they call him a wonderful man, talk about his huge hawsht, say he has done so much for everyone else. numerous efforts are being a midto raise money to help russell and his family with expenses. tennessee's general assembly passed a resolution to honor lowell noting his contributions to his community as a tennessee highway patrol man who distributes superior standard of professional conduct. in saying that sergeant russell is committed to the precepts of public service that have earned tennessee as the recognition ages the volunteer state. he is an he is schemed member of local law enforcement. i add my great appreciation for thrall that expressed by the governor and by our general aseem employ. my wife and i pray for his strength and recovery and for strength for his family and friends during this difficult time. so frankie watson, lowell russell, we're proud of you.

find the good and praise it. thank you, madam chairwoman. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: before i go to morning business, madam president, i want to address the pending legislation on the floor. the postal reform act is before us and it's my understanding that we have an opportunity here here -- may i proceed on the bill? the presiding officer: the senate is currently considering the motion to proceed on the violence against women's act. mr. durbin: sorry. i ask that i renew my request for consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. coming before us soon on the floor will be the postal reform act. this is a matter which is timely because we understand that our postal service is in a situation where it currently is losing

millions of dollars every single day, because many things have changed in america -- the use of the internet, e-mail, billpayer, fewer people are using the postal service. less revenue is coming in to the postal service, and so they are trying to reconcile today's demands with the actual costs that they face. several years ago we said to the postal service, we think the day will come soon when you have more retirees than actual workers, so start banking money for retirement and health care for those who will need it in years to come. we set a number, about $5 billion a year, and they kept up with it for several years but then found they couldn't meet that requirement. so the postmaster general came through with a sweeping plans in terms of cutting costs at the postal service. i understand the imperative to do that. i question the premise of his statement, because one of the first things he said was we're going to change the postal service and the first thing we'll do is slow down delivery. if there's ever a marketing technique designed to fail, it's

an announcement that you're going to slow down the delivery of your product. and that's what he said. i'm sorry he did. now we're in a predicament or situation where we are trying to find alternatives to the postmaster general's proposals. we have been given until may 15. at a meeting in my office which the presiding officer, the senator from vermont and others attended, the postmaster general said yes i'll give congress its chance to pass a bill to save money that might be different than my own suggestions. well now is our chance. and, unfortunately, we are tied up on the floor of the senate. now that's not a headline, because it happens to be the normal state of affairs in this body. but imagine, if you will, that senator reid, the majority leader, comes to the floor, says we have this important postal service reform bill before us, and i think we should move forward on it, and we should consider amendments that are relevant to that subject. in other words, if you have an amendment that is about the postal service and how you can

make it better, save money, make it operate in the black, come forward with that amendment. there was an objection from the junior senator from kentucky. he said, no, he thought the postal service reform bill should be used to debate foreign aid to egypt. foreign aid to egypt. not that that's not an important issue. it is. but here is an issue that's timely and important and affects every single american, where the senate had a responsibility to step up and do its job with a deadline looming of may 15, and one senator has said, no, not unless i can bring to the floor whatever i want to bring. it's his right to make that request, and he's bottled things up pretty handily at this point. i hope that he'll reconsider. i wish we could take this bill up right now, actually have a debate on the floor of the senate about an amendment. how about that? have people disagree and actually have a vote. it would be like the old days, the good old days in the senate. but, no, we're lurching from quorum call to quorum call and cloture vote to cloture vote,

and those newcomers to the senate may wonder if there was ever a day when we debated issues. we need to get the postal service reform right. it is one of the most important institutions in america. it is protected and embodied in the constitution. there were hundreds and thousands of men and women who are serving us in the postal service, a fourth of them are veterans who have served our country and have gone to work for the government. when you ask people across america which function of government do you respect the most, the postal service comes out on top, because we know our local letter carrier. in my neighborhood it's david hasy. he's been my buddy for 20 years. i've known him for that long or longer. he is a friend of the family, not just the person who brings the mail. others before him, the same way. it's a personal relationship with government that very few people have. but the letter carriers, the postal clerks, the folks who do the processing and distributing are doing an important job. the postal service has an

amazing history. just as a reminder, on may 7, 1833, there was a 24-year-old young man who was named the postmaster of a small town in central illinois. it wasn't his last government job. the town was new salem, illinois. the young man was abe hanlon -- abraham lincoln. he got his start in the postal service. what we need to do is work together on a bipartisan basis. i'm glad senator collins is on the floor and senator lieberman. they have worked so closely together on so many measures to move us forward. let us build a postal service that will serve us in the 21st century. let us try to make certain that we find new ways to cut costs that are reasonable, to enhance revenue and make sense and make certain in the process we don't damage the brand. the u.s. postal service is the best in the world, the most affordable in the world. and we can make sure that it continues to serve our nation and our economy. it is critically important to

those of us who represent states with small towns. i know that every small rural post office cannot survive, and many of them have failed in the past. but we have to understand what a critical element that rural post office is to the culture of these communities, to the identity of these communities. in some cases, to their very existence. so let us find flexible ways to reduce costs and still recognize that reality. mr. president, i'd now like to ask that the second statement i'm about to make be placed in a separate part of the record. i ask consent for that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, 11 years ago i introduced the dream act. at the time senator hatch of utah was my cosponsor. it was a bipartisan measure, called to the floor of the senate. at one time we had 12 republican votes. the last time it was called, we had three. unfortunately, over the years it has not passed the senate. it's received a majority, i think, every time i've called it. but not the 60 votes which are now the norm in the senate.

as a result, for 11 years i've been striving to change the law when it comes to immigration for a specific small group of people. we are talking about people who came to the united states as children. they have been in the united states, residents for a long period of time. they have good moral character. they graduated from high school. and they're prepared to either serve in our military or to complete at least two years of college. it's a special group of people who, unfortunately, fall through the cracks in our current immigration laws. i've met hundreds, maybe thousands of them now in the ten years that i've been working on this. i know that they dream of the day when they will have a country. currently they don't. they're undocumented. the only country they've ever known is the united states. they just can't go forward. when it comes to college or universities, they get no help from the government except if the state that they live in has a special arrangement. certainly no help from the federal government. when they finish school, many of

them can't be the teachers, nurses, engineers, doctors they want to be because it requires citizenship that they don't have. what we're trying to do is to give them that chance. and i've come to the floor time and time again to introduce some of these young people to america so they can put a face with the name dream act. the person i want to speak about today is named yaniv stumpster. yaniv was brought to the united states by his parents from israel when he was just three years old. this is a photograph of yanev. today he is 25. he grew up in america. like every other american child, he believes this is home. in 2010, he graduated from richard stockton college in new jersey with a bachelor of science degree in hospitality and tourism management. in college he was chair of the jewish student union club and was an active volunteer with several student groups. his dream is to open a

restaurant. he wrote me a letter and here's what he said. i fell in love with cooking in high school when i took a home ec course. i knew this was what i wanted to do for the rest of my life. i would love to open my own restaurant, creating jobs, contributing to the economy and becoming a citizen in the country i love. let me tell you what yanev's challenge is. he can't become a citizen. his father was born in the united states but yanev was born in israel so he is not an american citizen. yanev's father applied for yanev to become a citizen but because the process took so long he became ineligible. under our immigration laws once yanev turned 21 his father could not petition for him to become a citizen any longer. yanev has lived in this country since he was three years old, his father is an american citizen and he's undocumented. the only solution for him is the dream act. here's what yanev told me about his situation: america is the only country i know. i grew up here.

all my family and friends are here. everything i know is in america. the dream act is important to me and to many others like me who are in the same situation. we have the resources to help this country but don't have that piece of paper to let us do it. i have high hopes and optimism that congress will do the right and humane thing, and put the political issues aside and pass the dream act. yanev is right. i ask my colleagues: would america be a better place if we deported yanev steltzer? of course not. this young man grew up in our country. he's overcome the odds to achieve great success. he doesn't have the criminal background or any problems that we should be concerned about. he's no threat to us. he would make america a better country, a stronger country just if we give him a chance. he's not isolated. there are thousands of others like him around this country. mr. president, over the break i went to los angeles and got a cab ride to the airport.

the cab driver, i looked at his name. his last name was ark, a-r-k. i said to him where are you from? he said take a guess. so i said france? and he said, no. i'm from belarus. and my father was in the soviet army. 15 years ago i came to the united states with my wife. she's a registered nurse and she speaks english. i didn't speak a word of english when i got here. but i was able to come as a refugee from belarus, which of course is where the last dictator in europe presides, lukashenko, and he said i came here and he said i started learning english. just spoke russian. said how in the world did you get a license to drive a cab? he said i had to work at it. he said not only to learn enough english to be able to have a successful business as a cab driver in los angeles but to learn these streets and free ways, everything that came with it. he said i did it. and he says now, the son we brought as a citizen, he said my two kids are now americans.

