what china's done on the exchange rate side, on the external side is very significant and very promising. so let's just review what they've done. they've allowed the dollar to, yuan to appreciation against the dollar in real terms, so about 14% since june of 2010. if you look back relative to 2005, it's more like 45%. pretty significant adjustment in if real terms. they have begun to significantly loosen the comprehensive set of controls they have in place on capital movements, on the ability for people to use them, borrow. they have widened the band to allow the markets to play a role in the exchange rate. they have been, at least in the last six months or so, intervening significantly less. their current account surplus has come down dramatically, and the expected surplus going forward has come down, really,

quite significantly too. .. >> on the growth front, a good question. i don't claim have any particular feel for it right now. the growth has slowed, particularly in the early parts of the first quarter. but i think most people look at china, most people in china with a feel for this, are really quite confident that you'll see this economy growing in the

range of seven to eight, eight and half, 9% over the medium-term. i think that's a realistic forecast as long as europe is still making some progress and working through its crisis. >> to clarify, you some very powerful language in describing chinese moves on the currency front, very significant, very promising you said, which leads me to ask if the chinese continue to do these series of incremental steps that are having significant broad effect, is that sufficient to meet the long-standing u.s. demand that the chinese allow their currency to trade more freely? >> it means they are on the right path. none of us know -- >> but will they get where we want them to be? >> it depends on how they stay on the path. you don't know with certainty how far that path should go. that's an assessment.

what you can tell about the reality today is that they have moved some distance. they are planning to still move further. i think they recognize they have to go further. i think all the evidence suggests they have to go further on exchanger, and i think again the key thing, we like to remind people that nations act in their own perceived interests, and i think china has made the basic judgment it is a still in the economic sense of china -- interest of china that they create and exchange rate to run policy in china to consider chinese conditions, not american conditions or european conditions. that's why they're embarking on this topic as i said, again, significant and promising, but they are not at the end of this process of reform. >> i want to go to the audience for questions.

this is the treasury press corps' best chance to pound their secretary with questions before meetings take place. if there's anyone from the press corps, i want to make sure i recognize them. i see a hand back there. yes, please. >> dow jones. i'm not sure about the hounding, but given the e.u.'s recent efforts to temporarily raise the firewall, there seems to be a dam breaking on raising imf funds, at least in limited way. what specifically, besides outpacing fiscal consolidation and more ltr rose, are you going to press europe for to encourage their prospects? >> well again, i was a looking

forward, but these are choices europeans have to make, looking for one of the challenges ahead. the challenges are obvious. they are to put in place to set of policies, reinforced by financial system that would provide a better foundation for growth over time. they have to put in place the institutional framework. that means a better develop mechanisms for fiscal discipline, fiscal transfers and he needs more integrated unified capacity to running financial system. those are very important. they are starting to build on those reforms. but, you know, they are very much aware of these challenges and i think, again, i think they've made it a very credible commitment to do what it takes to make this process work. and they have the will and the ability, financial ability, economic ability to make it wo work. and, of course, no one can feel more strongly about it than the europeans themselves because

they have such a huge strategic interest in making this broader endeavor, economic union work. >> of the questions, please. >> my name is michael feinberg i'm a student at george washington university. i to question about mortgage write-downs. if the administration is considering any further -- if you have an effect on the broader economy, thank you. >> housing markets still very tough in the united states. still a long way to go to work through the big overhang you see in housing. we think the most promising ways to help facilitate that process are one, to help americans who have income, who can afford to stay in homes, stay in their home, get a modification to the mortgage that allows them to do that. help more americans refinance, even if they're deeply underwater and in this very large stock of unoccupied homes,

the legacy of the crisis, to move that into the rental market which is a lot of demand. there are many other things we could do but those seem to be the core of what's happening. part of the first which is to give people a chance to face a more sustainable, affordable set of mortgage obligations. we think there is a case in some circumstances for making principal reduction a part of the. we've done it in the programs we run at the treasury. you've seen quite a lot of that in the market as banks and investors make the same judgments themselves that it's in the interest over time to do that. and we are working, as you know, within every other oversight bodies to make the economic, financial case to them that this will be a useful part of what they are trying to do and would probably improve almost certainly improve overall returns to the taxpayer in those companies. the number of families who would benefit from that are significant, not overwhelming,

but significant. and our basic approach on housing is that we will keep at it until we see a much more durable set of improvements coming. and any place we think there's a way we can help facilitate that process, help more people stay in homes, help fill the date -- facility come we'll keep doing that as long as we do that. i should say, there's a bill being considered in the house today that would end the government's authority in the housing market, which would be very damaging. right now at this time with the economy where it is, with unemployment what is, with housing where it is, with the scars and the damage and legacy of the crisis still so damaging and so apparent, to stop the government from having the ability to help ease the transition would be very damaging to recovery.

and there's no plausible economic or financial case for doing it. >> since you mentioned that you were, unemployment, i really to ask you, given the growth forecast that we're looking out for the rest of this year, as i mentioned earlier, the imf is projecting 2.1% for the year for the u.s., consensus forecast range between that and 2.5, what does that imply for the likely rate of unemployment through the year? would've a different way, that doesn't imply much improvement in the likely rate of unemployment through this year, does it? >> i don't ever talk about forecast, but if you look at what the imf and the broader dignity, privat private forecasy about the u.s. economy, they see an economy that is growing between two and 3%. when it comes out in that range will determine the pace we see more people get back to work and the pace at which on the phone comes down.

for an opponent to come down at a significant issue need to be growing significantly above two and a quarter, 2.5%. is the world conspires against of that, then some mix of oil or iran or europe slows the midamerican as it did before, then you'll be at the weaker end of that range. but still again, just to try to emphasize what's promising, again, we are at a much stronger position than even those challenges, those uncertainties that we were even six months or a year ago. most things you can look at and measure u.s. economies today suggest, suggest more resilience even though we get a lot of challenges still ahead of us. >> there was a gentleman behind you, and then you. >> fred bergsten. tim, i think it's fair to say

the major operational question at the imf meetings this weekend will be possible augmentation of imf resources to build a additional firewall to help cushion possible effects from europe. two aspects of the. you have taken i think strong position the u.s. itself will not contribute to that augmentation of imf resources. i happen to think you're exactly right. liquidity issue, the funny out to be provided by surplus uncredited country. the u.s. as a debtor from come it's quite a program of thing not to contribute and you're right on the. but the second issue is the creation of firewall itself, the increased imf facility, and how big it ought to be. and there i have been puzzled because i think it's fair to say you have not been very enthusiastic about that. in some sense of you even discouraged creation of a very large, very rapidly available set of additional resources, and i'm puzzled about that.

i would've thought you would go after the surplus creditor countries, china and japan, oil exporters and many others, to put in as much money as possible to sport with the europeans are doing in order to try to avoid spillover to our own economy and others. so would you kind of explain why you're not out there leading the charge to put together an additional big firewall to support what the europeans are doing? >> good question. let me try to explain our basic strategy in this case. two things the world is doing for europe now, which are very important. one is, and we are very supportive of the imf playing a significant role in reinforcing reform processes in europe. at this ultimately rolled to the european financial role. it's not that i know met patrick dominant role that it is significant. we have been very supportive of that when we will continue to be. the second thing that is happening, which is i think as

significant in this case, and something only the united states is to is the federal reserve as it did in '08 and in '09 has given the europeans unlimited access to all the sweat lines at a critical moment where funding concerns of european banks which a very large external avenues funded in dollars, under a lot of pressure but i think only we could do. we did it early, very, very powerful substantial skill, and the fed indicated they will leave that framework in place as long as it makes sense for them to do that. now, the imf is in a very good position. i think you can see a commitment from you see people talk about this week, to demonstrate to the world that although it has $400 billion of able resources today, very substantial pool of money relative to any other time in the history, it has the ability raise additional financing from other countries, there very quickly if it needs to do that. and i think that's good because that will prove to the world that there's a substantial

capacity that can reinforce what the europeans are doing and help cushion if necessary the effects of everything the european, and the rest of the world. we are very supportive of that process and we will be very supportive of it this week. now, what we have been, just be honest, to be direct about it, what we did not want to see is people look to the imf as a way to substitute for a more forceful european response to we didn't think that would be tenable, not fair, not real realistic, plausible. so where you've seen the united states, and this is true for china and japan and the other major emerging economies, a little reluctant to move ahead of europe is because that basic recognition that europe is a relatively rich continent. it absolutely has the financial resources to manage this problem. it's got to play the dominant financial role, and we wanted to see them put a more forceful

commitment behind that basic reality, financial reality before the imf came in and said, okay, they will do what necessary to make sure they can reinforce. that's the rationale for our strategy. one last point. the economics of a swap line that the fed provided you're been you're been some debate and the national central banks, and the economics of a country that lends money bilaterally, imf, are not very different because when you lend money to the imf, you have a liquid interest-bearing claim on the fund would you can draw on if necessary that has the characteristics of a swap in some ways. we are the only ones providing assistance directly to europe. other countries are not willing to roughly. they are only willing to the imf in that context. and, of course, with the imf is backed up by the united states. it's not just a mistake to look

at this and suggest the united states is holding back, standing apart from this broad effort. we've been as you know central to the broad effort by the world's, to help reinforce what europe is doing? we're doing it in ways that most effective for what europe needs right now. available early in the very substantial force, and a swap lines have made a very important role in dampening and cushioning the effects of europe's crisis on the rest of the world because it diminishes the need for european banks to dramatically reduce their external assets very quickly which would've been a lot more downward pressure on the world economy. >> ambassador? >> just to comment, as you know very well we're just invest $60 million to the contribution of imf, as with any 2008 after wall street crash. we would have come to the assistance of the imf.

>> thank you, ambassador. yes, sir, in the third row. >> jim moody. i'm well aware of how the discussion, the deficit has been a force of its own on capitol hill in a lot of very shallow things have been announced about the deficit that shows very little understanding. the public wasn't given a good education of it either. what is the right size of the deficit a what is acceptable size has not been a clear public discussion at all. on one and we don't want the deficit to get to be. using the analogy of the credit card bill is totally wrong. we are reserve currency, country, and we're lucky to have that. and the deficit in some sense as a matter of foreign trade. we are providing liquidity. i'm sorry, we are providing parking of value, and that's valuable per se to park something safety for someone, they don't need right now. and interim for that we're

getting liquidity that we wouldn't otherwise have. so it's an international trade issues in some sense. both sides benefit so that the proper size of the deficit is not zero. but how big should it be and what is the span within which is productive, extremely productive element of our economy, and yet it is being demonized constantly in the most radical terms and the press never seems explain the fact it is an international trade concept. the question is, what are the limits? that public debate does not take place on capitol hill. it does not take place in the press. we need is in the country to of a rational discussion about what is, what are the limits of them down, the proper size of the debt? >> you are lamenting -- which your right to do. in terms of the fiscal deficit, the minimal acceptable anchored for this bill should be the olympic you should reduce the deficit to a level where the

debt stops growing as a share of the economy and to start to come down. for a country like the united states that means we have to have a deficit that is slightly below 3% of gdp and we have to hold over that level. we're slightly over 80% of gdp now we have to bring it below three. we have to do that in timeframe by -- it stops coming down to again if you look at the past without for the country, on cdos metrics, metrics going, the president's post would reduce the deficit to below 3% of gdp and i think 2016, hold it there over the rest of the decade. what that means is the debt held by the public would stabilize in the '70s, 70% range as a share of gdp, high '70s. and gradually start to come down over time. if you were to do that, and to achieve that, that would be, that would be a very consequential step. it would still leave us in the outer decades with what is still

