal service to achieve long-term financial solvency, then two years from adoption, the postal service will implement a five-day delivery schedule. now, what about the closing of post offices, which has created a lot of concern really all across america in response particularly to the postmaster announcing a list of 3,700 post offices that are on -- that are possible candidates for closure. one of the things we found in response to this is exactly what i found over the years in connecticut, people have -- the local post office is not just a place where mail and packages pass through. it becomes a local institution of community significance, and it's hard to convince people that they should be closed. people are attached to their local post offices, not just in small towns and rural areas,

especially there, but in a lot of other places, including cities, neighborhoods and cities in a state like my own state of connecticut. but the reality is we can't afford to continue to have as many post offices as we do operating in the way they do. so our bill would improve the present law covering post office closures. it doesn't prohibit them but it requires more public participation and due process and requires the postal service to issue comprehensive retail service standards to ensure that communities throughout the country have access to retail postal services if their current postal service, post office needs to be closed. in other words, look for ways to consolidate retail postal

services. perhaps put the retail postal service in a state or local government office building. perhaps put it in a -- in a retail establishment or wal-mart or whatever to make sure that the service is maintained in a more cost-effective way even if the local post office is not. the bill does also require that the postal service take steps before closing a post office that it does not now have to take, including offering a community these other kinds of options i've talked about, such as keeping a post office open with more limited hours or permitting private contractors or rural carriers to provide the services that the local post office is now providing. another one of the controversial proposals that the postmaster has made is to close 232 of the current 461 mail processing

facilities. not the post offices, but the places the mail goes to be processed so it can get from where it's sent to where it needs to be delivered. the truth is there is excess capacity in the system now, and the post office has to eliminate some of that excess capacity. however, the bipartisan substitute proposal basically requires that care be taken so this is done in a way that does not compromise service standards necessary to maintain the current customer base. in other words, we have got to reduce expenditures but if we do it precipitously, as some of our colleagues will i think propose amendments to do, the net effect is less people are going to use the post office because they're not going to get the service they need, and as a result the revenues will drop and the problem will be even greater. the substitute amendment prohibits -- therefore permits

the postal service to eliminate some excess capacity in the mail processing system, but again requires the postal service to maintain a modified overnight delivery standard. a bit reduced from what it is now but still there particularly for the local delivery areas. the maximum standard thriferrary time -- most people probably don't know this -- the postal service accepts a maximum delivery time of three days for a letter mailed anywhere in the u.s., in the continental u.s. in other words, you mail a letter anywhere in the continental u.s., it's got to be delivered anywhere else in the continental u.s. within three days. that will remain unchanged, and the postal service will be required to maintain a sufficient number of processing facilities to meet those delivery standards but could otherwise close unneeded facilities. so far i have talked about the

cost side of the ledger. s. 1789, the substitute also gives the postal service tools to bring in fresh revenues by offering new products and services such as -- specifically authorizing contracting with state and local governments to issue state licenses, authorizing for the first time the postal service to do what some of the private shippers do, shipping beer, wine and distilled spirits, authorizing the post offices to provide notary services or to provide specialized internet services. our bill would also create an advisory commission of prominent citizens and charge them within a set period of time to reconsider the postal service's current business model and provide it with a strategic blueprint for the future that will enable it to both continue to exist and provide the services that people want but to

do so in a way that balances its budget. mr. president, these -- and finally, it creates a chief innovation officer whose aim, self-evidently by the title, is to continue to find ways to innovate to build on the -- not only the constitutional responsibility to maintain the postal service and post offices, but to do so in a way that is innovative and builds on the irreplaceable assets that the postal service has, particularly the capacity to deliver to the last mile anywhere in this country. mr. president, these reforms are necessary. they will make the post office smaller and more cost-efficient as a result of this bill. there will be fewer employees at the post office and fewer facilities. we just have no choice but to bring that about, but this bill

will keep the postal service alive, and i think it will keep it well and it will put it on the path to surviving forever but in a different way because the environment in which it's operating because of the internet simply has changed. despite a shrinking stream of posts and parcels, here's the reality that we're dealing with and what would be affected if the postal service had to begin cutting back its operations. the postal service still delivers 563 million pieces of mail every day. 563 million pieces of mail every day. only the postal service for the price of a stamp will go that -- literally that last mile to ensure delivery to -- to every -- every business and

residence in america. using snowshoes in alaska, doing whatever is necessary to make that happen. what federal agency, if i can go to another one that the postal service has been given, could process -- to think of the unthinkable if the postal service closed -- that could process 6.7 million passport applications a year if the postal service wasn't there? these are just some of the examples and suggestions of the fact of what's possible but also proving that the postal service is not just a relic of the 18th century, it's a pivotal part of the 21st century, and we have got to act to make sure it survives. the computer age poses unique challenges and the day may come when we're going to send and receive all our mail, get most of our magazines and backs and pay most of our bills on electronic devices that are reliable and secure, but

honestly, the day will never come when we can send physical things across the internet between homes and businesses, things like medicine, clothing, household and business supplies, even spare parts for those computers we're using so much. so the postal service is unique and its network of support facilities and dedicated imleerks i think, stand ready to deliver every home, story, business, and factory in america. that's why we've got to act to make sure that it continues to be able to do that. let me go back to that first postmaster general, benjamin franklin. i alwayalways had a lot of goods to say. "by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail." by failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail. end of quote from franklin.

this bill offers preparations to succeed, to make sure that the postal service never fails. i thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. very patient of you, mr. president. mr. president, today the senate begins debate on reform legislation to save an american institution -- the united states postal service. our founding fathers recognized the importance of having a postal service. article 1, section 8, of the constitution gives congress the power to establish post offices.

the postal service is also required by law to provide the entire population of the united states with adequate and efficient postal services at a fair and reasonable rate. this is called the universal mandate, and it ensures that the postal service cannot leave behind rural states and small towns. the postal service, which has delivered news to generation after generation of americans, is at great risk of not being able to make its payroll by this fall, according to the postmaster general himself. my point, mr. president, is that this crisis is very real. the postal office is in debt to the united states treasury by

$13 billion. by the end of the year, it is likely to reach its statutory debt limit of $15 billion. driving this crisis are many factors, not the least of which is that the volume of first-class mail has fallen by 26% since 2006 and continues to decline a, as this chart shows. reflecting that sharp drop in volume, revenue has plummeted from $72.8 billion in 2006 to $65.7 billion in 2011. mr. president, the postal service is part of our culture and economic fabric.

its failure would deliver a rushing blow to our economy, at a time when the economy is already fragile, and it would be particularly harmful to people living and working in rural america. that means that we must pass a bill. doing nothing is only an option if we're willing to let the postal service fail. that is the choice that we face. and failure would impale a vital component of our economy. for the postal service a the linchpin of a trillion-dollar mail-related industry that employees near 8 million americans in he would faos as diverse as catalog companies, magazine and newspaper publishers, and paper

manufacturing to name just a few. in my state, nearly 38,000 mainers work in jobs related to the mailing industry, including thousands at our pulp and paper mills like one in bucksport, maine, which manufacturers the paper for "time" magazine. the rapid transition from traditional mail to electronic communication has come at an enormous cost to the postal service. the loss of so much mail, coupled with unsustainably high labor costs and exacerbated by the worst recession in decades, has left the post ol postal sern the brink of collapse. despite these head winds, the postmaster general is

inexexplicably forging ahead in favor of reduced access, slower delivery times and higher prices. his plans, i fear, will force many of the postal service tion best customers to pursue dplifer alternatives. mr. president, i cannot think of another major business in serious financial trouble that would risk alienating its remaining customers by slashing service and raising prices. that is a recipe for disaster. we recently learned that the postal service's own preliminary analysis submitted secretly to its regulators reveals that the

destructive service reduction plan to slow mail delivery and shut down postal plants will lead to a more than 9% decrease in first-class mail and a 7.% -- and a 7.7% reduction in all mail. the postal service itself made a preliminary estimate that the first-year losses alone would be $5.2 billion. that would consume a major portion of any supposed savings intended by the postal service's plan. of course, now that these numbers have become public, the postal service is back-peculiapg rispedalingrapidly claiming thae service questions gave the

respondents -- postal customers -- too much information about the drastic nature of the proposed service reductions before asking if these mailers would likely pull out of the system in response to these changes. if the postal service is aware of a legitimate flaw in the study, then i would urge a public release of the study and an explanation for why it was submitted to the regulators, if in fact it is so flawed. the findings of the survey, mr. president, do not surprise me. they are consistent from what i'm hearing from major postal customers. mailers are all too aware of the destructive course that postal leaders are pursuing. once customers turn to communications options other than the mail system, they will

not be coming back, and the postal service will be sucked further and further into a death spiral. companies large and small that rely on the mail tell me that if service continues to deteriorate, they will conduct more business online and encourage their customers to switch to online services for bill paying and other transactions. let me give you an example which illustrates this economic reality. a small business owner from my home -- from the hometown in which i'm living now, sent me an e-mail he received from the company that processes his payroll. in the e-mail, the payroll company reminds the small business owner that the postal service intends to close a

nearby processing center in hamden, maine. the payroll firm recommends that the best option would be to move to an electronic option outside of the mail system. it also offered another option of using nonmail delivery or pickup services. my point is that this example reflects the realities of commerce: degrade service or raise your prices, and you don't get more revenue, you get fewer customers and less revenue. one bright line for me with respect to the bill that we're considering is that we first should do no harm in the form of hastening the volume decline through ill-conceived policy changes. that's why the down sizin downst

the postmaster has stated are critical to saving the postal service must be carried out in a way that preserves service and does not inflict avoidable harm on dedicated postal workers. there are naturally strong opinions on what should be done to save the postal service, and the bill and the substitute that we're bringing to the floor is the product of careful consideration of those competing positions and priorities. as with any bipartisan compromise, this is not the bill that each of us alone would have crafted. but we came together because our goal of saving the postal service is so important. senator lieberman, senator scott brown, senator carper, and i consulted extensively with

postal customers, both business and residential, with postal workers, with the postmaster general, the g.a.o., the administration, and local communities deeply committed to preserving their postal facilities. we've deliberated together, literally day after day, meeting after meeting on these complex issues. and the product of these deliberations, the 21st postal service act provides the right tools to the postal service with the right checks and balances to set it back on course. now, first let me give our colleagues some background. the first thing we did is analyze th the postal service's cost. labor-related expenses are responsible for 80% of the postal service costs. it's always painful to recognize

that workforce costs are simply too high, especially when the employees are as dedicated as those working at the postal service. but avoiding reductions in these expenses is simply not an option, as we hope to save as many jobs as possible both within the pos postal service ag within the broader mailing community. but we can do so in a compassionate, fair way. our bill would transfer to the postal service the nearly $11 billion it has overpaid into the federal employees' retirement system. we would direct the postmaster general to use a portion of this money for retirement and separation incentives in order to reduce the size of the workforce compassionately.

let me emphasize, because there's misunderstandings on this point, the refund from fers, the i the federal employes retirement system, is not taxpayer money. it was contributed by the postal service using ratepayer dollars. it was an overpayment that was identified and confirmed by the actuaries at o.p.m. and ve and d by the g.a.o. g.a.o. recently confirmed o.p.m.'s assessment that this figure has now risen to nearly $11 billion. we would encourage early separation and retirement incentives, capped at the current federal limit of $25,000, combined with retirement incentives such as giving an extra year of service credit if the postal worker is

in the csrs system or two years if the worker is in the fers system. that would how the postmaster general, by his estimate, to compassionately reduce the workforce by about 100,000 people, a goal that he has said in the past was necessary to achieve solvency. let me give our colleagues another important fact. more than a third of all postal workers are already eligible for retirement, so these incentives should be effective, and as the chairman indicated, would save an estimated $8 billion a year. the bipartisan legislation also includes a new requirement that arbitrators rendering binding

decisions in labor disputes consider the financial condition of the postal service. now, i know that it may defy belief that an arbitrator would not automatically consider the looming bankruptcy of the postal service when ruling on contract disputes, but some previous arbitrators have disregarded this factor in their decisions because the requirement to consider it was not explicitly listed in law we would remedy this problem. third, for the first time in 35 years the bill will also bring sorely needed commonsense reforms to the federal workers compensation program not only at the postal service, but across the federal government. but why is this particularly important to the postal service? well, 40% of workers who are on

the long-term rolls for federal workers comp are postal workers. the postal service contributes about $1 billion a year in federal comp costs. this program intended as assistance for injured workers to help them recover and return to work, currently has more than 10,000 postal and federal employees age 70 or older, 2,000 of whom are postal employees. they receive a higher payment on workers comp than they would under the standard retirement program, even though it's obvious at that age they would not be returning to work. in fact, mr. president, 430 of these workers, federal and postal, are over 90 years of

age, and 60 workers -- i'm sorry. six workers are 100 years old or older. these employees clearly are never going to return to work, and they should be switched to the normal retirement system. it's unfair to employees who are working to the normal retirement age. it doesn't serve injured workers well, and it imposes an enormous financial burden on the postal service. our bill, i would note, in its workers comp reforms are very similar to the reforms proposed by the obama administration. it would make benefit levels more comparable to what the majority of states are offering

their workers. let me describe just a few more of these issues. first, for people past retirement age, the median annual workers compensation benefit is 26% higher than the median benefit received by federal and postal workers who retire under the regular retirement system. 39 of the 50 states pay their workers comp recipients two-thirds or less of their salary. yet, most federal beneficiaries receive 75% of their salary, and that's tax-free. the program has also been shown to be highly vulnerable to fraud and abuse. that's not good for workers who are truly injured and need the help of this program. let me mention two flaws.

the program relies heavily on self-reported data. it does not now require the use of independent physicians to assess the initial or continued eligibility of claimants. these vulnerabilities are not hypothetical, but they surely are costly. the i.g. at the department of labor reports that the removal of a single fraudulent claim saves on average $300,000 to $500,000. when the i.g. reviewed over 10,000 claimant files a decade ago, there were irregularities in almost 75% of the cases. that resulted in benefits being reduced or ended for more than 500 claimants, saving almost $5 million a year in benefits that

otherwise would be paid. i would note that the obama administration has proposed many similar changes and also has recommended that they apply across the board so that we don't have two different systems. and we agree. i want to move to another issue that's been a lot of discussion about. the postal service blames some of its financial woes on a 2006 requirement to prefund its retiree health plan, a requirement the postal service endorsed at the time, i might add. the postal service currently owes $46.2 billion to cover the costs of the promises it has made to provide health care to future retirees. that unfunded liability is not going away. nevertheless, the payments for retirement health benefits could

be eased by coming up with a new amortization schedule that stretches out the payments. that's what we have done. we've established a 40-year amortization schedule for the unfunded liability, and we would also reduce the requirement that the fund reach 100% of the liability. we change that to 80%, which is more consistent with what is done by the private sector. i would note this would reduce the annual payment by approximately $2 billion to $3 billion while still keeping promises to workers and avoiding a taxpayer bailout. our bill gives authority to the postal service to save money through greater efficiency in its operations. we do so in a way that ensures that rural america will not be

left behind. as the presiding officer is well aware, across america communities are up in arms over the postal service's plans to close about 3,200 post offices. and it's become clear to me, in looking at the specifics that, common sense often isn't applied in these decisions. now, we do not mandate that every single post office remains open, nor do we dictate that an arbitrary number should close. instead, our bill requires the postal service to work with the postal regulatory commission to establish for the first time clear standards for what constitutes reasonable access to postal service, postal services for communities and for

customers. these would be developed by considering important factors, including distance, travel time, access to transportation, weather, geography. and that means if the postal service tries to close a post office and that closure would result in this new service standard being violated, the community, under our bill, could appeal the closure to the commission. and if the commission agrees its binding decision would require the service to be preserved. now, the presiding officer, senator tester, and senator moran from kansas have worked very hard on the language in this provision. i want to thank them for that. what's more, this bill requires the postmaster general to work with communities to offer cost-saving alternatives to full-time, full-service post

offices in lieu of totally shuttering a beloved post office in the heart of town. there's so many options that the postal service could use. for example, moving the post office into a retail store, providing hours part-time; say 7 :00 to 9:00 in the morning when people are going to work or 5:00 to 7:00 in the evening when they are going home. in recent months we have the seen the postal service announce a number of dhahran conean -- a number of draconian services and complement service changes, including a proposal to do away with overnight delivery, one of the real advantages the postal service has. our bill takes a better approach that helps the postal service right size its excess capacity

while still maintaining what is one of its most valuable assets, its delivery to deliver mail overnight to many areas. let me give you another example. the postal service has proposed closing one of two processing plants in the state of maine. the one that is located in the hamdan, maine, in the central eastern part of our state. that means for northern communities, the letter would have to take a round trip of more than 600 miles to be processed and returned. that makes no sense at all. it clearly will lead to a marked slowness in delivery, a deterioration in service. and i would argue probably to more costs. and that plant could be downsized, but it should never be closed.