he says now i own three cabs, 15 years later. what a story. it's not unique. it's the story of america. people who said i am sick and tired of where i am and i have no chance there, but i know there's a place that will give me a chance. that was the story of my family, my mother was an immigrant to this country. it's the story of america. why do we in this day and age, in the 21st century, have such a negative feeling about what immigration has brought, the diversity and strength it has brought to this country? and why can't we see the most fundamental question of justice when it comes to these children, these kids brought here as infants to the united states who only want a chance to do what this refugee from belarus was able to do? make america a better place, build a life for himself, create a family that will be part of the american family. i'm going to continue this battle because i know all over this country there are people like yanev steltzer and many others who are waiting to see if

the senate can rise to this occasion and put politics aside and do what's important for this country: show fairness, show justice, give these young people a chance. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i want to thank senator durbin for really a moving statement and for his persistence in introducing the dream act, which it's been my honor to cosponsor with him, among many others, and to support it. it really is basic fairness. it also, i think it just describes the reality. you reminded me in what you said. i always said my grandmother, we lived in our house, most of my childhood, my mom, dad and sisters and i. i said she was one of the most patriotic americans i ever met because she had something to compare america to. she was an immigrant from central europe. the freedom that she got here --

particularly important to her was freedom of religion, the respect she got from her neighbors for her religious observance, and, of course, the dream that her children and grandchildren would do better in this country, which was realized. i was moved by your report of the conversation with the cab driver. maybe all of us do that. when you get the immigrant cab drivers and they're a little bit older and they start to -- i always ask them what are your kids doing? and it's quite amazing. they have the kind of excitement and sense of gratitude about the opportunity that america provides that sometimes people who have been here a while unfortunately may lose. and their kids are all working hard, achieving, and really contributing to this country. we're at a time in our history where i think a lot of people are down about our future and down about america, which was never the case when you and i

were growing up. i started growing up a little before you, senator durbin, but when you think about these stories, it really makes you feel good about how unique this country is. i know because of illegal immigration, people may take what i'm about to say the wrong way, but i always say one of the great market measurements of the greatness of america today is that there is not another country in the world that more people are trying to get into -- legally, i'm talking about -- and fewer people are trying to get out of than the united states of america. and i think the dream act recognizes that reality and is totally consistent with the values of our country. so i thank you for your persistence. one day i hope not too far from now we're going to get that adopted into law. thank you. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. ms. gillibrand: i rise today to join a strong and growing group of my colleagues in support of the violence against women act, a commonsense bill that since it was first signed into law has always been an issue that we can build a consensus around, both democrats and republicans alike. and the reason for this is quite simple. there is no room for tolerance of violence against women in the home anywhere in our society. when we're talking about the safety of our families, there is simply no space for partisanship. that's why i'm calling on my colleagues to not seek to block or delay this important piece of legislation any further. to do so is a disservice to the families so deeply affected by domestic violence every single day. anyone who is guilty of domestic abuse should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the

law. any victim of abuse should be empowered to speak out and to have access to help and support. keeping women and families safe is a basic commonsense principle and one that we have easily found agreement on since the bill was first passed, and we should be able to agree on it again today. every day, an average of three women are murdered by a husband, a boyfriend, a partner. every single day, 600 women are raped or sexually assaulted. millions of women and families rely on the help and support of the violence against women act provides to keep them safe. it's outrageous to turn the violence again women act into a political circus. when we allow ourselves to get bogged down on politics as usual, we're telling women and families across the country that their safety can wait for the next election.

let's do better. let's be better. let's agree that women deserve access to basic justice and basic safety, and let's show the american people that we, as a body, can do the right thing. i yield the floor. i suggest an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, let me begin by once again thanking senator lieberman and senator carper and senators collins and brown for their long and hard work on this issue which is of enormous consequence to the american people. you know, sometimes what people inside the beltway perceive as opposed to what people outside the beltway perceive are two different worlds, and i can tell you that back in vermont and i suspect in rural areas in states all over this country, people want to save the post office. they know how important it is

for small businesses, for our economy and for their own needs. so the issue that we are dealing with is a very significant issue, and i hope that as a senate, we can show america that we can come together regardless of political ideology. this really is not a progressive issue, conservative issue, republican, democrat, independent. this really is an issue that impacts tens of millions of americans, and i hope we can move together, as we should. i want to say a few words on the postal service and finances today. everybody knows that the postal service is, in fact, facing significant financial difficulties. revenue at the postal service has gone down from about $75 billion in 2008 to $66 billion last year. in the midst of the digital revolution, first-class mail has

gone down significantly, no debate about that, and it has been replaced and will continue to be replaced by emussage and the internet. there is no question but that this is a real issue that has got to be addressed. but, mr. president, let me be very clear that in terms of the revenue problems facing the postal service, the major reason, the major problems that we have are not just the decline in first-class mail. it is an issue, it happens not to be the major issue. the major issue, in fact, is that the postal service has seen a significant loss in mail volume and revenue due to the most severe recession that our country has faced since the 1930's. as the postal service indicated, on may 30, 2010, and i quote -- "the effects of the recession

account for two-thirds of the mail volume decline." so the first point we want to understand is yeah, decline of first-class mail is a real issue, but second of all, like businesses all over this country, revenue is being impacted by the recession, and how we can get our country out of the recession, create more jobs, put more money into the hands of working people is, of course, a major, major issue that we must address. and in that regard, i do want to say that in the middle of this terrible recession, when real unemployment, real unemployment is not 8.2% but in fact it is closer to 15%, counting those people who have given up looking for work, those people who are working part time, it would seem to be that this body wants to do everything that we can not to see 200,000 jobs slashed at the

united states postal service, many of them decent-paying jobs, many of them union jobs. now, we may not be able to save every one of those jobs. we want the postal service to be efficient, but on the other hand i would hope that we see as a significant priority that in the midst of a recession, you do not want to downsize a major american institution by 200,000 jobs, many of them, by the way, jobs belonging to veterans. a couple of months ago, a whole lot of debate here, how do we create jobs for veterans? well, i could tell you one thing you don't do is downsize the postal service by 200,000 workers, many of them being veterans. but, mr. president, talked about the decline in first-class mail. i talked about the recession being important, but i want to raise another issue that i think many people are not familiar with. that has nothing to do with first-class mail, nothing to do

with the recession or, in fact, email or the internet, and that is that to a very significant degree, the major reason that the postal service has been running a deficit since 2007 is due to accounting issues, accounting issues. for example, -- and everybody has got to understand this issue if we're going to have an open and honest debate about the future of the postal service. due to a law passed in 2006, the u.s. postal service uniquely, uniquely in america, uniquely within government, federal, state, local, uniquely in terms of the private sector, has been forced to prefund 75 years' worth of future retiree health benefits in just ten years. 75 years' worth of future retiree health benefits in just ten years.

there is no other agency of government that comes close to that onerous requirement, nor are there any companies in the private sector that have been asked to do that. this mandate costs the u.s. postal service between $5.4 billion and $5.8 billion per year. so what i beg of my colleagues is when you look at the financial problems facing the postal service, which are real, do not forget that because of this 2006 legislation, the postal service needs to come up with approximately $5.5 billion every single year to prefund retiree health care. mr. president, -- and this is an important point that i hope my fellow colleagues in the senate are listening to this.

100 percent of the postal service's $20 billion debt from 2007-2010 is the result of this prefunding mandate. let me repeat it. 100 percent of the postal service's $20 billion debt from 2007-2010 is the result of this $5.5 billion per year prefunding mandate. without this mandate, the postal service would have made a $700 million profit, profit from 2007 to 2010. so let me repeat that because these are facts that have not often been introduced into this debate. we have folks coming up here who are saying the postal service is collapsing financially and so forth and so on, but it is important to understand the facts, and the facts are that despite the worst recession,

which we're currently in right now, since the 1930's, despite the competition from email and the internet, the postal service would have made a $700 million profit from 2007-2010 if it was not forced to prefund future retiree health benefits. in addition, mr. president, i hope people listen to this as well -- during the first quarter of 2012, a few months ago, the u.s. postal service would have generated a $200 million profit -- $200 million profit -- had it not been required to prefund its future retiree health benefits. so i think, mr. president, as we debate these issues about the future of the post office, it is

absolutely imperative that we understand the role of the $5.5 billion every single year that the postal service is -- has to come up to prefund its retiree health benefits. now, mr. president, a few months ago i asked the inspector general of the postal service whose name is david which will yarnlings david c. williams -- he is the inspector general of the postal service -- i asked him to track talk a little bitt what this prefunding of health benefits meant. and i would like to introduce into the record a copy of his letter, which is dated february 6, 2012. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: and if i might, because this is, i think, an important letter -- i'd like to read a significant part of it. and i hope people appreciate what the inspector general of

the united states postal service is saying. this is a guy who knows something about the postal service. this is what he says. "dear senato senator sanders: fr several days last week i met with you and your staff to discuss solutions to the current financial crisis within the posl service. quoyou requested that our office focus on one of the options to address the current benefit fund financing. this proposal would have eliminate the requirement for the postal service to make annual $5.5 billion payments into its retiree health benefit fund and allow the $44 billion centcurrently in the fund" -- te is right now as a result of these funding payments $44 billion currently in the fund -- "to grow with interest." so what happens if you've got