unstable rates of growth in health care spending for retirees. where we've made some significant steps in the affordable care act to bring down the rate of growth and cost, but obviously we'll have to do more over time. that's what i think the right way to think about the fiscal challenge ahead is first, put that in perspective. don't put that ahead of everything else we face. recognize you have to do them, in order to do them, sensibly have to deal with them in a way that is balanced, which has a mix of spending, savings, tax reform, and preserves room for us to invest in things to make sure we are not eroding, poverty in the united states is alarmingly -- we're reminding americans that even before the crisis, 20% of american kids were born under the poverty line, families under the poverty line. 40% of american children born came before the crisis, or into families that qualify with for medicaid. so the case for balance, fiscal

reform is not just an economic case or a political reality, but there's a very important moral question. and pragmatic economic question about how you preserve room to make investments to grow in the long run like infrastructure and innovation and i'd make sure your protecting critical aspects of the safety net, not just a low income americans but for middle-class retirees going for. that's why we think there needs be a more balanced approach. >> the gentleman in the first row. >> i would like to ask you about the tpp, the u.s. is now playing a key role. how do you think it will impact the u.s. economy? >> the two promising things happening on the trade front over the last couple of years which are really important are

one, we were able to negotiate and get congress to pass a cities of trade agreement with korea and colombia and panama that hadn't been for long periods of time. the u.s. had essentially froze them in his capacity to negotiate export expanding trade for the american economy. the getting those agreements and was important because without that why would any country be willing to take seriously an american commitment to negotiate? so that health. and the second is we've seen a lot of support in asia for this trans-pacific partnership. it's opposite going to be for a longer time with the most rapidly growth of the local economy. we think we can use that agreement to set higher standards in the trade area for a number of economies that itself we hope will provide an incentive and anchor for reform, economic reforms in the region. so, you know, it's overwhelmingly good economic

policy, and it's good strategic policy, too, for the united states and we are hopeful that might be individually might of the put in place the basic foundation. >> hi. i'm nancy from the imf. so i want to go back to david's point about unemployment, but from a global perspective. president obama at the summit of the americas over the weekend talk about the importance of coming together and really tackling the issue of global unemployment issues. and i know that this administration has brought those issues to the congress as well. we know that in addition to the imf world bank meeting, the 220 finance ministers in the next couple days, and i just want to ask you if you anticipate on the agenda having some discussion about global recovery that promote job creation and that

kind of growth has an emphasis? >> very good point. and, of course, so let me just say from the u.s. perspective, the dominant overwhelming imperative for the global economy now as it has been for the last three years or so is to lay foundation for strong growth across the world. there are other challenges that it has to be central to the agenda of course. now, for that to happen and for that to translate into broad-based schemes and income and better opportunity for americans and better employment outcomes, you need to see growth complemented by things that, like their education outcomes, better education opportunities, better training opportunities. the world economy has gone through several periods in history we have dramatic increase in economic integration, dramatic changes in technology, and where those

translate and long periods of growth and income, average incomes, and broader economic opportunity, it was because those big changes into mannix of economic growth were accompanied by things like universal access to primary education, or things like the basic elements of the safety net to provide health care security, retirement series, things like that. one reason why this debate about fiscal growth, the balance between growth and austerity and the debate about the shape of fiscal format is so important is to recognize that you've got to make sure you are creating better conditions for economic growth, for better outcomes in terms of opportunity. and better prospects for broad-based income gains. and that should dominate the economic indiana cities and countries around the world for long periods to come. that's why this debate we're going to have is so important to the shape is going to be so

important. >> i want to ask the last question, this gentleman here has had his hand up and i would just ask the audience, when secretary geithner finishes his answer, if you could remain seated while the leaves the auditorium, thanks. >> thank you for your comments. i wanted to follow up on your opening comment that you said that debt levels in the u.s. were down. i would also like to follow up on mr. feinberg, i believe, question about mortgages. when you are talking about the treasury and mortgage debt, you talked about what you hoped would transpire going forward in the short term, but you also said there were other things that you were research department was looking at. the imf research department has looked at the issue of debt restructuring, and your treasury department has looked at it. do you do, besides mortgage debt, that credit card debt, personal debt, student loan debt, needs to be addressed

perhaps after the buffett rule is taken care of, after tax reform? but is there anything more precise you could say about beating of aggregate demand? >> on demand, let's start with demand. a good way to end your question. we think the most useful thing that the congress can do right now for the american economy is pass a long-term infrastructure bill with substantial higher levels over time. that would be good for aggregate demand in the short run, good for employment generation, good for long-term growth potential. that's one example. if they authorized the xm bank for a third time, you have continued assurance of pretty carefully designed support for american exports in a world where lots of countries subsidize experts. those are two good examples. helping americans refinance financial order is nothing that is good, like acts as a tax cut.

just in our programs, for example, on the mortgage side, the typical, the typical modification is $5 a month in lower monthly payments to a nine americans have current modifications that meet that test. is a pretty substantial boost to income here if you can provide broader-based refinance opportunity for americans including those that are underwater, you can have similarly powerful effects like the. those with be things good for demand. on the mortgage side, as i said there's a pretty good financial? no, pretty good economic case for adding to the toolkit of what the gses are doing, alongside their existing modification programs. so we are very much in favor of that and are trying to work towards the. if you look at the other aspects of the broader consumer debt market as referred to, i think the right emphasis of reform in the united states is on things

that improve the ability of individuals to borrow responsibly. so for example, in the private loan market and low market we would like to see and the cpb is working on this, consumer financial protection bureau is working on this, we like to see better disclosure and better protection so that americans are trying to pay for education, borrow to do that, are not more vulnerable and making bad decisions. and say huge opportunity for sensible reforms like that, across the broader individual better market. we will be working, we will be working towards those things are nice to see you all. thanks for coming. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary a blog that. >> as this discussion comes to a close we will go to live coverage of the u.s. senate and expect to spend much of the day debating a bill for the violence against women act which expires

this year. senators switched gears yesterday and started work on a motion to proceed to the bill after another measure ran into controversy over an immense. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain:

let us pray. gracious god, our shelter from life's storms, give to the members of this body a faith strong enough to face the tempests of our time. strengthen them to confront with courage the challenges that come , knowing that your purposes will prevail and that your providence will sustain them. lord, help this day with singleness of purpose and constancy of commitment your senators to seek first your kingdom and your righteousness, serving you with unfettered feet

and following you with freedom and faith. reign as sovereign lord in this chamber, guide the deliberations, debates, and decisions of this day. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate.

the clerk: washington, d.c., april 18, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1925, the violence against women. the majority will control the first 30 minutes, the republicans the final 30 minutes. filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the postal reform bill is 1:00 this afternoon. i really hope that we can work an agreement out on the postal reform bill. i spoke to senator lieberman last night, the chairman of the committee, and he is hopeful as i am that we can move forward on this legislation. it's a shame if we can't.

as we speak, there is more than half a million men and women working for the postal service, 25% of them are returned veterans, and we have 30,000 post offices around the country. we have about eight million people that depend on the post office for their jobs. so to think that we can't move forward on this and be really untoward, something we really, really need to get done. and i'm hopeful that we can get that done. there's -- people can offer amendments and we should do that as quickly as possible, move forward on this legislation. if there is no agreement, we'll have to vote on the substitute amendment tomorrow morning. it would be, i repeat, too bad

that we can't get it done. madam president, enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers, the united states postal service has delivered this nation's letters and other mail since the day of the quill pen and the pink is well. -- the inkwell. that's why we have inkwells. that's what these are. i have paper clips in mine but originally, they sat at these desks and did their work. it was for most of the time it was for mail. mail has been delivered through the years when stamps cost a nickel. mail has been delivered through the years when mail traveled up and down waterways by steamship and through two world wars when soldiers sent letters home to their sweethearts and family. through it all the united states postal service has been there to deliver the mail, rain or shine. but today america's postal system is in crisis.

we kind of as -- that's a throwaway, through rain or shine. when i was a little boy, madam president, we had really bad snowstorms all over the west, but in searchlight, nevada, we got snow a few times a year but we had three feet of snow on the level. it was very, very bad. but i can remember a man, his name was conn hudgens. the mail tame to searchlight, there was a railroad went through nipton, california, 22 miles from searchlight and as that train sped through nipton they had an apparatus that would snatch the mail that was on the train. and that mail was for searchlight. they sorted it that way. this old man, conn hudgens walked through snow 22 miles to bring the mail. that's what we talk about when we say mail has been delivered

through rain or shine. that's the mantra of the post office. but today america's postal system is in crisis. today, a personal note from a friend or payment to the electric company can be delivered online with a few quick key strokes on your computer. this changing technology has meant serious new challenges for an organization that has served the citizens of this nation from its very beginning. it serves this nation whether they live on city streets or rural routes. although the world for -- that the post office deals with has changed, the postal system's message and mission has not changed. that is to deliver letters, packages, medicines, many of whom -- much of which is vital. online purchases, birthday cards, phone bills, to hundreds of millions of americans. no matter how rural or how urban

the places they call home. neither has the current crisis changed the importance of that mission. nearly half of rural households don't have broadband internet access. making it difficult or impossible to pay bills or ship packages online. rural families in tusk errora, nevada or elko county, nevada, rely on the postal service. that's their way of communicating. such as bulk mail, american businesses rely on the united states postal service. as i indicated earlier, eight million people's jobs are dependent on the postal service. for seniors who can't leave their homes, mail carriers deliver life-saving medications and an important link to the outside world. elderly americans rely on the united states postal service. madam president, we -- i'll come home tonight and hear what

my home in washington and there will be some mail there. a lot of it is what some people refer to as junk mail. but for the people that are sending that mail, it's very important. and talking about seniors, seniors love to get that junk mail. it's sometimes their only way of communicating or feeling they're part of the real world. elderly americans more than any other group of people in america rely on the united states postal service. but unless we act quickly, thousands of post offices -- as i indicated there's more than 30,000 in america, many of them rural, will close. i've said this earlier today, i repeat it. these rural post offices is tonl way that people have in those small communities to communicate with the outside world. may be some medicine they're getting, may be keeping this

touch with family or friends but it's their way of keeping in touch with the world. hundreds of mail processing facilities will close. and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of dedicated postal employees are at risk. timely, dependable mail delivery isn't the only thing at that time at stake in this debate. today the postal service employs as i've indicated more than half a million middle-class workers. and the postal system gives more than 130,000 men and women who volunteered for this country in the armed services a chance to serve again. a quarter of all postal employees are veterans of the united states armed forces. so there's really a lot at stake in this debate. the postal service has been playing an important role in the history of this country, and the lives of its citizens for more than 200 years. it has also seen a 21% drop in mail volume over the last five

years. and is on the verge of insolvency. yesterday the postal service lost about $20 million. one day. changing times demand a leaner, more modern post office and to make that possible we must pass legislation, the senate must act. we must change the postal service business model. they can't do it on their own. they need legislation. they need it to keep pace with technology and keep up with the times. the bipartisan bill before this body enacts reforms that are major -- i'm sorry, madam president, the bipartisan bill before this body enacts reforms that are major but they're very measured. the people that worked on this so hard, senator lieberman i've already talked about him, his counterpart, republican senator collins has worked extremely hard. sheened and i and i've worked with her to maintain the six-day delivery. it's something she believes in strongly. i really admire her for the

fight she has put up to get the things she feels is important in this legislation. but if we don't act, it would reduce the number of employees and facilities the postal service maintains in spoon way if we act. and that would protect employees, millions of americans who rely on the mail. it would responsibly restructure the postal service while preserving overnight and six day a week delivery. it would help the proposals by offering new products to attract new customers and most importantly it would save the proposals from -- postal service from insolve venty. it would help an institution modernize to meet the challenges of a changing world. what senator lieberman and collins have come up with is not perfect. and we all recognize that. it's not a perfect compromise and won't make every senator happy. won't make every american happy, won't save every post office. but it's a good compromise, a

real good compromise and one that's bipartisan and will save an institution that's been part of the fabric of this nation for more than 200 years. let's work together to save the american postal service which, by the way, is the best in the world. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