so there are so many options that need to be pursued by the postal service in order to prevent service from deteriorating and delivery times to lengthen. because, once again, that will drive more mail out of the system, and that's the last thing that the postal service needs. i would say that many postal employees have pointed out to phaoerbgs as has the inspector general, that there are excessive bureaucratic coasts at the postal service. for example, the postal service, even though it's insisting on closing all these facilities, already has over 67 million square feet of excess property that it has yet to dispose of. 67 million. the bill requires the postal

service to device a plan to close and consolidate these administrative offices around the country and start implementing that plan within the year. we've also encouraged colocation of postal facilities with other federal agencies, an idea that senator carper had to minimize excess capacity. we also authorized the postal service to convert delivery from front door to the curb where it is practical and cost-effective. the postal service inspector general estimated this could save as much as $4.5 billion a year. another controversial issue that we tackle in this bill is the postmaster general's proposal to eliminate saturday delivery. now, i have said repeatedly that i believe abandoning saturday delivery will once again drive

mail out of the system and do more harm than good. so our compromise prohibits eliminating saturday delivery for at least two years so that cost-cutting reforms can be implemented. if at that point, to achieve solvency the postal service needs to go to five-day delivery, it can do so if it proves it's done everything else to cut its excessive costs. again, reducing service should be the last resort, not the first option. our hope is that the cost-cutting tools that we provide the postal service in this bill will allow this service reduction to be avoided. mr. president, there's much more else in this bill which we will discuss as the debate goes on. and today is just the first step

in what i know is going to be a long journey. but the point is we must pass a postal reform bill. the house also has a bill that awaits floor consideration, and more promises will have to be -- and more compromises will have to be made along the way. but we cannot forget the urgency of this task. i ask my colleagues to work with us during the upcoming floor debate, and i urge their support for final passage. the fact is it is up to us to preserve this vital american institution, the united states postal service. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

you can find information about senators and house members in c-span's 2012 congressional directory. available from c-span.org. learn about the supreme court and governors across the country as well as both chambers of the 112th congress. you will also find lists and makeup of committees like homeland security and energy and commerce. visit c-span.org for more information. >> jury selection began this week in the retrial of former major league pitcher

roger clemens, charged by federal prosecutors of knowingly lying to congress in february 2008 on performance-enhancing drug use in baseball. >> let me read to you what his wife said in her affidavit. i, laura petit, do depose and state in 1999 or 2000 andy told me had had had a conversation with roger clemens which roger admitted to him using human growth hormones. mr. clemens, once again, i remind you, you are under oath. you have said your conversation with mr. petit never happened. if that was true, why would laura petit remember andy telling her about the conversation? >> once again, mr. congressman, i think he misremembers the conversation that we had. andy and i's relationship was close enough to know if i would have known he had done hgh, which i now know, if he was knowingly knowing that i had taken hgh, we

would have talked about the subject. he would have come to me to ask me about the effect of it. >> watch his 2008 testimony online at c-span video library, with a quarter of a century of american politics and public affairs on your computer. and at 6:30 eastern watch "new york times" columnist ross duothat on his book, bad religion. he will discuss his views on christianity in america and how it has evolved. he is joined live at the national press club by a national public radio correspondent and "washington post" columnist michael gerson. watch that live tonight on "book tv".org. a fired general services administration official says he did not know taxpayers would be billed nearly $2,000 for a party in his luxury suite at a las vegas resort. robert peck testified today

before the house transportation committee. it was the second day of hearings into gsa's spending at the agency's las vegas conference in october 2010 and on other travel. he has since been fired. here's his opening statement followed by questions by members of congress. it is about 45 minutes. >> good morning, chairman denham, chairman mica, ranking member norton and members of the subcommittee. my name is robert peck. until early this month i served as national commissioner of the public service of gsa having served in the role previously from 1959 to 2001. i'm deeply troubled and disappointed what i learned about the costs associated with the gsa western regions conference held in october 2010. there were excessive an inappropriate costs that should never have been occurred of the those planning it made fundamental errors of judgment. it is troubling procurement policies, travel policies and other agency procedures appear not to have been followed. while i was not personally involved in planning conducting or approving the conference, and unacceptable

conference expenditures described in the ig report they took place within the pbs on my watch. i am not here to shirk that responsibility. i am deeply disappointed by what the ig reported. i have been removed from the job i loved and i offer my personal apology that some people within the gsa acted as they did. the taxpayers deserve better than this. the actions of those responsible for the expenditures outlined in the ig report failed to meet the obligation we all owe the american people. those actions failed to meet the standards i expected from those employed in pbs headquarters and throughout the regions and those actions dishonored of thousands of hard-working and dedicated federal employees i worked with over the years. at gsa and at other agencies the federal employees and managers with whom i worked in my times both inside and outside the government have overwhelmingly been concerned with carrying out their missions within the government rules at the lowest cost possible of the

as pbs commissioner i was not involved in planning conferences. as a political appointee i had a policy not to be involved in the selection of contractors or vendors. in the case of 2010, western regions conference it was a regionally organized event and while i was invited to address the conference i had nothing to do wit its planning nor was i involved in approving any part of its spending or program in advance. i was present for only a portion of the conference before returning to d.c. as is the case with most large federal agencies the gsa holds training conferences for its employees. in my many years at gsa i attended a number of conferences. from what i personally saw the conferences i attended were not extravagant. the 2010 western regions conference described in the ig's report was a serious aberration. when i arrived the first afternoon of the conference i was shown to a very large suite. i questioned the organizers as to the cost. they told me that all the rooms were within the government rate including this room and that my suite

was included at the basic room rate as part of the conference's package of rooms. my first morning at the conference i made a powerpoint presentation to the entire group about national pbs goals and priorities. i attended presentations from the four western regions about their projects and performance and another about the gsa's sustainability goals. that afternoon i asked the conference organizers to invite a number about employees to their choosing to my room. my intention was to have a meet-and-greet with a group of regional employees attending the conference. this predinner reception went from about 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. since this was my initiative, rather than an event on the organizers agenda i said i would pay personally for beer, wine and chips. i was told that food would be made available without additional costs under the conference contract with the hotel. the beer and wine were purchased separately and upon returning to d.c. i wrote a check for that cost. only within the past few weeks did i learn from the

gsa inspector general that the food for this reception was apparently invoiced at $1960. it is not unusual for an ig to issue a report. federal managers count on that as part of our internal oversight. in the normal course of events the ig will issue a draft report. then the agency will respond and ultimately the ig will issue a final report with its recommendations. the ig's recommendations including those calling for any disciplinary actions narrowly implemented following release of a final report. in this case the ig issued a very preliminary report last may. at that time i understood the ig cautioned the gsa not to take personnel actions until the final report was complete. that final report which contained the ig's recommendations was just published two weeks ago. until the ig's draft report last year i was not aware that there had been numerous planning trips incurred in connection with this conference nor was i aware until recently informed by the ig that there were questions about the competitive contracting procedures used to find the

conference hotel. as i have indicated it is now clear much of the expense at the hotel was excessive and unacceptable. therefore even before having the benefit of the final ig report i took measures to try to insure that something like this would not happen again. in fiscal 2011, in response to this conference, and as part of my focus on overhead expenses i canceled a number of nationally-controlled pbs conferences instituted a review of pbs outside conference attendance and took steps to reduce spending on travel. further when i was first interviewed about the conference by the ig last month i invited the ig to audit other travel and conferences that pbs had conducted under my tenure. i deeply regret the behavior of the gsa employees involved in incident and the damage it has caused. i look forward to answering any questions you may have.

>> as the chairman mentioned, mr. neely is not with us today. he is used his constitutional right to plead the fifth amendment and has hired a lawyer. nor did he testify yesterday. miss daniels, you're next to testify. do you have a lawyer? >> i do not. >> can you pull the microphone, please. >> i do not have a lawyer. >> okay. i would just, issue you a word of caution. i have read your testimony. and there is a great deal of troubling information on there. i would certainly issue

caution today as you testify. miss daniels, you may proceed. >> good morning. this is my first time at a hearing. i'm not, i did not prepare testimony because i was placed on administrative leave last wednesday. all of my files were confiscated. i was directed to turn in all of my government equipment and, cell phone to, the director of hr in fort worth on thursday morning. and on thursday evening my supervisor called me late in the evening and said that i would be receiving a letter from the house of representatives requesting my testimony. as you know i did not provide 100 copies by close

of business. i received my letter at 10:30 on friday morning and, i'm not clear what testimony you are referring to unless you're referring to interviews that i held with the ig of which i didn't sign anything. other than the warning and, without my files or anything and i was not even sure, since the title of this hearing was a pattern of mismanagement, excess and waste, i didn't feel comfortable without my computer files to be able to even provide the testimony to that effect. i will be happy to answer any questions. >> miss daniels if you don't have prepared testimony we will allow up to five minutes, i was referring to your transcripts in the investigative report that the ig did.

that's what we've gone through. we have e-mails as late as last night. certainly there is a great deal of concern with your transcripts. so you're not obligated to have an opening statement or obligated to go any further than you already have but we certainly afford you that right to up to five minutes. >> i'll decline to provide a testimony but happy to answer any questions that i can do. >> thank you. i will now recognize each member for an additional five minutes. we'll start the first round of questioning, mr. miller, i want to first start by better understanding how you get around rules, how you get around executive orders. how when the president issues an executive order, how members of a, of an agency may disregard those executive orders and figure

out a way to get around it. so as my staff has put together an outline here for me. basically if you get a large number about of people together, in this case, western regional conference, 300 people, it gives you a reason to have an off-sight meeting. i'm certain you could have a meeting in des moines, iowa, or modesto, california, but the whole purpose of having these lavish conferences is to go to places like hawaii and las vegas, palm springs, napa. new orleans. that is going to be a good question, why the western regional conference would need to go to new orleans which is not in the western regional conference. so you get a lot of people together. it gives you a reason to have a conference. then you go to a luxury resort. how much per diem are you supposed to get on a trip? >> per diem varies from, place to place. and it's listed on the gsa

website as to how much per diem per day individuals would get. for example, in las vegas, the per diem for breakfast is $12. and in it is stated there is a charge per diem. . . >> that's for everything, meals and everything. um, the hotel room was $93.

so a traveler would come back and submit a voucher, and that would be paid back to the traveler. >> so if you got a free room or a comped room, you could then apply for that $93 at the end of the day. >> if you received a free room, you should not submit that in the voucher. if you received a free meal that the conference provided, you should not submit that in the voucher. >> and how about appetizers? >> well, we don't think the advertisers were appropriate -- appetizers were appropriate at all. >> and how do you get around that rule? >> there is a rule that says if you have an awards ceremony and food is necessary for the performance of the awards ceremony, you may have food as part of the awards ceremony. that was routinely skirted by region -- >> how often are awards given at these conferences?

>> i would guess fairly often, they gave -- >> once a conference? >> at least. >> every day of a conference? >> i'm not sure if they received an award every day, they had -- >> what type of awards? >> well, they received a number of things. they received souvenir coins, everyone in the region's received -- >> to write off a meal, to have the expense of appetizers or a full meal whether it's sushi or a long list of different types of appetizers we have here, what types of awards would be given? >> well, i'm not sure that any of those things would be appropriate at an awards ceremony. and the rule is this food has to be necessary for the awards ceremony. not the other way around. you don't get the food, you don't give out an award in order to get the food. you're giving an award, and you have a ceremony, and if incidental food is necessary for that awards ceremony, then it's

permissible you should the rules. it -- under the rules. it became kind of a running joke -- >> that's how they felt it was justified. >> yes. >> to get around the administration's rule of not having food, they got around it by having an awards ceremony at every conference or every day of a conference? >> many times. in region nine witnesses told us that it became a running joke with the region nine regional commissioner, that even at staff meetings he would say we're going to have a meeting in another location, and we're going to have food, so we have to do what, and his senior staff is said to have said, give out awards. and so according to witnesses that we've interviewed, it was a running joke in region nine that in order to get food, you had to give out awards. and many of these awards were silly awards. um, one of our witnesses characterized them as, i guess, fake awards and jackass awards,

things of that nature. now, getting back to the western region's conference, they gave out awards for theatrical performances. we do not consider that a proper award. the award has to be for contributions to the work of the agency. >> how might they also get around the lodging per diem limits? how would you get a 2200 square-foot suite or several, how would you get a suite at every conference, how would multiple suites be begin when it's only $-- be given when it's only $93? >> suites are provided by the hotel sometimes, as part of the negotiation a hotel will provide an upgraded room or suites as part of the negotiation. they will throw in what they call comped rooms. if they have a number of rooms paid for by the, by the

government, by the conference. >> what type of negotiation? how would you justify a 2200 -- how in this case would you justify two 2200-square-foot luxury suites? that must be some large contract. how do you get a contract that large? >> well, gsa, apparently, had a very large contract with the hotel and that the large contract with the hotel -- >> [inaudible] i'm sorry, mr. miller, proceed. >> okay. with a large contract with the hotel, the hotel would throw in a room. >> so how do you build up a large contract? >> well, gsa had a number of rooms that they were renting from that hotel. and -- >> rooms alone would allow you to the get those large, luxury suites? >> well, they had caters as well -- >> how much catering?

>> well, it's detailed in the report. they had light refreshments. by the way, light refreshments are allowed in between sessions at a conference according to the rules. the report identifies food expenditures. on page 9 of the report, um, we've identified $146,527 of expenditures on food and beverage catering. >> let me, let me move on. we are short on time here, and we're going to try the stick to the five-minute rule. if you have luxury suites, how would you bring your entire family and friends? how would you have a 21-year-old birthday party for your daughter, how would you have all of these various friends and family gatherings, extended stays on these different trips? >> well, that -- they would have to be a gift from the hotel. the hotel would provide, um, an

upgraded room or a suite, and if you're in the middle of the negotiating -- of negotiating a contract with the hotel, that might be conceived as a gift from the hotel. >> so let me ask you, you set up a contract and said our per diem rate is $93, that's how much we can spend on lodging. we'd like to have five days at $93, but we're going to spend several hundred thousand dollars on appetizers, we'd like to the extend our stay on the front end and back end and create a nine-day trip, and by the way, we'd like 2200-square-foot rooms so we can bring our family and friends and throw a party there on the weekend. is that possible? >> not under the regulations. not under the rules. >> is it possible under what you've seen in your, in your investigation? >> yes. yes. in fact, i think that does describe what happened. what you're talking about is, essentially, inappropriate relationships with vendors and

an inappropriate relationship with the hotel would be to go to the hotel and ask for favors that benefit the individuals personally. um, and all of that is improper. it is appropriate to negotiate a good rate for the food, appropriate food under the rules, but it's inappropriate to negotiate with vendors for personal benefits. that would -- you're not allowed to use your office for perm gain. -- perm gain. personal gain. >> nor can you accept -- >> correct. >> -- many other perks that were accepted here. i am out of time. i want to definitely go back to this a little bit deeper, but at this time i'll recognize ranking member norton for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. miller, what chairman has just described, if someone in

region nine wanted to know whether or not what they were doing was within the rules, you under the present structure would they turn to -- who would they turn to in region nine? >> is that directed towards me? >> or -- to you or ms. brita. in region nine what the chairman described, so if someone wanted to know is this within the rules, who would they go to to find out in region nine? >> they have regional counsel in region nine. and regional counsel was consulted at least once about the possession of the -- >> now, who -- and what did regional counsel say? >> i believe that regional counsel provided an opinion that the regional commissioner

requested was not in writing, and, um, if you could hold on a minute -- they provided an unwritten opinion about bicycles. when the charity -- >> because there was an inquiry about the bicycles, but not about other things. >> well, yes. the regional commissioner asked about the bicycles -- >> yes. >> -- because it would involve disposal of federal property. >> yes. um, mr. neely is not here. did he have the final authority on the matters, for example, just described by the chairman, or was there someone above him who had some authority and to whom he reported on matters of the kind that have just been described?

>> well, at -- >> can i clarify mrs. norton's point? they asked for legal opinion on the bicycles, correct? >> only. >> yes, they did. >> and what was the legal opinion? >> legal opinion was if charity maintained the bicycles, it would not be a disposal of federal property. >> and was that in writing? >> no, it was not in writing. >> is it normally in writing? >> yes, it is. the regional commissioner requested that it not be in writing to avoid any obligation under foia. >> is that in writing? >> i believe we have, we have some evidence of that. i'm not sure if it's a direct writing or not, but we do have evidence of that. >> they tried to cover it up after they made the request? >> well, that he requested that it not be in writing. >> thank you. sorry. >> so the counsel himself didn't want his opinion in writing. what i'm trying to establish, who was the operating officer

who was in charge of this, of this conference and whether he, in fact, had to report what happened in the conference or had to ask for any permission or whether he was a, an island unto himself who had control in region nine over the matters that we have just heard about. >> what we found in our investigation was that the regional commissioner, essentially, controlled everything. and that he was the final say so, he was acting regional administrator at the time. there was little oversight or supervision by central office and, you know, as a practical matter the regional commissioner decided -- >> yeah. well, i'm going to have questions for mr. tangherlini and ms. johnson, very troubling

in this regard. i'm like to ask mr. peck a question. mr. peck, there are many who have come to your defense. i have known you in this administration and in a prior administration. um, and so it's unusual for people to publicly speak well of someone who has had, has encountered what you have, been discharged by the president. do you understand why the president took out the top of the agency, and do you believe that that was the right thing to do and the fair thing to do? >> i understand why he did it, and as i said in my testimony, i was -- it was on my watch. i was brought up in a military family, i was an army officer, and i subscribe to the axiom that someone in charge is responsible for everything their organization does or fails to do. >> yeah. i just want that on the record. the way in which -- normally

many this country, it doesn't operate the way it does in parliamentary democrats where the resigns somehow many our country often, only people who have hands-on but not direct authority are the ones held culpable. so i can understand the feelings for you. but in light of how structures should be structured in this country, i'm, i understand your response. um, there's a question, mr. peck, about the letter of reprimand for mr. neely. we just heard that mr. neely was, essentially, an island unto himself, you didn't know anything about him. but when it became known, you believed he deserved only a letter of rep ri hand. i mean, he may be facing

termination now. he may be facing criminal charges. what made you believe that what is one of the light itself forms -- lightest forms of penalty given his large responsibility, regional administrator and commissioner, the letter of reprimand was all that should, should take place here, especially when you say you understand why the president would fire you and other top officials because of the responsibility that the top must have for what goes on with those charged to him? >> mr. peck, i'll allow you to answer, but i'd ask you to be brief. >> yes, sir. i believed it was the appropriate response at that time. the ig investigation was ongoing, it was under my ip presentation, and i think i've seen documentation since that the ig was asking us not to take disciplinary action against anyone involved in this until -- >> well, i thought it said do

not take any personnel action, and that's a personnel action, isn't it? >> the letter? >> yeah. >> well, i'm not sure the letter was actually sent. there was a great deal of conversation about what we could and could not do at that time given what we knew about mr. neely. the other thing i'll just note is that a lot more facts have come out since about what happened at that conference. but we certainly -- >> do you still believe he deserved only a reprimand? >> oh, no. not based on what i know now. >> no, at the time, what you knew about the conference, you think deserved no more than a letter of reprimand? >> no, at the time we took it into account, i took it into account in his rating, i spoke to him, i spoke to the other regional commissioners about conferences. um, i took other actions. at that time given what we knew about what had happened at the conference particularly with respect to him, and we didn't know things about his travel

expenditures and other things, we thought that that was an appropriate response at that time. it was kind of like a shot across the bow -- >> thank you, mr. peck. chairman mica. before we do, in consulting -- >> [inaudible] >> we're three minutes over. in consulting with democrats in a bipartisan fashion, we have made the determination that ms. daniels after receiving transcript over the last 48 hours, it is in our subject on a bipartisan level that we will excuse you at this time. i would advise you as chairman of this committee, you ought to seek legal counsel. you're dismissed. chairman mica. >> i thank you. first of all, ms. doone, an

expenditure that rises about 300% for the public buildings commissioners' expenditures from 2.9 million to 9 million, did that raise any, does that raise any flags to you, a 300% increase? actually, it's in about two years because it was about 3.2 in 2009? >> i'm sure -- i'm not sure what number you're referring to. >> the expenditures for the public building commissioners' operations. says administrative and personnel costs. does that raise any flags? are you aware of a request that i've had in and our committee's had in, we sent it to david foley on december 7, 2011, to give us a breakdown of administrative costs? >> i was not aware of that request, and i only became aware of it as the public building services came close to

finalizing its response. >> we've been trying to get this information since last year, so you're the chief financial officer and, of course, in if my opening statement -- in my opening statement i describe what was sent to us, and we see why there wasn't much detail sent to us now. mr. miller -- well, first of all, susan brita. you asked that -- this conference took place in october, 2010. and november, shortly thereafter, you asked a review, ig review. is that correct? >> correct. >> and it looks like a preliminary briefing was not done until may of 2011. all this was not made public until a few weeks ago, mr. miller. what took so long since briefing administrator johnson and

ms. brita in may 2011? >> chairman mica, we investigated a number of individuals, we interviewed individuals, we turned over every stone, and be every time we turned over a stone, we found 50 more with all sorts of things crawling out from under it -- >> but you never, you never published a report. but in june after providing that briefing to ms. brita and administrator johnson, you -- somehow the gsa chief, mr. robinson, michael robinson yesterday who was before ogr committee informed kimberly harris, the white house counsel, about the investigation going on. were you aware of that? >> i was not aware of that. >> you were not aware of it. it was interesting that back in

may you advised administrator johnson to get a handle on regional administer orer neely, this was in may, administrator neely's travel, is that correct? >> chairman mica, i did brief administrator johnson on the interim report -- >> but did you, did you tell them to get a handle on his travel expenditures? >> i told the regional administrator to get a handle on his travel in august of -- >> so you told him? >> i told her. it's ruth cox. >> okay, ruth cox. okay. and then we have a trip to hawaii, we have another trip to, by neely, to hawaii in october, another trip to atlanta, another warning -- susan brita warned, i

guess, you about an upcoming 17-day south pacific junket headed by neely? >> actually, chairman mica, we were so concerned about it we contacted ms. brita, the deputy administrator -- >> you contacted her? >> and said do you know -- >> and ms. brita, you notified the regional administrator, ruth cox, about the upcoming junket and expressed concern, right? >> i did. >> yeah. and what happened? >> i expressed concern and asked her to review the plans, make sure -- >> and that called it off, didn't it? no. [laughter] so they went on that junket. then another one to dana point, california. hawaii, guam, saipan trip with staff, another trip to atlanta, four-day site visit to, to hawaii, and then, i guess, where's napa? this offsite trip to napa, is that california?

you've got to go to the wine region. well, i see why mr. neely is not with us today, and the only pictures i can get of him are in his hot tub suite, but i thank you, ms. brita, for, for your coming forward and for your trying to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. yield back. >> thank you, chairman mica. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member, for having this very important hearing today. needless to say, i was appalled when i first heard about some of the things that the gsa administration had charged to the taxpayers for their conference. this congress has had its share of disagreements over the past on how to reduce the federal spending and how to address the

deficit issue. however, i think we all can agree on that there's no place for this type of a taxpayers' abuse of funds. the employees that put together this conference forgot that the federal government is supposed to work on behalf of the taxpayers, families and small businesses throughout maine should have -- not have to play for employees of gsa to take lavish vacations in las vegas or anywhere else. throughout the country. and i hope that we can get the information that we need here today to make sure that this does not happen again. and additionally, i plan to offer an amendment to the financial service and general government appropriation bill to prevent gsa from holding this type of conference in the future. but this is just extremely disturbing. i do want to commend ms. brita for what you have done and are

going to do, hopefully, with the agency. i guess my question is for the inspector general and ms. brita both is since this has been brought to light in the public's attention, what has been done or will be done in the future to make sure that this does not happen again and for the inspector general, mr. miller, has the ig looked at other agencies that you're aware of for a similar type of abuse that might have occurred? or is occurring? we are currently looking at all the conferences in region nine, and we're looking at conferences in if general. in general. >> just region nine? >> well, we're focusing on region nine right now, but we are generally looking at conferences. we are receiving a number of

hotlines as you can imagine about other conferences throughout the country. >> mr. my choad, the acting manager has agreed to do a complete top to bottom of the agency, centralization versus decentralization with an eye towards overall service delivery of the agency. >> is the acting director also looking at making sure that the federal government's reimbursed -- >> yes, sir. he's already taken, he's already taken action in that regard. three letters were sent out, and additional letters will be forthcoming, yes. >> and, mr. miller, what do you expect or what should congress do to make sure that this doesn't happen again not only with gsa, but other agencies when you look at these type of conferences?

>> well, i think supporting igs is something that helps. we have to investigate these frauds and abuses and waste. unfortunately, you cannot legislate good judgment, you can't legislate good management. and so i think one of the things you can do is strengthen inspectors general in all the agencies. >> now, as far as gsa, do you understaff in the inspector general's office for gsa, and how many vacancies do you currently have? >> i'll leave that to the judgment of the appropriators. we currently have 70 special agents. they are the ones that actually interview witnesses, and i think you've read some transcripts with our special agents on there. we have forensic auditors that are trying to find all of the funds that are charged to purchase cards as part of this conference, charged to building

operations funds, just trying to trace the money. so we do have forensic auditors. we have auditors currently who are under our fte level and not hiring due to appropriations problems. >> could you submit to the committee the number of vacancies you currently have? >> i would be happy to. >> thank you. i see we're running out of time. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> the vice chair of the committee, mr. you fard. >> with thank you, mr. chairman -- crawford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. peck, what were your impressions of the $30,000 pool party awards ceremony where you were given an award for your work on the stimulus program? >> mr. crawford, there was a reception, i think, the afternoon i got there. it was outdoors at the hotel. i wasn't aware of what it cost until reminded by the investigator, i didn't remember what the food was because i don't think i ate very much of

it. but -- nor was i aware that there might have been an awards ceremony there to justify food expenses. that's not something i would have thought of, not a rule i believe i was familiar with. i thought as part of a hotel package i had seen both in public and private sectors before that those kinds of receptions were provided as part of a hotel package. and that's -- so i thought at the end of the day, um, not knowing the expense, i didn't, i didn't think it was out of the ordinary. may i say one thing about the awards. >> sure. >> i want to say, if i have an opportunity, i'd like to say something about coins. when i left the government in 2001, federal agencies did not give out coins. when i came back in 2009, this fad had apparently evolved from the military where civilian agencies had coins. everywhere i went somebody gave me a copy from their agency. there had been a coin minted from the public building

service. when i was asked -- when i was told that they were running out and we needed to order more, i asked how much they cost. they said about $10 apiece. i said, we don't need coins, if i want to give someone an atta boy, i request they've them -- i can give them a handshake or a certificate. i was concerned when i saw the coins, i will say that. >> okay. when you arrived at your two-story suite, what was your impression? >> that it was ludicrously large, um, and kind of like you'd see in las vegas, and i also as i noted in my testimony immediately asked what the charge was for the suite and whether there was an extra charge for it. >> okay. i have an e-mail here, it's dated october 2th. it's from you to jeff neely, a terrific lesson to all our folks about what preparation, professionalism and a sense of

perspective and humor can do. i just sent a rave review to martha johnson. do you want to comment on that? >> yes. i was, at that time, remember, i had arrived on monday afternoon -- late monday morning. what i had seen were during the presentations that i saw the one day i was there, a number of presentations that were all substantive about the work of the public building service. i thought that the presentations prepared by the four regions were good. the conversations that i saw during the, during these sessions were about the work of pbs and how we could get work done better. i thought that was professional, and that's what i was referring to. >> okay. when you decided to throw a party in your suite, who ended up paying for the food and alcohol which was about a $2,000 bill for the food? you indicated in your testimony, in your written testimony as well as your oral testimony that you actually paid for the alcohol. is that correct? >> yes, sir.

>> had bartenders and staff there for the party? >> no, sir. >> no? >> not to -- not to best of my recollection, but i don't recall. >> okay. why would it be okay -- there were no awards at this party, why would it be okay to bill the taxpayers for $2,000 worth of food at your party? >> it would not. >> so it's not okay to do that. >> no, sir. and as i said, because it was not an awards ceremony, it was not part of an official function, i had a practice when i went to meetings whether they were in regional office buildings or somewhere else of trying to meet federal, the gsa employees and talk, mostly talk shop. this thing was a predinner thing. i thought it was a nice thing to do, and i specifically said it was not a part of the conference program, i would pay for it myself. by the way, i was not prepared to pay for fancy food, and that's why i said let's do beer, wine and chips. and then this other food arrived, and i said how did that happen? they said, well, it's covered in the existing conference contract. and i believe i said something to the effect of, so no

additional cost. that's what i was told. i did not know it had been charged additionally or separately until i was interviewed by an ig agent, i guess about four weeks ago now. i asked him when he told me about the money whether that was an additional amount or covered by the contract. in any event, mr. crawford, i totally agree with you. i had no intention of charging it to the taxpayer, did not believe it was a legitimate taxpayer event -- expense and i yesterday sent a letter to the inspector general saying if that was, in fact, an additional cost, i'm prepared to pay it back. >> okay. i've got one quick question for mr. miller. these ig reports are a great window, do you do you believe te public would be better served by having a central location where any citizen could be provided with an opportunity to see what the oig does, how to read their reports and how they're important? >> i think that would help. we have a web site where you can

access our reports, and every ig does. there's also a web site calls ignet.gov that will give you a list of all the ig web sites. >> all right, thank you. yield back. >> thank you, mr. crawford. >> and you can see the entire gsa hearing on c-span.org. representative jeff denham, who chaired the transportation subcommittee hearing, summed up his frustration and that of others by telling gsa witnesses the agency suffered from, quote, this culture of fraud, waste, corruption, end quote and possibly cover-ups and inside deals with vendors. according to the associated press, he added. in the certainly is not only a dark day for gsa, but the dark day for the u.s. government. we wonder why there is so much distrust in government, he said. again, both today's and yesterday's hearings on gsa spending can be viewed on c-span.org. >> we asked students to create a

video explaining what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today we're going to hoboken, new jersey, to meet with matthewty loren sow, an eighth grader from allegiant charter school. hi, matthew. >> hello. >> your video was on capital punishment and the eighth amendment. why did you choose to focus on this issue? >> we dealt with this project a little bit started at the beginning of the year, and we were -- they gave us the whole constitution, and we had to look through the amendments and choose which one we would like to focus on. and joey and i were reading through the amendments, and we were trying to see which one stuck out to us, and we read the eighth amendment which is the death penalty. so we chose to do this because we both disagreed upon it, so we thought it'd be a good issue to discuss. >> you opened your video with a clip from a republican presidential primary debate. why did you choose to open with this clip? >> well, we mainly chose to open with that video to, basically,

start off showing how cruel people can be about the death penalty and execution and show how much a man with power that does agree with it can influence people and citizens of all sexes. so we thought that it'd be good to show how people felt about it, and we liked to see how other people reacted to the video. >> and throughout your documentary you debated three questions on the death penalty. why did you choose to focus on these three questions? >> well, mainly we chose to focus on these three questions because as we were doing the research for the death penalty, these were the three issues that mainly concerned the death penalty, and we thought these would be the three best to discuss in the video. >> and you interviewed an expert from the innocence project. how did she affect your understanding on the issue? >> she just made the way i felt execution stronger, and she made me notice how, how more than not innocent people have been and are being killed in different

states where execution is allowed. and she just made my view on execution stronger and made me see it better. >> you also interviewed several people on their personal opinions dealing with the death pen -- penalty. how did that make you understand the different sides of capital punishment? >> being able to talk to people, and those are people that i see on a daily basis, and i know them on a personal basis, i was able to, like, connect with them and understand how they felt about it and see how they would feel if they were in a certain predimment where somebody close to them was being executed. >> okay. and what was your favorite part in creating this documentary? >> my favorite part of creating this documentary had to be being able to speak face to face with people and being able to interact and connect with them and get to know their story and how they felt about it and seeing their reactions towards it. >> and what would you like others to learn as they watch your documentary?

>> i'd like them to learn that execution is not, it's not the right thing to do, it's not humane. it's just, it's just cruel and not what we should be doing. it's just -- there's other ways of justice, and i feel that isn't a good way to serve justice. >> matthew, thank you for talking with us today. >> thank you. >> and here's a portion of matthew's documentary, "the great debate." >> governor perry, a question about texas. your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times -- [applause] >> wait, did you just hear that? >> did you hear the people cheering? >> that's a line that takes a second. look. >> your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times, have you -- [applause] have you struggled -- >> my name is matthew, and when i see this clip, it makes me

wonder what the world is coming to when anyone can find any sort of pleasure or enjoyment out of execution or loss of any life no matter what the person has done. >> if you commit the most heinous crimeses, you deserve the ultimate punishment. >> in this documentary we will debate three questions concerning the death penalty. >> number one s the death penalty moral? >> number two, is the death penalty racist? is. >> number three, does the death penalty make us safer? >> and watch matthew's entire video along with all winning documentaries at studentcam.org and continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> space shuttle discovery mounted on the shuttle carrier aircraft soared around the washington monument and the white house today before landing for the last time near its new museum home. that's the smithsonian museum

and dulles airport just outside d.c. it took off at day break from cape canaveral, florida. the shuttle was bolted to the top of a modified jumbo jet. three hours later, the pair took a few spins around washington at an easy-to-spot altitude. it landed in northern virginia, discovery will be towed thursday to the smithsonian's national air and space museum annex near the airport. a look now. >> but we'll just keep him in vfr pattern and get him in as fast as possible. >> appreciate that, sir. can you tell us what -- . >> wind is 34014. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> an air photo, i may be moving you midfield right away after the 747 lands to get the t-30 in on runway 30 just to get him down because he's fuel critical, okay? >> we'll be ready. >> all right. ,

you might be passing just barely below you on an east downwind, so i need you to stay at 2,000, okay? >> holding 2,000. in. >> when you do break off, just maintain at or below 1,500 and right downwind runway one center. we're going to have you cleared to land on one center as soon as you tell me you can break out. >> okay. i just wanted to let you know. all right. >> number five, echo tango, go ahead and cross the runway up to

declare room for the t-38 to enter downwind. >> copy that. go ahead and cross right now to my tower, and then if you can hold to the north. >> to the tower and then hold north. >> tour? [indiscernible] [background sounds] >> 95 heavy. turn left at the end and contact ground point niner.

>> julie one at ground point nine, pluto 95 heavy. >> clear to land oneway one center. >> runway one center -- [inaudible] alternative alternative [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] >> all right, scotty? i know you hear me at home -- >> you can climb up whenever you field, and if you want to head back to the east, that's good with us. >> yeah. if i could just get close to the aircraft and take some pictures, then we'll be on our way back to nasa. and where is echo tango? >> yeah. he's just crossing up there. very low altitude. >> okay. we'll keep our eyes open. >> echo tango, you go to where the other helicopter's flying right now? >> yeah. we're aware of him, we have one in sight to the southwest. >> yeah. he's the only one. the other one's holding up east, has a wide-lens camera. >> yes, sir. the one is in sight, thank you. and we're just going to shadow now. >> okay, thanks. if you copy that, he's just going to shadow the subject

aircraft the rest of his taxi. >> yes, sir. we have that aircraft in sight, like to do the same thing, we'll give him a nice, wide berth if it's okay. >> okay. go ahead and proceed as requested. all right. and pluto 98, right exit. contact ground 132.45. >> 132.45. [background sounds] >> are you clear on bravo and -- [inaudible] i've got a holding.

>> he wants to speak to -- [inaudible] [indiscernible] >> go ahead and move up, 132.45. [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] [background sounds]

[indiscernible] >> dulles, approaching to the right side. >> united 536, runway 1 right, cleared to land. [indiscernible] [background sounds]

[indiscernible] >> at 1-4. alternative alternative >> all right, 514's -- requested, tell me the route you want to fly again? >> i don't care. [indiscernible] class b. >> 33, 31 visual 3 right? >> clear to land, wind 130 at 14.

>> you are the shuttle discovert of achievements include delivering the hubbel space telescope to orbit, carrying the first russian cosmonaut to the spaceship, performing the first rendezvous to mir with the first female commander and bringing shuttle flights back to life after the challenger and columbia accidents. at the smithsonian annex, discovery will take the place of the enterprise which goes to new york city. endeavor will head to los angeles this fall. atlantis will remain at kennedy.

today is the deadline to file taxes with the irs. this morning we asked viewers to comment on our facebook page about the question: u.s. taxes, do you pay your fair share? find us at facebook.com/c-span and post your thoughts about taxes in the united states. the senate has recessed for weekly party lunches. they're due back at 2:15 eastern. before the break the senate voted to move forward on changes to the u.s. postal service. they'll discuss closing post offices and facilities, eliminating saturday postal delivery and refunding billions of dollars of overpayment into the postal workers' retirement fund. we'll have live coverage when they return. and the 2012 congressional directory is available from c-span.org. learn about the supreme court, governors across the country in

both bodies of the 112th congress and the makeup of committees. visit c-span.org for more information. you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. president obama asked congress today for help policing oil markets and oil speculators. he talked to reporters about penalties and addresses high gas prices. his comments are about ten minutes.

[background sounds] >> good morning, everybody. lately i've been speaking a lot about our need for an all-of-the-above strategy for american energy, a strategy that produces more oil and gas here at home, but also produces more biofuels and fuel-efficient cars, more solar power and wind power and other sources of clean, renewable energy. this strategy is not just the right thing to do for our long-term economic growth, it's also the right way for us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil right now. it's the right way for us to put people to work right now and, ultimately, it's the right way to stop spikes in if gas prices that we -- in gas prices that we put up every single year, the same kind of increases we've seen over the past couple of months. obviously, rising gas prices means a rough ride for a lot of

families. we're trying to get to school, trying to get to work, do some grocery shopping, you have to be able to fill up that gas tank, and there are families in this certain parts of the country that have no choice but to drive 50 or 60 miles to get to the job. so when gas prices go up, it's like an additional tax that comes right out of your pocket. that's one of the reasons we passed the payroll tax cut at the beginning of this year and made sure it extended all the way through this year so that the average american is getting that extra $40 in every paycheck right now. but i think everybody understands that there are no quick fixes to this problem. there are politicians who say that if we just drilled more, gas prices would come down right away. what they don't say is that we have been drilling more. under my administration america's producing more oil than at anytime in the last eight years. we've opened up new areas for exploration, we've quadrupled

the number of operating rig toss a record high, we've added enough new oil and gas pipelines to circle and earth and then some. but as i've said repeatedly, the problem is we only have 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. even if we drilled every square inch of this country right now, we'd still have to rely disproportionately on other countries for their oil, and that means we pay more at the pump every time there's instability in the middle east or growing demand in countries like china and india. that's what's happening right now. it's those global trends that are effecting gas prices. so even as we're tackling issues of supply and demand, even as we're looking at the long term in terms of how we can structurally make ourselves less reliant on foreign oil, we still need to, need to work extra hard to protect consumers from

factors that should not effect the price of a barrel of oil. and that includes doing everything we can to insure that an irresponsible few aren't able to hurt consumers by illegally manipulating or rigging the energy markets for their own gain. we can't afford a situation where speculators artificially manipulate markets by buying up oil, creating the perception of a shortage and driving prices higher only to flip the oil for a quick profit. we can't afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions while millions of american families get the short end of the stick. that's not the way the markets should work, and for anyone who thinks this cannot happen, just think back to how enron traders manipulated the price of electricity to reap huge profits at everybody else's expense. now, the good news is my administration has already taken several actions to step up oversight of oil markets and

close dangerous loopholes that were allowing some traders to operate in the shadows. we closed the so-called enron loophole that let traders evade oversight by using electronic or overseas trading platforms. in the wall street reform law, we said for the first time that federal regulators will make sure no single trader can buy such a large position in oil that they could easily manipulate the market on their own. so i'd point out that anybody who's pledging to roll back wall street reform, dodd-frank, would also roll back this vital consumer protection along with it. i've asked attorney general holder to work with chairman leibowitz, the federal trade commission, chairman gensler of the commodity futures trading commission and other enforcement agencies to make sure that acts of manipulation, fraud or other illegal activity are not behind

increases in the price that consumers pay at the push. at at the pump. so today we're announcing new steps to strengthen oversight of energy markets, things that we can do administratively we are doing. and i call on congress to pass a package of measures to crack down on illegal activity and hold accountable those who manipulate the market for private gain at the expense of millions of working families. and bespecific. first, congress should provide immediate funding to put more cops on the beat to monitor activity in energy markets. this funding would also upgrade technologies so that our surveillance and enforcement officers aren't hamstrung by older and less sophisticated tools that the ones traders are using. we should strengthen protections for american consumers, not gut them. and these markets have expanded significantly. chairman gensler actually had a

good analogy, he said imagine if nfl quad -- quadrupled the number of teams but 2k-7b9 increase the number of refs. you'd end up having havoc on the field, and teddi minish the game. it wouldn't be fair. that's part of what's going on in a lot of these markets. so we have to properly resource enforcement. second, congress should increase the civil and criminal penalties for illegal energy market manipulation and other illegal activities. so my plan would toughen key financial penalties tenfold and impose these penalties -- not just per violation, but for every day a violation occurs. third, congress should give the agency responsible for overseeing oil markets new authority to protect against volatility and excess speculation by making sure the traders can post appropriate margins which simply means that they actually have the money to make good on their trades.

congress should do all of this right away. you know, a few weeks ago congress had the chance to stand up for families already paying an extra premium at the pump. congressional republicans voted to keep spending billions of americans' hard-earned tax dollars on more for unnecessary sub subsidies for big oil company. so here's a chance to make amends, something that will protect consumers by increasing oversight of energy markets. that should be something that everybody, no matter their party, should agree with. and i hope americans will ask their members of congress to step up. in the meantime, my administration will take new executive actions to better analyze and investigate trading activities in energy markets and more quickly implement the tough consumer protections under wall street reform. let me close by saying none of these steps by themselves will bring gas prices down overnight. but it will prevent market

manipulation and make sure we're looking out for american consumers. and in the meantime, we're going to keep pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy to break the cycle of price spikes year after year. we're going to keep producing more biofuels, more fuel-efficient cars, we are going to keep tapping into every source of american-made energy. these steps have already helped put america on a greater path to american energy independence. our foreign -- our dependence on foreign oil has actually decreased each year i've been in office even as the economy has grown. america now imports less than half of the oil we use for the first time in more than a decade, so we are less vulnerable than we we were, but we're still too vulnerable. so we've got to continue the hard, sustained work on this issue, and as long as i'm president, we're going to keep placing our bets on america's future, america's workers,

america's technology, america's ingenuity and american-made energy. that's how we're going to solve this problem once and for all. thank you very much, everybody. [inaudible conversations] [background sounds] >> house speaker john boehner endorsed mitt romney today to be

the republican presidential nominee. he said mr. romney's economic policies would help the unemployed find jobs and offer a strong contrast to president obama. for more information on the presidential campaigns and candidates, up-to-date delegate count and more, visit c-span.org/campaign2012. the senate in recess for weekly party lunches until 2:15 eastern. before the break the senate voted to move forward on changes to the u.s. postal service. they'll discuss closing post offices and facilities, eliminating saturday postal delivery and refunding billions of dollars of overpayment into the postal workers' retirement fund. we'll have live coverage when senators return. and you can find out information about senators and house members in c-span's 2012 congressional directory. it's available from c-span.org. learn about the supreme court and governors across the country

as well as chambers, both chambers of the 112th congress. you'll also find lists and the makeup of committees like homeland security and energy and commerce. visit c-span.org for more information. this year's student cam competition asked students across the country, what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's second prize winner selected the eighth amendment. >> governor perry, a question about texas. your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times -- [applause] have you -- >> wait. did you just hear that? >> did you hear the people cheering? >> that's a line that takes a second. look. >> your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. have you -- [applause] have you struggled -- >> my name is matthew, and when

i see this clip, it makes me wonder what the world is coming to when anyone can find any sort of pleasure or enjoyment out of execution or loss of any lives no matter what the person has done. >> i stand the -- [inaudible] >> in this documentary we will debate three questions concerning the death penalty. >> number one s the death penalty moral? >> number two s the death penalty racist? >> number three, does the death penalty make us safer? >> the eight amendment of the constitution says that excessive bail shall not be required nor excess i have fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishment -- >> here's justice scalia talking about why the death penalty does not count as cruel and unusual punishment. >> no american ever voted to adopt the constitutional provision that eliminated it, that eliminated that as an option. so, you know, now, the living

constitutionists will say, well, times have changed, and it's up to me to decide what's cruel and unusual punishment. that's a constitution that has no bite. >> we went to new york to interview vanessa from the innocence project, and she agreed that the constitution does not -- [inaudible] death penalty cruel and unusual punishment. >> our supreme court has found that the death penalty is fine under our constitution. our constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and, you know, so far our supreme court has found that the death penalty, um, doesn't meet that. um, there have been instances where certain methods of executions have been challenged. we have moved forward in terms of our supreme court has said that it is unconstitutional to execute juveniles, it's unconstitutional to execute people who are mentally retarded.

so those in, you know, the past decade or so, the supreme court has moved in that direction. >> there is a narrow class, though it be, of punishments that should not be available for people with mental retardation because despite the many differences among them, all people with mental retardation have certain cognitive limitations. >> now let's take a lock at the second question, is the death penalty racist? >> the constitution says no state shall deprive a person nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. >> i think that the problem with the death penalty in america and probably anywhere in the world is that we are a system of human beings, and there is just absolutely no way to insure that we are always right as to who we identify as the perpetrator of crimes, and there is no way to

apply the death penalty -- at least in the system we have currently -- in a fair and equal way. >> because most people who get executed in texas and the u.s. killed somebody who's white, just to interrupt my tirade with the statistic -- [laughter] blacks and whites are victims of homicide in about equal numbers. in the u.s. in the history of the modern death penalty in the u.s., 80% of the people who have been executed have been executed for killing a white person. that tells you everything you need to know about whether the death penalty regime is a racist regime. >> statistics show that the death penalty is racist and, therefore, i feel it should not be applied. >> [inaudible] given speeding tickets on the highway, people are going to think it's racist. we're not going to stop either of those things, so why should we stop the death penalty? all we need to do is make sure we have the right perpetrator and have solid evidence to connect them to the crime. >> i understand, but there's a

big difference between getting a ticket and executing someone. a ticket you can pay, but you can never take a life back. >> let's take a look at the last question, does the death penalty make us safer? >> the statistics show the murder rate isn't any lower in states that do have the death penalty, however, we wanted to see what people at our school thought about it. >> do i support the death penalty? that's a very intense question. my heart tells me no, i don't support it. but my mind sometimes tells me yes. when i as a mother think about something happening to my children, somebody doing something to hurt them, my first thought is that they pay for it. >> do you support the death penalty? why or why not? >> the moral place that we have no right to take a life away no matter how -- [inaudible] >> i think that if it fits the crime, you must do the time or

whatever the consequence -- >> do you have any idea -- >> if i had to vote on whether or not i would support the death penalty, i would say no mainly because i would hate to be convicted of a crime and be innocent and be on death row. >> a potentially innocent man was executed which shows people can be executed without solid evidence. >> people rallied around troy's case and began to really think about how it is that a society such as ours can execute a potentially innocent man. whereupon america could finally join the ranks of the other industrialized nations of the world that have barred the use of this barbaric form of punishment. >> let's go back to the beginning of the great debate. here governor perry is answering the question from the beginning of the program. >> have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent? >> no, sir, i've never struggled with that at all. when someone commits the most

heinous of crime against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the supreme court of the united states if that's required. but in the state of texas if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you are involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of texas, and that is you will be executed. ♪ >> so what do you think? >> is the death penalty right -- >> or wrong. is it racist? is it cruel and unusual punishment? >> or ultimate justice. >> thank you for watching "the great debate." >> go to studentcam.org and continue to conversation about today's documentary at our facebook and twitter pages. >> jury selection began this week in the retrial of former major league pitcher roger clemens charged be knowingly lying to congress in february

2008 on performance-enhancing drug use in baseball. >> let me read to you what his wife said in her affidavit. i, laura pettitte, do depose and state in 1999 or 2000 andy told me he had had a conversation with roger clemens in which roger admitted to him using human growth hormones. mr. clemens, once again i remind you you're under oath. you have said your conversation with mr. pettitte never happened. if that was true, why would laura pettitte remember andy telling her about the conversation? >> once again, mr. congressman, i think he misremembers the conversation that we had. andy and i's relationship was close enough to know that if i would have known that he was -- had done hgh, which i now know, if he was knowingly knowing that i had taken hgh, we would have talked about the subject.

he'd have come to me to ask about the effects of it. >> watch his 2008 testimony online at the c-span video library with over a quarter century of american politics and public affairs on your computer. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the senate is about to gavel back in after their weekly party lunches. before the break the senate voted to move forward on changes to the u.s. postal service, and they will discuss closing post offices and facilities, eliminating saturday postal delivery and refunding billions of dollars of overpayment into the postal workers' retirement

fund. we'll return now to the senate floor as they gavel back in here on c-span2.

mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i know that the senator from the maryland, mr. cardin, is on his way to the floor to make a statement, but pending that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i

take this time to inform my colleagues at a hearing that took place this morning before the subcommittee on constitution, civil rights, and human rights of the senate judiciary committee chaired by senator durbin. senator durbin has been a leader in this body on making sure that we have a committee that focuses on the issues of human rights. and today's hearing on racial profiling -- ending racial profiling in america was the first hearing that we've had in the congress on racial profiling since the attack on our country on september 11. and i want to congratulate senator durbin for holding this hearing. i thought the hearing was very informative, as to a problem that we have in america on the use of racial profiling. i know that the nation has been focused on the tragedy that took place in sanford, florida, in

which 17-year-old, trayvon martin was killed, a clearly avoidable death, by mr. zimmermann. we first and foremost want to make sure that justice prevails in this case, and i know that there is a case pending in florida, and we're all going to be watching that very carefully. there is a federal discretion under way by the department of -- there is a federal investigation under way by the department of justice to look into the circumstances of trayvon martin's death to see what role race played in regards to that tragedy, not only as it related to trayvon martin's death but also as to the investigation that pursued. a few weeks ago i spoke about this issue at the center for urban families in baltimore. that's a group that is interested in urban family life, and we came together shortly after trayvon martin's death to track about what had -- to talk about what had happened. and, mr. president, i was very

much moved by so many people who came forward at that meeting and explained how they had been victims of variable profiling -- victims of racial provial filing. a young woman talked about how she went to a basketball dpaim with her father and her father was pulled overed and stopped by police for no apparent reason other than the color of his skin and how that impacted this girl, seeing her father held, unable to go to the basketball game. these types of victims occur too frequently in our community where people are picked out solely because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background. we have a problem in this country, and we need to do something about that. the question that really needs to be answered in regards to trayvon martin was: was he initially pursued because of the color of his skin?

would mr. zimmerman have done the same if it was a white child rather than an african-american? in october 2011, i introduced s. 1670, the end racial profiling act. i'm proud that we have many of our colleagues that are cosponsors of this legislation, including senator blumenthal, nor boxer, senator gillibrand, senator lautenberg, senator levin, senator menendez, senator mikulski, senator harry reid, senator stabenow and senator mark udall. i thank my cosponsors for joining me in this legislation. this legislation would make it clear that racial profiling will not be allowed in this country. racial profiling is un-american. it's against the values of our nation. it's contrary to the 14th amendment of the constitution which provides for equal protection under the law. it's counterproductive. it doesn't keep us safe. you're using valuable police

resources in a way that is wasting those resources. it's sloppy police work. if you try to identify a problem by race rather than looking for good police work to identify the real perpetrator of a crime. it also creates a mistrust in the community that you're trying to protect. a community who you need to help you, cooperate with you as far as keeping a community safe. so for all those reasons, racial profiling should have no place in modern law enforcement. we need a national law. mr. president, i was impressed at the hearing today that there was general consensus that we have a problem in this country, that there is a problem of law enforcement using racial profiling, which should not be done. s. 1670 would prohibit the use of racial profiling. that is making a decision based upon race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. basically what you're doing is

subjecting an individual to a spontaneous investigation based upon that person's race, religion, ethnic background or national origin. that should have no place. what we're talking about is someone being stopped for a routine traffic stop based upon the person's race or being subject to a search or being subject to interrogation solely because of that person's race. or an investigation the scope and substance of law enforcement activities are following initial investigation, investigative proceeding is determined because of race. that should have no place in america. my legislation would apply to all levels of government, not just the federal, but the state and local. it requires mandatory training. here is an issue that i think we all should be in agreement. perhaps the tragedy that

happened with trayvon martin may not have happened if mr. zimmerman had been trained on the issues of what is good police work and what is not good police work. how racial profiling needs to be eliminated. we feel very strongly on the need of mandatory training. the legislation requires data collection by local and state law enforcement, state and local law enforcement must maintain adequate policies and procedures designated to eliminate racial profiling. and they must eliminate any existing practices that present or encourage racial profiling. simple what the legislation does. the department of justice granted authority to make grants to promote best practices, so one jurisdiction can learn from another as to what is the best practices in order to make sure that this practice is not being used, that we're doing everything possible to keep communities safe by good police work, not by sloppy police work.

i want to point out that the overwhelming majority of people that are law enforcement do it the right way. we have dedicated men and women who work every day to keep us safe. our first responders. we owe them a debt of gratitude. we owe them our support. we cannot say enough complimentary things about what they do every day putting their life on the line keeping us safe. for the sake of what is right for america and for the sake of the overwhelming majority of the people that are professionals in law enforcement, we need to make it clear that racial profiling has no role in american law enforcement. i'm proud of the many groups that are supporting this legislation: the naacp, the aclu, the leadership conference of civil and human rights, and numerous other organizations. mr. president, i'll ask unanimous consent that i can put into the record the list of organizations that are supporting the legislation. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cardin: let me just

conclude by quoting our former colleague, senator kennedy, when he said that civil rights is the great unfinished business of america. let us continue to fight to make sure that we have equal justice under the law for all americans. that's what the legislation that i've introduced will do. the end racial profiling act will continue us on that journey to provide equal justice in the law to all americans. and with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum. mr. sanders: i move that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sanders: mr. president, the issue that we are debating right now is an issue of enormous consequence for the american people, for our economy, for rural america, for the hundreds of thousands of workers in the u.s. postal service, and i want to thank senators lieberman and carper and collins and brown for the important work that they have done in moving this legislation forward. and let me begin by saying the debate that we are having is not

whether the postal service in the digital age should change. everybody agrees that the postal service should change. the question is what kind of change do we want, what kind of change is good for the american economy and what kind of change is good for our country. last year, about, i think, nine or ten months ago, the postmaster general gave us his view of change. a concern about some of the financial problems facing the post office, he came up with a proposal, that plan that would do the following. what he said is that we should close more than 3,600 mostly rural post offices. in my state, i think the number is about 15.

all over this country where post offices in so many ways serve a function beyond delivering mail or selling stamps, but in many ways become the center of a small town. his proposal was to shut down more than 3,600 mostly rural post offices. furthermore, what he wanted to do was shut down about half of the mail processing facilities in america, somewhere around 250 of them, and when you do that, by definition you slow overnight delivery standards for first-class mail. so at a moment when the postal service is being challenged by email in the digital age, instantaneous communication, he was proposing to slow down mail delivery. he also proposed to end saturday

mail service and reduce the postal work force in the midst of a horrendous recession by some 220,000 workers, going from 550,000 down to about 330,000. and i find it a bit ironic, mr. president, that a couple of months ago, we had a great debate here and i think bipartisan support to make sure that veterans, veterans get the jobs that they need. while many of the people who work in the postal service are, in fact, veterans, they are doing a good job, and when you downsize the postal service, as the postmaster general proposed, by 220,000 workers, you are downsizing many of our veterans. mr. president, i and many of my colleagues in the senate and in the house are strongly opposed to what the postmaster general

brought forth, and we have been working with him and his staff to improve this plan, and, frankly, i think we are making some progress. obviously, the key danger of what the postmaster general has proposed is that if you slow down mail delivery standards, what ends up happening is that individuals and businesses will be rethinking about whether or not they want to use the postal service and whether or not they want to go elsewhere. so what you could very well begin is what we call a death spiral. slow down mail delivery, service, businesses stop using the postal service, less revenue comes in, more cuts are made, more delays, more slowdowns. we think that that is a bad idea. so, again, i believe and i think everybody in this senate believes we need a new business

model for the postal service in the digital age. some of us believe we can report a new business model which does not necessitate hundreds of thousands of job losses and cuts, cuts and cuts. among other things i would like to point out that a recently disclosed study by opinion research corporation commissioned by the postal service itself found that the postal service would lose, lose nearly $2 billion by eliminating overnight delivery standards. let me repeat, a study commissioned by the postal service conducted found that ending overnight delivery standards and shutting down half of the mail processing plants in america would cost the postal service nearly $2 billion. and the answer is a lot to do with what i just said.

you slow down service, fewer and fewer people are going to be using the postal service. mr. president, for the last several months, i have been working with several dozen of my colleagues in the senate to oppose those cuts, and we have been working and i want to thank senator lieberman and senator carper for their support, senator collins, senator brown. we have been working with them, and what basically we said is you came up with a good bill, a bill that was much better than what the postmaster general had originally proposed, but we think we could do better, and, in fact, we have been working and i think it is fair to say that we have made some significant improvements which have been incorporated in the substitute amendment that is before us. and let me begin by touching on some of the improvements that i think we have brought about. number one, the manager's

amendment brings more protection for rural post offices. i come from a rural state. i know how important rural post offices are, and the manager's amendment provides more protection for these rural post offices. the substitute amendment would prevent the postal service from closing any post offices until it has established a set of service standards that would guarantee all postal customers regular and effective access to retail postal services nationwide on a reasonable basis. the postal service is required to establish these standards within six months. the service standards would be required to take into account the following factors. ?erdz, what we are talking about here is that before a rural post office could be shut down, certain standards are going to have to be addressed. number one, a, a consideration

of the reasonable maximum time a postal customer should expect to travel to access a postal retail location. in other words, if you shut down a post office and somebody has to go 20 miles and spend money on gasoline, an enormous amount of time, it doesn't make sense to shut down that rural post office. furthermore, we want to look at the age and disability status of individuals in the area. if you have elderly people, if you have a large number of disabled people and you shut down that postal service, those folks are really going to be for all intent and purposes isolated. don't shut down that postal service, that post office. c., there would be a requirement that the postal service serve remote areas and communities which have transportation challenges. what happens if i live in a community and i don't have a car, how do i get to a postal

service that is -- a post office that is five miles away from here? d., the effects of inclement weather or other natural conditions that might impede access to postal services. in other words, if you live in a climate where you have a whole lot of snow, how are people going to get to another post office? i see the majority leader standing. mr. leader, did you want to -- mr. reid: you could finish your statement. mr. sanders: i will be another five, ten minutes. mr. reid: well -- mr. sanders: then i would yield to the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask consent that when i finish my procedural stuff, that the senator from vermont will be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: and that his statement will not appear interrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back and the motion to proceed to s. 1789 be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection?

without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent the only amendments in order to s. 1789 for the lieberman-collins substitute amendment number 2000 be those that are relevant to the bill or the substitute amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. egypt currently gets $2 billion from our company from the u.s. taxpayer, and my question is that a country that gets $2 billion a year, should we be sending it to them when they continue to seek to prosecute american citizens? now, recently, the president, president obama's administration, freed up that money and said egypt is pursuing democratic aims, and so we freed up the $2 billion. how did egypt respond to this? egypt basically thumbed their nose at us. egypt said we are now issuing international warrants to get american citizens, extradite

them, take them back to egypt for a political show trial. so we give money to a country that insults us. i think this should end. i think this deserves 15 minutes of senate time where we discuss whether or not america has money to be sending to egypt when we have 12 million people unemployed in this country, whether or not we have needs here at home that need to be met before we send $2 billion to egypt who turns around and insults us by prosecuting american citizens. so i respectfully object and seek a vote on this amendment that would end their aid if they do not end the prosecution of american citizens. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president, as we speak, there are eight million americans who are dependent on the post office. these are people who have jobs as a result of the postal -- postal service.

we need to do a postal reform bill. doing nothing is not an option. i ask unanimous consent that we set up a procedure to allow the senate 20 consider amendments relevant to the postal reform bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. paul: mr. president, reserving the right to object, the post office is losing $4 billion a year and i sympathize. but at the same time we're losing $4 billion a year, we're sending $2 billion to egypt. we've got problems in our country and we don't have the money to send to egypt so i would say it is relevant. it is relevant whether we have limited resources and we send $2 billion to egypt or whether we try to fix the problems we have at home. so i would say bring some of that money home and that might help you fix the post office. the presiding officer: does the senator yield? mr. reid: would the senate -- the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator's request? mr. paul: i continue my objection. mr. reid: would the chair report the bill, please. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

the clerk will report the pending amendment -- the pending business. the clerk: calendar 296, a bill to improve sustain and transform the united states postal service. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the relevance -- relevance is a fair standard. a lot of amendments can be offered. very few couldn't be offered unless it were something dealing with foreign policy on the postal service bill. loot of people want to offer amendments dealing with situations all over the world. that's why we struggled, for example, to get the iran sanctions bill moving. a standard of relevant merely asks that we stay on the subject. the subject this morning which 74 senators agreed to vote. i regret that my friend has objected to this request.

mr. president, but i hope that my friend from kentucky will go home and explain to the people who are dependent on those small post offices around the state of kentucky and those processing centers that this bill has not been resolved because of him. mr. president, if we do nothing, there will be wide-ranging closing of post offices. we have more than 30,000 post offices in america. many of them will be closed. we have hundreds and hundreds of processing centers. they will be closed. postal service as we've known it is a fleeting moment in the eyes of americans when they can't get their medicine that they want, they can't get the mail that they want. now, the volume is down a lot. but that's what this bill is about, to address some of the problems we have with what we need to have as a new postal service.

the chairman of the committee, senator lieberman, has worked extremely hard. senator collins has spent lots and lots of time on this. and of course tom carper, who has a tremendous interest in this has been working on this for a long time. it is a shame that we've had this objection. it leaves me with absolutely no alternative but to fill the amendment tree and make sure that we stick to the subject of postal reform. i'm hopeful we'll be able to work together, to get agreement for consideration of amendments related to this important task, saving the postal service. i've been authorized by the chairman of this senate government affairs tee committee to withdraw the committee reported substitute amendment. the presiding officer: the amendment is withdrawn. mr. reid: on behalf of senators lieberman, collins and others i call amendment number 2000 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from

nevada mr. reid for mr. lieberman and others proposes amendment numbered 2000. mr. reid: i ask the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? appears to be. mr. reid: i have a first-degree perfecting amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid proposals amendment number 2013 to amendment numbered 2000. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid proposes amendment numbered 2014 to amendment numbered 2013. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the lieberman-collins substitute

amendment number 2000 to s. 1789 the 21st century postal service act signed by 16 senators as follows. mr. reid: i ask further reading of the names be waived, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have an amendment at the desk proposed to be stricken. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reed reid proposes amendment numbered 2015 to the amendment proposed to be stricken by amendment numbered 2014. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid proposes amendment numbered 2016 to amendment numbered 2015. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report explosion he cloture motion. cloyd. the clerk: in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to close the debate on s. 16729 signed by

16 senators as follows --. mr. reid: i ask further reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on the motion. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are not necessary. mr. reid: i got ahead of myself. reading was one of my better subjects but i skipped a line. i have a desk to recommit the bill with instructions which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid moves to commit the bill s. 1789 to the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs with instructions to report back forth with amendment numbered 2017. the clerk: i ask for the yeas and nays on that motion mr. president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment to the instructions which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid proposes amendment numbered 2018 to tin structions of amendment 2017 to

the commotion to recommit. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid proposes amendment numbered 2019 to amendment numbered 2018. mr. reid: i have another matter of business here but i just want to say all senators here, not just the senator from kentucky who objected to a reasonable manner to proceed in this matter, but all states are going to be dramatically impacted by virtue of his objection. post offices in nevada will be closed. minnesota, massachusetts, tennessee. unnecessarily. we need to be able to work through this, mr. president.

and there is no -- i don't know how anyone could object to a standard i proposed, relevant amendments. it is really too bad. eight million people depend on the post office, 500 -- that's eight million people who work as a result of the post office. 500,000 people work for the post office directly. so we have an obligation to do something about this legislation. and even though my friend who is one of the leaders of the tea party movement around the country has thrown a monkey wrench into what we're doing here on a positively bill moving to foreign relations matter, it is really too bad. it chinaens what we're trying to -- chiepens what we're trying -- cheapens what we're trying to do here. i move to proceed to s. 1925 a bill to reauthorize the violence against women act. the presiding officer: the motion is pending.

mr. alexander: mr. president. the presiding officer: a senator: would the senator yield? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: what we have just witnessed here is an example of why the united states senate is too often tied into knots. we have a bill that's critical to every one of our states that's pending. the postal reform bill. the leader tried to move this bill forward by saying let's stick to relevant amendments, relevant to the bill which is a brought brod standard, a lot broader than a germaneness standard. then there is an objection to that because there's another matter which the senator from kentucky rightfully has an interest in, we all have an interest in various matters many of which are $2 billion or more in terms of costs but that amendment of the senator from kentucky is not relevant to this

bill. and unless he says he gets his way and has a 15-minute debate on a $2 billion subject, he's going to object to us addressing a subject which is involving every one of our states. now, this is why we have so many difficulties here at times, at least, moving forward in the senate. because any one of us at any time can object to moving legislation that is relevant and amendments that are relevant in order to get his or her way on a totally unrelated amendment. mr. paul: may i interscect judgeject -- interject with a question? mr. levin: i asked to be yielded to. that will be up to the senator from vermont. i just want to simply say that then what happens, mr. president, is that then the majority leader is forced to fill the tree. that creates problems on the other side because the tree is filled. but that's in response to an

unwillingness on the part of the senator to let us proceed on a bill which is important to every one of us with relevant amendments. so you got a response from that senator to the determination of the majority leader to move forward with a bill that affects all of us, objecting to a u.c., the majority leader is forced to fill the tree and we're off and running. so for two days around here, two days around here now we're going to go through the same thing we go through almost every single week, we'll have amendments which sought to be offered, have to set aside amendments, get the cloture vote. we end up with a far more restrictive standard than if we were allowed to proceed with relevant amendments. we end up with a germaneness standard, a lot narrower than the relevant standard which was proposed by the majority leader. this was a self-defeating action. i believe in objecting to a

unanimous consent proposal which would allow us to proceed with relevant amendments. it doesn't accomplish the aim of the senator from kentucky because we're not going to get to that subject, and all it does is restrict the rest of us who are trying to offer relevant amendments in the next few days. and it's a real example of what the problem is around this senate. mr. paul: would the senator from yield for a question? since i'm not characterized i think i would be allowed to respond. mr. reid: the senator from vermont is to be recognized. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. the senator from ty tennessee has requested two or three minutes. i'm happy to yield some of my time. afterwards which i would get the floor back. mr. paul: mr. president -- mr. paul: mr. alexander --

the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator from vermont's request? mr. reid: regular order, mr. president. mr. sanders: i apologize to the senator from tennessee. the presiding officer: is there objection to the senator from vermont's request? mr. paul: yes. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from vermont has the floor. mr. sanders: i do apologize to my friend from tennessee. i just to just continue and talk about what the manager's amendment is doing. so i went over a number of criteria by which it strengthens our ability to protect rural post offices and that's something i think many of us from rural america want to see happen. we understand how important rural post offices are to the heart and soul of small communities, the lieberman-collins bill took us a

good way forward, this amendment goes further. now, i should say that while i think the manager's amendment is a step forward in almost every instance, i believe that through the amendment process we can strengthen the bill even further. and i intend to be working with many of my colleagues to do just that. so we talked a little bit about strengthening the ability of rural post offices to continue to exist. second issue: the manager's amendment protects regional overnight delivery standards. the manager's amendment requires that the postal service retain a modified overnight delivery standard for three years. ensuring that communities across the country continue to receive overnight delivery of first-class mail. a very significant step forward for small businesses and for people throughout our country. a maximum delivery standard of

three days would also be maintained for first-class mail sent anywhere in the continental united states. originally postmaster general had suggested maybe we can lengthen the time from three days to five days. we keep it at three days. the retention of -- and this is important for every member of the united states senate concerned about the employment situation -- the the -- the retention of a modified overnight delivery standard would result in at least 100 mail processing facilities remaining open that are now scheduled to be closed. number three, the manager's amendment makes it harder to eliminate six-day delivery, the substitute amendment would prohibit the postal service from implementing any plan to eliminate saturday delivery for at least two years. after two years, saturday delivery could only be eliminated if the postal service

has first attempted to increase revenue and cut costs through other means and the g.a.o. and the postal regulatory commission conclude that eliminating saturday delivery is necessary for the long-term solvency of the postal service. fourth and very importantly, something that i and many other members feel strongly about, the postal service needs a new business model. let me, mr. president -- and i know the senator from minimum has been very interested in all of these postal issues. right now if one walks into a post office and you say to the postal clerk, "hi, i'd like to give you $2 to notarize this letter," the postal clerk would say, "it's against the law for me to do that. can't take your two bucks." postal clerk, can you make ten copies of this letter? "nope, it is against the law for me to do that."

"rural postal clerk, i would like a fishing license or a hunting license. can you help me that?" "can't do that, against the law." "i want to mail this box of wine and beer." "can't do that, it is the against the law." so what we want to do is take away many of the restrictions that have been imposed on the postal service by congress, give them the flexibility to be more entrepreneurial, to bring in more revenue. in addition to that, this managers' amendment creates a blue-ribbon entrepreneurial commission. what that is about is that today, we have, as the majority leader indicated, some 32,000 post offices in america. today, postal letter carriers are delivering mail to about 150 million doors in america. that is a huge infrastructure. if we have some pretty smart entrepreneurial types telling us what we can do in addition to what we are doing now, what the

letter carriers can do, what the post offices can do, what the postal service could do in terms of new products and services, can we bring in more revenue? i think we can. and that's what the commission is going to be looking at. let me just say a few words about the financial condition of the postal service. no one debates first-class mail is down. a lot of people now use the e-mail and the internet rather than first-class mail. no debate about that. but what many people, including many members of congress, don't fully understand is that the major crisis, major financial crisis facing the postal service is the fact that they have an onerous burden of having to provide $5.5 billion every single year in future retiree health benefits, $5.5 billion every year which was imposed upon them in 2006.

according to the inspector general of the postal service, the $44 billion in that account right now is all that it needs, because when that $44 billion accrues interest over a 20-year-or-so period, it will have enough money to pay out all of the future retiree health benefits that it has to do. furthermore, there is in general not disagreement that the postal service has overpaid into the federal employment retirement service by about $11 billion and to the civil service retirement service about $2 billion. in other words, the postal service is owed about $13 billion. so, to conclude, let me just say this. the postal service performs an enormously important function for millions of individuals and for our economy as a whole. as the majority leader

indicated, there's some 8 million jobs in a variety of industries dependent upon a strong postal service. i believe that if the senate is prepared to be bold to do the right thing, we can save jobs, we do not need to lay off or to downsize the postal service by over 200,000 workers. we do not need to shut down over 3,000 rural post offices. we do not need to shut down half of the processing plants in america and slow down mail delivery service, leading to a eventual death cycle for the postal service. so the task before us is a huge one, and to tell you the truth -- and i speak as an independent, longest-serving independent in congressional history -- this is not a democratic issue, this really is not a republican issue. republicans, democrats have rural post offices. all know how important they are. all want to save jobs in the

middle of a recession. all want the postal service to be strong. so, mr. president, i would hope that we can work together. we had a good vote a few hours ago. 74 votes. i would hope that we could work together to save the postal service, make it strong, make sure that it is there for our kids and our grandchildren. mr. president, at this pointed, if the senator from -- mr. president, at this point, if the senator from tennessee would like some time, i'm happy to yield him three minimum it's in? mr. alexander: -- yield him three minutes? mr. alexander: . i thank the senator. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from 1r-789 vment. -- from vermont. this is a body that operates by unanimous consent. it's difficult to get accustomed to it. that means any one of us can stop the senator from opening or having a prayer or saying the pledge of allegiance or going to a bill. what i'm about to say i don't want in any way to diminish the right of every senator, such as the senator from kentucky, to

have an opportunity to -- to object to a unanimous consent request. but when you have -- when everyone has a lot of rights, unless we have some agreement, it's hard to get much done. and i have been sometimes critical of the majority leader but i've also tried to support and praise things that he's done when i can because i know that either being the democratic or the republican leader is not an easy job. so i want to commend the majority leader for offering to accept all relevant amendments, which is a broad category, and which this bill seems particularly appropriate for that because we have competing visions for what to do about th. it's gone through committee, the regular order. the bills are bipartisan. there's not a lot of partisan differences here. there are a lot of differenc and they need to be worked out, and probably we've got two weeks to do it.

so this is a ripe situation for that if we can get consent to do it. i'm disappointed that the majority leader felt he had to go on and -- and offer cloture to move on -- to move on because he already had control of the yaition with the right to fill the -- control of the situation with the right to fill the tree. so i would hope that we could respect the senator from kentucky's right and that of other senators to offer unanimous consent -- to object to a unanimous consent agreement but see if we can't find some way to move ahead with an agreement on relevant amendments. that means the majority leader doesn't pick the amendments. we all get to offer them if they're -- if they're relevant. the majority leader has a difficult job so i hope as he reflects on this, he'll consider that it's much easier to get an agreement for relevant amendments in our caucus. i don't know what it's like in the democratic caucus. if we're able to talk it through a little bit. and secure consent for that before it's offered.

that would be the job of senator mcconnell, the republican leader. so here we are. we were on the postal bill for five full minutes and now we're off on a wrong track. we can move back very easily. the majority leader has the ability to control any amendment through his filling the tree, doesn't need the cloture amendment, and hopefully if the the -- if senators on this side will carefully consider the offer of all relevant amendments. that will give us a chance to offer many amendments. it's the right of any senator to object to that. but as one senator, i appreciate the gesture, and i hope the majority leader will give senator mcconnell an opportunity if he wants it -- i'm just speaking for myself here -- if he wants it to work through our caucus and see if we can get a relevant amendment agreement. mr. levin: would the senator yield for 15 seconds? i just want to -- the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts.

mr. levin: no, i asked if the senator from vermont would yield senator? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts has the floor. mr. levin: mr. president, would the senator from massachusetts yield for 15 seconds? mr. brown: yes, i would yield to the gentleman. mr. levin: i want to thank the senator from tennessee for his constructive comments. he and i have spoken about trying to work on a relevant standard at the beginning of a bill as a way of moving a bill forward with the greatest possible leniency without getting into totally nonrelevant subjects. and i just thought his comments were constructive, i wanted to thank him for it, and i hope we can continue to work together on this relevance course as perhaps the best way to get us out of the kind of knots that we're frequently tied in. i want to thank my friend from massachusetts, if he was recognized. i think he was. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i -- i concur with the senator from tennessee. listen, we need to step back and move back a little bit here.

this is a bill that i'm the cosponsor of, worked very hard. i note in the majority leader's comments he referenced senator carper, senator lieberman and collins, but i spent the equal amount of time working on this bill, a cosponsor, i care very deeply about our postal workers and the security and the viability of the post office itself. and i'm hopeful also that the majority leader will step back, because before we left, we had two great weeks of working on relevant issues. we had the insider trading bill pass 96-36789 the leader allowed us to have a couple of days to get our -- our members in order. not -- not four hours. we should have the ability, when you have amendments or issues that involve our -- our members that they have the right to bring forward in any forum that they want, we should have the ability to -- to get together with them before we move on to another totally different, very important issue, the violence against women act, which i'm also a cosponsor. so i don't care what one we go

to. but this one is relevant, it's time sensitive, it needs to be addressed right away. and i've been honored to work with senator carper once again and senator lieberman once again and senator collins once again on work on something that could be very, very important and will be very important for our country. and we're here today and we were here today because the post office is clearly at a crossroads. they're in deep trouble. and for more than two centuries, it's played a key role in both our economy and for our communities. and for decades, communities large and small and citizens far and wide have come to depend on the regular and dependable service six days a week for a reasonable price of their mail. it's plain and simple. and in the past, a steady volume of mail has provided that adequate revenue. but things have changed. yet in the face of the technological changes and difficult economic conditions, first-class mail volume, as you know, has dropped by over a quarter in the last five years and it's forecasted to do the same thing over the next five years. and the business model that

proved successful for generations is now sinking the postal service in a pool of red ink. and as we all know, they've lost over $13 billion -- billion dollars -- in the last two years and almost on the verge of bankruptcy. as we know, the work force is too big, costs are too high and operations are being maintained at a capacity unequal with the revenue that's actually coming in, and we need to stop that right away. and a number of the delivery addresses increases every day and the postal service' liabilities to its employees grows each and every day. and the longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes and we are up against a deadline and we do need to work together in a bipartisan, bicameral manner. this is not about democrats or republicans or i understand -- independented. -- independents. it's about us as a body trying to reestablish that trust with the american people, that accident my goodness, the united states senate can do something together, as we did with the jobs bill, assist we did with

the arlington cemetery bill, as we did with the 3% hold, as we've done most recently with the insider trading. we can do these things. this is a no-brainer. everybody here agrees that we need to save the post office. and we all have some very real concerns. we're all concerned, the city has concerns, everybody has concerns and we need to air it out. and i would once again encourage the majority leader to step back from the path he's chosen on moving on another bill because one member had a deep concern about what's happening in egypt, as many of us do. would it hurt to give him his 15 minutes and then move on? i -- i just don't get it. and it's such a disservice to the american people. and we need to put the postal service on the path to solvency right away. right away. and the bill that's been brought here has been worked on between our four offices probably 300 or 400 hours easy. throw in the office hours where all our staff is probably upwards of a thousand hours we've been working on this bill.

something that i speak to our constituents working with congressman lynch in massachusetts and others to try to make sure that we can have a plan, a good base, a good starting point. we may not agree everything on, but i'll tell you what, we all agree that we need to save the united states post office and we also need -- we need to give them the tools and the resources to do their job and be viable and competitive into the new century. we all agree on that. so we have a little hiccup and we're going to move on another bill. i'm happy too ge to get on it, a cosponsor, but come on. we should be doing better. we need to recognize and address right away the serious financial condition of the post office and provide it with the flexibility to cut costs and to do so in a way that's responsible to its employees and considerate of the customers who are continuing to use their service, to drants them the ability to find revenue and innovate without competing

with private industry or giving them an unfair advantage over private industry is a good thing. to also make sure that rates don't rise abruptly, that's also a good thing. we need to ensure that the postal service maintains a certain standard of service so it will have businesses and individuals who want to continue to use that service, and it is a balancing, it is a delicate balancing act with little disagreement on that. there's also little disagreement that the current size in bothen workforce and -- in both workforce and postal operations is neither sustainable or required four the long term. we need to have greater finish is sense and they must be found if the postal service is to survive and thrive in the future. yet the postal service still plays a significant role in our economy. we all know it. there is a standard that we have to hit and we all demand it. i fear if we do not pass this bill, the postal service will continue to advocate for a more aggressive approach, and we are

up against a deadline. if we fail to address this the postmaster general will have the ability to do things that i think will not be in the best interest of everybody in this chamber and the american citizens in that we can provide different tools than he would be able to use and we would be able to have some input in that. if my home state of massachusetts, the postal service has made plans to close four main processing facilities and dozen of post offices. yet there is has been a lack of detailed information to the government leaders, to me and others. employees of the surd rounding communities to fully justify these changes as necessary and prudent. we can do better and should do better. eliminating the overnight delivery standard or days of delivery will be transformational shifts in service. we don't know whether those are appropriate or not. and little is known about the combined impact of these major changes as they have have on the postal customers or to future revenues. now, mr. president, as we know,

volume declines mean decreased revenue for some and driving costs up and getting those costs under control are driving users away in alarming rates, and these plans require thoughtful consideration of alternative solutions and cautious implementation. and we have in fact done that with our bill. we have sat down for more hours thank tell you trying to work through every issue. we have met through the players ad nauseam to make sure we address each and every consideration, including members of this chamber, and there are members of the other side in the majority side who have their ideas and we have people ow on r side. since when do we bring up a bill and do it in a day, especially something like this that is so middle classive and affects so many people and so many in our industry in so we're going to do in this in, what, a day, two

days? we've done bills here -- i figure this bill is a good six, seven, eight days, letting people come up with ideas to try to rescue an industry this is such an integral part of their communities. i want and others want in this chamber the postal employees to be treated fairly, and we recognize the dedication and service in this bill. and we have over 100,000 employees eligible for retirement today, and rather than advocating for layoff authority, our bill provides the means for the postal service to increase attrition rates through buyouts and separation incentives to leave the post office voluntarily and with dignity. that's deeply important to meevmenme.additional provisionse long overdue improvements in workmen's compensation programs, encouraging eligible retirees to join the medicare rolls. these are no doubt difficult

times for the postal service and some very, very tough choices are going to be made. and so far in this legislative session the senate has shown that there are issues, as i said earlier in my presentation, that we can find bipartisan solutions and efforts towards. and in closing -- in closing i'm confident that this is one of them. i look forward to having our bill heard and we get back on track, have the leader step back, allow us to come up with a list of relevant amendments. i am grateful for the leadership of senator lieberman, collins, and carper, that they have shown over the years, and i look forward to working on this bill with them. i yield the floor. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sphoer from rhode island. emr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. mccain: i would ask unanimous consent that i be throwed follow him, following his remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: thank you.

mr. reed: mr. president, we are engaged in a very important debate, while the clock is ticking literally on the future of the poaflt office. -- of the post office. i want to alert my colleagues to another issue that is rapidly approaching. on july 1 if we do not act, the interest rate on subsidized student loans will double from 3 boy 4% -- from 3.4% to 6.8%, impacting more than 7 million students, including more than 36,000 in my home state of rhode island. i've introduced legislation, the student loan affordability act, to stop the doubling of student loan interest rates as of july 1this year. my colleagues have already joined, many of them -- senators begich, sherrod brown, durbin, senator franken, the presiding officer, tim johnson, leahy, murray, stabenow, whitehouse, and wyden as cosponsors of the legislation. i thank them and i urge all of my colleagues to join us in

supporting this legislation. if we do not act, the average borrower will have to pay aprex $2 -- approximately $2,800 more in interest on their loans. student whose take out the maximum $2 3,000 in student loans could owe more on this $5,000 more. this particular measure will hit middle-income families the hardest. because they are the ones who rely most significantly on these stub subsidized student loans. the subsidized student loan program is a need-based financial aim program. to get the low rate and the in-school interest subsidies, students must demonstrate economic need. nearly 60% of the dependent students who qualify for subsidized loans come from families with incomes of less

than $60,000. and that is literally the middle class and the working poor of this country. this is an issue of fairness, and at a time ironically of historically low interest rates -- eric the federal reserve has set the target interest rate for federal funds between 0% and .25%. the fed is lending money to banks at .25%. we, at the same time, are asking middle-income families to pay twice as much, 6.%, a huge discrepancy, in the loans they pay for education. we also recognize, all of us, that the key to our future is an educated america. it just seems, geng, give againe interest rate scriermt, where banks can get money at .25%, it doesn't make sense. it is in our national interest

to ensure that these students not only get educated but g.a.o. leave school with a mountain of detect that they'll never be able to scale. we need more students graduating from our colleges and our universities and our professional schools because that's what's going to power our economy in the future. we won't be gloablgly competitive if we to do that. in 19 0erb8gs the gap between the lifetime earnings of a college graduate and high school student was 40%. in 2010 it was 74%. by 2025, it is projected to be 96%. the message is clear -- if you cannot get postsecondary education, you are virtually going to be condemned to being far behind in terms of income, in terms of the ability to support your family. we must do this. researchers have found that since at least 1980 we haven't been producing a sufficient number of college-educated students to meet the demand of industry. if you go to businesses

throughout rhode island, throughout the nation, they'll tell you, listen, they have jobs. they just can't find the people with those high-level skills to fill the jobs. so every different criteria argues strenuously for this legislation. in rhode island we have 341% of our adults with -- 41% of our adults with grege degrees. we have a 20% gap that will open up - in the next four years. the wrong way to fill it is to make college more expensive. i held a round table recently with all the presidents of my universities and colleges in rhode island. they said keeping this interest rate low, relatively low, is absolutely critical. they're all worried about the fact that by july 1 unless we act we'll see a doubling of this interest rate.

and frankly this is an issue that has bipartisan support. in 2007, on a strong bipartisan basis, we enacted the college course reduction act. we cut the rate from 6.8% to 3.4%. back in 2007, 3.4% was a reasonable rate. in the senate, the legislation passed on a vote of 79-12. more thank two-thirds of republican senators, 34 out of 49, supported it. president george w. bush signed it into law. we've golt to retrieve before july 1 that bipartisan spirit that motivated the initial legislation so that we can avoid doubling the interest rate that college students will pay for these loans. it is a matter of major priority for you not just for the time, the short time but four the future of the country. we have 75 days. the clock is ticking. we have got to move. if we don't, millions literally of middle-class students and

families will be denied the student effectively of getting their higher educations. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator froms as a. mr. mccain:man, i rise first of all to comment on our failure to move forward with debate and discussion and amendments on this very important bill. the sponsors of the legislation and i may have very different proposals to address this the compelling issue, but neither the sponsors nor i believe that we should not have debate, discussion, and amendment. unfortunately, again, because of a requirement by members that their amendment be voted on, apparently the majority leader will now move on, fill up the tree, amendments will not be allowed, and which will move on to other legislation. mr. president, this affects

500-and-some thousand american families. we are talking about tens of billions of dollars. we are talk about a -- an urgent need to restructure rand reform the postal system in america. and soy now because of demands of senators to have votes on nongermane amendments, we will now move on to other legislation. i wonder when we will address the issue. may 15 is a very critical date in this whole scenario, and i would like to talk a bit about my proposal and that basically which is modeled after the bill that is pending in the other body, the house of representatives. yesterday "the washington post" editorial says "a time for real postal reform is now." for anyone who still does not quite scraps the technological obsolescence the u.s. postal

service calamitous financial situation, here are a few are facts from thursday's government accountability office." before i go through that i'd like devote from a "washington post" -- quote from a "washington post" article from back on november 18. and it specifically refers to the pending legislation. and it say, "the 21st century postal service act of 2011 proposed by senators joseph lieberman and susan collins and passed last week by the homeland security committee is not a imil to save the u.s. postal service. it is a bill to postpone saving the postal service. the service announcement that it lost $15.1 billion in the most recent fiscal year was billed as good news, which suggests how dire its situation s the only reason the loss was not greater is that congress postponed the postal service payment of $5.5

billion to prefund retiree health benefits. according to the government accountability ousts, even $50 billion would not be enough to repay all of the postal service's debt and address current and future operating deficits that are caused by its inability to cut costs quickly enough to match declining mail volume and revenue much the collins-lieberman bill, which transferred $7 billion from the federal employee retirement system, to the usps, is to be used for offering buyouts to its workers and paying down debts, can stave off collapse for a short time at best. i want to point out, this is "the washington post's" view. this is the government accountability office view, not necessarily that of this senator. nor do the other measures in the bill offer much hope. the bill extends the payment schedule for the postal service to prefund employee retirement benefits from 10 to 40 years.

yes, the funding requirement is onerous but if the usps cannot afford to make these payments now what makes it likely they'll be able to pay later when mail volumes will have plummeted further? the bill requires two more years of studies. that's one of the favorite tactics around here, is more studies. two more years of studies to determine whether to switch to five-day delivery would be viable. i have to repeat that to my colleagues. we need to study for two years as to whether we need to reduce mail delivery from six days to five days. now isn't that marvelous? isn't that marvelous? two years to study. what it is, it's delaying what is absolutely necessary. and that is to have five-day week delivery. one of my colleagues said, well, it might keep someone from getting a newspaper in the mail. well, we're talking about $50

billion short, and we can't even reduce the number of days which has been recommended by the postmaster general himself. so we're going to have two years to study whether we should switch to five-day week and whether that would be viable. these studies would be performed by a regulatory body and has already completed a la bore kwrus study into the subject, a require that required almost a year. so it will take three years. this seems a pointless delay especially given a majority of americans support the switch to five-day delivery. then they go ton say we're sympathetic to congress's wish to avoid killing jobs, and the bill does include provisions we have supported, such as requiring arbitrators to take the postal service's financial situation into account during collective bargaining and demanding a plan for providing mail services at retail outlets.

but this plan hits the snooze button on many of the postal service's underlying problems. 80% of the postal service budget goes towards its workforce. many of its workers are provided by no-layoff clauses. the postal service has no-layoff clauses in its contracts. i wonder if most americans know that. $7 billion worth of buyouts may help to shrink the workforce, but this so-called overpayment will come from taxpayers' pockets, and it is a hefty price to pay for further delay. there is an alternative, a bill proposed by representative darrell issa, republican from california, that would create a supervisory body to oversee the postal service's finances, and if necessary north new labor contracts -- negotiate new labor contracts. the bill is not perfect but offers a serious solution that does not leave taxpayers on the hook. i just want to read the april 14

editorial. he think that it sums up the situation. "for better or for worse, our children's children will marvel at the fact that anyone ever used to send the paper thing called a letter. they will be amazed to learn that we unnecessarily spent billions of dollars propping up a huge, inefficient system for moving these things around. but what would really astound future generations is that we borrowed that money and left it to them to pay back." there is no better description of what this bill is all about. and my friends, one of the things we need -- and i'll be glad to go into a number of details -- but really it is very clear that congress and the postal service cannot make decisions. so what we need is the only

thing that we found to be the way to reduce our bases in america was a brac. so what we really need is a brac to identify those post offices and other facilities that need to be closed. and i want to go back to what they said about what future generations. my friends, we now communicate with these. we now communicate with e-mail. we now communicate with tweet. we now communicate electronically in ways that we used to do with pen and paper or type writer. and that's a fact. and so we have seen a dramatic reduction in regular mail. we have seen it go in a very dramatic fashion, which will accelerate over time. listen, guys my age are doing this; everybody's doing it. and the fact is, and the fact is

that everybody will be doing it, and they do not have to put a 30- or 40- or 50- or 60-cent stamp on a letter in order to get a message to their friends, families, business associates, et cetera. instead of doing as some did when the pony express was replaced by the railroads and try to prop up a failing industry, let's find a graceful exit and at the same time preserve those functions of the postal service that will be around for a long time. and there are functioning that could stay around for a long time. but in a dramatically changed world. we now have instant communications. we have instant news cycles. and we have a proliferation, thank god, of information and knowledge unknown in previous years, or in history; we have today. and there are up sides and there are down sides.

the postal service delivering letters does not play any role in the future of information being shared and made available to citizens all over the world. first-class mail -- first-class mail makes up more than half of postal revenues. it's down more than 25% since 2001. in the last 11 years, it's down 25%. and i promise you that will accelerate. it continues on a downward spiral with no sign of recovery. this combined with unsustainable 80% labor costs and labor contracts that contain no layoff clauses points to the hard reality that the postal service is broken. by the way, that is also the conclusions of the government accountability office which just recently issued a report that, entitled "challenges related to restructuring the postal service's retail network."

in 2011, the american postal workers union and usps management negotiated a four-year agreement that limits transferring of employees of an installation or craft to no more than 50 miles away. how? how in the world do you negotiate an agreement that you won't transfer anybody farther than 50 miles away? if usps management cannot place employees within 50 miles the parties are to jointly determine which steps may be taken which includes putting postal employees on stand-by, which occurs which he workers are idled but paid their full salary due to reassignments and reorganization efforts. i am not making that up. if you are a postal service worker and you are, want to be reassigned more than 50 years,

you cannot do it, and if you can't do it, you put employees on, quote, stand-by, and they are idled but paid their full salary due to reassignments and reorganization efforts. my friends, it helps us understand why 80% of their costs are in personnel costs. the proposed commission on postal reorganization, the g.a.o. makes an argument for basically a brac. they call it commission on postal reorganization. the proposed commission on postal reorganization could broaden the current focus on individual facility closures which are often contentious, time-consuming and inefficient, to a broader network-wide restructuring similar to the brac approach. in other restructuring efforts where this approach has been used expert panels have permitted difficult restructuring decisions helping to provide consensus on

intractable decisions. as previously noted, the 2003 report of the president's commission on the usps recommended such an approach relating to the consolidation and rationization of usps mail processing and distribution infrastructure. we also reported, quoting from the g.a.o. report, we also reported in 2010 that congress may want to consider this approach to assist in restructuring organizations that are facing key financial challenges. g.a.o. has testified that usps cannot continue providing services at current levels without dramatic changes in its cost structure. optimizing the postal service's mail processing network would help usps by bringing down costs related to excess and inefficient resources. they go on to say lack of flexibility to consolidate its

workforce, postal service stated it must be able to reduce the size of its workforce in order to ensure its costs are less than revenue. action in this area is important since usps workforce accounts for about 80% of its cost. so, we're faced with a very difficult decision. and the amendment and substitute that i have has a number of provisions. i see that my friend from connecticut is on the floor that wants to discuss this issue as well. but the fact is we are looking at a postal service that once upon a time was so important to the united states of america that it was even mentioned in the constitution of the united states of america. and since those days, and in the intervening years, the postal service performed an incredibly outstanding job in delivering

mail and communications to our citizens all over america, in all settings, in all parts of our country. and they deserve great credit for doing so. but now we face a technological change which is now, as i understand, a huge portion of their mail now is made up so-called junk mail, which is advertising mail. americans in greater and greater numbers are making use of this new technology, as i pointed out. and it's time that we understood that and it's time that we stop this incredible hemorrhaging of money, including, according to the postal service itself, by 2020 they're expecting to face up to a $238 billion shortfall. $238 billion shortfall in just the next eight years. $238 billion. the postal service has reached

its borrowing limit of $15 billion, and even with dramatic cost savings of $12 billion in workforce reduction of 110,000 postal employees none of the past four years -- in the past four years, the postal service is still losing money. it said it could lose as much as $18 billion annually by 2015 if not given the necessary flexibility it needs to cut costs and transform. so what does the legislation before us do? delay by two years a study -- a study -- to figure out whether we should go from six days a week to five days a week. now, i wonder how long it would take some smart people to figure out whether we should go to six-day to five-day delivery versus six-day? according to the sponsors of the bill, it takes them two years after they've already studied it for a year. remarkable. remarkable. what we really need, because we

need, unfortunately, another testimony to the lack of political courage of members of congress and members of the administration, we need a brac process. we need a brac process where we can appoint a number of men and women who are knowledgeable and who are willing to make these decisions for us. and then those decisions would be made, and it would come back for an up-or-down vote in the congress of the united states. so, i point out again, this bill before us locks in the current service standards for three years. it will make it impossible to go forward with the vast bulk of the postal service's planned network consolidations for at least three years. it puts in place significant new steps, including public notice and comment, before a processing plant can be closed. it gives appeals rights to the p.r.c. for processing plant closures and gives binding

authority to this p.r.c. to keep a plant open to protect service standards. it adds a number of new regulations designed to make it more difficult to close post offices. it includes a post office closure moratorium until retail service standards are created. it gives the p.r.c. the ability to enforce a -- quote -- "retail service standard which would enable the p.r.c. not only to require post offices to stay open but even require new post offices to be opened if a complaint is lodged. it continues 9 two -- the two-year delay before usps can go to five day as i mentioned, and it removes a provision in the reported text that required arbitrators to take into account pay comparability in any decision. it replaces it with vague language that says -- quote -- "nothing in this section may be construed to limit the relevant factors that the arbitration board may take into

consideration." now, if that isn't vague language, i don't know what is. let me repeat it. they want the board to -- quote -- "do nothing in that section of the legislation that could be construed to limb the relevant factors that the arbitration board may sake into consideration." well, that's pretty good guidance, isn't it? so that -- i would go on -- on and on. in summary, though, i would just go back again to "the washington post," to that final paragraph of their article, and i repeat again. and this is really what this is all about, my friends. for better or worse, our children's children will marvel at the fact that anyone ever used to send the paper thing called a letter, they will be amazed to learn that we unnecessarily spent billions of dollars propping up a huge, inefficient system for moving those things around.

but what would really astound future generations is that we borrowed that money and left it to them to pay it back. i hope that we could have -- i want to thank the sponsors of this bill for the great effort that they have made. i think we have open and honest disagreements that deserve debate and discussion on amendments. they deserve debate. they deserve amendments, and they deserve honest debate. we are talking about the future of the post office in america, and we are talking about literally over time hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. i hope the majority leader will reconsider and allow amendments to be -- to be proposed. i hope my colleagues will not insist on a vote on a nonrelevant amendment as a condition to moving forward with legislation. that's not right either. and i have said time after time, because i have been around here for a long time, we should have

people sit down, both majority and minority and republican leader, and say okay, how many amendments do you want, which amendments do you want voted on, give them a reasonable handful -- which we did not that long ago -- and then you have those votes and move forward. this is important legislation. the senator from connecticut would point out, may 15 is a critical day. this issue cannot be strung out forever. so i hope that we can sit down with the majority and republican leader and come up with some amendments that would be allowed and then move forward. i don't know if my amendment will pass or not, but i think it deserves a vote and i think it deserves debate and consideration. again, i want to thank the sponsors, three of the four of which are on the floor for their hard work, and i look forward to the opportunity to having honest and open debate and discussion on this very important piece of legislation.

i know that they and their staffs have put in hundreds and hundreds of hours of work on this legislation to bring it to the floor. i would yield the floor, madam president. mr. brown: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, madam chairman. i agree with the senator from arizona's statements about the majority leader in allowing us to actually work on relevant amendments that are important to each and every person in this chamber to make sure that we can address those very real issues to move not only this issue forward but try to attempt to rescue the post office, and i also agree with him when he was commenting on some of the deals that were cut by the postmaster general in dealing with contract. we actually have spoken about this many times. i asked the postmaster general personally how did you and why -- what was the thought process associated with entering into a contract? did you want us to be the bad guys? what was the thought process there, because our hands are

somewhat tied in dealing with some of these legislative issues. there is nobody that i respect more than the gentleman that just walked out of this chamber. however, i have to respectfully disagree because during our many long hours of deliberation between staff and cosponsors, we wrestled with many things that were brought newspaper his presentation. and with all due respect, i have read many other articles that comment on the fact that we are moving boldly to try to rescue the post office, taking into consideration everybody's -- not only the union workers but obviously the postmaster general, the citizens, i.e., the users of the postal service and nrve this chamber. the impending financial crisis at the post office i can tell you is foremost in our minds. it was the only consideration we had. it is trying to make the post office viable for future generations to use. that's the only consideration we had. and the fact that we are here

today -- and i guess i'm not going to be able to move forward on this. it's mind-boggling. but any legitimate reform of the postal services needs to recognize that we need to cut costs and we need to streamline an organization that is simply too big, especially in light of their -- of the future mail volumes and the potential decreasing of the future mail volumes. and i -- our bill recognizes this necessity, but where it differs from the senator from arizona's approach is in our recognition of the full enact that major service changes will have on postal customers and future revenues. the saturday delivery service of the post office is one of the strongest benefits that it has. i mean, when you're competing out with the other entities that are delivering mail or delivering packages and the like, that is the leg up that the postal service has and we want to deliver that. as a matter of fact, once we make -- and i just want to address two other things. it's not the taxpayers that are paying this money. it's the ratepayers that have already paid into the system and

has in fact overpaid into -- into the postal service and some of their retirement issues that they -- retirement program that we have. we're merely giving them that money back to allow them to get their fiscal and financial house in order, in order to offer some buyouts to get these 100,000 people retired so we can reduce the cost of the postal service. and once we make these changes, the senator from arizona also referenced that it's going to take a two-year study. no, it's not a two-year study to see if we're going to cut down saturday service. they want to just cut it right off. if we do all of these other changes, the consideration that we did in a joint and bipartisan manner was to determine whether, in fact, hey, if we have done these, do we still need to cut the saturday service? which, by the way, is the -- the benefit -- the benefit that the postal service has over everybody else. so are we going to contribute to that downward spiral or are we

going to actually work together and give them a little bit of flexibility and say oh, my goodness, we have done all these changes, we don't need to cut saturday delivery. we can still do it. we may need to streamline it. we may need to do curbside instead of going to the door. we may need to do clusters. we may need to shift it into rural areas. we have already cut, we have consolidated. that's what the two-year study is. if it doesn't work, we'll cut it, bang. but just to cut off your nose to spite your face, it makes no -- no sense to me. so as the postal regulatory commission has pointed out time and time again, the postal service's assumption on customer revenue and impact as a result of these proposals have been weak at best and nonexistent at worst. we need to make sure that when and if we give the postmaster general the ability to do these certain things that he's going to do him. and there is no two ways about it. he needs to draw a line in the

sand and more importantly get everybody in the same room. i can't imagine that our postal employees, whatever union they're from, want to have the post office go bankrupt and be out of business. i can't imagine the people listening up here don't want to get their cards from their grandchildren, get their checks, get their magazines, get the things that they have been accustomed to. i'm listening to the senator from arizona, i'm sitting here signing letters that i'm going to be putting in the mail. how ironic is that? i'm sitting here signing letters, and the senator who i have great respect for says oh, we communicate by this. yes, i communicate by this but the personal touch and the feeling of how you really feel i think is best expressed right here. that's why i take the time and effort to respond to not only my constituents but to my family and friends. call me old-fashioned, call me old-fashioned. i think there is something worth saving here, and that's what i am working on with -- and let me just say, by the way. the senator from connecticut,

what a legacy he is going to leave. so we just did the insider trading bill. without senator collins and senator lieberman's help, that never would have come to fruition had they not actually taken the -- had the guts to move that forward. what a legacy to leave under that. and then to actually have another legacy to save the united states post office. they may even name a post office after you. i mean, i'll make that effort, okay? the joe lieberman post office. it would be great. and i'll put it in massachusetts, how about that? you need to have a sense of humor around here, folks. trust me. sometimes you need to laugh at some of the things that happen around here. but in all seriousness, we need to take these drastic steps in order to provide the economic viability of the postal service. in our bill, senate 1789, we'll have a better way. the likelihood of the house bill passing is, i'm understanding, quite remote, but there is a good likelihood that we can

actually get this out first if the majority leader allows us to move forward and actually get it out the door and put the pressure on the house to join with us in a bipartisan, bicameral bill -- bicameral way. so i want to just say that i was honored to be a part of this effort to rescue the post office, as i have been honored to work on everything in our committee. and we're going to miss you very much. i've said that before, and i'm not kidding. and i know senator collins feels the same way. to do these two major pieces of legislation, i am just excited to see what else we can do before he leaves. so with that in mind, i will yield the floor and note that i am excited to continue to work on this very important initiative. i encourage the majority leader to allow us to move forward and get this done, and then we'll move on to the violence against women act. as i said before, i'm a cosponsor of both. flip a coin, either way, i win. it is heads on both sides. this is time sensitive. we have until may 15, if i'm not

mistaken. in order to do it and have some control over these cuts. otherwise, you could see draconian cuts willy-nilly without any input from us at all and no protections for our constituents. so that being said, i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: madam president, first, let me thank my friend, the senator from massachusetts, for his kind words about me. it's really been a pleasure to work with him. he has been a great and devoted member of our committee and worked hard on -- actually introduced along with senator gillibrand, the two bills that became the stock act, the antiinsider trading by members of congress and worked as the ranking member on the subcommittee that senator carper chairs that has been working focused on saving the united states postal service. so i appreciate his kind words and the stated intention to name a post office for me, and i just hope he names one that is not then closed shortly thereafter.

i also thank him for doing his part personally for the post office by continuing to write letters and sign them. i tell you, we all personally do -- i'm using email as much as anyone else. you know, i discovered i'm going to wander a bit here in preparing for this, my last year in the senate, and how you wind things down, that they actually keep our emails on discs. they can be stored in libraries as you would normal memos. we do reserve the right to edit somewhat. but so much of the -- so we're privileged in that way, but so much of the communication that goes on between people on email is effectively lost in the ether of cyberspace. when you think about the richness of history, how much of history comes from letters that

were written or typed over time, i think that although the trend here is clear, more and more will be done on the internet, on email, i think people are going to still want to write and receive letters, and that's just one of the reasons why the post office should stay what it is. not what it is now but remain a viable institution which is not only important for the slightly sentimental reasons i have just mentioned but because millions of jobs in our society and our country depend on the postal service, and there are -- although email and internet are changing the reality of communications in our world, there are some things that in addition to mail that will always best be done through the services of the u.s. postal service and not through --

through the internet. some of that is the catalogs and magazines that we get through the mail, but some of it are the packages, medicine, products that people buy over the internet that have to be delivered, and most of that is actually delivered the last mile by the united states postal service. so i thank my friend from massachusetts for responding to senator mccain's statement. to describe where we are simplistically on this, i know that there are some people who feel that the bipartisan bill that came out of our committee, senator collins, senator carper, senator brown and i, does too much, is too tough on the post office. and so they're concerned about it. senator mccain is on the other side. he doesn't think -- i'm sure there are others -- that we've gone far enough, quickly enough. i think we've found the right spot. i think this is a balanced

middle way proposal. but make no mistake about it, the substitute bill that has been filed is not a status quo bill. it authorizes and facilitates exactly the kind of significant change in the u.s. postal service that the reality of its declining business demands that we propose. so in most of the cases with the exception of the six to five-day delivery that i'll come back to, six to five-day delivery, a change that requires legislative authorization, and i hope somebody puts an amendment in that would authorize the post office to immediately quo go from six to five-day delivery because i'd like to see what the sentiment here is in the senate. my guess is for the reasons that the senator from massachusetts stated very eloquently, that

people are not ready for that precipitous change from six to five days. that if we do some of the things that senator mccain is proposing, we'll make such rapid and dramatic changes in the postal service that -- that it will have the contrary effect to what people intend. and it will diminish its services so rapidly that it will accelerate its downfall by decreasing its revenues. this is perhaps not the right parallel but i remember, madam president, years ago when i was in the state senate in connecticut, we had a real problem with the publicly supported bus transportation running a deficit. and one of the inevitable proposals was to raise the cost of bus fare. of course one of the logical and sensible reactions to that was that fewer people rode the bus

because it cost more and it got in more trouble. and that's exactly the kind of downward cycle that the sensible change that we're facilitating in this bill will make possible. the post office -- post offices will be closed under this bill. mail processing facilities will be closed. a lot of employees will leave the post office department. but this will all be done according to standards and in a methodical way that i think will ultimately not only save a lot of money for the post office and i expect will have an official estimate on that savings derived from our bill soon from the u.s. post office, that is in the next day or two, but it will do so in a way that doesn't break people away from the postal service and put it into a more rapid spiral downward. as a matter of process, i want

to say in response to my friend from arizona, senator mccain, his amendment -- first i want to say i appreciate what he said about the amendment from the senator from kentucky. it's not relevant to this bill. there will be another occasion i'm sure, what his proposal to terminate financial assistance to egypt will be relevant and should be brought up. but it shouldn't be brought up on this bill. because it's not relevant and it's exactly those kinds of irrelevant amendments that toofn toofn get the senate into a gridlock situation that means that we don't get our job done and makes the public even more dissatisfied with us. so i thank senator mccain for speaking to that. senator mccain has introduced an amendment which i oppose, but it is relevant, and it ought to be debated. and i know that the majority leader is very open to working out a process by which

amendments from both caucuses will be introduced and introduced in a timely way. there are several colleagues on the democratic side that have amendments they want to offer as well. so i hope that senator collins and i and senator reid and senator mcconnell can work together to begin to reach a bipartisan agreement where we can take up amendments that are relevant, senator mccain's is one of them. we can debate them, and -- around get something done here. too often the public is so frustrated and angry at us because we leave problems unsolved because we get stuck in partisan or ideological or procedural gridlock. this is a real problem. the post office lost more than $13 billion in the last two years.