$44 billion and it accrues, as it does, interest, i believe, between 3% on the one han% and ? "no payments would be made from the fund until it is deemed to be fully funded and the postal service would continue to directly pay for the health care premiums for retirees. an additional element of the proposal would allow current overpayments of $13.1 billion in the postal service pension funds to be refunded to the postal service." this is also a point that has not been discussed enough and in fact we do address in the current legislation, and that is not only is the postal service being asked to come up with an onerous $5.r5 billion to fund future retiree health benefits, it is generally acknowledged by everybody who has studied the issue that the postal service has made overpayments of $13 b.1 pl into the federal employees

retirement system system and the civil service retirement system, adding those two together. this is what he says. again, inspector general of the united states postal service. "our analysis of this proposal shows that if it were adopted, the amounts in retiree health care funds would grow from $44 billion to the $90 billion estimated current liability in 21 years. this $90 billion projected liability is not a static or precise figure. it varies a little bit, but essentially he says, that if you don't add another nickel into the $44 billion, it will grow to $90 billion in 21 years, and essentially take care of the payments that it has to take care of. so the point that i want to make here, mr. president, is that in

terms of future retiree health benefits, we already have $44 billion in the account. anand, in my view and in the viw of people who know more about this than i do, it is not necessary to put more money into this account. this is an issue that this legislation attempts to address. there's another point that i -- wcialtion i'll gewell,i'll get t another point. let me say this. the issue we're dealing with is of enormous consequence to our country. it is imperative, in my view, that we not shut down 3,700 rural post offices, and i want to commend the postmaster

general. we have been working with him and he hasser moved away -- and he has moved away from that posmghts we have got to do everything we can to maintain very high stampedes for moil delivery in it country so when a business puts a package in the mail, they know it will be dplferredz a reasonable time. it is one of the strengths of the postal service. in nigh view my view, we do noto shut down half of the processing plants in this country, which would shut down -- slow down mail delivery service. we do not want to end saturday mail. it ithe main point i wanted to e today is, yes, the postal service faces financial problems but mott to understand the significant role, causation of those problems that is a result of the $5.5 billion in prehealth

funding for retirees is to miss a very significant part of this debate. i think it is fair to is say that in this bill we are beginning to address that issue. also address the issue of the overpayment from the postal service to the federal employees retirement system. so let me just conclude by thanking senators lieberman, senators collins and carp and brown for the work they've done. i hope that we can have an intelligent and constructive and have a nonpartisan discussion as we go forward, hearing from good amendments that are relevant, from all sides -- both sides of the aisle. but the bottom line is saving the postal service 0 is enormously important for ow economy and certainly for the tens and tens of thousands of workers who are out there every day doing a great job fours. so, with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor.

mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i want to thank the senator from vermont for his statement but really more broadly for the -- his real steadfastness and hard work that he's done to improve the bill. and it's been a pleasure to work with him. before senator collins came to the floor and not counting the occupant of the chair, i was really reveling in the fact that the only senators on the floor were independents. but, anyway, i thank senator sanders. we've tried to deal with this problem. in the postal reform of 2006, senator sanders is quite right, for various reasons which we need not go into, the postal service was required to make

payments into the retiree health benefit fund that were beyond what most any business or other governmental entity is doing. more than was necessary to sustain the payments and in a much shorter period of time, as the senator from vermont said. and i'd say, just to state it as bluntly as i can, maybe too bluntly, the people advocating this were, frankly, concerned that the pos post office -- posl service might get to a point where it defaulted, it was no longer to ornghts and the orng e fear was that the taxpayers at some time in the future would be forced to pick up the cost of the retiree health benefits and

sods this uniquely -- and so this uniquely deed manning responsibility for payment now was put on the postal service. i think everybody agrees you particularly in light of all the real problems that the postal service has now, that that's just not sensible or fair. so i do want to point out that in the underlying bill, s. 1789, we have attempted to ease the postal service's prefunding rhodfundingrequirements by immey beginning a stretchedout 40-year amortized dispiewrl that's payments -- schedule for these payments and we require the office of personnel management when determining how much the postal service has to put into the retiree health benefit fund every year to use the same discount rate that's used to

calculate the federal government's pension obligations to the federal employees retirement system and the civil service retirement system. and the postal service thinks that this accounting change will reduce their unfunded liability for their retiree health benefits plan by literally billions of dollars. the other change made here is that right now the health benefits of retired employees come out of the operating expenses of the postal service. that was going to be the case until a date later in this decade. but there's enough money in the fund that it can pick up money that the postal service has put in, that it can pick up the cost of health benefits for postal retirees now, and so we require

that. and so i just want to state for the record that we're trying to deal with that reality in the bill as it is and of course state my intention to ten to work with senator sanders to make this bill as good as we can, both in accomplishing all the purposes we have, which is to keep the postal service alive and well, because so many people depend on it, and to do so in a much more fiscally responsible way, and in every way in which that term might be understood, including the fairness of the payments of the fers fers. i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i, too, want to comment on this issue of the prefunding for the health care

benefits of future retirees. i think it's important to note that when the 2006 law was written that the postal service supported this provision because it recognized that it had a huge unfunded liability for future health benefits, and it knew that it was important to start putting money aside to ensure that at that time that those retirees needed to claim those benefits the money would be there and the promises would be therkept. it was also important because we wanted to avoid the possibility of a system going into default and taxpayers having to step in to keep the promises that the postal service has made.

the fact is that the current liability is about $46 billion for those retirees' health benefits -- the future retiree health benefits, and that liability is a very real one. it is not going away. but, nevertheless, we have taken steps in our bill, as senator lieberman h' has just describedo ease the funding by setting up a 40-year amortization schedule and by changing the discount rate. so those two provisions should save the postal service between -- well, approximately $2 billion. the exact number would be determined -- each year and that's obviously very welcome. but i do want to address what i

believe is another misconception, understand that that the funding for future retirees' health benefits is somehow the cause of the postal service's financial crisis. it is not. the fact is that the postal service has not made its payment of $5.5 billion that was due to this fund in either of the last two fiscal years. and, yet, the postal service lost billions in both of those years, despite not paying the $5.5 billion that was due to this fund. in total, the postal service has made only $6.9 billion of the $16.4 billion that was required

in prefunding payments for the past three years. but has posted losses, total losses for those three years of $26.9 billion. so, it's certainly true that we can and should ease the funding requirement in light of the problems of the postal service. it's also true that we don't need to fund to 100%, which the 2006 law requires. and we have indeed lowered the funding level to, i believe, 80%, if memory serves me correctly. and those provisions all have a substantial impact on lowering the annual payment. but, just two final points that

i want to reiterate, the prefunding requirement is not the cause of the postal service's financial crisis. and, second, that $48 billion liability is very real. it's not going away. and, indeed stretching out the amortization schedule, which i believe we should do, is going to actually cause that liability to increase, because we'll be paying it off over a longer period of time. nevertheless, i think the changes that we've made in the funding for future retirees' health benefits makes sense. i think they're financially responsible and they will provide some needed relief to the postal service without exposing taxpayers to the possibility of having to pick up the tab and without breaking the

promise that has been made to postal employees. thank you, mr. president. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today, and this being tax week, people all around the country send in their tax returns. the deadline has just passed, yesterday, april 17. so people are focused a lot on what happens in washington. they think about the i.r.s., they think about the money that is being sent and how that money is being spent. well, as people pay their annual tax bills, i want to remind americans about how this administration, the obama administration, is spending tax dollars on actually the president's unpopular health care law, and that's why i come to the floor today as i have every week since the health care

law has been passed with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. at the time it was passed, i said, you know, there would be some new revelations, some unintended consequence, something new that people would learn week after week. and as someone who has practiced medicine for almost a quarter of a century, taking care of families in wyoming, i wanted to offer a doctor's second opinion because i have felt from the beginning that in spite of the many promises that the president made, that the bill that was actually passed and signed into law is one that is bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients, and terrible for taxpayers. and so i come to the floor because it seems to me that instead of using much of the money to improve medical care in america, this administration is devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to whom? the internal revenue service i.r.s. in fact, "the hill" newspaper

reported on april 9 of this year that the obama administration is quietly sending an additional $500 million to the i.r.s., the internal revenue service. the headline is "obama administration diverts $500 million to i.r.s. to implement health care reform law." i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that i could introduce this article into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. the money is transferred outside of the normal appropriations process, and that's a concern. the money is transferred outside the normal appropriations process. and it goes to the very tax agency that is responsible to implement many of the key provisions of the health law. you would think that maybe you would have doctors and nurses implementing many of the provisions of the help law. no, we have the i.r.s. this includes the controversial and unprecedented mandate that all americans must buy a