'

mr. mcconnell: madam president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: with gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, i think it's important for the american people to realize there are really two camps on this issue here in washington. there are those who want to do something about the problem and there there are those who want people to think they're doing something about the problem.

and let's be clear, president obama is firmly planted in the "say anything but do nothing" camp. if there were any doubt about that, he dispelled it when he blocked the keystone pipeline and then again this week by embracing the age-old democratic dodge of blaming gas prices on speculators. look, what bothers americans isn't that the president has unpopular views on this issue. everyone knows he doesn't really support an all-of-the-above approach to energy. what bothers people is the fact that he pretends like he does. what bothers people is the president blocking one one -half the pipeline one day then showing up at a ribbon-cutting for the other half on another day. it's blocking domestic energy and then taking credit for increases that came about as a result of his predecessor's decisions. it's pretending that speculators have a big impact on the price of gas when his own staff -- his

own staff -- can't point to any impact. the president said he was different and a lot of people believed him. but to a growing number of americans, that's just what he's become -- just one more politician saying the same things they always say. this week has been a real clarifier for people when it comes to this president. whether it's the buffett tax that won't lower the deficit or a commission on speculators that even the white house says won't lower the price of gas, what they've seen this week is a president who seemed a lot more interested in looking like he's solving problems than actually solving them. for years, washington democrats have had the same rigid, totally rigid opposition to expanding domestic energy exploration. the only people they seem to listen to are the extremists. but instead of just stating their position and letting the political chips fall where they may, they pull out the same

poll-tested talking points they always do on the assumption that reporters will just reprint them like it's the first time they've used them and that everybody else will just somehow forget. but with gas prices at about $4 a gallon, it's time somebody called them out on it. ten years ago today, democrats voted down a bill to open up a tiny area of alaska known as anwr to drilling. they relied on the nonargument that it won't -- that it would take too long to get the oil to market. that was ten years ago today. too long to get the oil to market. every democrat who was asked about it said the same thing -- it would take too long to get the oil to market. i've got two pages of quotes from democrats saying it would take at least seven to ten years to get the oil to market. well, here we are ten years

later. in some places, gas prices now are three times what they were in april of 2002. the u.s. still imports half its oil. anwr is still off-limits. and if you ask democrats why they oppose more domestic exploration, they'll tell you the same thing they did ten years ago. this is precisely, precisely the kind of thing this president campaigned against for years -- four years ago. he was the one who was going to stop kicking the can down the road. he was the one who was going to tackle the problems everybody else was afraid to face. he was the one who was going to rise above petty scwables -- squabbles and the tired talking points of the past and offer something different. he was a different kind of politician who would usher in a

new era of authenticity. and what did the american people get? they got the same gimmicks as before. they got someone whose idea of solving a problem is to give a speech about it or to blame whatever person, place or thing doesn't happen to poll well that day. what the american people got was a president who absolutely refuses to lead. it's the same thing they got from the democrat-controlled senate, the same, tired talking points. the same evasion. the same refusal to address our problems head-on. yesterday the chairman of the budget committee made it official. for the third year in a row, senate democrats will refuse to do the basic work of governance by refusing to offer a budget blue printed for -- budget blueprint for government spending, by the way, as required by law. after pledging both to me and his republican counterpart on

the committee that he would, in fact, mark up a budget this year , the chairman of the budget committee bowed once again to the political pressure and said he won't put his democratic colleagues at any political risk by asking them to vote on a plan their constituents might not like; that is, not until after the election. the democrat chairman did suggest, however, that if europe implodes, he might change his mind. well, with all due respect, the statute doesn't say the majority must present a budget if the european economy implodes. that's not in the statute. it says, it must present a budget, period, so that the american people can see how much they're going to be taxed and how their tax dollars are going to be spent. so i'm having a hard time thinking of a word to describe the level of leadership we're getting from democrats in washington these days, whether it's the president or the

democratic senate. frankly, madam president, it's a disgrace. there isn't a single issue i can think of that willing -- that we're willing to do anything about. under this president's watch, washington has been spending more than a trillion dollars a year more than it takes in and senate democrats don't even have the courage to put it all in black and white. they don't have any problem spending it. they just don't want to be on record voting for it. that's what passes for leadership in washington these days. well, something's got to give. our challenges are too urgent. the status quo just won't cut it anymore. now, on another matter, i'd like to say a word this morning about the nuclear regulatory commission. this is the federal agency that ensures the safety of our nation's nuclear power plants.

specifically, i want to bring attention to the reappointment of christine sivinicki, or, rather, the curious lack of action surrounding her reappointment. commissioner sivinicki is one of the most respected commissioners ever to serve at the n.r.c. she's an experienced and fair-minded regulator whose leadership has earned her the admiration of members of congress on both sides of the aisle. she was confirmed for her first term without a single dissenting vote. prior to her four years on the commission, commissioner sivinicki spent more than two decades in public service working on nuclear safety issues in the senate, at the department of energy, and with the wisconsin public utilities commission. a nuclear engineer, she is one of the world's foremost authorities on nuclear safety

and nuclear power and a great asset to the commission. and last year, commissioner sivinicki had the courage to sit up and blow the whistle on n.r.c. chairman gregory glasco for bullying subordinate. according to an associated press story from democrat -- quote -- "the commissioners told congress that women at the n.r.c. felt particularly intimidated by jasco. commissioner william magwood, who's a democrat, by the way, told the same oversight panel that jasco had bullied and belittled at least three female staff members, one of whom told magwood she was humiliated by what magwood called a raging verbal assault. this is the democratic commissioner on the n.r.c. here's an excerpt from the inspector general's report.

several current and former commission staff members, it says, said the chairman's behavior caused an intimidating work environment. a former chairman told o.i.g. that the chairman often yelled at people and that his tactics had a negative effect on people. he described the behavior as ruling by intimidation. now, commissioner sivinicki stood up to this guy, who somehow managed to avoid being fired in the wake of all these revelations. in an effort to preserve the integrity of the agency and to protect the career staffers who were the subject of the chairman's tactics. and now for some mysterious reason, she's being held up for renomination. look, the f.b.i. completed its background check on commissioner sivinicki15 -- 15 months ago. her ethics agreement was

approved around the same time. she's been ready to go for more than a year. there is no legitimate reason for commissioner sivinicki not to be renominated and reconfirmed by now. and any further delay is unacceptable. if commissioner sivinicki isn't renominated by june 30, the n.r.c. will lose one of its finest members. the commission's work will be impaired, and we'll be forced to conclude that the reason is related to her honorable actions as a whistle-blowing that she's being held up in retaliation for speaking up against a rogue chairman who bullies his subordinate. there's a reason congress charged five commissioners with the responsibility to protect public health and safety. ensuring the safety of our nation's nuclear power plants is

serious business. so this morning, i'm calling on the white house to renominate commissioner sivinicki today to ensure that this well-qualified and widely respected woman remains in place for another term. public is best served by a commission that is fully functional. there should be no question in anybody's mind that it will be fully functional. we can't wait any longer for this nomination. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1925, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 312, s. 1925, a bill to reauthorize the violence against women act of 1994. the presiding officer: under the

previous order, the first hour will be equally divided and old twoan the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, on the -- just to follow up briefly on the subject of leadership in washington. perhaps the speaker of the house could show some leadership on jobs by calling up the bipartisan 75-22 jobs highway bill that passed this senate, that is widely supported and whose delay is actually costing us jobs because of the summer construction season wasting away as these extension goes on. -- as these extensions go on. so there would be some leadership that would really mean something for jobs here in america. but i'm rising today to address

the need that we have here in the senate for comprehensive cyber security legislation, and i'd like to speak for up to 15 minutes, if i could have unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: our nation's inadequate cyber security poses an ever-growing threat to our safety, a threat to our prosperity, and a threat to our privacy. attackers go after our intellectual property, our national security, and our critical infrastructure. the mcafee knight dragon report, for example, concluded that foreign intruders had had access to major oil, energy and petrochemical companies' computer networks for at least two years and likely as many as four years. government reports are equally sobering, though usually classified. one that's not classified is the department of homeland security report recently that attacks on

computer systems which control critical infrastructure, factories, and databases increased almost eightfold in just the last 12 months. secretary of defense leon panetta has warned that the next pearl harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack. majority leader reid has recognized the severity of this national and economic security threat and intends to bring cyber security legislation to the senate floor soon. we recognize, too, the hard work of chairman lieberman and ranking member collins of the homeland security committee as well as chairman feinstein of the intelligence committee and chairman rockefeller of the commerce committee. the cybersecurity act of 2012 which they introduced and i'm proud to cosponsor is a good start towards addressing the many cybersecurity threats that face this nation. the secure i.t. act introduced by senator mccain and seven colleagues seeks to improve the sharing of cybersecurity threat

information, the federal information security management act or fisma which covers cybersecurity at federal agencies and our cyber research and development. there is considerable overlap between these bills which signals that the senate could legislate on cybersecurity in awrn band serious matter. support for legislation is also bicameral. the cybersecurity task force constituted by house republicans produced recommendations that share key points with our cybersecurity act of 2012. numerous bills are working their way through the house on a bipartisan basis. central to that work in the house are the contributions of rhode island congressman jim language syringe -- langevin. his leadership is a major reason the house has come to recognize the dangerous vulnerabilities within our infrastructure and that we now stand on the verge of a breakthrough in improving the security of those networks.

when a he test at the idaho national lab showed hackers could blow up a power generator from thousands of miles away congressman langevin brought the owners and operators of our electric grid before congress and investigated their promise that the issue the issue was being addressed. when he found out that wasn't true, he called them out. his subsequent works as a cochair of the center for strategic commission on cybersecurity along with other experts, resulted in many of the recommendations reflected in our legislation. then in 2010 congressman langevin passed a landmark cybersecurity bill in the house that provided a temp plat. i thank jim langevin, my colleague from rhode island, for his relentless commitment to keeping america safe in cyberspace. i'm here this morning to express four points that i believe we

must keep in mind as we take up cybersecurity legislation. the first is that cybersecurity legislation should improve the public's limited awareness of current cybersecurity threats and the harm that those threats present to our national security, economy, and privacy. the public for years has been kept in the dark and that is wrong. the corporate sector systemically underreports cyber attacks for fear of scaring customers, for fear of encouraging competitors or for 2350er of triggering regulatory review. i was pleased that the securities and exchange commission after prompting by senator rockefeller and myself and others issued guidance for when registered companies must disclose breach information. the government itself systemically underreports cyber attacks because it overclasses information about cyber attacks on government systems.

jim lewis of the center for strategic and international studies, for example, recently explained that cybersecurity has a unique problem in that some of the most reliable data is classified. it was a rare exception when a november, 2011 report by the office of the national counterintelligence executive identified china and russia as responsible for the systemic theft of american intellectual property through cyber etch onautomobile. the legislation that -- espionage. the legislation we pass must reveal the threat of the cyber threat to the american public. the act includes provisions from the cybersecurity public awareness act, senate s. 813 which i introduced with senator kyl. these provisions will at least begin to improve the public's awareness of the current cyber threat environment we face.