would have been $5 billion more if we hadn't waived a payment responsibility that the post office had to the retirees' benefit health plan. this can't go on this way. if we don't act, it's not as if nothing will happen. something will happen. the post office will continue to spiral downward and the postmaster will inevitably have to impose really dramatic cuts in services and personnel. so i think it's our responsibility to create a set of rules and procedures here that acknowledge the need for change in the postal service, create a process, really actually authorize the post office to do some things it hasn't been able to do to raise more money and to create a process for changing the

business model of the u.s. postal service so it can survive in a very different age, the age of email, and also flourish. because so many people in our country depend on it for doing so. 563 million pieces of mail get delivered by the u.s. postal service every day. so this is not some kind of irrelevant, antiquated relic somewhere. this is a beating, functioning, critically important element of our life, our commerce, and our culture, and a lot of people depend on it. so we got a responsibility to change it to keep it -- keep it alive. i thank the chair and i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, at a later time i'm going to speak in strong opposition to the substitute offered by the senator from arizona, but i must say, madam president, that he has every right to offer that substitute. we should fully debate it and then we should vote on it. and i am puzzled by the procedural steps that have been taken this afternoon to curtail the debate and amendment process on this bill without our even trying to get an agreement on the number of amendments, perhaps limiting them to relevant amendments, which i think would have been a fair way to proceed. so much as i'm opposed to the substance of senator mccain's

substitute and believe that it is ill advised, i do believe that we should have a full debate on it and a vote on it. that's what we're here for. there are many different views on how we should save the postal service. but surely all of us ought to recognize that we simply cannot allow the postal service to fail. it is the linchpin of a trillion-dollar mailing industry that employs 8.7 million americans. it is absolutely vital. it also is an american institution whose roots go to our constitution. and we've worked very hard in a bipartisan way on our homeland security and governmental affairs committee to come up with a very good bill that would put the postal service back on the right track. it would allow it to

compassionately downsize its work force, which it needs to do, painful though that is, we would do it in a compassionate way by giving authority for buyouts and retirement incentives similar to those used by the private sector. and the postmaster general has said he believes he could reduce the number of employees by 100,000 without doing layoffs but by giving these incentives, particularly since 33%, in fact, more than 33% of the postal service's employees are already eligible for retirement. now, senator mccain has a different view on how we should go about that. he has a different view on saturday delivery, on rural post offices, on overnight delivery of mail, all of which i think are important. our bill does not prevent the

closure of every single post office, nor does it dictate that a certain number remain open. or closed, for that matter. what we do is we set standards. that's the way it should be determined. we have the postal service regulatory commission, set standards for access to postal services, and those standards are supposed to include consideration of such factors as distance to the next post office, geography, public transportation, weather, factors like that. that's far better than a one-size-fits-all preach that the senator from -- approach that the senator from arizona would have or the approach by the postmaster to target 3,200 post offices without even looking whether there are alternative and far less expensive way to deliver the

services. and there are madam chairman. it could be colocated in a pharmacy or grocery store. it could perhaps be open from 7:00 to 9:00 this the morning and 5:00 to 7:00 at night. i wage area lot of my constituents would really appreciate that. that would be on their way to work in the morning or on their way home at night. there -- it could colocate with a state office or a local office. move into town hall or have -- have a federal agency move in with the post office. it could offer services that are available generally at state and local offices. there's so many creative ways that we can preserve postal services in rural areas and yet reduce costs. and i think the postal service needs to be far more creative in

its approach. but i do not support the approach that senator mccain has laid out. one of his proposals would create a new bureaucracy. i thought we were against creating new bureaucracies around here. a new control board that would be over the board of governors and would have these dictatorial powers over the postal service. that's a proposal that i don't think makes sense. our approach is to have a commission that would examine the governance of the postal service but perhaps what we should be doing if there's something wrong with the structure of the board of governors, it was substantially revised in 2006 but if there is something wrong with it, we should revamp the board of governors, not create this new superbureaucracy on top of that. i agree with the comments of the senator from massachusetts on

saturday delivery. the provision that senator mccain has to move directly to five-day delivery and his comments, his negative comments on the fact that we would prohibit that from happening for two years misunderstands the intent of our bill. it is not to say that that might never happen, and it is to say that reducing service should be the last resort, not the first option. and the postal service has an advantage that it delivers six days a week. now, if in fact after all the cost and waste and excess has been wrung out of the system and the postal service is still not solvent after two years, then we may have to move to five-day delivery. but to give up that advantage immediately, i can tell you what's going to happen.

the volume of mail will decline further. and if the volume of mail declines further after having a 26% decline over the past five years, what's going to happen? revenues will plummet once again. so we need to be very careful about cutting service because it leads to mailers leaving the system. and once the big mailers in particular leave the postal service, they are not coming back. and the postal service will sink further and further into a death spiral. so my approach is to try to keep and grow the customers for the postal service. and i think moving to saturday delivery would drive more mail away, and would hurt service and thus decrease the volume. so i do not think that that is a good approach.

but the reason for our two-year delay is -- is not an endless study, as has been described by the senator from arizona, it is to allow time for the retirement incentives to go into effect, the downsizing of the work force to go into effect, the workers' comp reforms to go into effect, the new arbitration provisions to go into effect, the administrative fisheses that we -- efficiencies that we mandate, countless, countless provisions of the bill to go into effect. and i believe that if they are aggressively and well implemented by the postal service leaders, if they are, that there will be no need to eliminate saturday delivery and that is the reason for the provision in our bill. but we recognize that maybe that will not happen. maybe the provisions will not be

aggressively and well implemented and the postal service will find that it needs to take that extra step. but, surely our first approach ought to be to implement cuts without hurting service. let me give you an example of that from my own state. in hamden, maine, is one of the two postal processing centers for the entire state of maine. the other one is in scarborough, maine, in southern maine. the hamden facility is absolutely essential for processing mail from the broad reaches of northern maine, eastern maine and parts of western maine. under the postal service's proposal, the hamden facility would be -- would be closed. that virtually eliminates the

possibility of overnight delivery for, like, two-thirds of the state of maine by geography. it means that a letter that's mailed from my hometown of caribou, maine, in northern maine, to prescal, maine, 10 miles, 11 miles away, would have to make a 600-mile round-trip to scarborough, maine, in order to be processed and delivered. i can't imagine how many days that's going to take, particularly in the winter. and this is all ground transportation. so that's the kind of ill-conceived decision that our bill is intended to prevent. because it's the kind of decision that's going to cause postal customers to take their business elsewhere. and in proof of that, i received an e-mail from a small business

owner in bangor, maine, which is a town right now to hamden, who told me that he'd already received a notice from his payroll company saying if the hamden facility closes, then we recommend you move to electronic payroll or we'll hand-deliver the checks from your payroll. so that, again, is lost business for the postal service. now, could things be done at the hamden facility to save money? absolutely. if the facility's size is too big compared to the volume of mail it's now processing, reduce the footprint, rent out part of the facility. a major mailer would love to be right in the same building as the postal processing center. could easily be reconfigured to accomplish that.

so the postal service can do a lot to reduce its costs without doing away with overnight delivery, with saturday delivery and with the treatment of first-class mail in the way that we have been accustomed. and, madam president -- and i know coming from new hampshire you have a special appreciation for this -- the steps that will be taken if we do not act will leave rural america behind. not every part of my state has access to broadband. we talk all the time about, oh, people can go on the internet. well, they can't in parts of my state. we're making progress in that area, but there are many rural areas in maine that do not have access to broadband.

so they do not have alternatives weekly and daily newspapers would be at a terrible disadvantage if overnight delivery is no no long available -- is no longer available for two-thirds of the state of maine. think about that. think about what is means for bill paying for those -- for small businesses sending out bills to their customers. think what it means to elderly individuals who are receiving prescription drugs through the mail. very common in my state, which is one of the states with the oldest populations in the nation. a lot of our elderly in maine are, particularly in the winter months, are essentially homebound and they rely on getting those pharmaceuticals through the mail. so if you do away with saturday delivery, close the processing

plant, no more overnight delivery, monday holidays as well. i've talked to the postmaster general and he's conceded to me that even a first-class package or -- or letter mailed on a thursday would not arrive until a tuesday. that's a long time when you're waiting for vital medication. so our approach, our fundamental premise is to recognize that the postal service must become leaner, more streamlined, more efficient. it must downsize to respond to declining volume. but it must be smart in thousand does so and it must do so in a way that does not alienate more of its customers. because if it loses more of its customers, volume will decline and revenues will decline. it really is that simple.

and that is why this bill has been so carefully crafted. this is not the bill that i alone would have proposed and i think that's true of all four of the sponsors of this bill. but we did what we're supposed to do in this senate, we worked together. we had countless meetings. at times i think the senator from connecticut will agree, endless meetings. and to hammer out these provisions, to strike compromises, we consulted widely with our colleagues, with g.a.o. , with the postal service, with large mailers and small mailers, with the greeting card industry, with newspaper industry, with magazine publishers. anyone who had a stake. with the postal unions. and we got their suggestions and we crafted the bill to the best

of our ability. we worked hard on it and i think it is a good bill. and i am very disappointed and, indeed, puzzled why we can't now proceed with debate on amendments on this bill and why we have a cloture motion on this bill already filed. that makes no sense to me. we're acting in good faith. we're -- we're open for business right now. we could be taking up amendments right now. and i hope that the leader will reconsider and allow us to do this bill in the usual way. i would pledge to him -- and he knows i'm sincere in this -- to work with him to try to come up with amendments and see if we can go back and forth side to side and start working through

them. we're here. we're open for business. we're ready to go. and this bill matters. this bill matters. our economy is still very fragile, and if the postal service stops delivering mail this fall, it will be a crushing blow to this economy. or if it stops delivering mail in certain areas or the mail's very slow, it will also hurt this economy. and we cannot leave rural america behind. the mandate of the postal service is universal service. that means whether you live in the far reaches of alaska or at the bottom of the grand canyon in arizona or on an island off the coast of maine, you're

supposed to be able to have access to the postal service. it's one of the things that unites us as a country. so i would urge my colleagues for us to come together in good faith here and work through what i believe is a very important bill with a vital mission and that is to say -- to save the united states postal service. thank you, madam president. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. madam president, i want to thank my dear friend and colleague from maine, my really not ranking member but sort of cochair, partner of our committee, for her excellent statement. and i share her frustration about the procedural moment we're at in the senate on this bill. i -- i hope and i believe that this is temporary, that senator

reid's intention is to do exactly what senator collins has said she would like to see happen which is that we negotiate an agreement. hopefully -- it will have to be adopted by consent but we can do amendment by amendment where we go back and forth and consider amendments from each side of the aisle. it's not as if -- i know senator reid has filled the tree. it's not as if there are not amendments that members of the senate democratic caucus want to offer to the bill. there are. there are several of them. and i know there are several on the republican side. we worked very hard on this bill as senator collins as said. the meetings did seem endless. i would probably say sometimes seemed excessively endless. but nonetheless, we -- we reached across the aisle and we we -- we reached a compromise. but this is not a perfect piece of work and it's an important subject so it deserves to be

considered, debated and amendments to be offered. and i'm confident that that's exactly the direction in which the majority leader wants to go, the sooner the better. having said that and seeing no one else on the floor, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the clerk will call the roll. -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. officer without objection. mr. carper: madam president, we're debating this bill today because the postal service is facing, as many of us know, a dire financial crisis that literally threngtses its very survival. this is a crisis that's been building for sometime. it is one that only congress can fix at this point and one that we absolutely must fix now, literally in a matter of weeks. since the postal office was first established in 1971 in its current form, we've taken it for granted that our mail would arrive and that important business and personal correspondence would reach its destination. in addition, businesses large and small have come to rely on the mail to reach new customers and to communicate effectively with existing customers.

the postal service has a presence in virtually every community of any size in our country, large and small. it supports a $1 trillion mailing industry that creates and sustains millions of private-sector jobs, i am a he told as many -- i'm told as many as 8 million private-sector jobs today. a number of those jobs are at great risk today. they're at risk because those of in congress have to date proven unwilling or unable to come to consensus around a package of reforms that can update the postal service's networks and business mod toll reflect the reality -- model to reflect the reality of today. it needs to right-size its industry much as the auto industry has. the lack of action on our part comes despite warnings about the severity of the problem.

nearly two years ago former postmaster general potter announced, i think, with the help of three major consulting companies that the postal service would run up losses of more than $230 billion extra by 2020 if we did nothing. now there are several reasons for these losses, including the diversion of first-class mail to electronic forms of communication and legislative hurdles that congress has imposed upon reform efforts. mr. potter and his suck successor pat donna hu have done a very trob at chipping away at these losses with the help of their unions, with the help much a umin of their customers and i think from time to time from those of us who have served in the congress in the last administration and the current administration. over the past decade the postal service has dried the size of

its postal workforce by roughly a third, not by firing people, not by letting people off, but through attrition. they've closed scores of mail processing facilities across america with no noticeable impact on service. people still drop letters and packages in the mail, and they might be delivered the next day or within at least three days. pretty amazing when you think about it. and the approval rating for the congress isn't very high, but the customer satisfaction of the american people with respect to the postal service is still about 85%, pretty good compared to how we're doing here in our nation's capital. the postal service has introduced some new products, flat-rate boxes, if it ship fitt ships. the ups and fedex don't want to deliver every parcel to every

postal box across america. the postal service does that. despite that, the losses at the post-al service din to mount. last week -- last year, rather, the postal service suffered an operating loose of more than $5 billion. it will see a similar loss this year, even if it finds some ways to avoid making retire refunding payments due in coming months. then the losses accelerated to $6.5 billion in 2013 to $10 billion in 2014 to more than $12 billion in 2015 and to more than $15 billion alone in 2016. but these losses are only theoretical. i say that because the postal service is close to exhausting its $15 gel line of credit with -- billion line of credit with

the treasury and by this time next year will be on its way to running compliel out of cash. if that were to occur, the postal service's ability to continue 0r789ing will be in -- operating will be in jeopardy. the postmaster general donna hu has said repeated lid that he and his team will do everything they can do to keep the mail moving even as the postal service's financials deteriorate. i believe him. but make no mistake, if the postal service is not permitted in the very near future to begin making the adjustments needs in repons to the likely permanent declines in mail volume, especially first-class mail that we've witnessed in recent years, that postal service will drown in red ink. the ripple effect of losing the postal service and the still very valid services it provides would deliver a body blow to our economy at the very time our economy is recovering.

we're on the brink of this impending disaster in part because we're expecting the postal service of 2012 to try and be successful with a business model created in the 1970's. let's just remember, in 1970 when i was a naval flight officer in south each asia, there was no e-mail. there was no mail. the happiest day of the week with a when the mail came -- letters, packages, magazines, you name it. that was the day of the week to live for. last time i was over in afghanistan, senator lieberman, senator collins have been there number of times -- last time i was there, they still get mail. but you know what else they have? they have skip. they have telephones -- they have skype. they have telephones. they are the internet. they have facebook, they have twitter, they have all of that stuff. as a result, they don't use the mail like we did in our generation.

today americans live and work online. we shop and transact more and do more business online. these trends are likely to accelerate. if any of our colleagues doubt that, then they should ask our pages -- these pages that are sitting right down here how often do they sit down and write a letter or send a greeting card. they should ask our colleagues -- our colleagues should ask members of their own staff how often they pay their bills through the mail. they or we should look at our own mail. in fact, when i -- i asked my staff to do this. go back and look at my first year as a senator. you look the number of e-mails we got then and the number of letters we got then, what was the ratio. for ruchely every 15 letters we golt, we got one e-mail in 2010, i said go back and look at 2011. for every one letter we received last year, we received about a

dozen emaissments think of that. the federal government itself is even contributing to this trend and i any a pretty good way. the social security administration starting next year will send virtually awful its 73 million payments -- i think that's each month -- to social security recipients and they'll now be processed online through direct deposit, not mailed out. that's us. so even as the american people adjust to new communication technologies, many of us here in congress expect the postal service to continue as if nothing has changed. but in these changing times, these challenging times, we need to recognize the difficult choices needed to be made. it is not efficient or affordable to maintain a mail processing and delivery network built for the peak mail volumes of years ago. with that said, many of my

colleagues have legitimate concerns about the severity and speed of the postal service's streamlining efforts. to address those concerns, the managers' amendment that senators lieberman, collins, brown, and i include a number of safeguards crafted to ensure that the changes that'll occur in the accompanying months and years are implemented in responsible ways, ways that are consistent with what i can describe as the golden rule, that we treat others the way we want to be treated. that includes customers of the postal service, employees of the postal service, and taxpayers of this country. we also seek to provide assurances in our managers' amendment to those who still rely largely on the postal service, including rural customers without access to broadband will continue to have access to the services that they know and need in the years to come. we also take steps in this