government-approved product, health insurance. we will remember that the supreme court just held hearings on this unprecedented mandate. 70% of americans believe that it is unconstitutional. they believe that either part or all of the health care law ought to be ruled unconstitutional. and yet, "the hill" article goes on and it says that this obama health and human services department has to date transferred almost $200 million to the i.r.s. over the past two years and plans to send another $300 million this year. these secretive transfers hide the true cost of the health care law. they also make it difficult for congress to perform the agency oversight that is part of our obligations. so i look at this, mr. president, and i say this -- this law is -- it is bad, it is bad, i believe, for our patients and providers and taxpayers, and i look at the way it's been

structured and the way that this money is being transferred and i think it just highlights the problems with the law. what does the i.r.s. intend to do? they want to hire more than 300 new employees next year to implement the tax code changes such as the taxes imposted on drug companies, device manufacturers and health insurers. this bill is a laundry list of taxes and fees. the i.r.s. also has-term plement and monitor the law's priciest exoan exoapt, the exchange subsidies. congress is asked to fund another 537 new employees dedicated to administering just the subsidies. last week, mr. president, the ways and means chairman, chairman camp, sent a letter to the i.r.s. commissioner asking that the commissioner provide specific details about these reports. chairman camp specifically asked

the i.r.s. commissioner to tell the committee how many employees are being hired and which tax increases the agents will be working on. you know, the american people deserve to know how their dollars are being spent, where these tax dollars are being used, what the i.r.s. is doing with the money. they deserve to know because the health care law actually increases the i.r.s.'s power to insert itself into the american people's lives. how is it that the health care law increases the i.r.s.'s power to insert itself into americans' lives? well, by one, having the i.r.s. verify that americans have acceptable government-approved insurance. also by having the i.r.s. penalize americans if they do not have acceptable government-approved insurance. also by having the i.r.s. confiscate americans' tax refund dollars if they don't have government-approved insurance. finally by having the i.r.s.

having additional power in terms of auditing our american citizens' lives. mr. president, this is all included in the health care law. this is not health care reform. the i.r.s. should never be allowed to intrude into the private health care decisions of the american people. the american people deserve to know how this alleged $500 million transfer is being spent and how many additional i.r.s. agents will be hired to investigate their private health care decisions. when americans send their hard-earned dollars to washington, they want to make sure that their money is being spent wisely. that the american people want to know that they are getting value for their tax dollars. they don't want their dollars to create more bureaucracy and further invade their privacy. and so, mr. president, i come to the floor today as i have over the last several years since the health care law has been passed with a doctor's second opinion.

this health care law did not provide the american people with what they wanted which was the care they need, from a doctor that they want, at a price they can afford. instead, what they're doing is seeing that the president's promises have been broken. the president promised if you like your care, you can keep it. we now know that's not going to be true for many, many americans. and the president promised that health care costs would actually go down instead of going up, and he told congress and he told others that the health care insurance costs would drop $2,500 per family. instead what families across the country have seen is their health care premiums have gone up by about $2,100 a year since the health care law has gone into effect rather than going down. so we hear the president's promises and we see the reality on the ground. so when i travel wyoming and talk to folks and say how many of you believe under the health care law that your own costs,

your own costs are going to go up in spite of the president's promises they would go down? every hand goes up. and when i ask the question how many of you believe that the quality of your own care -- which is what people are concerned about, their own care, their own family. how many of you believe that the quality of your own care will go down? again, every hand goes up. that's not what americans want, paying more and getting less. and that is why it is time, mr. president, to repeal and replace this terrible health care law. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. mr. tester: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i rise today to discuss this postal reform bill. the postal service keeps rural america connected, it helps montana seniors receive everyday necessities like medicines, it allows mile an hour small businesses to conduct business, and it even makes sure that our election ballots get counted on time. and that is why this reform bill is so critically important all across rural america. first, i want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their hard work on the substitute amendment to the postal reform bill. i want them to know how much that i appreciate their efforts

to work across the aisle and with my colleagues and me to address several of our concerns with this bill. this bill has come a long way from the version that i opposed in committee, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that it works for rural america. i've been working for several months on some changes such as preserving the requirement for overnight delivery, and providing better protection for rural communities that could lose their post offices. but we need to go further. to find more ways to keep rural post offices open and functioning. that's why senator franken and senator levin and i have introduced an amendment to prevent the postal service from closing a post office if it leaves rural communities without sufficient access to postal services. like buying stamps to regular mail service. our amendment gives the postal regulatory commission more teeth in being able to reject the postal service's effort to close

post offices and mail processing facilities if the postal service does not follow the criteria laid out in the bill. mr. president, the postmaster general is seeking to close around 3,700 post offices and over 200 mail processing facilities in this country. this bill will result in the reduction of another 100,000 postal employees, it will rewrite the rules of workers' compensation across the entire federal government. in short, it will change the lives of many, many people. to say nothing of the millions of americans who will be impacted by a change in mail service. so with this in mind, i think it's critically important that the upper management of the postal service and the board of governors lead by example. that's why i'm offering an amendment to reduce the number of governors on the postal board of governors from nine to seven. the board is currently not at

capacity, and it should be encouraged to work with the six governors who presently sit on the board. governors receive compensation for expenses and a stiepped of -- stipend of about 30,000 bucks a year with a total compensation up to about 42,006 hoonsdz -- 42 thigh $600, but it could save up to three post offices in my state,. we need to make sure everyone is tightening their belts, not just the folks who depend on mail service or the employees who will be forced into retirement or laid off over the next few years. my final amendment limits the six most senior postal executives including the postmaster general, and that limit is to a base salary of not more than $200 -- $200,000 which is what a cabinet secretary makes. some folks think the postal service should be a private enterprise and the pay of the

postal executives should reflect that but the reality is the postal service is public service. it's right there in the constitution that the congress has the power to establish post offices. you can't get much more public than that. and again the savings from this amendment may seem like a drop in the bucket but saving just $200,000 a year in reduced executive compensation is the same savings you would get from the closure of a mail processing center in helena, montana's state capital and havlick in north central montana. to me, the choice is simple. if the postal service is out of money and painful cuts have to be made, they need to be filled up at the top as much as at the bottom. i hope that we get a chance to consider these amendments. they are relevant to the bill. this is a debate that is long overdue. it's time to have a serious debate in the senate about what we want the postal service to

look like, and that is why i voted to begin the debate on a bill that i cannot support yet. i want to get to the point where we have a bill that's going to save the postal service and not lead to its dismantling. let's have the debate, let's look at the amendments and let's start voting. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and seek the be the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: mr. president, thank you. this week marks a somber anniversary. two years ago, on friday, april 20, 2010, an explosion on the deepwater horizon oil rig in the gulf of mexico took 11 lives and triggered the worst oil spill in american history. we still remember the families of those who were lost and those who were injured on that fateful day. we are forever grateful to the thousands of volunteers and relief workers from all over the world who responded in the wake of the disaster.

in mississippi, like other gulf states, the b.p. oil spill caused immeasurable damage not only to our shoreline but also to all sectors of our economy. misperceptions of tainted seafood and oil-covered beaches devastated our seafood and tourism industries. local businesses, already challenged by a difficult economy, were crippled by the disruption in market demand. the moratorium that the obama administration put on drilling cost our economy critical jobs related to the domestic energy production and its associated support industries. the administration's delays on drilling permits are still stalling job creation along the gulf coast. many of my colleagues and i have come to the floor in recent weeks to talk about a better energy policy, specifically to offer solutions to lower gas

prices. the administration's slowdown of domestic energy production keeps us dependent on foreign energy providers, ultimating hurting americans at the pump. there is no doubt that the residents of mississippi and other gulf states are resilient and have persevered through unprecedented circumstances, but there is work left to do and i urge all my colleagues to remain committed to the coastal recovery. i applaud the senate's recent bipartisan passage of the restore act as part of the transportation bill. it is imperative that coastal communities have the resources they need to rebuild and revitalize. under the provisions of the restore act, local officials will have the ability to prioritize the economic and ecological projects that are most critical to their own recovery. local communities are in the best position to make these decisions and needless

government red tape should not stand in the way. directly distributing cleanwater act fines would ensure that the affected parties are compensated accordingly. the restore act is an encouraging step forward for all gulf coast states. i urge the house of representatives to show the same support for the gulf coast in passing this important piece of legislation. both parties can agree that the revitalization of our gulf states is a priority and that providing local perspectives is vital to our recovery efforts. the disaster that occurred two years ago was an extraordinary tragedy with long-term consequences, and we cannot forget about the needs that still persist. the gulf coast provides one-third of the seafood harvested in the continental united states. the gulf coast is the home to

six of our country's ten-largest commercial ports. mississippi and all gulf states make up a vibrant part of this country, and the residents and businesses there are key contributors to the national economy. there's no doubt that keeping our gulf strong is vital to our national interest. and part of that would be the passage of the restore act. thank you, mr. president. and i note -- and i yield the floor. a senator: plop? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognize. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i want to concur with my friend from mississippi as to the importance of passion the restore act. it is in our transportation reauthorization bill and it is an important part. it not only helps the gulf states, it helps all the ocean states -- states that border oceans in this country. so it is an important part of the a bill that we worked out in