second, we must recognize that inadequate awareness and inadequate protection against cyber risks is endemic among our largest corporations. part of the problem is a gulf in cybersecurity awareness between corporate chief information officers and corporate c.e.o.'s. con eggy melon's lab recently reported this: boards and senior management quill still are not exercising appropriate governance over the security of their digital assets. these findings are consistent with the complaints by ciso's and cso's that they cannot get the attention of their senior management and boards and their budgets are inadequate. there is still an apparent dizz connect -- disconnect, end quote. nor is this an area in which the market can be trusted to work. as former bush secretary of

homeland security michael cher tof has explained, and i quote, "the marketplace is likely to fail. in allocating the correct amount of investment to manage risk across the breadth of the networks on which our society relies." this is just not an area where corporations manage adequately on their own. f.b.i. director robert mueller recently explained there are only two types of companies, those that have been hacked and those that will be. even more trench interly, the mack afee report -- mcafee report on the rap attacks similarly stated it's possible to divide the entire set of fortune 2,000 firms into two categories. those that know they've been compromised and those that don't yet know. kevin mandia has explained, this is another quote, in over 90% of the cases we have

responded to, government notification was required to alert the company that a security breach was underway. in our last 50 incidents, 48 of the victim companies learned they were breached from the federal bureau of investigation, the department of defense, or some other third party. the national cybersecurity investigative joint task force let by the f.b.i. told me the same thing. more than 90%. time, the corporate victim -- 90% of the time, the corporate victim had no idea. what we can conclude from this is improved sharing of cybersecurity threat information is necessary but is not sufficient to protect our nation's cybersecurity. even a perfect information sharing process will not prevent cyber attacks if the information being shared is incomplete. the blindness of most

corporations to this threat limits the effectiveness of corporate-to-corporate information sharing. the n.s.a.'s defense industrial base pilot, the so-called dib pilot, proved that the government can share classified information with trusted corporations but it reveals significant risks and limitations particularly if the government were to share its most sensitive intelligence information with a broad set of private companies. the third point i want to make this morning and perhaps the most important, is that this legislation on cybersecurity will have failed if it does not ensure that our american critical infrastructure has adequate cybersecurity. there must be a process for identifying critical infrastructure, establishing appropriate security standards, and ensuring that critical information companies meet the standard. if an attack comes, we must be

sure that america's most capable defenses and countermeasures are prepositioned to defend critical american infrastructure. we simply cannot wait until an attack is underway on basic needs and services we depend on like our electric grid, our communications networks, and the servers that process our financial transactions. so there really are two measures here. one is that we must have a way to define critical infrastructure. so we know what it is, and just as important from a civil liberties perspective, we know what it president is. -- it isn't. when we identify critical infrastructure on which our safety and national security depend we are defining what does not qualify and where privacy concerns can be much more important than national security concerns. nobody wants government in our chat rooms, emails or social media. everyone gets why government should protect the electric

grids that bring power to our homes. and the second is that once we identify our critical infrastructure, we need to find a way for our national security assets to protect that critical infrastructure. our government just has unique capabilities to protect those basics like our electric grid. as kevin mandia has explained, the majority of threat intelligence is currently in the hands of the government. some of this information can be disclosed but some cannot be in order to protect sensitive sources and methods. this requires us to find other ways for our most sophisticated government capabilities to protect our critical infrastructure. for example, we should think seriously about the concept of secure domains and how they can be deployed effectively while protecting civil liberties. i'm glad section 804 of the cybersecurity act of 2012 takes on that task by requiring an expert study of the advantages and disadvantages of

establishing secure domains for critical infrastructure. if the business community can identify a workable alternative approach such as a voluntary or opt-in regulatory system, i am willing to get to work, but we must not balk at taking on the hard question of how to secure our critical american infrastructure. the last point i want to make today is that congress in this bill should consider the appropriate structure and resources for the cybersecurity and cyber crime mission of the department of justice, the federal bureau of investigation and law enforcement components of the department of homeland security. we do not do enough to investigate, prosecute, and take other appropriate legal action against cyber crime, cyber espionage and other cyber threats. last year's takedown by the department of justice of the core flood bought net should be a regular kerns, not a special occurrence but it cannot be with

our current resources. the technical international and legal expects aspects of these investigations are too complex. i spent four years as a united states attorney, i spent four years as our state's attorney general, these are astonishingly complicated and difficult cases. they are massively resource intensive. so it is time for a fundamental rethinking of cyber law enforcement resources. both the level of resources and the manner in which they're structured. we should be discussing whether cyber crime should have a dedicated investigative authority or whether existing task force models should be used. these are important questions the legislation has not addressed. accordingly i plan to offer a floor amendment that will require an expert study of our current law enforcement resources to recommend a proper level funding and resources

going forward. i thank my colleagues for their hard work to date on cybersecurity issues. i urge all of us join together to pass cybersecurity legislation into law as soon as possible. two years ago, i said that because of cyber we in the united states are on the losing end of the largest transfer of wealth through theft and piracy in the history of the world. general keith alexander, who leads the national security agency and u.s. cyber command, has reached the same conclusion, saying recently cyber theft is -- quote -- "the greatest transfer of wealth in history." and mcafee likewise has recently evaluated the theft of national secrets, source code, designs and other documents and concluded -- quote -- "what we have witnessed over the past five to six years has been nothing short of an tiskally unprecedented transfer of health."

madam president, we are the losers in that transfer of wealth. we cannot afford to wait to address this enormous and evergrowing threat. i thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, shortly we will be turning to the legislation to reform the postal service, and i wanted to take just a few minutes to talk about a particularly important part of that discussion. madam president, in recent years there has been a revolution in how our citizens exercise their right to vote. instead of every american showing up in person, more and more americans are choosing to vote by mail, using absentee ballots, no-excuse absentee

voting, or in the case of my home state of oregon, the entire election is conducted by mail. this amendment that i will be offering and i'm discussing this morning that i join senator feinstein and other colleagues in, is designed to protect the millions of americans who choose to use the post office to exercise their right to vote. this amendment protects those millions of americans from any kind of postal delay that could disrupt their ability to ensure that their vote is counted. now, madam president, my home state of oregon has a system in which all ballots are cast by mail. in oregon, if the ballots are not delivered by mail to the

county election offices by the deadline on election night, they are not counted. so it's essential to the conduct of fair elections in my home state that delivery of ballots cast by mail not be delayed. to prevent the potential threat to our elections from delayed mail delivery, the wyden-feinstein amendment would place a moratorium on the closure of postal facilities until november 13, 2012, in states that vote by mail or allow any voter to vote no excuse absentee. it would also require the postal service to notify election officials of closings and consolidations and require that the postal service study the effect of closing or consolidating a mail processing facility on the ability of the affected community to vote by mail. now, my home state, madam president, consistently has high voter turnout.

vote by mail has been successful and it is popular. in our state, more than 85% of registered voters participated in the 2008 elections. but this kind of approach to voting, madam president, is popular not just in my home state of oregon. in the 2008 election, 89% of ballots in washington state were cast by mail, as well as 64% of those in colorado, over 50% in arizona, and it was nearly that high a percentage in california. in my home state, the postal service is a place where people send and receive packages, mail-order prescriptions, and it's a place that also community residents come together. and so it seems to me that if we're going to close and

consolidate, you know, postal facilities, not only will it harm the delivery of ballots and campaign-related mail to voters in return of the ballots to election officials, but it also will sap much of what is vital to rural america and that's the opportunity to come and gather in one place. madam president, jordan valley, located in beautiful eastern oregon on the nevada border, is 457 miles from portland. with the proposed consolidations , the nearest regional processing center would literally be almost 500 miles away. if the united states postal service goes ahead with their proposed closures and consolidations, then a ballot cast in jordan valley could travel approximately a thousand miles before it reaches the hands of elected officials. this is unacceptable for constituents who vote in the far corners, the rural corners of my

state. cuts to the postal service mean that ballots mailed in the final days before an election may not get to election officials in time to be counted. ballots sent the weekend before a tuesday vote may not get into the hands of election officials by the present-day deadline of election day. closing and consolidating postal facilities disproportionately harms the ability of rural residents to have their votes counted. now, these issues raise important questions. are closing postal facilities in states that primarily vote by mail a responsible approach? for me and many of my constituents and the millions of americans who've chosen to vote this fashion, the resounding answer is no, this is not a responsible approach. closing processing facilities and potentially impacting the delivery of ballots in a general election is a risk not worth it.

closing postal facilities will have unintended and unforeseen consequences on the impact of elections. so that's why this amendment would place a moratorium on the closure of postal facilities until november 13, 2012, in states that conduct all their elections by mail or permit no excuse absentee voting to ensure that elections are fair. no excuse voting, madam president, of course allows any voter to vote absentee without having to offer additional reasons for their making that choice. madam president, 27 states allow no excuse absentee voting. so not only will the constituents that i and senator merkley and senator feinstein and senator boxer represent in oregon and california be affected by this amendment, but states such as nevada, arizona, florida, georgia, iowa, kansas,

maine, nebraska, new jersey, new mexico, north carolina, ohio, oklahoma, utah, wisconsin, and wyoming are just part of the many communities in this country that this amendment would protect. in september of 2011, madam president, election officials in california were doing their jobs and preparing and mailing sample ballots for september election in an isolated community in northern california. unaware that the small post office that serves the area was closing on october 1, the sample ballots were not immediately returned so they had no reason to believe that the voters there had not received them. but as ballots slowly trickled in, election officials grew a bit suspicious and they learned that many voters had received -- had just received their sample ballot more than three weeks after it was mailed and many had not received their official

ballot yet. election officials received no more than two or three a day literally for the first week. voters explained to officials that there was so much confusion , madam president, over the closure of the post office that they were much more concerned about receiving their other first-class mails, bills and prescriptions than their ballots because they hadn't been looking for them. they were told that the contents of their post office box was being protected to the arcada post office. but when they went to arcada to retrieve it, there was no mail for them in arcada. for 18 days, madam president, they didn't receive any mail at all. now, only 15 days before the election, the staff attempted several times to contact the arcada post office but could only leave a message for the postmaster, who was not returning their calls. folks then contacted friends at a local central processing center in yet another town,

ureka, california, who were able to give a direct line to the arcada postmaster. at first the postmaster indicated nothing was wrong, but the residents in his terms were -- quote -- "confused about the closure of their post office." after checking the number of ballots that had been returned from the precincts, election officials decided to resend all of those ballots. the postmaster finally provided election officials with the change of address list for all residents and they were able to correct the database, cancel the ballots that had not been received and remailed ballots to all voters who had not yet returned their ballots. obviously, madam president, the bottom line is clear. the closures of small post offices requires more preparation and sharing of information with the residents of an impacted area as well as agencies and businesses who rely on the post office to communicate with their customers. had election officials not had a contact in that area, they may

not have become aware of the problem until it was too late to resend the ballots. so, madam president, under the amendment that i will be offering later with senator feinstein, the postal service would be required to notify election officials of closings and consolidations to prevent the kind of calamitous repeat that -- kind of calamitous repeat of what i've described happened in a recent local election in california. additionally, the amendment would require that the postal service study the effect of closing or consolidating a mail processing facility on the ability of the affected community to vote by mail and the ability of the postal service to deliver ballots on time, in accordance with applicable state law. madam president, discouraging voters or discouraging the millions of americans who now have chosen this new approach to

voting is not a wise or prudent step for the united states senate to take at this time. placing a moratorium until after the election will ensure that what is done here in the united states senate does not negatively impact voting in oregon, california, or the scores of other states that make extensive use of mailed ballots in their elections. i hope, madam president, it will be possible for us to win bipartisan support for the proposition that ensuring the highest level of voting participation in our country is fundamental to our democracy. i hope my colleagues will support the amendment that i intend to offer later with my colleague and friend from california, senator feinstein, to protect the millions of americans who choose to vote by mail. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: i'm here today to point out that ten years ago this very day, this senate decided not to drill for more oil in the united states where we know oil exists because the argument at that time was used that why drill because it's going to take many, many years to get it on-line. the senate bought the argument that we shouldn't drill because it's going to take too long. today, we think about more opportunities to drill in the united states for oil. i want to point out that the very same arguments that were used ten years ago are being used today, because if we drill today, we might not get some of that oil on-line for several years down the road. well, we want to be thinking about the future, as we should have thought about the future in 2002, ten years ago, when we decided not to drill. around the country, american

