>> as our eight, he was supporting himself to see them steve leeds reported to the administrator. and this was commissioner, he reported through the ra and reported directly into headquarters to the commissioner of the public domain. >> is it true with administrators they have this dual reporting? how does that work in gsa quiet >> we are looking at that. it is something diaconate in a straighter is reviewing carefully. this obviously things that need to be streamlined, but we look at it as part of our top to bottom review. >> this is one agency. the two functions are of course

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 the post office. 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 differences 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 first-class mail volume, as you technological changes and know, has dropped by over a difficult economic conditions, 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 -s 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 flo