a consensus manner in the stavmensenate. i take this time and ask unanimous consent that i can speak as if in morning business. officer without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, we need to pass a long-term transportation reauthorization bill. the senate has done this. the senate passed its bill two months ago by a very strong margin of 24 -- 74-22. i call it a consensus bill, not really a bipartisan bill because we went beyond bipartisan. this bill came out of two committees of jurisdiction, the banking committee and the environment and public works committee, by unanimous votes. it was also approved in a consensus manner by the finance committee that i serve on that dealt with the financing provision. so this was a bill that gives us the predictability and transportation funding. here's the problem: the other body, the house, is

currently working on a bill that would be basically a short-term extension of our transportation programs. we need a long-term commitment as to the federal partnership in transportation. we need that for many reasons. we need it for predictable funding, so our local governments can commit to do the type of transportation programs that are necessary for our safety, that are necessary for economic expansion, that are necessary for our communities. we are missing construction seasons by the failure to enact a long-term transportation reauthorization plan. major projects cannot be planned, whether it is to replace a bridge, major maintenance programs, new highways, or expansions of our transit systems. and this really translates to jobs. we're in a recovery. we all want to do everything we can to help maintain and expand

job opportunity in this country so that our economy can recover at a quicker pace. the transportation reauthorization bill that passed the senate is responsible for three million jobs. in my own state, 28,700 jobs are connected to the passage of the bill. 21,000 in highways and over 7,000 in transit. the senate bill was done in the finest manner of legislating, and i compliment senator box he and inhofe on the committee i serve on for marshaling this bill through the numerous challenges in the united states senate, the number of committees that had to consider it and then of course floor consideration. and during that entire process we maintained the consensus and

maintained the balance that is important. let me just point out, here you have a bill that invests in transit and roads and bridges, and we were able to reach a compromise to make sure that both priorities were preserved in the transportation reauthorization bill. i authored an amendment with senator cochran that dealt with local input in projects. we had the right balance with the federal government working with our states but allowing the locals to have input. we have reform in our bill that consolidates a lot of the specific programs into broader programs, providing greater flexibility but still maintaining accountability on the federal partnership. during this most recent work period when we were off for easter and passover, i visited with various parts of maryland.

i was out in western maryland, apappalachia country and i heard firsthand how important the reauthorization of this transportation bill is to the economy of western maryland. this is a rural part of our staivment they need to build a north-south highway that will connect pennsylvania, west virginia, and maryland. now, the bill that we pass contains some very important provisions to allow it that to be constructed. it provides toll credit coz that the state of pennsylvania can complete an important segment of this north-south highway. it also contains a stronger match so that it makes it more feasible that we can move this highway to completion. the completion of the north-south highway means jobs and hope to the people of that region of america. very important to get that done. it will mean jobs.

they told me, the companies that are directly dependent upon that highway being constructed. well, if we don't pass a multiyear reauthorization bill, that project gets delayed. once it's delayed, we lose job opportunity. mr. president, i also spent part of the work period visiting other parts of maryland. i was in an area not far from here at all, just a few miles away. visited th the metro command, te facility in new carrollton. that's where they operate the bus and rail command center for the nation's transit system, wmata, which is both bus and rail in this eamplet this is the nation's system. the federal government depends upon it. the nation's capital depends upon the washington transit system. so many of the people that work here in the capital come to us through the transit programs. it's through in all of the federal facilities. it's an aged system. the rail system is aged. it needs repair.

it is the second-busiest rail transit system in the nation, and it is in desperate need of repair. without predictable funding, major projects are going to get delayed. let me just give you a list of some of these projects that we need to do for the washington metro transit system. overhauling the landover and southern avenue bus maintenance shop in prince georges' county, maryland. complete the design and construction of 10,000 feet of test track at greenbelt that is needed to test the new, safer 7000 series railcars due to arrive in 2014. let me radio mind my colleagues that we had a tragedy on the transit system here national too long ago -- on the transit system here not too long ago. all these changes need to be done to improve safety for the

people that depend upon the transit system in this region and to continue to implement systemwide switch testing and replacement needed to comply with the national transportation safety board's safety recommendations following the june 2009 red line crash. all of that will be delayed, and, yes, safety will be put at risk if we do not pass a reauthorization of the transportation program. mr. president, it is interesting, one part of mire stat-- onepart of my state, it y critical to that region. the other part, urban, it is foreign that region. it is important whether you come from an urban or rural community. we need to get this dofnlt evere need to get this dofnlt every tate is impacted. the department of maryland department of transportation tells me that due to the uncertainty they are planning a 20% reduction in the projects that would otherwise be done in

this year. that is going to have a huge impact on workforce, a huge impact on our economy. now, the house action, as i'm speak, they're take action. the house action is going to pass a short-term extension. that's not good enough. that z solve the problem. that doesn't give you the predictability. that doesn't allow us to complete the north-south highway in westerin or to make the imprs in the wmata system. that's just not good enough. we need to do more. however, mr. president, i'm pleased to see the house take some action. i would urge as soon as they complete, let's get into conference. let's get into conference today. let's resolve the differences between the house and senate and get a bill back on the floor as quickly as possible. we did our work. we passed a bipartisan consensus bill. they're passing a partisan bill in the other body.

they're delaying things again, and that's not good. but let's get together and complete a conference on this as quickly as possible. let's get americans back to work building roads and transit systems thoor that are vital to the economic recovery of this nation. with that, i would suggest the abs of a quorum. the presiding officer: roll the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated and i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. without objection the senator is recognized. mr. rubio: thank you. i think it's topical to the item we're debating, which is to proceed to the violence against women's act. i want to take a moment to

highlight a couple of egregious examples around the world where young girls and women are being threatened by violence and what remains of a scourge throughout the planet. then we'll focus here at home as well. on april 17, for example, this is a pretty shocking incident -- on april 17, about 115 afghan schoolgirls were poisoned after drinking contaminated water. it appears by all signals that it was a deliberate contamination of the water. they were poisoned by -- and they're blaming it on conservative radicals that are opposed to female education. there is evidence to suggest 150 girls in afghanistan were poisoned because they went to school. this is happening in the 21st century. a new human rights commission on pakistan report comes out and says there were 943 pakistani women killed in 2011, and they were killed for -- quote -- "honor." of the 953 victims, 93 were minors.

595 of the women killed in 2011 were accused of having -- quote -- "illicit relations" and 219 of them were accused of phaeurg without per -- marrying without permission. this is the 21st century we're talking about these things are happening. in fact, in 2010 the report says there were 791 honor killings in pakistan of women. here's one that's really disturbing and very sick. in south africa a group of youth males in sway tow were -- sew way tow were filmed raping a 17-year-old girl believed to be mentally ill. in fact the term, the hash tag rape video was trending on twitter in south africa on wednesday. it's estimated by some organizations that a woman is raped every 26 seconds in south africa. there is a report with regard to this specific soweto rape, the

men promised the girl 25 cents if she kept silent. let's turn to our hemisphere for a moment where tragically of the 25 countries around the world with the highest homicide rape for women, 14 are in latin america and the caribbean, according to a recent survey by a geneva-based research organization called the small arms survey. the three most dangerous countries for women were el salvador, jamaica and kwaut mala. a -- kwaut mala. a u.n. study found the americas were ranked second only to africa for female homicides and rapes. while females represent 10% of murder victims in the americas, the sheer level of violence in the region, particularly in latin america, puts women at risk. here at home, i was honored a few weeks ago to sign a letter

along with senator kirk and senator blumenthal and senator cornyn where we wrote to about 40 organizations -- this was on april 12 -- to inform them that the parent company of the village voice publications, that they were advertising on owns backpage.com, an online classified advertising web site that's linked to dozens of child trafficking case in this country. what we asked is that these companies and their charitable organizations and public and educational and cultural institutions that they work together and they use their economic influence to stop this from happening. to stop this online child sex trafficking that's being facilitated by sites such as this. i want to report to you today that there's been some progress. already this letter is having an impact. we've had representatives from two recipients of the letter that responded to the companies that they will quickly act to end their advertising activities on the village voice

publications. the fact of the matter is that what i just outlined to you now is happening here in the united states of america. i highlighted things that are happening around the world and i highlighted a case of something we can be doing about right now here in the united states. the reason why i say that and why i come to the floor on occasion to speak about human rights violations that are happening around the world and in our own country is to remind us that atrocities are not just something that in history -- that happen in history. they're happening today. if you just open a newspaper and open your eyes, you will find modern-day atrocities that rival things you read about in history that you would believe are unimaginable and impossible are occurring in this century, and yet they are. here in our country you have instances such as this where an estimated number of up to 300,000 children could potentially be at risk. 300,000 people, young women, children, et cetera, to be at risk in our hemisphere to be victims of human trafficking. part of that happens in our own