consumers are paying near-record prices for gasoline at the pump. the current average price for gasoline is near $3.0. since january 200-- gasoline is near $3.90. since january 2009, the regular price for a gallon of gasoline has nearly doubled. in 2011, consumers spent a greater percentage of their household income on gasoline than any year since 1981, when we thought 90 cents for a gallon of gas was a lot of money. affordable energy is a major economic issue. paying nearly $4 for gas acts like a hidden tax and results in people having less money to spend on other things. rising energy prices also increase the cost of doing business for job creators and taking away dollars that otherwise could go to hiring without workers. we should be doing everything possible to prevent these high

energy prices today or tomorrow. the senate had an opportunity, as i said, ten years ago today to take action to increase our domestic oil supply. unfortunately, the senate missed that opportunity, missed an opportunity for lower prices today and importing something less than the $830 million we spend every day, even today, to import oil. with immediate to keep that money to this country -- we need to keep that money to this country. ten years ago today, the senate rejected an amendment offered by then-senator murkowski, father to present senator murkowski, to open a tiny portion of the arctic national wildlife refuge to oil and gas development. a vote on the cloture motion was rejected by the democrat majority in the senate april 18, 2002. during that debate, opponents argued that opening anwr to

development would never supply more than 2% of our nation's oil demands. they opposed it based on the belief that opening anwr wouldn't address the real problems; namely, our dependence upon fossil fuels. they said we needed to work towards comprehensive approach. opening anwr was also portrayed as a distraction from the real solutions, like conservation, alternative and renewable energy, and less environmentally sensitive fossil energy development. some even argued that fully inflated or low-friction tires should be a larger part of our national energy policy. i recognized the needs for a comprehensive, balanced national energy policy. i truly believe in an all-of-the-above approach that includes conservation, alternative, and renewable energy, nuclear power and oil and gas development. but the fact remains, we're

talking about these policies as solutions to our energy problems in 2002 -- problems in 2002, yet gas prices are still near $4 a gallon. i listened to dozens of speakers in the united states senate that day who argued against opening anwr because it wouldn't address our near-term energy needs. they said it would take nearly ten years to get that oil to the consumers. ten years a ago we were told to forget about opening anwr because development was too far down the road to impact our energy supply and energy security. here's a few quotes from my democratic colleagues during the debate, april, 2002. i'm not going to use their names but this democratic senator said -- quote -- "i oppose the proposal to drill in the arctic national wildlife refuge. drilling in are a war will

not -- anwr will not increase energy independence even if we started tomorrow. the first barrel of crude oil would not make it to our market for at least ten years so it would not affect our current energy needs" end of quote. another democratic senator said and these senators are still here today, the oil exploration in anwr will not actually start producing oil for as many as ten years. exploring and drilling for oil is not forward thinking" -- end of quote. another democratic senator said this: "that oil would not be available for ten years. this means drilling drilling in anwr would not provide any immediate energy relief for american families" -- end of quote. another democratic senator said -- quote -- "developing anwr is simply not a necessary component of a progressive energy policy for this country for a period starting at about 2012 --

that's this year, understand, he was looking ahead ten years, for a period starting 2012 we would see an increase in democratic production under anwr if anwr was opened to development. so development would not address the near-term prices or shortages with which people are faced." well, ten years down the road here we are. if we had drilled back then, we would have this oil on line and wouldn't be spending $830 million every day to import oil. another senator said this: "when my colleagues come to the floor of the senate and suggest to us that the crisis in the middle east is a reason to drill in anwr, that is a misleading argument because no oil will flow from anwr until from ten -- seven to ten years from now. that means if you open the refuge today, you are not going to see oil until about 2012, maybe a couple years earlier" --

end of quote. so you see a decision made in 2012, people were looking ahead ten years and saying it's not going to make much difference but 2012 is here and we could have been using that oil. another senator said this -- quote -- "oil extracted from the wildlife refuge would not reach the refiners for seven to ten years" -- end of quote. well, that's the end of my quotes of several democratic senators who are now serving. so if they're using that same argument now are they going to be smart enough to look ahead to 2022 when maybe we can use that oil that we would start drilling today? the defeat of the murkowski amendment back in 2002 was then enormously shortsighted. if we had voted to open anwr ten years ago, that oil would be driving down prices at the pump for the consumers today. you know the rule of economics. you increase supply, you reduce price. and if we didn't increase supply because you might say it's a global economy, we would at least be keeping the money in

the united states instead of spending $830 million every day to import oil. time after time opponents of domestic oil production have argued that because it won't lower prices at the pump today, it's not worth doing. you know, from the debate of 2002 that's a bunch of hogwash. does anyone wonder if the american people today wish that the senate had opened anwr ten years ago? it is past time to take action to ramp up domestic production of traditional energy. energy we can harvest in this country instead of importing it and paying $830 million every day to import. greater domestic energy production would increase supply and help to lower prices. it would create american jobs. president obama continues to push policies that contribute to higher gas prices including restrictions -- restriction restrictioning -- restricting access to federal lands, regulatory threats to refiners and his decision to deny

keystone x.l. decision. he says he's for all of the above. when you look at that list, he's for none of the above. but limiting domestic energy production will have less supply and higher prices. the boilermakers has -- the obama administration has made things worse by restricting access to domestic resources. it contradicts his remarks he's for the all-of-the-above strategy. his policies have reduced in higher prices, lost opportunities for job creation and less energy security and shipping out of the country $830 million of our dollars that could be used in this country and kept in this country to import -- we're spending to import oil. president obama's denial of canadian pipeline -- keystone pipeline, greater energy production would increase supply and lower prices and it would

create american jobs. it's time to take action. denying anwr development ten years ago was a mistake, a mistake i hope we learned a lesson from. the senate missed an opportunity ten years ago that would have brought gas prices relief and more supply keeping more money in this country creating jobs in this country right now. we shouldn't make the same mistake again. you can't repeat that statement too often. we shouldn't make the same mistake again. we should be looking ahead ten years, like they were doing in 2002 but using it as an excuse to do nothing. so don't ever tell me that -- don't drill today, that it won't come online ten years from now. that's not a very wise thing to say to me after you said it ten years ago and we should have learned a lesson. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. have it jerks thank you, madam president. i come to the floor to recognize a solemn occasion in two days on friday, april 20, it will be the two-year anniversary of the deep water horizon explosion. and i wanted to pause at this moment of anniversary, two years, and offer a few thoughts about what was clearly a very significant episode and challenge for our whole country, but particularly for my state of louisiana. and for the gulf coast. first of all, i want to start where i think we should always start in discussing and considering this event, and that is the loss of 11 lives. 11 men were killed in that explosion.

and, again, we need to pause, reflect, pray, and offer prayerful support to them and their families. those 11 victims were donald clark, steven curtis, aaron dale, adam weiss, roy kemp, jason anderson, borden jones, blair manuel, dewey revette, and shane roshtag. and i ask here on the senate floor, i ask unanimous consent that we pause just for a few seconds in silent prayerful thought and consideration of those 11 men and their families. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. the tragedy of course started with those 11 lives lost, and

we must never forget that, including as we redouble our efforts to ensure safety in those sorts of drilling environments in the future. madam president, of course, the second big impact was on the environment, particularly the gulf environment where i live in louisiana. 4.9 million barrels of oil were discharged during the spill. that was about 50,000 -- 50,000 barrels a day, every day for three months. 320 miles of louisiana coastline were oiled. that was a little over half of the total coastline on the gulf that was oiled, 600 miles. over 86,000 square miles of waters were closed to fishing, about 36% of federal waters in the gulf were closed. now, we did that on a very

aggressive, proactive basis to make sure we avoided any contaminated seafood ever reaching a store shex, ever reaching a restaurant and the good news is we accomplished that through that proactive closing not a single piece of contaminated seafood ever reached a store shelf or ever reached a restaurant customer. and that was quite an accomplishment. lots of dead animals were collected, 6,800 -- 6,100 birds and sea turtles and dolphins. and so it was a huge, the biggest ever in u.s. history, environmental disaster. two years later as we pause and look at the environmental effect of that, i think quite frankly there is good news and bad news, or at least good news and continuing challenges. the good news is i don't think anyone would have predicted that

the gulf would rebound back to where it is today. and mother nature has proved again to be amazingly resilient and that really is good news. at the time there were all sorts of pretty dire predictions of huge dead zones covering half the gulf, and that has certainly not materialized. so mother nature has proved amazingly resilient. but i don't want to trivialize continuing challenges, continuing work, and there is continuing environmental work. and i would underscore two projects that are ongoing that are very, very important. first is the nerda process under federal law, the natural resources damage assessment. that is the process under federal law by which all stakeholders help assess the damage to the environment so that the folks guilty of this

horrendous incident pay for those damages, pay the state, pay the federal government, pay others who will work to restore the environment. that nrda process is ongoing. it's a multi-year process. but there is some positive result from that process already. step one of the process was a settlement with b.p. for an upfront payment of about a billion dollars. and just today, two specific projects in louisiana were announced as a direct result of that first -- not last but first upfront payment of the billion dollars. there's a lake hermitage marsh creation project that will create approximately 104 acres of brackish marsh from the beneficial use of dredge material. that's knowledge announced today. and the louisiana oyster culture

project. that consists of the placement of oyster culture into about 8350 -- 850 acres of seed grounds throughout louisiana. those projects are the start of that nrda process coming to fruition. and then the second important work that's ongoing that involves all of us here in the senate directly is the need to pass the restore act through the highway reauthorization bill, the transportation reauthorization bill. the restore act language would dedicate 80% of the clean water act funds related to this disaster to gulf coast restoration. i thank all my colleagues again for an enormously positive, really overwhelmingly positive bipartisan vote to attach that restore act language to the senate highway bill. and i urge my house colleagues, including house conservatives, to pass a house version of the

highway bill today. that's important for our country, for highway infrastructure, and it's important because it's a vehicle for this restore act. now, a third and final category, madam president, that i wanted to touch on that isn't as positive, quite frankly, as the environmental rebound, is the impact of all of this and the related moratorium on drilling to our economy on the gulf coast and energy production. immediately after the disaster, very soon thereafter, president obama announced a complete moratorium on activity in the gulf, on new drilling. and that moratorium lasted several, several months. i think that was a bad mistake, an overreaction to the disaster. and i think that's been borne out in several ways, including

that the panel of experts that the president got together, their report, we now know, was actually doctored and edited at the white house to make it seem like those true experts supported a full moratorium when we know directly from them that they did not. well, this moratorium went in place anyway, and it created a lot of additional economic harm and hurt to a lot of gulf coast residents and workers that was unnecessary. now, of course, we needed to pause and get new procedures and some new safety regulations in place. of course we needed to learn the lessons of the disaster, incorporate those into practices. but we didn't need an all-out moratorium for months and we don't need a continuing slowdown that continues to this day. an analogy i've often used is when we have an airplane crash,

a horrible disaster, we do not ground every plane after such an incident for months. we allow the industry and that important travel and commercial activity to continue as we immediately learn the lessons of the disaster and incorporate it into safety proceedings. well, unfortunately, my point of view did not hold sway at the white house. we had this moratorium, the complete formal moratorium lasted until into october, 2010. but when that formal complete moratorium was lifted, it didn't just end there. for months and months after that we had a de facto moratorium. permits which weren't happening. only a trickle of permits. and now even though permitting has increased somewhat, we have a dramatic permit slowdown and a slowdown of activity in the

gulf. now, now more than ever our country and our citizens can't afford that. the price at the pump is about $4 a gallon. it's doubled, more than doubled, during president obama's tenure and we cannot afford this avoidable slowdown and decrease in important domestic energy activity. again, a lot of folks around the country don't realize it, but permitting in the gulf is still way below pre-b.p. levels. it's 40% below pre-b.p. levels. now, again, we need to learn -- and we have -- the lessons of the b.p. disaster and we need to incorporate those into our regulatory policy, and we have. but we can't afford a permit slowdown of more than 40% since before the b.p. disaster.