country. we have an obligation to focus on issues like this. so we'll continue to use this forum and any opportunity we get to highlight human rights abuses that are happening across the world and in our own country, because awareness is always the first step towards confronting these issues. the notion that you can somehow get away with this without condemnation encourages people to do more of it, encourages people to think they can get away with it, encourages people to think that they may even be culturally acceptable. it is not culturally acceptable. for any civilized people to stand by and watch human beings being enslaved or trafficked or abused or targeted. we cannot stand by silently and argue -- and i'm not claiming anybody in this chamber does this, but argue somehow it is culturally acceptable to carry out an honor killing of a woman because she got married without someone's permission. that is outrageous and absurd. it has no place in our world. if this nation is to remain a

leader on human rights, then those of us who serve it have an obligation to use forums such as this to call attention to egregious examples like the ones i used today and condemn them. in the weeks and months to come i hope to continue to come to the floor and provide not just examples of abuses that are happening around the world, but also examples like the one i finished off with today. that is examples of how we working together in this chamber across party aisle can work collaboratively to do something about it. and this letter to the advertisers on backpage.com and the village voice is just one example of the things we can be doing to ensure that we condemn and put a stop to some of these most heinous practices. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: very briefly, before i yield to the senator from missouri, i want to thank

my friend from florida for his principled and passionate statement. he speaks from his own experience, his family's own experience, leaving a dictatorship in cuba and coming to the freedom of this country. but he speaks more broadly from the depths of american history and american experience. we're a very different nation, and we're different from our beginning because we defined ourselves not by our geographical borders but by our values and the values expressed in the declaration of independence about hose thaou man rights -- about those human rights -- life liberty and happiness -- which are the endowment of our creator. those rights obviously were not just the endowment that god gave the people of the united states, but all human beings anywhere on

this planet. it's what makes us a great nation, the extent to which we hold to that principle that was the motivation for our founding, i think is one we can measure ourselves by day by day. i really appreciate that the senator from florida has committed himself both to the upholding an application of the principle of human rights, sanctity of human rights, and america's role in protecting them and is going to persistently continue to come to the floor to speak of particular cases where that principle is being violated. i happened to be on the floor about the postal reform bill, but i wanted to take this opportunity to thank him for his very compelling statement. and i yield the floor to my friend from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i spent a lot of my childhood in a very small town in missouri. from the time i was about three

years old until the fourth grade, i lived in a town called lebanon, missouri. and my dad was a life insurance salesman and sold life insurance at fort leonard wood. my mother's family had the corner drugstore about a block off main street in lebanon, missouri. and i have fond and vivid memories of my childhood in lebanon, and one of them was the trip that i would take whenever i was hanging out down at my family's drugstore. this was my great-uncle and great aunt who had raised my mother, so they were like my grandparents. he was the pharmacist, and she ran the lunch counter at the drugstore. and i would go with my great-uncle on his run to the post office. we'd walk up two blocks, and we would go in the post office.

and i remember even how it smelled. i remember how it looked. i remember what happened there. and my memory is that it was a gathering place. that i would have to tug on my great-uncle's coat, "let's go, uncle tom. let's go," because he would invariably find people at the post office that he needed to visit with. it wasn't a big place, but it was a very important place in lebanon, missouri. and i rise today to talk about an amendment that will save that sense of community for dozens and dozens of rural towns in missouri. i am very aware, as a former auditor and as somebody who spends a lot of time looking at our budgets and trying to figure out the numbers, i am very aware of the crisis we have in terms of fiscal sustainability in our

postal service. i commend the work of the committee i am lucky to serve on with senator lieberman as the chair and senator collins as the ranking, one of the places i think we've maintained strong bipartisanship in the united states senate. in fact, i think that senator lieberman's committee could serve as a role model to other committees on how you work in a bipartisan way. i commend senator carper and i commend many others, and senator brown of massachusetts and also senator merkley, who has worked on this amendment also, trying to find a way to save these rural post offices. so i know we've got a problem here. but when you look at the numbers, closing rural post offices doesn't help. it's 1%, less than 1% of the budget. it's less than 1% of the amount

of savings we need to save out of the postal budget. so in 167 different communities in my state, something that is essential far beyond the bricks and mortar for those communities would close all in the name of less than 1%? that doesn't make sense to me. the strength of our postal service has been that it's reliable, that it's affordable and that it goes to the very last mile. what will we lose in these communities if we shut down these post offices? senior citizens would lose a place where they can depend on getting their prescription medicines. many of these communities have no pharmacies. in fact, most of them don't. they rely on the mail for their drugs. small business owners would lose a shipping location. the small business owners in these rural communities, they

depend on that post office to take packages to and to receive packages from. i think this is a sacrifice we should not make. i think that these post offices are worth fighting to save. when i go home and meet with missourians and when i get outside in st. louis and springfield and columbia, almost every single time, someone walks up to me and talks about their post office. they feel so strongly that it is the one symbol they have in their community that makes them viable as a community, and i would hate to see them lose it. i believe that we should look at the closures of these post offices as a very last resort, and frankly, to me, it looked knee jerk because it doesn't even appear to me to be thoughtful. i have not been able to get the postal service to even give me the rhyme or reason as to why

some of these post offices are closing. and very few of them save a significant amount of dollars. this amendment would i am pose a two-year moratorium on rural post office closures to allow the postal service to enjoy some of the reforms that have been put in this bill in a very thoughtful and thorough process by chairman lieberman and many of his colleagues. and it would say after two years that there is a specific list of transparent criterion that must be considered before a post office could be closed. first, it would have to ensure that seniors could retain the same access to their rks they receive through -- their prescriptions that they receive through the mail. that seniors and those with disabilities would have the same access to post office that they currently do. making sure that small businesses are not financially harmed by a rural post office closure. this is not kicking the can down the road. this is being more thoughtful about preserving a part of the post postal service that defines it.

i am hopeful that this is not a republican or a democratic issue. i am hopeful that this is a rural issue. we all know the last mile is the most expensive. throughout the history of our country, government has stepped in and done a little more to get services the last mile. no business model in the world works when you have got to take services that last mile down that one road all the way down to a house at the end of the road. sometimes several miles. it didn't work for electricity, so we did things to help with rural electric co-ops. it didn't work for phones so we did the u.s.f. fund to help with phones. it didn't work for broadband so we stepped in and have done things to assist with broadband. and now we're going to say to these rural communities the last mile is not as important. these post offices are not as important. we can make do without it. i think that's a big mistake, and i hope that we can save these rural post offices. it's very important in my state,

and i want young girls that are growing up in these small communities to have the same warm and fond memories of the local post office that i carry with me every day. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i want to thank senator mccaskill for her statement. what's interesting is one of those old cases where maybe you appreciate something more than you do every day when you think it may disappear. that's true of institutions as well as it is of people, and there is no question that post offices, both in rural areas and small towns and i will say for connecticut in neighborhoods and cities, the post office has played an important community-building role, but beyond that in a tough time economically, a lot of people

depend on those post offices for their mail, for their prescription drugs, for the business interactions that they need. but here is the other side of it which my friend from missouri knows very well. we have 32,000 post offices in america. if you consider them to be retail outlets -- which they are -- that's missouri retail outlets than wal-mart, starbucks and mcdonald's combined. but we're talking here about necessities, and so we're very concerned that post offices not be closed in a precipitous manner if some have to be closed. so as my friend from missouri knows, we put language in this bill that although it doesn't stop the process of review but forces the postal service to consider other options such as consolidating post offices

within a reasonable distance, reducing the number of operating hours, for instance, and permitting a contractor or a rural carrier to provide retail services in the communities served by the post office. we also allow an appeal to the postal regulatory commission, and i know there are other amendments that will come in to strengthen that part of the bill. we have got to find a balance here, and between the financial pressures on the post office, which if unresponded to will take it really down, and the continuing dependence that millions of american people including small town and rural areas have on the post office. just a final word. some of our colleagues have come to the floor and spoken about the post office as if it was in its entirety a relic which has no purpose anymore because of the internet. obviously, the internet is affecting the volume of

first-class mail, but the fact is today, i repeat again, every day, 563 million pieces of mail are delivered by the postal service. as you say, consistent with the promise of universal service, anywhere you are, anywhere your business is. incidentally, that capacity to deliver to the last mile is one of the great, unique, irreplaceable assets of the community service, so irreplaceable that big private sector companies like fedex and iewps depend on it. so people depend on the postal service increasingly for packages, too. i maybe have a limited horizon, but i still can't conceive of an internet that could transport a package from one place to the other, and a lot of those packages are really needed by the recipients, including particularly prescription drugs.

so i thank my friend from missouri. i say that senator collins and i would like to work with you. i think we can find a way without doing damage to the purpose of the bill to -- to accommodate your concern about the preservation of rural post offices, and i look forward to doing so. mr. president, seeing no one else on the floor -- i might just add this. for the information of members, we haven't said this yet today, yesterday, both cloakrooms hotlined in the vocabulary of the senate a request to -- every senator to indicate an intention, whether they have an intention to file amendments. at this point, we have a list of over 50 amendments that have been filed. we're working, senator collins and i, senator carper, senator brown, to try to reduce that to a number that can be the basis, i hope, of a bipartisan

agreement to go ahead and debate those amendments and to vote on them. we have a cloture vote that probably will occur unless vitiated tomorrow, which will critically determine whether we have the 60 votes that say we can go forward. if we get that 60 votes, i think we can come to an agreement on a number of amendments, have a good open debate, both sides, and then pass this bill. if we don't pass this bill or if we don't achieve the 60 votes tomorrow, it's not as if nothing's going to happen to the post office. the fact is that the debt -- the deficit will continue to build, and let me be more specific. the postmaster has a while back issued a notice which he was required to do saying that as of may 15, less than a month from

now, he would have a list of mail processing facilities. not post offices, but mail processing facilities, which are candidates for closure, and i believe that he will close some on or about may 15 unless there is movement on this bill. so i hope we can reason together, that we can agree on a good balance, a representative bipartisan group of amendments, and that most of all we will not block the bill from being taken up for a lack of 60 votes to grant cloture on this and stop any attempt at a filibuster. with that, mr. president, i thank you, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. today the university of -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. alexander: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. alexander: today the university of tennessee where i was once president announced that our basketball coach, pat

sum it is redesigning -- resigning after 38 years in that position. women's college believe will never be the same without pat summitt and women's college believe would not be the same if not for pat's 38 years of leadership. there will be much said about her winning record and it's anistonnishing accomplishment, 1,098 wins in basketball, more than any other coach, man or woman, in the sport. eight national championships in the southeastern conference, 32 southeastern conference titles, 31 straight trips to the ncaa tournament. but the statistic that i always valued most especially when i was president of the university was every single one of pat summitt's athletes who have completed their eligibility with her have graduated from the

university of tennessee. that's over 38 years. so she has a remarkable record for which we all are very grateful. it's hard for people outside of tennessee to understand how much pat summittt has been -- has become a part of the lives of so many common sense disens in our state. she actually was asked by the university to take over the basketball program when she was in her early 20's. in 1974. back then, many women's basketball games were played with three women on one end and three women on the other end. the offense and the defense. she changed all that. in a big-time way. and when i say that women's college basketball wouldn't be the same without her, i really mean that because almost every women's coach in america would -- would attest to the fact that pat summitt has played an important either model or

personal role in their development. even before big games, she would have over to her house in knoxville the opposing team and the opposing coach. she always had time for community events in knoxville, and despite her busy schedule as such a winning coach. she is a terrific person individually and a great model. she really taught many of us in tennessee the game of women's college basketball. and she was so up front and personal about it with her famous stare which could stare anybody down, and her discussion of these extraordinary athletes she had and -- and what their pluses were and what the things were that they had to work on that we all felt we not only knew her, we knew the athletes as well. i've enjoyed watching pat summitt's teams for many, many years. i made a point to watch three of

her games in person this year in knoxville. i arranged my senate schedule around it because i feared this might be her last season. she announced last year she has alzheimer's disease and she is now devoting herself to fighting that disease. so i'm sure she'll be as accomplished in some appropriate way in the next stage of her life as she has been in the last 38 years. but i wanted to come to the senate floor and say really on behalf of all the people of our state that college women's basketball will never be the same without pat summitt and college women's basketball would never be what it is today if it weren't for pat summitt. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i just want to thank my friend for his moving

and eloquent statement. as the senator from connecticut, a proud fan of and admirer of u.conn women's basketball with the great coach gene owe or yama --, geno oryama, knows more people who have competed against her, including coach oriama and the great players in the u.conn women's basketball history. so she's -- she sets the standard and she has set the standard, and i join you in your praise of her and in -- with some confidence wishing her well in the future. mr. alexander: mr. president, i thank senator lieberman. i think it's appropriate and most fans of women's college basketball would agree that the

first two senators on the floor to commend pat summitt would be the senator from tennessee and the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: it's forth tiewtous and i can't believe -- fortiewtous and i can't believe it's accidental. mr. alexander: i thank the senator for his generous remarks and i know pat would as well. mr. lieberman: if geno oriema were here he would add some words of tribute. i know the respect he has for coach summitt. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: mr. president, i ask permission to ^spaoebg o.a.s. if in morning business for about 20 minutes. the presiding officer: senate is under a quorum call. mr. franken: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

frapping frank and i ask that -- mr. franken: and i ask that -- permission to speak as if in move tmorning business for 20 m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. i rise today to talk about the importance of the postal service to minnesota and to urge my colleagues to make thoughtful changes to strengthen s. 1789, the postal service has proposed a cost-cutting plan that would close or consolidate nearly 3,700 mostly rural post offices. this plan would eliminate thousands of jobs in communities across the country and leave many residents and businesses without direct access to postal services, and of course that includes oregon, the presiding officer's state. in minnesota, the 117 post offices are on the closure list that includes the post office in

calumet, minnesota, a town of 376 people in northeastern minnesota. i've heard from the mayor of calumet will the hardship that closing the post office would have on thinks community. he told me about disabled residents who can't ghet a driver's license and how -- who can't get a driver's license and how important it is that they're i believe to walk to the post osms he also told me about eanld earl couple in the towfnlt the husband has alzheimer's and he and his wife take a walk every day hand in hand to the post office. when the postal service held a puck meeting in calumet to discuss the proposed post office closure, over 70 residents showed up. that's a lot. that's about one-fifth of the town. there are -- these are the stories i hear when i travel

across minnesota, especially in rural minnesota. post offices are the center off so many communities. they serve as a gathering place and a source of information. individuals and businesses rely on postal service to receive medications, paychecks, antibioticee ballots, equipment, and even -- absentee ballots, equipment, and even livestock. the postal service is has also proposed to close 250 processing facilities, five of minnesota's seven processing facilities are on the block. under the postal service's plan, all of the mail processing activities currently taking

place in deluge, in bemidji, rochester and wake park would all be moved to the twin cities. mr. president, for everyone who hasn't driven around minnesota, let me explain what that means. when someone in bemidji, minnesota, sends a birthday card to her neighbor or a local small business sends an invoice to a customer a few streets away, that letter will be sent more than 200 miles south to the twin cities to be processed above it's sent 200 miles back north to bemidji. that just doesn't make any sense. during minnesota winters, when roads are impassable, that's going to mean severe mail delays. it's going to drive business away from these communities. the processing centers in

rochester and duluth are also on the list. these are the third- around fourth-largest cities in minnesota. duluth is over 150 miles wrai from the twin cities. closing these processing centers will significantly impact local businesses. it will drive business away from the postal service. one important example is the deluth news tribune. this one business distributes over two million pieces of mail annually through the postal service. last year they paid the postal service well over $400,000 for these services. if the duluth processing center is cleesd, the postal service will no longer be able to guarantee overnight delivery of local newspapers. the duluth news tribune is going to have to find a different way to deliver their papers. this is a daily paper. that will cost both the business

and the postal service a lot of money. i've heard from hundreds of minnesotans and met with postal workers, mayors, concerned community members, and business leaders who rely on the postal service. but they all agree on -- what they all agree on is that we need a strong, financially sound postal service. they need that tough choices need to be made and that some cuts are on the way. but not like this. not like this. not by closing five of minnesota's seven processing facilities, and forcing the workers to move to the twin cities if they want any hope of keeping their jobs. not by closing nearly 3,700 post offices, to save less than 1% of the budget. not by slowing down mail so much that it'll basically render it

useless for many businesses. the post office is in the constitution. it's in the constitution. it has been around since the beginning of our country. there is a reason for this. for centuries universal service has been at the heart of the postal service's mission and was a mission described in the constitution. no matter where you lived, be it in minneapolis or international falls, minnesota, count on the postal service delivering your mail. postal service gave you a connection to the yods wompletd somehow we've lost sight of that. senators lieberman, carper, collins, and scott brown have put forward bill to reform the postal service. i want to thank them all for their important work moving this bill forward. s. 1789 would refund

overpayments that the postal service has made to the federal pension program. it will also reduce the requirement that the postal service prefund retiree health care benefits. i am very supportive of both of these provisions. , which will save the postal service over $15 billion over the next two years. however, i believe that the bill can be strengthened to maintain delivery standards and better protect rural post offices. i have been working with a group of my colleagues, including the presiding officer, led by senator sanders to improve the bill. i want to thank senators carper and lieberman for working with us. the managers' amendment addresses some of our concerns. most importantly, it would require the postal service to retain regional overnight delivery standards. this will protect many processing facilities and importantly for minnesota it

will likely keep the duluth processing facility ol open. but the substitute still doesn't do enough to protect rural post offices. i have introduced an amendment bhie friends and colleagues, senators tester and levin, that will give communities the opportunity to fight to prevent the closure of their local post offices and processing facilities. right now the postal regulatory commission can review post office closure decisions but can only issue advisory options. our amendment would give the commission authority to reverse post office and processing facility closure decisions. that would guarantee that individuals and communities impacted by closures would have real recourse. i urge my senate colleagues to support our amendment. we need to make thoughtful changes to s. 1789, and we need to act now.