because of that, because of other factors, energy production is down on federal property, all oil production is down about 14% in the last year. federal offshore production is down about 17%. and so again, that's some of the most lasting negative impact, economic impact from the disaster, the obama administration's wrongheaded reaction to it and lingering negative policy on domestic energy production which we can't afford as the gulf region, which we can't afford as a country, which we can afford less than ever now with the price at the pump. so again, i hope we do learn the lessons of this disaster. i hope we continue to ensure that those safety and other lessons are built in to our regulatory framework and best practices in industry. i think that's largely been done

and that work continues. but i also hope we honor the lifework of those 11 men who lost their lives, who worked hard every day in that industry producing good american energy by not only allowing that work to happen safely, ensuring that happens safely, but allowing that work to happen, allowing american citizens to benefit from that work. the united states is the single most energy rich country in the world, bar none. bar none. far richer, for instance, than any middle eastern country like saudi arabia. the problem is we're the only country in the world that puts well over 90% of those domestic resources off-limits and says no, no, no, no, no. no, you can't do this. no, you can't touch that. we need to build a commonsense american energy policy that says

yes. yes, yes, we can. yes, we can do it safely. and, yes, we can provide american energy for american families and the american economy. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: madam president, i come to the floor today to highlight an issue i fight for everyday and that's jobs in nevada. in nevada, having a strong tourism industry means more jobs in the state. las vegas, henderson, lake tahoe and reno have long been favored destinations for millions of visitors, both domestically and more increasing internationally. the entire southern nevada economy is heavily dependent on hotel, gaming, and convention

industry examine employs over one-quarter of the region's labor force. plain and simple, tourism is the lifeblood for business and job creation in nevada. like many taxpayers, i was shocked and disappointed to read the g.s.a.'s inspector general's report that found inappropriate spending at the 2010 western regional conference that was held in nevada. this conference was excessive, wasteful and it completely ignored federal procurement laws and internal g.s.a. policy on conference spending. i believe it's appropriate for congress to exercise its oversight authority on g.s.a. to look into the agency's practices and provide corrective oversight to ensure the taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely by this administration. however, i want to be clear. this is not an issue about

location. this is the result of poor decision making and leadership by the g.s.a. las vegas is one of the greatest locations in the world for a conference, a meeting or vacation, with over 148,000 hotel rooms and 10.5 million square feet of meeting and exhibit space citywide, it is ideally suited to host companies and organizations, both large and small. in fact, this past january, las vegas hosted the consumer electronics show, which had more people attend than the iowa caucuses. i fully agree that it was inappropriate for the g.s.a. to waste taxpayer dollars, but it is not inappropriate to come to las vegas for conventions and meetings. the actions of g.s.a. should not reflect negatively on las vegas, and i'm asking all of my

colleagues to be mindful of that as they conduct their investigations. the viability of the economy in nevada is dependent upon the volume of visitors to our state. last year, nearly 39 million visitors came to las vegas alone and these visitors came because las vegas continues its rein as the number-one trade show -- reign as the number-one trade show and convention destination in north america. las vegas hosts thousands in meetings and conventions annually and generates billions in revenue. it is no secret that washington politicians and this administration have had a negative impact on the las vegas economy due to their comments issued publicly. for example, in 2009, attendance to conventions and meetings in las vegas fell by 13.6%. the following year, attendance fell by another 7.2%.

in total, from 2009-2010, las vegas lost 1.4 million convention attendees. while i recognize that it's unfire blame the total decline on the few ill-advised lines in a speech, there is no doubt that spoken words by politicians clearly have an impact on the las vegas economy. las vegas and the great state of nevada shunted be political -- should not be political targets because of g.s.a.'s misconduct. las vegas is an excellent destination for conferences and i am proud of my state's ability to entertain and accommodate businesses, organizations, and individuals from all over the world. again, while several congressional committees investigate this issue, i would respectfully advise my colleagues, this is not the location, it is not the location that -- that can be blamed for the misuse of taxpayer funds.

the convention services my state offers are the best in the world and no town in nevada should be singled out due to poor judgment by the g.s.a. it is my hope that all of my colleagues will focus on the misconduct of the g.s.a., push for a new initiative that spurs growth in the tourist industry instead of blaming nevada for the mistakes of incompetent government bureaucrats. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

nor senator madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during tared's session of the snavment they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. ifer officer without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. i also request that my intern, sarah smerkley, have floor privileges for the remainder of today's session. the presiding officer: wowings. without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. i rise to speak about an issue that goes to the very heart of our communities, our post offices. our postal service is facing a challenging fiscal situation, no

doubt. americans' habits with first-class merrell hav mail had there's greater contribution with u.p.s. and fedex. congress imposed ads 5.are 5 billion yearly financialing of health care costs for health care workers 75 years in the future -- that is, health care costs not just for folks who aren't yet employed with the post office but for future employees who have not yet been born. so, yes, t pos the post office m must restructure but we're going to start with congress reversing this $5.5 billion health care requirement for advanced yearly health care requirements. what absolutely does not make sense is to close our rural post offices. in a rural town the post office is the only place where nearby residents can send and receive

mail. but it is more than that. it is a shipping center for the small businesses of the communities; it is the pharmacy for seniors and others who need medicines through the mail; it is the community center where folks gather and exchange information; in short, it is at the very heart of our rural communities. let's start by examining the critical role of rural post offices on small businesses. virtually every small town is home to a host of small businesses that take orders through the mail and ship their products through the mail. what would happen to a small business's efficiency if it had to drive an additional 50 miles per day in order to pick up orders and mail products in well, quite obviously, it would destroy their efficiency, and they'd think about shutting down, or they ha they'd think at

shutting down. what would happen to a small business's profit margin if they had to spend more on gas, very expensive gas, as we all know? it would do a lot of did a j to their bottom line and again they would think about shutting down or moving. and what would the impact be to the small communities of the small businesses shutting down on the one hand moving? well, it would do enormous damage. when we are talking about shutting down rural post offices that are many miles from the next possible opportunity to receive orders and ship products, we are talking about destroying the economic heart of our small towns. it is unacceptable. and here's the irony. folks come to the floor of the senate and they track about economic development. they are talk about creating jobs. they talk about how small businesses are the job factory, and they're right on every single point. so if you didn't have a post office in a small community, the

very first thing you'd do for economic development is to create one so the small business could pick up that you are orders and ship their products. so how is it possible we're considering a bill that's going to shut down these rural post offices that are so essential to crossing rural america -- across rural america? another powerful role of rural post office is to deliver critical medicine to america's seniors. what happens if seniors cannot receive their medicines through the mail? well, one person glibly said -- one of my colleagues glibly said, well, of course they'd get it from fedex. well, i beg to differ because fedex uses the postal system to deliver med sixthdeliver med si. sometimes they're delivering medicine on imabl roads.

they start thinking about moving. then you think about the fact that these post offices are in place for citizens to gather, where they exchange information, where they find out what's going on, and indeed sometimes the last small store store has closed in these communities of 200 or 300 families. so then it is the post office -- you take away the small business, you take away the seniors, you take away the commun hub and you do enormous damage. why is that bill being considered with this clause in this here on the floor of the senate? we must change that. that is why a number of us are putting forward an amendment to say, no, this is absolutely wrong; wrong on economic development; wrong on service to our sentence; wrong on the one handing the heart of our rural communities. i am going to focus on some comments from two communities in oregon, two that were on the

list that the postmaster general said were slated for consideration for closing. this picture is a picture of the tiller post office. it is 16 miles from the next nearest post office. make you are five miles from tiller or 10 files from tiller and another 16 miles from the next post office. now you're talking 40 to 50 miles round trip every single day to pick up your orders, ship year products, get your medicines. doesn't make sense. here is a letter from a former postmaster in tiller. "till certificate one such community where in many ways time stands still and new technology is beyond the grasp. in tirl, cellular phone service is undeliver. d.s.l. and cable is unavailable. the majority of residents are

unable to afford it and there is no wi-fi access in the area. dialup internet is available when the poorly maintained telephone service is operational at top speeds of approximately 24 to 26 kill low bites, so cellulose that many web sites you including the u usps timeout before you can rack ssess information. the unemployment al-hassan raten to -- the unemployment rate has risen to 18%. the lowest gas price in tiller in the last few months has been $3.95 per gallon. for communities like this the local post office remains the only option." in tiller, the nearest post office, if tiller were to cloarks is 16 miles away. a round trip is a full-hour's

driver through mountain winding roads and that is assuming the bestest weather and road conditions. because of that difficult drive, closing the tiller post office would have a devastating impact on small businesses that rely on the postal service to ship goods. here is a letter from alexandra petrovsky who owns a small business with her husband in tiller. "we utilize the services of the u.s. post office extensively. i would estimate that between three to five packages go out from our home to destinations around the world on a daily basis. we sell our product on ebay and the business is flourishing. our business itimely mail sometn integral part of good customer service." she continues be, "as it is, the tiller post office is seven miles from our rural mountain ranch. a closure of the tiller post office would require a 45-mile

round trip journey that would impact our modest profit margin." alexandra concludes, "we have been engaged in this business 230r-plus years. we are seniors and we rely extensively on our cottage industry. would closing tiller's post office mean an end to the home business? the answer at this point in time is that it would seriously jeopardize our business." and that is the end of her quote. now let's turn to mallure townty and the town of juntura. this is the juntura post office, approximately 19 miles to the nearest additional post ossments i have a report from a citizen of juntura named laura williams. laura details the negative impacts that closing the post office would have. her report is 42 pages long.

an incredibly researched and detailed study of the impact that closing this modest modular post office would have on the rural community of juntura. let me read a little bit from her rompleher report. "juntura will either have to drive to the west to mail packages and mail orders or they'll have to drive east to harper, 34 miles away, a route that winds through a river canyon. in essence, juntura is between a rock and a hard place." she notes in her letter that 25% of juntura's post office users are seniors, who would be particularly impacted by these changes, as they rely heavily on the postal service receive medication and may have difficulty driving the long distances required in the particularly hazardous winter months.

there is just one word in bold on the front page of her report, and it sums up the closure of juntura post office thus. the word "disastrous" -- that's how she sums up her 42-page report. her impact on this town of juntura, this modest structure open a couple hours are a day, serving the citizens be, providing the money orders, providing the stamp, providing the ability to receive orders and to send packages, every heart and role it plays she has detailed. she is are just a few stories from rural post offices across america. but these comments are far from being isolated. i think you would find very similar comments from every single small town where these towns of modest size depend on the post office for critical services. i heard these comments all

across or omplet two weeks ago i visited fort clem eteth. i i had aide share cawsm the stories. we will start with jeanette and bob he have ngs. bob is a veteran, receives his med significance through the mail. they would need to take a 30-mile trip to pick up medications if fort clamath post office closes. they have a rental business that must follow state law that requires many documents be mailed first-class mail in order to verify the date. fort clamath is a seasonal community and the poafs office is where people gather and meet. without the post of course,

friends and neighbors would be traveling kneey, icy roads to get mail 15 miles away. another woman came to the post office, she is a proprietor of the aspen in. they use the post office daily as they send out information packages to everyone interested in staying with them during the season. they could get by with fewer days or partial days, but they feel very strongly they need access to a local post office, a 30-mile round trip to chilliquin would be a serious problem for their small business. that is why in partnership with a number of my colleagues, i'm offering an amendment to this bill that would create a two-year moratorium on the closure of rural post offices and ensure future closures meet certain conditions. under those conditions, no rural post office could be closed unless seniors and persons with disabilities will receive the same or substantially similar service including access to

prescription drug through the mail, businesses and communities will not suffer economic loss. the economic loss to the community resulting from the close. that goes to a key point, which is it's much more efficient in terms of the economy to have a common mail service in the heart of a small town than ask hundreds of families to drive 50 or more miles daily to obtain their mail. that makes no sense. an enormous waste of citizens' time, enormous cost in gasoline. in both cases devastating and economically idiotic. let any member come to the floor and defend shutting down a rural post office requiring hundreds of families to drive 50 miles every day to get their mail when for a couple of hours a day you could have a post office open, and they can access it and support their small small busin, support their access to medicines.

let's be clear, this is not a democratic or republican issue. this is about critical infrastructure for our small towns. i think senator lee, who has worked on this issue and brainstorming with me, senator mccaskill, senator tester, senator baucus, all who are working on this issue, madam president, i agree that we do need to reform the postal system for the 21st century. conditions have changed, which need to start by reversing the $5.5 billion advance payments for folks yet unborn for health care payments. but we must not carve the heart out of our rural communities. so for the citizens of tiller, for the citizens of juntura, for the statistics of fort klamath and for the citizens of small towns across our nation who depend on these rural post offices, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment that i and

others are introducing. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. madam president, i want to thank the senator from oregon for his excellent statement really. senator collins and i want to work with him and the other cosponsors of the amendment. i want to say a couple of things. the first is that the particular examples that senator merkley gave of the importance of post offices in small towns and in rural america really makes a larger point to those who have said -- those within the senate and those outside that in the age of the internet, the post office is a relic we can't afford. we've just got to cut, cut, cut,

cut, cut. there's no question that because the post office is running big deficits, up to about $13 billion over the last two years, there's got to be economizing, and we've got to look at a different business model. but to draw an easy conclusion that in the age of the internet the post office and the postal service doesn't have a role to play and isn't playing a role anymore is just wrong. and i think your examples in very personal ways show that. i'm going to -- i said yesterday about three times, and i'm going to say it again today, not withstanding the drop in volume, of mail volume because of the internet, today, every day the u.s. postal service delivers 563 million pieces of mail. and a lot of the things that the postal service is delivering are critically important to people.

an awful a lot of the prescription drugs people are getting today, an increasing number come through the mail. that is an example you cited. the same is true for small businesses, with a particular urgency or dependency on small towns and rural america. you make a good point. that doesn't mean that everything that exists has to exist forever. it means that we can't reach an easy conclusion that because the internet exists, we don't need the post office or the postal service anymore. the fact is that a lot of people depend on the postal service every day. we want to respect that reality, which is important to the quality of life that people live and to the health of our economy overall. so i look forward to working

with you on it. the existing bill tried to recognize this problem, and contains with it, 1789, a number of steps aimed at ensuring the post offices in rural areas and towns are protected, and appropriate weight and consideration is given to the importance of such post offices in their communities. this was done in large part in our committee, thanks to a bipartisan amendment offered by senators tester and moran. and that was strengthened, we think, in the substitute amendment that is now -- that we're now considering. it includes retail service standards, individual -- standards for possible post office closing, and what the standards would be on appeal to the p.r.c. but i don't believe that this is a perfect document, and i

accept, therefore, your amendment a a thoughtful attempt to do even better with what we're trying to do, and i look forward to working with you, senator merkley, to see if we can reach common ground on this. i'll say something else to put this in a different hard-numbers context, the postmaster set as a goal at the outset to try to cut about $20 billion from the annual operating expenses of the post office -- that's a tough number; that is over the next three or four years -- we think this bill and the post office seems to agree doesn't quite do that but gets pretty close to it. certainly is somewhere within the $15 billion to $20 billion range. some of the elements that say a lot are the money we provide for incentivizing postal workers to retire early. that's an $8 billion annual seufg. there are significant -- $8

billion annual saving. there are significant savings in terms of the mail processing facilities, in the billions. the reality is, interestingly enough, as i think my friend from oregon knows, that the amount of money saved if the postmaster actually closed the 3,700 post offices that he put on the list of possible closings is relatively small. we're talking about $150 million to $200 million if he closed all of them. as compared to the billions in the other items we're doing and relating that number to what you described in the examples you've given, what we heard in our committee, i think this is an area in which i personally believe we've got to tread cautiously. so i thank you, senator merkley, for your thoughtful statement.

i look forward to working with you. i nor senator collins does too and the other members of the senate. mr. merkley: i thank my colleague from connecticut. i appreciate your addressing this issue. i look forward to working with you. i understand the efforts were made to identify issues that the post office must consider before closing a post office. but the key is not to simply have them consider an issue, but to have a standard by which it can be evaluated whether that standard has been met. that is the critical distinction which then allows the review commission that you all have appropriately included in the bill to have a standard. simply did the post office consider this? yes, they'll say yes they did consider it. did it have a substantial impact in damaging the economy? now there is a standard for the review commission. i look forward to working with you. thank you so much. and thank you to senator collins and to senator carper, who have been working to help address this issue as well. mr. lieberman: thank you. i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i rise to speak on the postal reform bill and to offer constructive suggestions. i know senator collins was scheduled to speak. i'm going to take this time. she's in a meeting. it's concurrent -- it's agreeable to her that we follow this sequencing. there is no doubt that the postal service is in need of reform, and i support the concept of reform. and i want to salute the architects of the bill, senators lieberman and collins, on the framework that they proposed. i think it was thoughtful and robust and even ambitious. i would like to compliment them on the process that's the hallmark of this committee. and if i could have the senator's attention for a moment, from connecticut,

senator lieberman, i just want to comment that we know you're about to retire, and we're going to miss you. because here we are having this civilized, rational, thoughtful, data-driven type of conversation, and i think it's the hallmark of the way he and senator collins have functioned to bring this bill to our attention. the senate ought to do more of it. senator, i thank you for your leadership, though i disagree with some of the parts in this bill. but that's the way the senate should be. so let me talk about the postal reform. first about the post office, about the post office. the post office is not a business. it is a public utility, and we need to think of it as a public utility. that which provides universal service to keep the juice and electricity of our economy going. and if we think of it as a public utility, mandated by a

national interest to provide universal service, then that's the way we should think about it. will it require subsidy? yes. does it require an open checkbook? no. does it require reform? yes. but the post office has reformed itself, from the days of pony express to the days of today. they had to face the challenge when they invented western union. they faced a challenge when we had a telephone. why do we need the post office? time and time again the post office is needed to reform. it's time to reform again. but if we're going to reform, we need to make sure we provide safeguards to protect rural communities, to protect small businesses and to protect vulnerable populations that don't have access to the internet. we have a digital divide in the united states of america. we don't have a universal super

information highway in the united states of america. we do have a digital divide, and the divide is coming because of both geography, and it comes because of income. not everybody walks around with these cool 500 devices. so people rely on the post office for correspondence, for paychecks, for the delivery of products that have been ordered over the internet, those ebay entrepreneurs that we know about. small business relies on them for time-sensitive business documents and time-sensitive delivery of products. this is even more important for rural areas. rural areas have a unique geography, and they can complicate mail delivery or delay. i represent the mountain counties of western maryland. at times that weather is so rugged up there, you need a snowmobile to get through. then there is the eastern shore,

the beautiful, dynamic, charming eastern shore. but it's nine counties stretching over 150 to close to 200 miles, sometimes in places that don't even have cell phone coverage. reductions in delivery standards, closing a post office and, most of all, closing a processing center would have a draconian impact. so in my state, we are very concerned about this. now we're willing to do reform. we were willing though close a processing center in western maryland and work with pennsylvania and west virginia, bordering states, to do this. but now, madam president, they want to close the easton processing center. it is the only processing center on the eastern shore. it is the only mail processing center serving nine counties. in order to use the processing center in baltimore, it's miles away and across the bay bridge.

then there is this whole issue of merging it with delaware. delaware is nine counties away from somerset county, over 150, close to 200 miles. this operation of this eastern shore postal facility, processing facility, is absolutely crucial. everybody says oh, we just love the eastern shore. well, i love it, too, but i want it to have business. i want my senior citizens to be able to get their prescription drugs by mail, which -- and get it on a timely basis. it is a community of small business. that's what the eastern shore is. even our big business of poultry and seafood is made up of small entrepreneurs involved in this. they need a post office, and they need to have it accessed on the eastern shore. so last february, the post

office in its unique way announced the closing. senators cardin and myself asked for hearings. the post office responded in a very dismissive way. they just dismissed not only cardin and mikulski, but they dismissed a half a million residents who live on the eastern shore and who rely on this. when i asked them if they would even hold a hearing so that farmers and small business and seniors could voice their voices, they said they had heard all that they needed. they had no intention of holding a hearing. well, madam president, my constituents have a right to be heard. they have a right to standards of delivery service, and they have a right for me to fight for them, and i'm going to fight for them. but i'm also going to fight for postal reform. the way senator merkley wants to improve the bill, so do i. i have four amendments pending to get the post office to make sure that they not only -- what

they're doing right now, they look at what is the impact of what they're doing on the post office. senator barb looks at the impact that they're having on the customer and on the community. remember, think of it as a public utility, and we're turning the lights off on the eastern shore. so my first amendment says no processing center can be closed unless a governor from the state certifies that a closure won't harm the community or disrupt commerce. my second amendment says no processing center can be closed unless an independent third party like the commission talks about the impact on jobs, unemployment rate and small business, and to make the study public. my third maintains a standard of delivery for overnight. on that eastern shore, my veterans need their medical care, my seniors need to be able

to get their social security checks, and also business. you know, parts of this come through this processing center are even live birds. are they going to sit around and go back and forth to baltimore? man, does that ruffle my feathers, i can tell you that right now. and fourth, it's strictly zip code politics. i will offer an amendment to prevent the closing of the eastern post office. if my -- easton post office. if my other three amendments prevail, i think we have it. so it's not just my criteria. it's what merkley and all of us are talking about. the post office is a public utility. when you look at the impact of closing, not only on the impact of what the post office saves but what the community loses, and is it worth the cost. i don't want to turn the lights out on the eastern shore, but i do want to keep the lights of the post office going, so in the spirit of compromise and conversation and civility that marks the leadership of this committee, i want to work with the leadership to see if i can

be accommodated. i want to again congratulate collins and lieberman on their leadership and on just their parole civilized way, and also to senator sanders for doing this. so, madam president, i think i have made my point, and next time the post office should listen more to the people or they'll hear more from senator barb. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. before my friend and colleague from maryland leaves the floor, i want to thank her for her passionate advocacy on behalf of her constituents. i have a similar problem in my home state of maine where a processing center has been targeted for closure that would have an extraordinarily detrimental impact on mail delivery for two-thirds of the

state of maine. it makes no sense whatsoever, and it would do away with overnight delivery just as the senator has indicated. i would encourage her to continue to work with us and also to look at the specific provisions that we put into the substitute that reflects the input that we have had from her and many other concerned senators, and one of those standards deals with the overnight delivery and the need to maintain that service of standard -- that standard of service. this is an advantage that the postal service has and it helps it keep customers, so to do away with overnight delivery, in my view, would be foolhardy and it would actually cause more mailers to leave the postal service, which would produce

some further decline in volume and thus revenues would plummet still further. so i understand a lot of the concerns that the senator from maryland has raised. i do think we have taken care of some of her concerns in the new substitute that we have proposed on a bipartisan basis, but we look forward to continuing to work with her to address her concerns. ms. mikulski: if i may respond to the gentleman, first of all, i really do thank you for the substitute. i think it does make substantial improvement to the bill. it demonstrates a listening to colleagues and also to people who are affected. i am familiar when we worked on home health care and you and i teamed up because in parts of maine and parts of western maryland, we had nurses, visiting nurses on snowmobiles and they weren't going to be

reimbursed. so we have an understanding of these rural, rugged communities. i do want to work with you, and in the spirit and tone represented by you and senator lieberman, perhaps we could have some additional conversations. i thank -- i thank you and i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: madam president, if i may, just very briefly, thanks to senator mikulski for her kind words. i would also -- also for her directness about her concern about the processing facility that she talked about overall, and to thank her for her willingness to work with us to see if we can work something out acceptably here. as senator collins said, we have made some changes in this substitute that still will require overnight delivery less broadly than before because we're trying to deal with how to responsibly react to the precipitous drop in mail volume because of the internet, and yet

not reduce the quality of service so much that people leave the mail system even more. i used an analogy yesterday which is probably not exact, but way back when i was in the state senate in connecticut, we had a crisis in the financing of our public bus system, and one of the things that was done that seemed quite logical at the time, raise the price of the bus fare. well, what do you think happened in response to that? fewer people were riding the buses, and the fiscal problem got worse. but there is a reality here. the mail volume has dropped so much that we have got to close some of the mail processing facilities or -- and senator collins and i feel very strongly about this -- we have got to thin out the number of personnel working at the facilities. we put this in here as a condition which we thought originally was what the postmaster was going to be interested in.

don't just precipitously close a lot of mail processing facilities. first -- and we require this now -- you've got to consider a plan to reduce the capacity of a particular facility and particularly the number of people working there before you absolutely close it. so, bottom line, thanks to you, senator mikulski, and we look forward to working with you to reach a mutually agreeable result. thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i want to discuss in more detail a key provision of the postal reform bill that is before us, and that is the provision that would refund to the postal service an $11 billion overpayment that the postal service has made to the federal employees retirement system. this is a key provision of our bill because part of the money

from that refund would be used to finance the buyouts and retirement incentives that the postmaster general has estimated would allow him to decrease the size of the work force in a compassionate way by about 100,000 workers. the postal service has about 523,000 workers, just to give you the idea of how many we're talking about, so it's about 18%, and that would help the postal service rightsize. and it is patterned on the practices that many private corporations use when they find that they need to downsize. they provide a little incentive for people to retire early or to retire if they are eligible for retirement, it gives them a

little incentive to take advantage of that. i'm convinced that this will work because more than 33% of postal employees are eligible for retirement right now. we use the standards that are in current law. the retirement incentive cannot exceed $25,000. that is in current law for federal agencies to use, and we would extend that so it's capped to postal employees. we also would allow the -- the postal service to give a year of retirement credit for someone who is one year short of the necessary number of years under the old civil service retirement system, two years under the newer fers system. but yesterday, i heard one of our colleagues describe this refund of $11 billion as being

an overpayment that will come from taxpayer pockets. madam president, that is just not an accurate statement. now, i realize this bill is very complex, so i want to provide to my colleagues some additional information, so you don't have to just take my word for it. you can take the word of the inspector general of the united states postal service. the fers system does have tax dollars in it from federal agencies that are paying in for their employees, and of course the employees also contribute to the system, but when it comes to the postal service, the money is not coming from taxpayers.

the contributions are not coming from taxpayers. they are coming from postal employees themselves, and they are coming from the postal service which is using its revenue from postage and other services, and thus it's the ratepayers' money. so the inspector general makes this very clear in his letter. i'm going to ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you. first of all, the inspector general verifies the amount of the overpayment. his letter to senator lieberman, senator carper, senator scott brown and myself dated february 2, 2012, says the postal surplus for the federal employees retirement system, fers, has been projected to be $11.4 billion for fiscal year

2011. the office of personnel management made this projection as of september 30 of 2011. in addition, o.p.m. has projected the postal surplus of the civil service retirement system to be $1.7 billion for fiscal year 2011. we're not trying to deal with that. we're only dealing with the fers surplus. now, here's the key paragraph. the source of the fers funding comes from two streams of revenue. first, the u.s. postal service contributes 11.9% of employees' salaries to the fund. and second, the employees contribute 0.8%. the postal service contribution comes from revenue paid for postage, and this money comes

from the ratepayers. the employee contribution, as with all federal employees, is made in exchange for a defined benefit. this could not be clearer. this is not taxpayers' money.any that this is a taxpayer bailout or this is taxpayers' money, it is just not true. it is not an accurate understanding of how the system works. so i'm going to circulate this letter widely, and i hope that my colleagues will take the time to read it. i can understand the confusion, because if it were a federal agency, a regular federal agency, it would be taxpayer money. but it's the postal service, and it is not taxpayer money. and that is important. the other important point i want to make is that this is a real

overpayment. it has been verified by an independent board of actuaries. this isn't something that the postal service came up with or that our committee came up with. this has been verified by the o.p.m. board of actuaries, an independent body comprised of private-sector actuaries that advises the office of actuaries within o.p.m. and reviews annual reports. so i.t it's not even o.p.m.'s actuaries. it is an independent board of private-sector actuaries that is -- that has verified that this is in fact an overpayment and it is $11.4 billion. and i would ask unanimous consent that a letter from the

office of personnel management that explains the independent board also be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, the government accountability office has also looked at this issue and found that o.p.m.'s actuary did assess that there was an overpayment, what g.a.o. calls a "surplus." there's one paragraph in the g.a.o. letter that i particularly want to bring to my colleagues' attention because it is a call for action. the comptroller general says -- quote -- "we have also reported that congress and uch usps urgey need to reach agreement on a comprehensive reform package to address the postal service's financial problems. congress could consider a

one-time return of some or all of the fers surplus as part of a broader package tied to specific actions on the part of usps to help it address its financial problems. these actions could include prefunding its retiree health benefit obligations, reducing its $13 billion debt, or developing incentives to reduce its workforce." end quote. madam president, that is what our bill does. we are following the advice of the g.a.o. do this one-time refund of the overpayment and dedicate it specifically to the incentives to reduce its workforce and to reducing the

debt that the postal service owes to the treasury. we also deal with the prefunding of the retiree health benefit issue in our bill as well. but my point is that there is greemenagreement that this is nt taxpayer money. there is agreement that this is a true overpayment. and we have g.a.o. suggesting that we do exactly what this bill does, which is a one-time refund of the overpayment tied to reforms to address the usps's financial crisis, and specifically mandating that the money be used to develop incentives to reduce the size of the workforce and to pay down its debt. so, madam president, i wanted to

take this time today to explain this issue because i'm very concerned that there are members who are operating on the basis of a complete misconception that somehow this is a taxpayer bailout or taxpayer funds are being used for -- to repay this overpayment. that is not accurate, and this bill is very complicated, and i hope that we can stick to the facts as we debate it. people may have different views on the way forward, on the path forward, but i hope that we can keep this free from mischaracterizations about the bill. i understand how it can happen because it is a complex matter, and that's why we have spent on our committee so many months

carefully studying this issue and getting help and expertise from g.a.o., from o.p.m., from outside parties to make sure -- from the i.g. -- make sure we fully understand the provisions of this bill. thank you, madam president. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from concop. mr. lieberman: i -- the presiding officer: the snoer from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i note the presence of my friend from tennessee. first, i want to thank senator collins. i think she's made a quite complicated subject very understandable, and it is a misunderstanding, really a misstatement, to say that the mo enthat -- to shea that the money that the post -- to say that the money that the postal service will be refunded is taxpayer money. it is not. it is the return of money that was collected, as senator collins has said, by the post office from ratepayers and from their own employees, which was

mistakenly put into this retirement fund. it is no -- this is no more a bailout with taxpayer money than in the case, which happens, where an individual or a business overpays taxes to the federal government. and when that miscalculation or error is discovered, they naturally ask for a refund. and that's exactly what's happening here with the postal service and is critically important to this bill and to the future of the postal service because we're requiring in the bill and authorizing that the money refunded not be used for more spending but be used to, one, pay down the debt and, two, make investments by incentivizing retirement of employees that will have enormously important annual effects on the postal service's

budget, which is to say that the postmaster believes that with the money he'll receive back -- and really not the majority of it -- he can incentivize retirement from approximately 100,000 current employees of the postal service, which is the goal p we se we set for him in s bill. that is result in savings of over $8 billion a year for the postal service. so this is not only a refund of the postal service's own money, not taxpayer money, but it's going to be used to save $8 billion a year, which is the largest saving component of the proposal that we've made. and i thank my friend from maine, and i yield the floor to my friend from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a unanimous consent

request? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i would ask unanimous consent to follow the senator from tennessee in speaking on the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. first i'd like to thank the senator from maine, the senator from connecticut, for letting me take a few minutes here and to congratulate them on their hard work on this bill. this is a bipartisan bill. it has some bipartisan amendments and bipartisan suggestions about a big problem. it is the kind of thing we ought to be working on, and i will hoping that while we ran into a little objec obstacle yesterdayr ability to move forward with relevant amendments to the postal bill, i hope we can continue to move foomplet forwa. i thank my friend from maine for her explanation of the bill. madam president, the author of

roots lived his life by six words, which were "find the good and praise it." occasionally i come to the floor and speak about some examples of things in my state that fit these six words. i talked about a veteran who turned down a purple heart in germany because he said there were so many people hurt worse than he was. and his son thought, since he is now 91, maybe it is not tim nowe go to the purple heart. lo and behold, it turns out he wois one of the last three survivor rangers that climbed the cliffs, the boyce of point de hoc.

the army presented him not only with his purple heart but with the bronze star ran and a "v" fr valor and they gave him a special ranger cap to go along with t i am here today to talk about another story, two extraordinary tennesseans united by both their friendship and courage. lance copperral watkins and his devoted friend and mentor tennessee highway patrol sergeant lowell ramsey who is recovering from critical injuries which he sustained on duty. lance corporal watkins enlisted in 02010, last september he would killed by sesqui our country in afghanistan. sweeping for improved explosive devices -- embryos vic improvise devices. frankie didn't should i away from difficult or dangerous work

when he was back home in tennessee. he was a law enforcement officer in the police department of madison in east tennessee, just a few miles down the road from my hometown. the chief deputy of the monroe county sheriff's department described franky as a very upbeat and focused on what he wanted to do. what he wanted to do was to be a peacekeeper and a law enforcer. family members say his dream was to join the secret service and protect the president. mr. president, i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a a letter writtn by an attorney. -- transported by six person military detail which traveled to the airport to made sonville. billy was one of several hundred

motorcyclists who rode behind the police cars. "all along the route were thousands, thousands of well-issuers, many holding up american flasmghts lots of them were veterans, proudly holding crisp salutes as the procession passed. a significant number of those folks were crying fn. as we got closer to madiso madisonville, many were grief-strickening. i believe they were school friends of watkins'. i saw thousands trying to honor and respect a young man who had given his all for his country. watt song was a wonderful young man by all who knew him best. i am an army veteran but didn't experience the horrors of imavment i do know that we now have an all-volunteer force protecting our liberty and our freedoms every day. i'm so glad that we don't seem to take them for granted. i have never been proudered to be an american and ran east tennessean than i was that day."

another officer lowell us ar rul helped raise franky. lowell talked to a member of my staff in knoxville. he told her about franky. he said that frankie's love of serving in the plaid irsonville police department was great. told her about frankie's dedication to honoring his straight and his country. then in march sergeant rustle was critically injured in the collision on interstate 40 when a tractor-trailer hit lowell's squad car as he sat on the shoulder finishing paperwork after a traffic stop. earlier this month lowell was discharged from the university of tennessee medical center to recover his recovery in a rehabilitation facility. lowell is beloved. a facebook page i