last december i joined with a number of my senate colleagues in pushing the postmaster general for a five-month moratorium on postal close iewmplets the moratorium is now running out and the the postal service is not waiting. it can't. on may 16, the postal service will close thousands of post offices and hundreds of processing centers. we need to act now. i'd like to change the subject to something that hits very close to home among many in minnesota. mr. president, tkphrad tkeus mensing -- gladys mensing loves being around people. that's a good thing when you have a family as big as gladys,

the loving mother of 8, 15 children and 12 eight grandchildren. she is from owatona in southern, southeastern minnesota. a few weeks ago i received some old family videos that showed her playing with her grandkids. gladys used to work as a waitress and apartment manager, but what she really enjoys is a good game of bingo. in 2001, gladys' doctor gave her a prescription for a medication known as m.c.p. to treat a digestive tract condition. gladys did what i would have done. she took her prescription to the pharmacy and got it filled and started taking her medicine per her doctor's orders. meanwhile, however, evidence was

mounting linking m.c.p. to neurological disorders, and within a few years gladys began experiencing problems. she lost control of her face, tongue and legs. it's really hard to understand gladys when she speaks now. her son says that people sometimes give gladys strange looks when she goes out in public. gladys used to be very strong and independent. now her family has to help her bathe and walk. gladys wanted to hold the drug manufacturer accountable for what happened to her. she believed that the warning label that came with her prescription was inadequate, that it did not sufficiently disclose the risks of taking m.c.p. so gladys, a bingo-playing grandma from rural minnesota, decided to stand up for her rights. gladys took her fight all the

way to the united states supreme court. that's where things took a bizarre turn. in minnesota, as in many other states, the law requires drug manufacturers to warn patients of the known -- the known -- dangers associated with their products. manufacturers that don't follow the law are held accountable to the patients who are harmed as a result. people like gladys. but the supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, said that those laws don't apply to generic drugs, like the medicine gladys was taking. rather the court said that federal regulations actually prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels. prohibit generic drug manufacturers from updating their labels. it said that the regulation

prohibiting updating trumped minnesota federal regulation law which require full disclosure of potential risks. under that ruling even if a generic drug company wanted to provide better warnings of risks to consumers, it can't. now, generic drugs are, for all intents and purposes, the same as brand name drugs. they have the same active ingredients. they're used for the same purposes. and, yes, in most cases they should have the same labels. that's why current f.d.a. regulations require generic drug labels to match brand-name drug labels. but it doesn't make sense to prohibit generic drug makers from updating their labels to accurately reflect new side effects or risks that have come to light. yet, that is the current state of law. so the court dismissed gladys' case just because she was taking a generic drug. let me say that again.

because gladys was taking the generic version of her medicine, she was unable to skhraeurpbtd rights under -- vindicate her rights under minnesota law. if gladys suffered the same injuries from the brand name version of the same pill containing the same warning, she would have had her day in court. since the supreme court dismissed gladys' case last june, lower courts dismissed dozens of similar cases because as a recent article in "the new york times" aptly said -- quote -- "what once seemed like a trivial detail, whether to take a generic or brand-name drug, has become the deciding factor in whether a patient can seek legal recourse from a drug company." that doesn't make any sense. justice thomas, who wrote the supreme court's decision in gladys' case, admitted as much. he wrote this -- quote -- "we recognize that from the perspective of mensing, this

decision makes little sense." unquote. i agree with him on this point. i'd like to think he'd agree with me on this: prescription drugs should be safe, and their labels should be adequate. so, senators leahy, bingaman, brown, whitehouse, coons, blumenthal and i are introducing a bill that would guarantee just that. our bill, the patient safety and generic labeling improvement act, would allow generic drug makers to update their warnings -- allow them to update their warnings to accurately reflect the known risks associated with their drugs. that's it. it wouldn't require them to do so. it just lets them do what other drug manufacturers already are allowed to do. our bill says that millions of americans who are taking generic drugs are entitled to the same

protections as people who take brand-name drugs and says that people like gladys mensing are entitled to their day in court when manufacturers fail to disclose risks. i thank senator leahy for his leadership on this issue and urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this commonsense fix. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: and i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i noted earlier the very eloquent exchange between the senator from tennessee and my colleague from connecticut, senator lieberman, on pat summitt's resignation as the coach for women's basketball at the university of tennessee. i wanted to comment very briefly at the opening of my remarks today on pat summitt as also like senator lieberman a fan of uconn women's basketball team, a rival to the university of tennessee, a deeply entrenched rival, enthusiastic and stalwart rival, but also in recognition of her enormous contribution to women's sports. as a coach, leader and mentor, pat summitt transformed women's

athletics in america fundamentally and forever. her passion for excellence and her fight for fairness made her a force on and off the court. in a cause larger than herself. she achieved recognition for women's basketball, not just for her own team and enriched the lives and careers of countless women. although her team was a rival of the university of connecticut and i rooted against her when she played us, i wish her every good thing in the years ahead and admire her continued courage and fortitude. i want to speak on another basketball topic, one that is serious to the university of connecticut and to my state, where we have some wonderful student athletes. we do at the university of

connecticut have great student athletes. connecticut residents have watched with pride as the uconn huskies, both the women's and men's team, have brought home numerous basketball championships. i'm a strong believer that success in the classroom must accompany success on the court. i support efforts by universities and the ncaa to develop rigorous academic standards for student athletes, and i believe that schools failing to meet those standards should be penalized, but i also believe that these standards must be applied fairly, not capriciously or arbitrarily. regrettably, the ncaa's application of its own rules appears to be arbitrary, unjust, unfair against the uconn men's basketball program. last october, the ncaa adopted

new standards that determined a school's eligibility based on two or four-year average academic progress rates, so-called a.p.r.'s. these standards set a high bar for performance but unfortunately they did not provide schools with a phase-in period for the new rules. because these standards are based on several years of data, it is possible that a school could be retroactively punished for actions that occurred before the rules were implemented. and that's exactly what has happened to the uconn basketball men's team. these players have been told they will not be eligible to compete in the 2013 season, including the big east tournament and march madness, because of the academic progress grade scores from the 2006-2010

academic years. none of the players from those seasons remain on the uconn team now. this severe punishment falls on players who are clear of any substandard academic performance. in fact, uconn's recent student athletes have demonstrated exemplary academic performance. the team's academic progress rate for the 2010-2011 academic year was nearly perfect. the team's academic progress rate for the fall, 2011, semester was, in fact, perfect. instead of commending this improvement, the ncaa is ignoring it. the ncaa is basing its 2013 eligibility decision on data from the 2006-2010 academic years. if they had included the scores

from the 2010-2011 academic year, uconn's average would be high enough to meet the ncaa's new standards. uconn's administrators, coaches and student athletes have placed a strong emphasis on academic performance. the school and students have worked hard to meet those standards and to improve academics, and they have demonstrated laudable success. instead of this progress being acknowledged, it has been ignored by the ncaa, and these student athletes have been harshly punished for their predecessors' actions, not for their own. i have written today, joined by my colleague from connecticut, senator lieberman, to the president of the ncaa, mark emmert, raising these objections. we have been joined by other colleagues of the delegation.

i ask unanimous consent that that letter be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. this letter expresses our outrage and frustration with this process. it is a process that may be well intentioned. its goals may be laudable, raising academic standards must be done, and i support that effort enthusiastically and passionately. but the application of any rules must be fair, and applying them arbitrarily and unjustly undermines the credibility of the cause that is sought here. and as we say to president emmert of the ncaa, the present performance, current data, facts

as they now are on the ground, in the court, in the classroom, are the ones that should be operative and determinative to deny this team an opportunity to demonstrate its excellence on the court as well as in the classroom and punish it for the failures of past teams. is simply unfair and arbitrary. and i hope its decision will be changed. mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: tomple connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank my friend and colleague from connecticut for his words. i stand with him in this cause. you can say this is parochial, but -- and it's obvious that we're all -- the both of us and

most everybody in connecticut are proud of our u.conn basketball programs, both the men and the women, but, you know, there by the grace of the ncaa go every one of our colleagues, and their teams. everybody understands and grease there have to be academic standards but as senator blumenthal said so well, these standards are being unfairly applied to the university of connecticut men's basketball program in this case because they've been essentially punished, they have been already, and they've corrected the shortcomings, they've had what might be described as a perfect record that is in terms of players achieving academic -- the threshold standard, and to dheem out of the ncaa tournament next year is -- it's unfair. frankly in a direct sense it

hurts the university of connecticut in terms of the revenues that it needs to continue to produce not only -- not just good basketball but great academic offerings. but it also deprives the basketball fans around the country of a competition with all the best teams in it. and it has for our program at the university of connecticut consequences beyond next year. so this is -- you know, in my opinion cruel and unusual punishment and i'm very -- very glad to be joining with senator blumenthal in this. he's taken the lead on it but i stand by his side and arm and arm with members of the connecticut congressional delegation, just about everybody in the state of connecticut. we're going to keep pushing forward until we get this unjust

decision overturned. i thank the chair. i thank my friend. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: