sure that we would find the requisite cuts to match the that increase and, unfortunately, we just couldn't get congress, both sides of the capitol and the aisle, to go along with us. so i do think we've got to do everything we can to watch the spending. we need to be managing down this debt and deficit in a big way, and i think over time people are beginning to appreciate that watching the spending and shaving off unnecessary spending and getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse is one thing, but getting to the root of the problem which are our unfunded obligations in the entitlement programs is where the two sides just have a lot of difficulty coming together. ..

>> why would there be any incentive for him to do something in a lame-duck session? >> you could look at it that way, but then you can also save well, a month later, the tides will totally have turned and the new sort of elected parties will be in place, and hopefully though the election will serve as the endpoint of this big discussion and divide, and we can get on about trying to solve problems. and that's what my hope is. because the lame-duck will then

be okay, voters had their opportunities to speak out. we are where we are, let's get together and try to solve problems. >> do you foresee a deal by december 31 to avoid the cost of the bush tax cuts orgy thing to be an extension or what will happen? >> i can tell you one thing, mike, the house will do everything he can to make sure taxes don't go up for anybody. and so we will do, and make some moves i think throughout the year to reflect that notion that we don't blame -- >> the house will do everything it can, that's fine, so it sounds like there's a possibility that we will have, these tax cuts will expire. >> again, it depends who wins. it really does. i believe mitt romney will win. if mitt romney wins i believe we'll be in a position to make sure that we can, no taxes are going up by anybody and then we can also provide for a transition period so we can

effect real taxes on the way most of us have been talking. >> just yesterday house republican leaders including you sent a memo to house republicans leaders about ways to avoid the automatic spending cuts that are now scheduled to take him. the pentagon very concerned about these, but as i look through the way that you suggest to cut, sounds very much like the ones you are dismissing a moment ago, stopping fraud, eliminating government slush funds, restraining spending on grokster, reducing waste, duplicative programs. if you could get real money there that would've been to. >> no, i didn't diminish the importance of doing that. >> the dollar value you're likely to get out the next couple of months. >> i think you'll see us bring forward to the floor the week of may 7 a reconciliation package which will be over $200 billion in savings. that's some significant savings.

it will allow us to stave off the imposition of sequester for at least a year, so that we don't see the pentagon hit with the sequester after it's already been hit by the president's budget and a reduction that is required there. these are not inconsequential savings. we all know, even $200 billion in a year doesn't come close to the kind of deficit that we are racking up which makes my other point that it really is the entitlement question, the unfunded liabilities, within those programs that we've got to address. >> so if i am working in the pentagon or a defense contractor i should be worried or not worried? >> i think there's no question that we have got to support pentagon in its efforts to try to do more with less. >> i'm just trying to -- you want to support the pentagon and its efforts to do more with less, what do you mean? >> they are being faced now with the proposals by the president

under his budget. i believe the figure is $450 billion of cuts over 10 years, and are really going through the motions now of looking at where there could be savings. i mean, not unlike the private sector has been going through the last three or four years in this country, is finding out more efficient ways of doing things, bringing innovation to bear, management techniques. so we can preserve the investments that we have in our defense community, and shave off the inefficiency and the waste, and get on about the nation that the pentagon lives under, which is the defense of our country. >> your 20% business tax cut is on the floor today. there's conversation with a jake sherman earlier where he talked about there will be a number of message posts on taxes this year, but that doesn't actually help you. >> well, i mean, this is, the

20% small business tax cut was never proposed to be -- we know what we've got to do in this country which is broad tax reform. because it lends itself to the competitiveness of our country worldwide. it also will help capital and make sure that investment flourish is again in this country and gets washington out of the way of picking where capital should do. that to me is what tax reform doescome in addition to benefiting all taxpayers by reducing rates, right? by the 20% small business tax cut is something that we felt was the very least that we could do to help the job generators right now that are having so much difficulty. we all know jobs and economy are the number one issue facing the electorate. they want us to do something about it. what do you do about what you go to where the job innovators are, small business smack how many democratic votes will you get?

>> listen, i've never pretended to be a good counter on the other side of the aisle, and you know i think the president's signal that he wants to help small business, so that's why i sort of question it. the signal he will bow to is a small business tax cut. >> you mention tax reform, and politico had an interesting story saying -- they will work this year, or a push to get them to work to should get teed up. so you could take that up in 2013. how far do you think tax reform will go this year? and how much will the toughest arguments be worked out? >> both chairman camp and our web mccarthy are engaging in strategy planning sessions about what to do with our tax code. and i think -- >> so that doesn't come under its? >> i think we all know that the goal is to bring down rates. we all know the goal is to get

washington out of the business of crony capitalism. rewarding those with influence, the ability to seek advantage of the tax code which gets rid of the preferences and the loopholes, and make the system a lot flatter, a lot simpler and a lot fairer. we also know that over 45% of the people in this country don't pay income taxes at all, and we have to question whether that is fair. and should we broaden the base in a way that we can lower rates for everybody that pays taxes. so -- >> how are you talking about doing that? >> again, if you have over 45% of the people that don't pay income taxes in this country, the question is should have something in the game quick should even have a dollar, which is a notion that broadens the base. but again the purpose should be to bring down rates for everyone. if you look at the corporate rate, we all know, we of the first, the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized

world. that doesn't speak well for america. >> how might that be redressed? >> again, we have to take a look at where the burden is and what is best to help those who are at the bottom, sort of sector of the income scale. how do we help them with her income mobility? that's a candidate what we want to do, how do you help people who want to have a better life, want to have higher wages. you create growth. [inaudible] spee-10 create growth in the economy. how do you create growth in economy is lower the rates. you can create more opportunity. again, we have to take a look at this. this is a real fundamental question. in the, you look at who is paying taxes, what is supporting this government, and then you look at the reality of the income disparity in this country. how do you fix it? you fix it by increasing income mobility and that's the goal in

tax reform. >> after many years, the shape of the tax reform debate is pretty clear. the president also has put out a plan where he talked about lowering corporate tax rates and getting rid of loopholes. it sounds like they should be doable but you are smiling. >> because again, we should be able to inform -- reform tax reform. it's always from the white house what we've heard is tax reform means tax increases. we just don't believe -- >> this is not what they say. they do say they want to lower the rate. >> no, what they say, but when you see what they propose, when the president unveiled his proposals for international tax reform, right, the house tax code applies american base multinational, all of a sudden there's now a minimum international tax that american base multinationals will have to pay, putting them at an even more disadvantage, vis-à-vis their foreign government. >> that would be a deal killer

for you? >> i think we have to think about what the goal is here. the goal is to make us more competitive. the goal is yes, we want more revenues generated by a growing economy so we can help manage down the debt and deficit. you don't do that by saying you're just going to raise taxes because there's consequences to that their consequences, those that we want to create jobs here at home, they will have every incentive in to try to move abroad to escape the higher taxes. >> where do you think will be in taxes from at the end of the year? >> we are going to work towards that. we will work towards really putting out there, and as you know, we've been very bold in terms of putting forth prescriptions to try and manage down the debt and deficit. from the other side has not done. so i believe that we're going to be very concerted in looking at all the issues. ways and means just had a hearing on the retirement provisions in the tax code, and

what comprehensive tax reform means to those retirement provisions. i mean, this is not easy stuff. >> t. believe comprehensive tax reform will pass in 2013? >> i do believe that some form of tax reform will pass in 2013. >> what reform? >> again, this is tough stuff. this is very intricate, and we want to make it simple. >> so sounds like you're not optimistic about comprehensive tax reform? >> that's certainly the goal. and i did you say there will be some kind of tax reform, and i'm hoping it is comprehensive is the way i would like to see it but we all know we're working with 435 members in the house, another 100 in the senate come in the white house, and we all have to learn that in order to get some results we will have to come together. so when you say my kind of tax reform and the company to taxes on the think most of us on our side of the aisle in the house with you, certainly we want that to happen. but reality is results. that's what the voters are looking for.

and that's what this election will be about. >> for those of you on c-span and in live stream land, on twitter hash tag "playbook breakfast," give us your questions, you're heckling, your responses. and those will be handed to the in just a minute. first i'll ask you about house republican leadership. of the to go have a story about peace talks between your staff and the speaker stack it why can't you guys get a long? >> we get along fine, i mean really. we really do. there's some notion that we've got to have a story there and say we don't get along. we get along, speaker and i meet on a regular basis, one on one and in groups. >> but let's be accurate about this. this is not -- there is our reality to differences between those two offices. >> i can tell you we get along, and we've got a professional relationship, we have a personal relationship. and we're able to manage, as a

speaker and as a majority leader should manage in a way that allows our conference to function. we have regular communication, and again, i just think that there's a fascination where really it's misguided. >> does it bother you that that is him does that situation bobby? you think you should do more to correct its? >> i think of a fascination place fascination in the press is something that no longer bothers me. sort of taken for granted. >> so you're saying there's no reality at all? >> no. >> as you know, the white house was practically giddy at the idea of the opportunities you of all presented to make this a contrast competition. between the president and republicans. do you feel in the sense of where this goes now with mitt romney that you need to listen to what the republican de facto nominee wants the house republicans to do going forward

before november on the agenda in order to try to do that contras that the present is so eager to get? >> you know, i think if this election goes as the public polling suggests, it is going to be about jobs and the economy. we welcome the opportunity for voters to see the difference between our vision and the direction the economy, the country should take versus the president. it's very clear. the results have not been there. the economic policies of this white house have failed. and i think people understand that. that's why you see him pulling out today the anxiety level is very high among the voters in this country. because they don't have a lot of confidence of their ability to make it to the month in most cases as gas prices and tuition crisis and the threat of higher tax prices and health care and availability of the health care. it's just the uncertainty. that's why, you know, we welcome the opportunity to debate the

differences that we have got with this white house and, frankly, mitt romney's plan represents versus that of the president. >> is mitt romney a true conservative? >> yes, mitt romney is a true results driven conservative. he is somebody who has got a proven track record in the one area where voters are most interested in seeing results, and that's jobs and the economy. is the only one out there who has the track record. certainly the beach the president at his record stands and towers over the president in terms of job creation. he also is one is put out a bold plan for growth. this president has not done that. spent we have a lot of irons in the fire. what role do you plan to play? >> i want to be there to help mitt romney anyway we can because i believe that mitt romney will be very helpful as our candidate across the country in a house race. i am very focused on helping our

candidates deliver the message that we are the party of small business, we are the party of opportunity and job growth, and we have the prescriptions and put them out there, how to help small businesses, how to help entrepreneurs. and, frankly, how to ensure that america becomes the start of country again. we used to be known as the place to come to if you want to make a better life and strike out on your own. and we really are the country of economic freedom, and the country that says that economic freedom affords ordinary people the ability to do extraordinary things. and that is what really has become frayed, that notion in america. we want to restore the and mitt romney has a track record ability to say to people, it is all of us together, we claiming that thing. >> why are some house republicans so lukewarm about mitt romney? >> i just don't think that's true. i think people -- >> do you talk to them? jake sherman pointed out to us you don't even have to talk to

them off the record. they will say on camera. we quote them by name say. i can -- >> again, i have talked to more members than jake does. again, i would say we need them to stop selecting the ones who may want to give you the message that the narrative you want to portray his, but i can tell you our conference is excited around coalescing behind mitt romney as the candidate who is a standardbearer for economic freedom, entrepreneurialism and small business. that's what this election is about. this election is about freedom and opportunity. it's about making life better for people who seem to think that america has forgotten what has made it so great. >> so you think republicans are on fire, ecstatic about mitt romney? >> i think that republicans after having country primary process, you look to see what mitt romney has been through and sending out the opposition one by one, i think that we are now at a point where members in our conference are satisfied that

mitt romney is going to be a terrific candidate for us, and are not getting behind his candidacy and policies in contrast of those of the administration. >> what's the outlook for the house? >> i'm very bullish on the house, and whenever are overly confident in any kind of breakfast way, but i'm very confident that we will strike in our majority. as you know, we've got a program in place which stemmed from efforts initially called the young guns program that is in place that has now served to be an excellent vetting process and grooming process for seasoned candidates. and we are looking on offense, not just to defend our incumbents because we will be there, but i think redistricting has done, has yielded a safer playing field for us. i think many of our incumbents that were elected in what were

swing seats have been shifted off the swing category, if you look at the ranking. and we are looking at, playing offense and potentially to a 30-40 seats in play. >> so what's the most you could gain or lose? >> again, if we are looking to make sure that we are playing offense -- >> i'm sorry, i should ask this way. how many do you think you will get? >> listen to what i said because it's about all am going to say. 30-40 seats in play is our goal to be on offense. >> so you think he could pick up how many seats? >> i am thinking that we will see how things go, but again, i want to see us on offense 30-40 seats. >> but most people think even most other fellow top republicans think you'll lose some seats but you were saying you will gain seats? >> i am optimistic about our ability. >> that's not what you said before. before you said you would gain seats. >> that's the same thing i'm

saying now. >> okay. and just a minute we'll go to abc's john who has a question. first, another question about romney. should he put virginia governor bob mcdonnell on the ticket? >> listen, i'm a big fan of bob mcdonnell so if you want bob mcdonnell as vp, sure. i think you'd make a great vp. >> how would l.? >> i think that a lot of folks would make a great ep but certain would help us in virginia. i think that romney wins virginia now. is bob mcdonnell is on the ticket, bob mcdonnell homeless in virginia and north carolina, and a lot of the states were suburban voters matter. bob mcdonnell was my seat in house of delegates when you and i first met. he is father, he is coming in a, a family man, businessman. is somebody who understands what the independent voters want, and that's results. >> do you think it's been heard on the national stage?

>> i think of an attempt to try to do that but i don't, i think is leadership in virginia has been stellar. if you look at the public polling in virginia, bob mcdonnell is very partner. he's a results driven conservative. he's been able to manage his budget were a state whose unemployment number's are much lower than the national average. [inaudible] >> i think is very strong. >> what about paul ryan? >> paul ryan is true the. i've said before that he could be a great leader. and if he were to run for president a year or so ago, i said sure he would be great. >> how would he help mitt romney? >> i think, again, paul dempsey the ability to lead on matters of budget and has a clear grasp on the budget anybody i know. who is serving in congress. and understands the import of our getting fiscal house in order with experience. >> would that give romney some

vulnerability in the middle? >> again, i think the medal is focus on issues that affect their daily lives. and right now people are squarely focused in making their lives better. they want higher wages. they want to situation in college come down. they want to see health care costs come down. they want to see gas prices come down. they want to see their neighbors and have more job security. all these things have been out there and provided uncertainty and peoples lies for too long now, and the leadership there looking at in the white house is not responding to that anxiety. and i think that's what mitt romney and whoever he picks as vp is going to be the antidote to what people are looking for. >> i was about to ask about ryan and mcdonnell, but i want to follow-up on that but for something you mentioned come and i've heard this mentioned a lot by conservatives, 45% of americans not paying any federal income tax. just wondering, what do you do about that?

are you saying we need of a tax increase on 45% that right now pay no federal income tax? >> no, i think is in a macro way of looking at it, you got to discuss that issue, is what is going to fund the necessary operations of the federal government. how do we allow for that to take place in a way that we can see a growing economy? because whatever scenario you may choose to embrace about cutting spending or reforming the entitlement programs, the necessary piece is a growing economy, or you will never manage down and back to balance the budget. so that's got to be the goal. how do you deal with that? how do you deal with a shrinking pie and number of people and entities that support the operations of government? and how do you go about continue to milk them more, if that's

some want to do, but preserve their ability to provide the growth engine. and that leads me back to saying, those at the bottom end of the income scale want nothing more than to increase their income, to get up that ladder of success. so the goals should be, how do you do that? i never believed that you go and raise taxes on those have been successful that are paying in, taking away from them so that you just hand out and give to someone else. those somewhere else want hands up. so i would just and the broader question, the kind of issues we have got to be asking and finding resolution together so we can affect tax reform. >> quickly, on 2012 and then vp search. i'm wondering if you can give us some general principles that you think that should guide mitt romney in this choice. what should he be looking for?

should it be geographical diversity, should he try to put a woman on the ticket? and finally, your name was bandied around for mccain. should eric cantor be on the list? and witty except? >> no to the answer. eric cantor is not interested, is not at all in the. and ilogistics is. and the election is going to be very clear, there'll be a very clear choice, and it is mitt romney's choice. he will make that decision, and i think that he will set the tone of what the terms of the debate are. and we welcome that contrast with obama in terms of the economic vision of this country that is so central on the minds of so many people right now in america. >> you got in a little hot water for supporting challenger to a house member. what did you learn from that

episode of? >> mike, i can just say i made a commitment to a colleague of mine way back, and i felt it was necessary to live up to the word i gave that colleague. >> and what sort of, what have you learned from, you have gotten -- what you learned from that? >> again, some decisions you make, sometimes aren't easy, but i think most importantly, you live up to your commitment and you make sure that your word stays good. and the word doesn't need that some days it is good and some other days it is not. >> behind the scenes story that was on politico about this, it said that the member who lost, represented don manzullo, illinois, you support his challenger, accord the half-dozen republican forces he once said that you would not be safe. what did you take from that? >> again, i don't want to discuss that, and i would just say it has to do with a commitment i made to a

colleague, and my decision to want to live up to that commitment. >> you believe don manzullo said that? >> again, i'm not commenting on that. i think don manzullo is an upstanding individual. >> have you detected in the anti-semitism among members of congress? >> no. again, i don't want to say anything about those remarks. i don't want to talk about anything having to deal with this sort of darker side of sort of any kind of comments made. >> so you're saying there is a darker side? >> mike, i think all of us know that in this country, we've not always gotten it right in terms of racial matters, religious matters, whatever. we continue to strive to provide, you know, equal treatment to everybody. but to sit here and say in america that we've got it all right now, i think that pretty much all of us would say we

still have work. >> we are talking about the house republican conference, not america. >> innovation, you're just back from a field trip to google and facebook. you are the first member i think with a twitter wall posted tell us that. >> we have got to go with the people are. i mean, we try to be very aggressive in opening up the kinds of things that we are doing here and making them accessible to the people of the country. so much of what the people of the country see and feel that is coming out of washington has come for the longest time, been controlled by others. what social media has done is enable the people to actually a symptom ownership. to control what it is the kind of news they want, to be able to interject themselves in the debate -- >> tell us what your twitter wall looks like. >> i mean, it's a twitter wall that is a panel. >> is it in your waiting in?

>> that, in the lobby. a central place where i don't have to walk by to get into the office, and i think it's a clear reminder that everything we are doing should be ventilated with the public and the people that send us your. we will end up getting a better work product if we, if we pay attention to the fact that we've got to engage the public. it is they who send us your. and i just think that is what social media, twitter, facebook, if any of the platforms now online, and on your belt or in your pocket. that allow people to engage in a much more rapid fashion for sure, and a much fuller way. the more we can do that, the more we can invite people in, we have a program called citizens cosponsor project -- >> facebook? >> that we just launched. it was a launch to be compatible with facebook and other social media platforms, where people

can incorporate sort of what they like and the things that they are tracking in the legislative process into their homepage and to the profile page so that their friends can see what's going on. their friends can get the updates come and maybe it will spark some kind of interest but hey, i can go in and i can sort of begin to figure out this as well. and become an owner of the process, to -- >> we will be this discussion at this point to go live to the floor of the u.s. senate where members today will continue working on a bill we authorizing the violence against women act that expires later this year. they began debate after a bill changing the u.s. postal service ran into controversy over amendments. there will be procedural votes r at 2:15 p.m. today. now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. a new day you have given to us. may our endeavors honor you, and may we all serve the cause of life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness in this beloved land of ours. may we truly be justice and love kindness and walk humbly with you, our god. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 19, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1925 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 312, s. 1925, a bill to reauthorize the violence against women act of 1994. mr. reid: i would yield to my friend from rhode island. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. whitehouse: i thank the majority leader for that courtesy. i'll only take a moment to recognize and welcome reverend rebecca spencer who shared with us the prayer that began the senate's session this morning. she has been the pastor of central congregational church in providence, rhode island since 1988, it was my congregation for the years that i lived in providence, my wife and i renewed our vows under her care. she is a wonderful and thoughtful preacher from the

pulpit, her church has perhaps the best musical and choral program, almost certainly anywhere in rhode island and probably for a good distance around if you have not heard the hallelujah chore us sung -- chorus sung at easter at congressry gaitional church you've missed an experience. her greatest experience in a community she has served now for 24 years has been pastoral work with the families that make central congregational church their home and the home of their faith from births to baptisms, for kids coming up through the youth programs that the church runs, through marriages and, unfortunately, sometimes divorces and through illness and death, rebecca, reverend spencer, is a wonderful friend and a wonderful solace and a

wonderful gift to all of the congregation that she serves. she is joined today in the gallery by her sons tom ands a -- and ezra and we welcome them as well. we are delighted that she has taken the time to come down from providence, rhode island and i want to thank our chaplain, chaplain black, for his courtesy in helping to facilitate this. majority leader reid, thank you very much. i yield the floor. mr. reid: the senate -- the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: the senate is now considering if motion to proceed to the violence against women reauthorization act. following my remarks and those of the republican leader if any, the first hour will be equally divided between the two sides, republicans will control the first 30 minutes, democrats the final 30 minutes. following that, i note that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments to the substitute amendment and to the

postal reform bill is 11:00 a.m. today. we're still hopeful of working on agreement on proposal reform. if in agreement is reached there will be a cloture vote on the substitute amendment this afternoon at 2:15. mr. president, for more than two decades, 200 years, america's postal service thrived and grew in spite of rapidly changing technology. the postal service survived the invention of the telegraph, the telephone, it expanded despite radio and television, grew regardless of the fax machine. the post office was create ited in the day of the quill and pen. the quill i should say and inkwell and i talked about yesterday. mail bags went across horses. the post office survived all that. but it grew through the days even of horse and buggy, steamboat and railroad and to the age of airplanes. it adjusted to the expansion of the suburbs, to the growth of cities and the expansion of our

population generally. and it adapted from hand sorting and conveyor belts with the in-- invention of zip he codes and optical sorting machines. the post office found cutting edge ways to do more and more, to move mail more quickly, and more of it. in fact, for two centuries the postal service actually relied on technology to cope with constant growth, growth in the volume of mail it delivered and the number of homes and businesses to whom it delivered. for 200 years the postal service kept up with the flood of -- packages and letters and catalogues and fliers, life serving medications, bulk mail and overnight delivery, all of that the post office survived. but today the postal service handles nearly half the world's mail. 554 million pieces of day -- every day.

6,400,000 peoples every second. that feat would be impossible without technology and world-class facilities and workers. but now technology is both a solution and a problem. in the last five years, the postal service has seen mail volume drop by more than 20%. that trend is expected to continue. email and online bill payments has significantly contributed to this crisis. today letters, orders, payments across the world happen with the click of a mouse. and the challenge facing the postal service is how to adapt to a decreasing volume of mail rather than how to deal with increasing demand. the bipartisan compromise before the senate will help the system do just that. it will build a leaner, smarter post office that offers new products and services while protecting its mission, delivering the mail six days a week to every corner of our great nation. the postal reform legislation before this body will sensibly restructure the system while preserving overnight and saturday delivery and the

legislation will save the postal service from insolvency and will reduce the work force and the number of facilities it maintains. but it wall also protect postal employees including 130,000 veterans of the armed forces. it will also safeguard the more than eight million jobs that depend on a vibrant postal system. and most importantly, look out for the needs of millions of seniors, people with disabilities, small business owners and rural americans for whom the u.s. mail is an important life line to the outside world. unlike the unacceptable bill congressman issa is pursuing in the house this bipartisan senate bill preserves the postal service we know and rely on. the house bill by contrast would immediately eliminate saturday delivery and set up commissions to unilaterally cut costs by closing post offices and processing plants. voiding union contracts and laying off tens of thousands of workers when our economy can

least afford it. that may be why congressman issa's bill has not come up for a vote. could be other reasons. but even the tea party advocates have trouble supporting his reckless ideas. the senate bill we're considering today isn't perfect. it won't save every post office, won't save every job or distribution center. it won't please every senator or postal worker. unlike the house legislation it's a strong, i apete bipartisan bill that will modernize an stliewtion enshrined in the constitution without gutting its mission. i hope we can continue to work together to pass this legislation but we'll have to make a decision on that this morning, mr. president. i appreciate everyone's cooperation. i ask especially, appreciate the hard work of senator joe lieberman and senator susan collins, the two who will manage this legislation. there have been others who have worked very hard on this legislation, not the least of which is tom corps -- tom

carper, who has devoted a lot of the last year few years of his life to this legislation. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the plierd is recognized. the senate is currently in a quorum call. mr. . mr. mcconnell: yesterday i called attention to kristine svinicki, a widely respected engineer who sits on the nuclear

regulatory commission. the federal agency charged with ensuring the nation of our nation's nuclear power plants. at the moment, commissioner sven i can is in africa -- svenicy is in africa at the request of the obama administration which shouldn't surprise anybody since she is one of the world's leading experts on the topic. and since president obama's own chief of staff signed a letter a few months ago expressing the administration's confidence in her commitment to the mission of the n.r.c., and her ability to fulfill it. i have the letter, it's debated december 12, and -- dated december 1 and i ask consent it appear in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mr. mcconnell: : despite the administration's stated support for her work she has not been

renominated. the white house alone has the power to renominate. for some reason, they haven't. look, the only possible reason for this delay is the fact that she had the courage to blow the whistle on the commission's chairman, gregory jasko --, jazz co, a guy whose temper toward subordinates, particularly women, nearly cost him his job. let's be clear about this. the only reason we're talking about christine sphin -- kristine svinicki is because she had the courage to stand up to a hostile work environment and the bully responsible for it. it's the only reason we're having this conversation. she should be a -- applauded for that, not hung out to dry. yet that's precisely what's been happening here. commissioner svinicki is one of the world's leading experts on nuclear safety. she was confirmed to her current term without a single dissenting vote. not one.

she enjoys the president of her colleagues, and as the letter i just shows of the obama administration as well. her renomination papers were completed more than a year ago, as was the f.b.i. report that nominees have to complete ahead of being confirmed. if this nomn continues to be held up after she had the courage to take a stand, it will send a chill up the spine of every whistle-blower in washington. commissioner svinicki spoke out against a guy that even a democratic commissioner say bullied employees and intimidated female works. commissioner svinicki did the right thing in raising the alarm. she shouldn't pay a price for it. the white house says it likes the job she's doing. they just sent her to africa to give a keynote address on

nuclear safety. yet, for over a year there's been silence. it's my hope they're not rewarding abusive behavior by silencing someone who had the courage to speak out. there's no reason for this renomination and reconfirmation to wait another single day. if democrats have a problem with commissioner svinicki, then let's debate it. so this morning i renew my call for the white house to send this nomination over immediately and for the senate to act quickly to get commissioner svinicki reconfirmed. the white house said just yesterday there should be no interruption in the service on the commission. so why don't we get this done? mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the first hour will be equally divided and controlled between the clue leaders or their -- between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the

majority controlling the second 30 minutes. the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. coburn: thank you. i wanted to spend a few minutes talking about the uproar that is occurring over the g.s.a. conference waste that has been in the news of late. but my criticisms are not mainly directed towards the g.s.a. over three years ago i started doing oversight on conferences by government agencies. today i have an amendment that won't be allowed to be considered that will hold the agencies accountable in terms of their conferences. through the years i put out five reports on wasteful conference spending from the department of justice where it spent $380 million over a five-year period on conferences, to the department of agriculture, to

the department of h.h.s. in terms of sending thousands of people to one conference at a time. all of it went unheeded. and now we have the g.s.a. with members of the senate and the house aghast at the waste that has been spent in terms of the g.s.a. conference out west. had we been doing our job and the multiple amendments that i've offered over the last six years to control conference spending which have been reject ed in party-line votes to try to bring some semblance of reasonableness and control to conference spending by the various federal government agencies. so we have this problem with the g.s.a. today, but not because of the g.s.a. because of ourselves. because we refused to do the

hard work of passing requirements that hold federal agencies accountable. my hope would be that we would in one small step accept an amendment on the postal bill that would allow us to start holding the agencies accountable. it makes for great press and great tv when we stand aghast at what is obviously wasteful spending by an agency. but that accomplishes nothing other than advance the political careers of my colleagues. what accomplishes something is real teeth, real legislation that holds the agencies accountable. so it would be my hope that we could have a vote. i don't even think it would take a vote. i think we could get it accepted by unanimous consent that would force the agencies to now come

into compliance both in terms of transparency and accountability on how they spend their money. every federal government agency today has the capability for doing teleconferencing. we don't have to send 1,000 people at $2,000 a piece to a conference to accomplish education and training. we all have it in our offices. but what the g.a.o. has determined is most federal employees see conferencing as one of the perks of their jobs in one of their reports. so i would invite the american constituency to look at my web site, coburn.senate.gov and look at the reports we put out over wasteful conference and spending over the last three to five years and ask yourself a question: why didn't conference and ask yourself why didn't congress act on it?

now we claim we're insulted at the waste when we had five different opportunities on amendment votes to do something about it. we rejected it. we've seen oversight reports that are fully documented, that shows the waste. and yet, we haven't done anything. if you're upset with the waste of the g.s.a. conference, who you need to be upset with is members of the u.s. senate who have rejected time and again the ability to hold agencies accountable on their conference spending. it would be my hope that in a bipartisan manner we can address this issue not just for g.s.a. but for every government agency so that now we see transparency. now we see accountability in how the american, hardworking americans' taxpayer dollars are spent, not wasted, and now that when -- know that when they spend money on a conference, it's going to be out there, everybody's going to see it, and they're going to have to justify not only the expenditure but the

reason why we're sending people to vacation spots when we could be doing it through teleconferencing and bringing needed updates to federal employees in a much more efficient and more effective way. with that, i yield the floor and i note my colleague from missouri is here and would yield to him. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i thank my good friend and congressional neighbor. we represented missouri and oklahoma when we served in the house together. it is good to be serving together with my friend and hear his commonsense approach on how we need to solve the problems we're facing as a country and the needless problems the government seems to be willing to create for itself. we've been talking so much, at least the president has been talking about economic fairness as the principal goal of the tax

code. frankly, the most fair thing we can do in the tax code and most fair thing we can do in the senate would be working to be sure that we're dealing with the important issues that job creators and families are dealing with across the country today. all of us have had the opportunity to be home for a couple of weeks, for the last two weeks. i was able to be in the last of the 115 missouri counties i hadn't been in since i was sworn into the senate 15 or so months ago. i learn a lot when i'm out there, and what i learned this time is that people are really focused on fuel cost, fuel costs are on track to hit an average of $4 a gallon by summertime. this is more than double what fuel costs were in january of 2009. and it set the all-time record for the last two months.

i talked to the -- to people in south central missouri who are trying to provide transportation for older americans and disabled americans, and the fuel cost increase of $150,000 means that they have to cut back their services. the chamber of commerce survey this week found that nearly one out of four small businesses reported that their top concern was gas prices. and when you think about that, whether it's delivery or whether it's their employees getting to work or whether it's people deciding that they can't go to that small business, that restaurant, that bowling alley, that movie theater or whatever it might be because they put too much money in the gas tank of their car, we should be concerned. unfortunately, instead of working to pass solutions that

would jump-start our economy and restore consumer confidence, we seem to want to talk about the wrong things over and over again. we had a vote this week on the so-called buffett tax, a tax that almost everybody that talked about this discussion said it's more of a gimmick than a solution because even if you collected this new tax on warren buffett and his wealthy friends, it would -- in a year you'd collect what the federal government deficit is in a day. we're not going to solve this problem dealing with 1/365 of the deficit like it's the solution to the problem. the lead sponsor of the buffett tax in the senate, senator whitehouse, said on the senate floor that the aim of the bill is not to lower the unemployment rate or the price of gasoline. why wouldn't we have a bill on

the floor that the aim of it was to either do something about energy prices or job creation? this bill would generate -- would have generated less than 1% of the $7 trillion deficit projected in the 2013 budget during that same period of time. it would take 250 years to collect enough money under the so-called buffett rule to pay the 2011 deficit. if the solution to this year's -- to last year's deficit would take us 250 years of recovery, the truth is we're just wasting a lot of time here on little things rather than big things. you can make little things sound like big things. you can make it sound like, that fairness is the critical element of everything the government should do as opposed to opportunity being the critical

element of everything that government should do. you can make it sound like that people will still invest money -- their ira or their lifetime savings -- if the return is -- even if you're successful is zero, but that's not going to happen. mr. president, i just finished reading a book about president eisenhower and general eisenhower. there are many pertinent things today in that book, but one was when general eisenhower and others came back from world war ii, the top tax rate was 90%. in fact, the top tax rate from about 1934, 1933-1934 until 1981 was always at least 70%. but two points to be made there: one, nobody paid it if they could figure out how to avoid it, and almost everybody figured out how to avoid it. lots of passive investment

instead of active investment. it had to be a good time for municipal bonds because there was no tax on municipal bonds. why not put your money there rather than in a place where if you made money, 70% would go to the federal government. or in 1946, 90% would go to the federal government. in the capital gains rate, which happened to be the rate that world war ii memoirs were taxed at, which is why it was in this book, was 25%. even when the top rate in the country was 90%, nobody thought that the capital gains rate should be even a third of that, because they knew that people wouldn't invest money if there's no return. we need tax policies that multiply the opportunities created in our economy rather than subtract from those opportunities. if we want this not to be about politics but about math, it needs to be about multiplication, not subtraction. it needs to be about how do you

drive an economy to create more private -- encourage more private-sector jobs? how do you encourage investment? how do you encourage people taking risks because if nobody takes a risk, somebody else doesn't get an opportunity. people being willing to take a risk means that an opportunity is created for somebody else that wouldn't have been created otherwise. so last month we were here talking about tax hikes on american energy producers that clearly would be passed along to consumers. nobody even argues that if you had passed those tax hikes last month that gas prices wouldn't go up. now why in the world would we be arguing about anything that would raise gas prices rather than lower gas prices? the sponsor of that bill said -- the sponsor of that bill said nobody has made the claim that

this bill is about reducing gas prices. the majority leader, mr. reid, admitted it's not a question of gas prices. senator schumer said, "this was never intended to talk about lowering gas prices." senator begich said the bill -- quote -- "won't decrease prices at the pump for our families and small businesses." and these are the supporters of the bill. why would we have a bill on the floor to do that when we could support what the president says he's for which is an all-of-the-above energy strategy. let's do what we can to solve this problem. the most glaring recent example is of course the keystone pipeline would run right through nigh my good friends from north dakota, come through their sedate state, go through nebraska, through other states, get to our refineries and create 20,000 jobs, it

would decrease our country's dependence on people that don't like us very well and it would encourage more north american energy, it would encourage energy from our best trading partner, canada. it's just one of the commonsense steps that we can make and funding if you'd have told me a couple years ago when you're home in the spring of 2011 that one of the things that people will be talking to you about is why aren't we building an oil pipeline from canada, i'd say that's pretty detailed understanding of our energy problems. but it's an understanding that's out there. if we're going to create real economic fairness, we need to work together to pass solutions that will bring down prices at the pump and get americans back to work. that's why i believe, mr. president, we need to utilize all forms of american energy, including wind and solar, renewable, biomass,

shale gas, shale oil, coal, nuclear alternatives, just announcements being made today by one of our missouri utility companies in westinghouse about small nuclear and how that might be part of this all-of-the-above solutions. i'm ready to work with my colleagues across the aisle and anywhere else to do what we can to help american families. i hope that we can do this together. the shortest path to more american jobs is more american energy. the best and most fair thing we could do is what's good for american families and small businesses and job opportunities. i hope we can get to work on that and, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota is recognized.

mr. conrad: mr. president, i rise today to discuss what i did in the budget committee yesterday, why i did it, and where we're headed. mr. president, i have heard people say repeatedly the united states senate has now gone for some thousand days since passing a budget resolution. mr. president, what they're not telling people is that last year instead of a budget resolution, the senate and the house and the president signed a budget control law. the occupant of the chair knows very well-being a former attorney general that a resolution is purely a congressional document. never goes to the president for his signature. the budget control act that we passed last year, it's true, was not a resolution, it was a

law. signed by the president of the united states. mr. president, that law, the budget control act, said we're going to set the budget for this year and next, but beyond that we are also going to put in place ten years of spending caps saving $900 billion. now, on the question of whether the budget control act represents or takes the place of a budget resolution, for this year and next, let me just read from the text. because i think it makes it abundantly clear. it says "the allocations, aggregates and levels set in the budget control act shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget." that's pretty clear.

this law, the budget control act law, is to serve in the same manner as a budget resolution for 2012 and 2013. and it sets out the spending limits for those years. but it even goes further. and sets spending caps for ten years, something that in my time here has never been done in a budget resolution. never in a budget resolution. while i've been here has there been the setting of ten years of spending caps but that's what was done in the budget control act last year. but it went even further than that. it also created a special committee and empowered that committee to come up with a proposal to reform the entitlement programs, social security and medicare, and reform the tax system of the united states and told that

special committee if you come to an agreement, you can bring that legislation to the floor without fear of filibuster, without fear of filibuster. extraordinary powers were granted in that budget control act to reform social security and medicare and the tax system as well. mr. president, that special committee did not agree, and the budget control act said if you don't agree, there are consequences, and the consequences are another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts over on top of the $900 billion of spending restraint that was in the underlying act. mr. president, the special committee didn't agree so now we have the prospect of a sequester imposing another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts on top of the $900 billion of spending cuts in

the underlying act. for a total of over $2 trillion of spending cuts. that's the biggest spending cut package as far as i know in the history of the united states. for the other side to suggest repeatedly that nothing has been done to set spending limits when they know full well the budget control act passed last year, yes, it wasn't a resolution, it was a law. boy, that's sort of civics 101 that a law is stronger than a resolution. now, i said several days ago i would go to markup in the budget committee and i would lay out a long-term plan, because while it is true we have in place for the next two years a budget under the budget control act, what we don't have is an overall long-term plan, one that deals

with spending because the budget control act also is limiting discretionary spending for the next ten years, but we also need a program that outlines what we're going to do about entitlement programs, medicare, social security, and what we're going to do to reform our tax system which is badly broken. so, mr. president, i said several days ago i would lay before the budget committee the bowles-simpson plan which is the only bipartisan plan which has emerged, supported by 11 of the 18 commissioners, i was proud to be one. five democrats, five republicans, one independent. 11 of the 18 voted to support that bowles-simpson package. unfortunately, it took a super, supermajority for that plan to come to the floor of the house and the senate. it required 14 of the 18 members to agree. 11 of 18 did. that's more than 60%.

even in washington, usually 60% carries the day, but it didn't with respect to the bowles-simpson recommendation. so i said several days ago i would put before the boat the bowles-simpson plan. i did not subject that we would complete action on it at the beginning of the markup. why? because we already have in place the spending limitations, the spending limits for this year and next. what we don't have is a longer term plan. that longer term plan we don't need right at this moment, we need it before the end of the year. because at the end of the year, all of the bush era tax cuts are going to expire, and at the end of this year we're going to face that sequester that i mentioned that is in the budget control act law that we passed last year

instead of a budget resolution. mr. president, why do we need this longer term plan? well, because we are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. mr. president, that's unsustainable. it's got to change. i've warned repeatedly of where we're headed if we don't change course. and here's where we're headed. this shows the gross debt of the united states if we stay on the trajectory we're on. you can see here here in 2012. at the end of this year the gross debt of the united states will be 104% of our gross domestic product, headed for 119% on our current trajectory. now, mr. president, that shouldn't be permitted to happen. and under the plan i laid before our colleagues yesterday, it won't happen. if we look at the underlying

causes of these deficits and debt, you can see it is the relationship between spending and revenue. the red line is the spending line, the green line is the revenue line of the united states. looking back to 1950. and what one sees is that spending is at or near a 60-year high, actually we've fallen back somewhat from the 60-year high we reached two years ago. revenue is at or near a 60-year low, actually we can see it's bumped up a little bit, again, from its 60-year -- actually a 70-year low back in 2010. but still we see a very wide gap between revenue and spending. as a result, a very large deficit. a deficit of $1.2 trillion. now, mr. president, i could have gone before the budget committee yesterday and laid out

another partisan plan because that's what's happening, congressman ryan to his credit laid out a plan, and in the house they passed his plan. i give him credit for laying out a plan. i think the plan is a very bad plan for the country, completely lacks balance, is all done on the spending side of the equation which leads him to truly draconian cuts, dramatic changes in medicare, for example, dramatic changes in medicaid, dramatic changes in the whole structure of services that the government provides people in this country. mr. president, the american people don't want a plan that's just a partisan plan. they don't want a plan that lacks balance. they don't want a plan that's just on one side of the ledger, as i showed in the previous chart, we've got a problem on both sides of the ledger, on

revenue and on spending. we've got to work on both sides of the ledger. mr. president, the american people believe that as well. when asked in the pew research center poll last year in november what is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit, 17% said just cut major programs. 17%. increase taxes, 8% said just increase taxes. 62% said a combination of both. and, mr. president, i think the american people have it right. they're pretty smart. they're pretty smart. and in 2010 we had the bowles-simpson commission, the so-called fiscal commission. 18 of us were named to serve. it was created by the president after a legislative attempt led

by senator gregg of new hampshire, republican, and myself, failed here, we got a majority but we didn't get a supermajority. and so our attempt to form a commission legislatively was thwarted. president obama showed leadership and named a commission, a presidential commission, in order to take on the subject. and in december of 2010, that commission reported their conclusion, with 11 of the 18 of us agreeing to the remtionz. mr. president -- recommendations. mr. president, here are the principles and values they used to guide their efforts. that it's a patriotic duty to make america better. that we shouldn't do anything that would disrupt the economic recovery. that we ought to cut and invest to promote economic growth and keep america competitive.

today that we ought to protect the truly disadvantaged, that we ought to cut spending that we cannot afford with no exceptions. that we ought to demand productivity and effectiveness from washington. that we ought to reform and simplify the tax code. we shouldn't make promises we can't keep. and that the problem of deficits and debt are real, and the solution will be painful. let's be honest. near borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you spend, you aren't going to solve this in a way that doesn't affect anyone. all of us are going to have to participate in the solution, and we should do things to make america sound over the long run. so what did the fiscal commission conclude? what did they do? here's what they did? they put in place $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten

years, including savings that have already been enacted in the budget control act. it lowers the deficit from 7.6% of g.d.p. in 2012 to 2.5% in 2015 and down to 1.4% in 2022. so because of the reductions in deficits, it stabilizes the debt and begins to bring it down. in fact, it stabilizes the gross debt by 2015 and lowers it to 93% of g.d.p. by 2022. remember my previous slide? here's a quiz: what did it say the debt would become by 2022 if we don't do anything, as a share of g.d.p.? it said it would become 119% if we didn't act. under the proposal i laid before the budget committee yesterday, it would bring down the debt to 93% of g.d.p., the gross debt to 93% of g.d.p. by 2022 instead of

119% if we fail to act. the plan i laid out reduces overall spending to 21.9% of g.d.p. by 2022. discretionary spending to 4.8% of g.d.p. by 2022, a record low. a record low. in fact, this overall spending level, mr. president, is lower than the average spending level during the reagan administration. our colleagues on the other side are always eager to embrace ronald reagan's policies. well, the proposal i laid out yesterday has a lower average spending as a share of our national income than did president reagan during the entire period of his presidency. the plan i laid out also builds on health care reform with additional health savings and fully funds the doc fix.

what is the docs fix? that is the measure to prevent the doctors who treat medicare patients from taking a cut of more than 20%. the plan also calls for social security reform that ensures that the 75-year solvency of social with the savings only to extend solvency, not for deficit reduction. in other words, social security reform, those savings are not used for deficit reduction. they are only used to extend the solvency of the program itself. and the plan i laid out includes fundamental tax reform, makes the tax code simpler, fairer, more efficient while raising more revenue to reduce our deficit and debt. mr. president, this chart shows the deficit as a percentage of g.d.p. under the fiscal commission budget plan that i laid before our colleagues yesterday. and you can see it takes the

deficit from 7.6% of g.d.p. this year, which is down, by the way, substantially from 10%, which is where it's been; down to 1.4% in 2022. the fiscal commission budget plan reduces the deficits below the 3% of g.d.p. level that is considered sustainable by economists. and it does that by 2015. mr. president, again, the gross debt under the plan that i put before colleagues comes from the fiscal commission work, the bowles-simpson plan recommended in 2010, would take the gross debt down to 92% of g.d.p., a dramatic, even more dramatic improvement compared to what the debt would be if we fail to act.

mr. president, as i indicated, the spending level under the fiscal commission budget plan is about 21.8% of g.d.p. during the reagan administration spending was 22.1% of g.d.p. so we have lower overall spending as a share of the national income than was the case during the reagan administration. and, in fact, discretionary spending goes to an all-time low of 4.8% by the end of the ten-year plan. you can see discretionary spending that is distinct from mandatory spending. mandatory spending are things like social security and medicare. discretionary spending are things like defense and national parks and law enforcement, education. you can see discretionary spending as a share of our national income is dropping very sharply under this plan. what's happening on the other side of the ledger is the

800-pound gorilla, which is health care. that is the thing which threatens to spafrp the boat around here -- swamp the boat. in 1972, federal health spending was about 1% of our gross domestic product. if we don't take further steps by 2015, it's going -- 2050, it's going to be 13% of our gross domestic product. from 1% to 13%. right now in this country, 18% of our g.d.p. is going to health care. one in every six dollars in our whole economy is going to health care. more than one in every six dollars. so that's something we've got to focus on like a laser. and in the fiscal commission plan, we do focus on it like a laser. it doesn't open the health reform debate that we just concluded, but it does provide an option to phase out the tax

exclusion for health care that economists tell us would be one of the most effective things we could do to change the direction of health care expenditure. it fully offsets the cost of the so-called doc fix so that our doctors treating medicare patients don't face this huge cut that is currently in the law. and we have additional savings proposals with medicare beneficiary cost sharing, payments to health care providers being reformed, eliminate state gaming of the medicaid tax and providing the medicaid drug rebate for those who are duly eligible in medicare. this would save hundreds of billions of dollars. mr. president, while the fiscal commission did make a recommendation on social security, those numbers are not

included in the proposal i put before our colleagues yesterday because i am precluded from doing so by the law. the congressional budget act of 1974 prohibits the inclusion of social security in deficit totals of a budget resolution. so i did lay out the proposal from the fiscal commission on reforming social security. i could not include it in the numbers because i am precluded from doing so by the law. mr. president, here are the recommendations from the fiscal commission that i included in my proposal to our colleagues but that are not in the numbers for the reason i've given. calls for a social security reform that does the following: reform social security to make it solvent, not for deficit reduction. restore 75-year solvency and puts it on a stable path beyond

75 years. strengthens the safety net by enhancing the minimum benefit for low-wage workers and by giving an actual bump up in benefits for the oldest seniors and the longtime disabled. one of the things we know, people that live a long time run out of their benefits. so we proposed in the fiscal commission to actually give them a little bump up after they have been in retirement for an extended period of time. we also provided a hardship exemption for those who are unable to work past the age of 62. one of the theupbgs we know is you can take early retirement at age 62 and we're going to have to increase the retirement age of social security over a time, over a very long time, by the way -- in this proposal we increase the retirement age to *69 over a decades. mr. president, we've got to increase also the maximum level

of wages that are taxed for social security because the traditional standard is no longer being followed. we're not taxing 90% of the benefits. that doesn't mean the tax is 90%, by the way. it means that 90% of income is being subjected to the tax. what's been happening over years is we have been getting a reduced share of income in this economy to apply the social security tax to. that's one of the reasons we have a shortfall over time. and we raise the retirement age under this plan, but only very gradually, reaching 69 by 2075. this is 2012. so you don't raise the retirement age to 69 until 2075. that's 63 years from now. but make no mistake, that's important because people are living longer. in fact, people are living much

longer. now, mr. president, we also have a need for tax reform. the tax code's out of date. it's inefficient and it's hurting u.s. competitiveness. the complexty imposed significant burden on individuals and businesses. expiring provisions create uncertainty and confusion. we're hemorrhaging revenue to the tax gap, to tax havens, to abusive tax shelters. many times on this floor i've shown a picture of a little building down on the cayman islands called ugland house. ugland house, mr. president, claims to be the home to 18,000 corporations. a little five-story building down in the cayman islands. claims to be the home to 18,000 companies. are all those companies doing business out of that little five-story building? no. the only business they're doing down there is monkey business. and the monkey business they're doing is ducking their taxes here and shoving the burden on

to all the rest of us who pay our taxes. mr. president, that's not right. so we've got to go after these tax havens, these abusive tax shelters. mr. president, we can do it. we need to restore fairness. the current system is contributing to growing income inequality. and our long-term fiscal imbalance, those deficits and debt we talked about, must be addressed. mr. president, the c.b.o. director, mr. elmendorf, talked about the economic benefits of tax reform in a hearing before the budget committee. he said -- and i quote -- "i think analysts would widely agree that reform of the tax code that broadened the base and brought down rates would be a positive force for economic growth both in the short term and over the longer period." mr. president, tax reform has got to be part of the agenda of this congress. and here is what's happening to income disparity in america.

look what's happened. the top 1% -- and i'm all for the top 1% doing well. i want everyone to do well in america. look what's happening. since 19 79, the top 1% their incomes have gone up almost 300%. look what's happened to those in the middle and those at the bottom. they're incomes have stagnated. they have been about stable. gone up a little bit, but not very much. the top 1% has gone up like a rocket. mr. president, one of the reasons is the tax code of the united states has dramatically reduced the wealthiest in our country, the tax burden that they show -- shoulder. they'll tell you their taxes have gone way up. sure they have, because their incomes have gone way up. what's gone down, what's gone way down is the effective tax rate that they pay.

the wealthiest 400 families in america have had their effective tax rate about cut in half since 1995. again, i'm not one who's against success. i come from a family that has succeeded. i come from a family that has done well. and i'm deeply appreciative. i'm grateful of the opportunity this country has provided to my family. but you know what? what's fair is fair. what's fair is fair. we've got to ask everybody to help pull this wagon out of the ditch. and we're in the ditch. and let's get serious about getting out. mr. president, if we broaden the base of our tax system, the people who will be most affected are the wealthiest among us because look what happens. here is the increase in

after-tax income on average from tax expenditures in this country. that's the loopholes, the deductions, the credits, the exclusions that are in the current tax code. there are others who are paying at a level one half as much. same income, but paying much

less in taxes. why? because they have set up their affairs in a way that they especially benefit from the credits, the exclusions, the deductions and all the rest of the tax gimmicks that riddle the current tax code. mr. president, here is what one of the most conservative economists in the country said about reducing tax expenditures. this is martin feldstein, professor of economics at harvard, chairman of the council of economic advisors under president reagan. this is what he said about cutting tax expenditures. cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending. eliminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment, or risk taking. it would also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort prieftd

spending decisions, and eliminating or consolidatingthe large number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would also greatly simplify tax filing. in short, cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue. that from one of the most conservative economists in the country. mr. president, our colleagues on the other side say wait a minute, we shouldn't have revenues more than 18% of gross domestic product because that's on average what it's been over the last 30 or 40 years. mr. president, the problem with their analysis is the only times we've balanced the budget, the revenue has not been 18% of g.d.p., the only five times we've balanced the budget revenue has been at 19.7, 1969. 19.9%, 1998.

19.8% of g.d.p., 1999. 20.6% of g.d.p., 2000. 19.5% of g.d.p., 2001. so if people want to be serious about balancing the budget, we're going to have to have a revenue level based on what we see historically that's more than 18% of g.d.p. mr. president, the fiscal commission plan that i laid before colleagues yesterday, so-called bowls bowles-simpson plan does this with respect to tax reform. it eliminates or sales back tax expenditures we were just discussing but lowers tax rates. you can lower tax rates and get more money if you broaden the base, if you reduce some of these tax expenditures that frankly go disproportion nationally to the wealthiest among us and have grown like topsy in the tax code. we can promote economic growth and improve america's dmoabl

comefnts -- global comefns. we can make the tax code more progressive. we can have what was included, an option, a reform plan that calls for three rates for individuals. 12, 22%, and 28%. the top rate now is 35%. a corporate rate of 28%. corporate rate now is 35%. the fiscal commission plan called for capital gains and dividends to be taxed as ordinary income. so instead of having a differential for capital gains and dwensdz, they were tavmentd -- dividends, they were taxed at ordinary rates. but the fiscal commission also said if you want to a differential, you've got to pay for it by buying up the top rate. for those who believe strongly you need to have a differential for cap gains and perhaps dividends, you can do that, but then you've got to have a higher top rate than 28%.

also the fiscal commission plan reforms the mortgage interest and charitable deductions, preserves the child credit and earned income tax credit and completely repeals the minimum alternative tax. under this plan revenues grow to 20.5% of g.d.p. by 2022. mr. president, in fact, the revenue under the fiscal commission plan during the ten years of the plan averaged 19.7%. that is right at the level that has been required, the only other times, the only other five times we've balanced the budget in the last 50 years. and, by the way, that is very close to the revenue level during the clinton administration, the last time we did balance the budget and, by the way, that was a democratic president. mr. president, some say, well, as a big tax increase you're talking about, senator. no, really not a big tax

increase. additional revenue of $2.4 trillion compared to current policy. what is happening right now. but compared to current law, it is actually a $1.8 trillion tax cut. because all of the tax cuts that were put in place in the bush administration are about to expire. so if you compare it to that law, this proposal represents a $1.8 trillion tax cut. more revenue than we would get under current policy, but less revenue than we would get under current law. mr. president, the fiscal commission plan that i laid before colleagues yesterday, the so-called bowles-simpson plan also had certain process changes to tighten things up around here. to become more disciplined.

set spreng caps -- discretionary spending caps through 2022. firewalls between security and nonsecurity spending so montana couldn't be diverted between the two. a separate cap for war funding with annual limits proposed by the president. a more rigorous emergency designation procedure and annual budgeting for disasters. a failsafe to pressure congress to maintain a stable debt to g.d.p. ratio starting in 2015. more accurate inflation adjustments for indexed programs, that is the so-called chained c.p.i., a more accurate measurement for inflation adjustment. and a process to ensure more reliable and timely extended unemployment insurance benefits. now, mr. president, i've heard from my colleagues repeatedly the president showed no leadership. i don't believe that.

i think the president showed extraordinary leadership. he he averted a depression and make no mistake, that's where we were headed when he came into office. when he came into office, here's what's happening. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month in the private sector. that's what he walked into. he didn't create the conditions that led to losing 800,000 jobs a month. he inherited that. and look at the progress that has been made. look at the progress that has been made since 24 months ago, we have seen jobs in the private sector on the positive side of the ledger. four million jobs created. that's after he was in a situation in which we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. the last four months we've been averaging 200,000 jobs created.

that's pretty good leadership. that's a dramatic turnaround. the same is true of economic growth. when he came into office, the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9%. now it's growing at a rate of about 3%. that's pretty good leadership. that is a dramatic change from what he inherited. so when i hear the president didn't show leadership, oh, yeah? i say he showed pretty good leadership. he stopped the hemorrhaging in. he got us going back in the right direction. not everything we'd hoped for, but my goodness, what a remarkable turnaround. two of the most distinguished economists in this country said if we had not taken the actions that were taken by the federal government at the end of the bush administration, and during this administration, we would be in a depression. mr. president, we're not in a

depression. in fact, we're growing. we're growing modestly but we're growing. we're creating jobs in the private sector. the private sector is growing. added four million jobs since this president got things turning around. mr. president, this president named the fiscal commission. there wouldn't be a bowles-simpson commission had the president not appointed it. and the bowles-simpson commission plan is what i put before our colleagues yesterday. some have criticized me and say, well, you didn't vote on it. that's right, we're not going to vote on it until we believe there is the best possible chance to actually get results. and if you go back to the bowles-simpson commission approach, what you saw is they didn't time the vote until after the 2010 election. and what i'm saying to

colleagues is i think we ought to follow their good example. because the truth is, people are not likely, all sides are unlikely to get off their fixed position right before a national election. mr. president, let me end as i began. we have a budget for this year and next. it is contained in the budget control act, a law that was passed last year. and when our colleagues say there was no budget resolution passed, what they aren't telling you is instead of a budget resolution, we passed a budget control law. a law is stronger than any resolution. a resolution is purely a congressional document, never goes to the president for his signature. the budget control act passed the house and the senate and was signed by the president of the

united states, and, mr. president, it says in part the allocations, aggregates and levels of spending set in this act shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. what could be more clear? this law is in place of a budget resolution. it is stronger than any resolution because it's a law. next time somebody tells you there's been no budget resolution for a thousand days, ask them yeah, but did they pass a law that set spending limits? that set the budget for this year and next? that set ten years of spending caps that save $900 billion, that gave a special committee the ability to change social security and medicare and the tax system of the united states and not face a filibuster, and if they didn't succeed, that there would be another

$1.2 trillion of cuts, and because they did not agree, that additional $1.2 trillion of cuts is also now in law and will begin to be imposed at the beginning of next year. that's a total of $2 trillion. 2 trillion of spending cuts in the budget control act passed by the congress, signed by the president, and enforced today. that is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the country. if anybody suggests to you no spending limits have been put in place, ask them what about the budget control act? didn't you vote on that? didn't you vote on that? because it passed the house. the republican-controlled house. they passed it. it passed the united states senate. and it was signed by the president of the united states. it is the law. a law is stronger than any

resolution. mr. president, i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. manchin: first of all, i want to thank my colleague, senator kent conrad from 234d. to say he's going to be missed as he goes back go into the private sector with his beautiful wife and country. but his commitment to put this country's fiscal house in order. he has laid out a plan that's most reasonable. there's been more bipartisan support for a longer period of time and it has grown, it's the only plan since i've been here, less than two years, that has maintained that bipartisan support. because of the leadership of senator kent conrad, on behalf

of a grateful state of west virginia and the people of america, my colleagues this the senate thank you. we thank you for your leadership. mr. president, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i rise today to share with you the deep concerns that i have shared with my constituents across the great state of west virginia who are worried about what would happen to their rural communities if their local post offices are forced to shut their doors. in our state we know the postal service is at the core of what makes this country great and what connects us all. in fact, mr. president, the postal service is america. and that is why we're willing to come together across party lines to fight hard to preserve the essential services that the postal service provides.

we also know that serving rural communities isn't always profitable and private companies won't come in to fill the gap if the postal service leaves. as americans, we need our rural communities to stay in touch with the rest of this great nation, and i am fighting along with the members of our delegation to put a stop to these proposed closures. these concerns for the future of the postal service are bringing all west virginians, democrats and republicans alike, together for protest, rallies and letter-writing campaigns. in communities where people were told their post offices down the road might be closed i'm hearing fears of unacceptable consequences, problems receiving important checks and other financial services. and just as importantly, the loss of the ability to stay connected, to the community and to the country as a whole. this note comes from mr. george jones in nebo, west virginia, which is in clay county.

he writes: few people in this area have access to the internet. they still rely on the post offices to keep them connected to the world. and our people still use the post office. it just makes no sense to cut services to the people who still not only use them, but need them. in communities where the post office has already closed, i've heard about what it's meant to the town, what it means to the town and its residents. this note comes from deloris wilson, norton west virginia, in randolph county: our post office was closed last november. we now have cluster boxes which are out there in the weather, and our residents are scared to have their prescription drugs meld to their -- mailed to their homes or these boxes. our community has been severely affected. we used to see each other while getting our mail. our postmaster kept us connected, would let us know when children were born and neighbors passed away. we collected funds on the post

office to help our neighbors when they fell on hard times or were in need. now we don't have this central location. to do that, because our community, our small community no longer has its post office." mr. president, i've always said that when we as a people and a country need to pick our priorities based on our values. and in west virginia, keeping the postal service intact is one of the things our people truly care about. that is why i've raised very serious concerns about this bill that will close and does nothing to keep the 3,700 post offices open, and they're currently on the list for potential closure, thrug 150 of these -- including 150 of these proposed closures in west virginia. today i would like to encourage all of my colleagues, mr. president, to vote for an amendment i have offered that would prohibit any postal facility from being closed for two years.

while the postal service figures out better ways, working with the post service unions, to get their financial house in order. i have offered this amendment because i've heard from my constituents, we simply cannot afford to let these facilities close in the communities that need them most. in our rural towns, places like norton and nebo, west virginia, the postal service is about much more than a place to send and receive mail. our postal facilities are the centerpieces of our communities. they are places where people gather and share important information. and they are a symbol of the importance of our small towns to the people whose families have always been there. they are our little place on the map. this note came from deanna hallstead from boon county where the unita post office could soon be closed. she writes: we've had a post office in this area since 1902. in fact, the story goes that the citizens petitioned for a post office and were asked what to

name it, back in 1902. a gentleman saw a can of nab business co's -- nabisco uneeda pw*eus --biscuits and that's hout post office got its name. 15 miles does not sound like a lot in d.c. but when you rely on neighbors to take you, it becomes a big burden. i grew up in farmington, west virginia, and i speak from experience when i say the post offices in these rural communities serve as a critical lifeline. even now as an elected representative, i receive dozens, sometimes hundreds of letters a day from my constituents. many of whom don't have access to the internet and can only reach me by writing me a letter. that is why it is so unique --

that is what is so unique about our post offices. they are a vital link for west virginians and many others throughout the country. and for them, it is so important that their mail service remain uncompromised. we all know that the u.s. postal service is in dire straits. the combination of the recent recession, the increased use of e-mail and text messages and the cost of retiring health benefits have put the postal service on a path of financial ruin. in order to remain solvent, the united states post office must cut costs by $20 billion by 2015. now, anyone who's heard me speak before knows that i share a deep commitment to fiscal responsibility, and we just heard our dear friend, senator kent conrad, lay it out for us. and that, i truly believe this nation's out-of-control finances are the biggest threat we face. i'm not alone. at a senate armed services

committee hearing a year ago, the then-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, was asked his opinion on the greatest threat to our national security. coming from the defense department and the person in charge, admiral mullen, sreuld thought that he would have said -- i would have thought he would have said something about the turmoil around the world, the wars going on, the uneasiness and unrest that could contribute to more wars. i thought he would talk about some rising military, another violent attack on this group or a terrorist group wishing to do us harm. but what he said was very simple. and it was a defining moment as me as a united states senator when he said our national debt is the greatest threat this nation is concerned about. it's the greatest threat this nation faces. it was a sobering moment. so believe me, mr. president, when i say that i truly believe that we all have to set our priorities based on our values

and learn very quickly to live within our means, that is right. there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. mr. president, the bill that we have before us would propose to close 3,700 rural post offices. i'm sure many in your own state. for a total savings of $200 million, a figure that is less than 1% -- 1% of the postal service's $20 billion and is roughly equivalent -- listen to this figure. it is roughly equivalent to the amount that we spend in one day in the afghanistan war. we spend that amount in one day fighting in afghanistan, which i think everyone knows i'm totally opposed to. one day. and we're going to close 3,700 post offices for that one-day savings of a war in afghanistan. while achieving very little in terms of the postal service' bottom line, this proposal would

have an enormous impact on people all over the united states of america, including the people in west virginia that would lose up to 150 of their post offices. this bill would also lower delivery standards by allowing the postal service to go to five-day service and eliminating door delivery and it would add to our national deficit. in short, i am not sure what exactly we are hoping to accomplish with this piece of legislation. already in west virginia we know for certain that three of our mail processing facilities will be closing. one in clarksburg, one in parkersburg and one in petersburg. we don't know the fate of the facility in blue field. the impact those closures will have on the bottom line is minimal but the impact to those communities is widely felt and deep. rather than making drastic cuts on the front lines, the postal service needs to consider a different approach to getting their financial house in order. i truly believe that we can save the postal service without making cuts to the services our

communities rely on and the lifeline that they are and are needed. and without adding to our enormous deficit. we can work together on a way to keep our postal facilities open. expand services that raise revenue and eliminate enormous bonuses for executive and sustain six-day-a-week delivery services. my colleagues and i have suggested many commonsense ideas that could help soflt problem. cap pay for executives at $199, 70. but provisions in the law allow for bonuses and other compensation to increase total take-home pay for these executives to $276,840. that figure is 20% higher than the vice president of the united states' salary. in addition, the congressional research service noted that

postal executives may be eligible for deferred annual incentive bonuses that exceed existing caps the payment of which can be deferred until after he or she leaves the postal service. as an example, according to c.r.s., former postmaster -- former postmaster -- general john potter earned $501,384 in total compensation in fiscal year 2010. i think most americans would be shocked to know that the postal service executives can earn larger salaries in the form of bonuses and deferred compensation than cabinet-level secretaries. these excesses must be eliminated. we know from an august 2011 report by the postal service inspector general that the postal service maintains 67 million square feet of excess interior space and that getting rid of this unneeded real estate

could net $3.4 billion over ten years. i think this is a revenue raiser that deserves serious consideration. i think most of my colleagues would think the same. i would also ask during a time when finances are tight: why the postal service spend advertising dollars sponsoring the u.s. tour defrance team? and they're now sponsoring a nascar racing team, which i love nascar racing but i'm not sure they can afford to be sponsoring a time. mr. president, there are a variety of ways for the postal services to get its financial house in order without closing their doors in the communities that rely on them most. back in april my office coordinated regional opening meetings in the communities whose past offices or on a list for potential closures along with representatives from the u.s. postal service, my staff was on hand at these meetings in mcdowell, raleigh and wood lawn counties to give local residents the opportunity to share creative proposals and

commonsense ideas to help preserve post offices in their communities. we got the message loud and clear. west virginians do not want to see their post offices closed. they are the lifeblood of the community. and we continue to hear from hundreds of west virginians in letters, phone calls and petitions. folks like rebecca from cal lee county where the -- where the raleigh county where the clear creek post office is facing closure. her county has had a post office for 140 years. tell me anything more american than that. here's her letter. we are an isolated area, she says. the roads are curvey and our citizens are elderly. if this post office closes, it will mean 20 miles round trip to the nearest post office. mr. president, it's a rare thing to see a community, hundreds of communities really come together around a single issue like this one. but we are seeing hundreds and hundreds of people rush to the

defense of an institution that has built this nation and connected this nation of who we are today. west virginians do not want to see that disappear, and neither do i, sir. that is why i will fight along with my colleagues to find a solution that forces the postal services to get its financial house in order, which i believe can be done. without balancing its books on the back of our rural communities and the people who depend on that lifeline most: our citizens. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. manchin: mr. president, i note the absence of a quoam. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: plop? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: mr. president, i

ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i. rise today to address an issue that goes to the very heart of our rural communities, our rural post offices. now, i'm speaking today while negotiations are going on regarding the post office reform bill that has many did i meninges to it, attempting to put the post office on stable financial ground. but i want to focus on this particular aspect: that today we must modify the bill that is before us so that we do not end up destroying our rural post offices that are the heart of the communities that they serve. it was a few months ago that i was out in eastern oregon, and i got a message that the postmaster general had put on the list for closure 41 rural

community post offices, and this was just in my state of oregon. i, in the next couple days, dropped by cephal of those rural -- by several of those rural community poafsz. i talked to the postmaster. i talked to citizens who were nearby. and i quickly got feedback on the destruction that would happen in that rural community if we don't address this in this bill. specifically there will be a huge impact on the small businesses that use the post offices to receive orders and to ship orders on a daily -- daily basis. those businesses will not be able to function if they have to drive 30, 40, 50, 60 miles round-trip each day to pick up orders and to ship products. huge waste of time, often on

dangerous, windy, narrow roads. a huge additional cost. a huge distraction from the work that they do on their farms or on their ranches. in short, this will shut down a lot of small businesses. or those small businesses will have to move. they'll move to larger towns. and when they move, the retail dollars move. it won't be long before that small store at the heart of that town shuts down. and in addition, i heard from seniors who receive their medicines through the mail. and in some cases, they're controlled medicines that they have to sign for. they have to be there in person. they can't simply receive them through a mailbox, if you will. they certainly are often -- that is, our seniors -- not always in the shape that they can drive daily to see if a medicine that they're waiting for has arrived,

that they would have to -- to go 40, 50, 60 miles round-trip to check and see, did their medicines come in. those folks start thinking about , well, maybe i can't live in this rural community anymore. may have i need to move to a larger town that has a post office. if you go to a small town and you ask them, what is the most essential component for the success of their small town, their small businesses , they're going to tell you the rural post office. without that, they're pretty much out of business. so how is it we spend so much time here talking about jobs and economic development and small businesses as the factory of job creation, and yet we have a bill before us that basically cuts the heart out of the small-town

economy. now, i originally come from a very small town, a small town of myrtle creek. when i was a small child, born there -- it was the dairy queen at the heart of town was the place we occasionally went as a family. and that dairy queen is still there and i still often drive through myrtle creek just to go by and have a hamburger there as i'm going north and south through oregon. now, myrtle creek doesn't have -- happen to be on the list of 41 towns of the post office to be shut down. but a visit to my hometown and you'd get a real sense of the damage that would occur if the post offices were shut down. so i bring a very kind of personal sense that this battle matters. so i wanted to share today some of the feedback i've had from a

couple of towns and i want to start with the town of tiller in douglas county. now, tiller is not that fall away. myrtle creek's in douglas county. roseberg's in douglas county, where i started gradeschool. tiller's in douglas county. and this is -- i'm going to move this chart over a little bit. this is the post office in tiller. now, it's 16 miles from the next nearest post office. so imagine that you live ten miles from tiller and then you have to drive another 16 miles to get to the next nearest town. now you're talking about 50 miles round-trip. that's an hour or more out of your day and that is a lot of cost in gas. that might be 10 bucks a day in gas right there. and that is a huge, huge factor for many of our families. i'm going to share with you some

passages from a letter from diana ferris, a former postmaster in tiller. she writes -- and i quote -- " tiller is one such community where in many ways time stands still and new technology is beyond reach. in tiller, cellular phone service is unavailable. d.s.l. and capable internet service are unavailable. satellite service is overpriced, with the majority of the residents in the area unable to afford it, and there is no wi-fi access. she continues, "dialup internet is available when the poorly maintained telephone system is operational but only at top speeds of approximately 24-26 kill aby thes, so slow that many web sites, including the united states postal service, time out before you can access the needed information. and diana ferris, former

postmaster then says, "the unemployment rate has risen to 13% in douglas county. the lowest gas price in tiller in the last few months has been $3.95 per gallon. for communities like this," she concludes, "the local post office remains the only option." now, many folks here in the senate may really think in items of big cities that they represent that have many, many operations, that have a fedex, that have all forms of electronic communication. they have all kinds of alternatives. but, you know, those alternatives, as diana points out, the former postmaster points out, aren't option as that you have in a small town. and, indeed, one of my colleagues said, i don't understand why you're so concerned, because fedex can deliver the medicines. well, if you've been to a small town, you would find out that

fedex uses the post office system to complete the last mile of their deliveries. so, no, fedex does not provide an answer for our veterans, for our seniors, for others who need medicines or other products being delivered through the mail because of that difficult driver from tiller to the next post office, because of the time, because of the distance, the closing of the tiller post office would have a devastating impact on the small businesses that rely on the u.s. postal service. here is a letter from alexander petrovsky, who owns a small business. it's called singing falls mohair. she owns the business with her husband, lives in tiller, and she writes, "we utilize the services of the u.s. post office extensively. i would estimate," she's

continuing, "i would estimate that between three and five packages go out from our home to destinations all over the world on a daily basis. we sell our product on e bay -- ebay and our business is flourishing. our market is worldwide using the u.s. mail system every day of the week excluding sundays. in the ebay marketplace, timely mailing is an integral part of good customer service." alexandra continues, "as it is, the tiller post office is seven miles from our mountain ranch. the closure of the tiller post office would require an approximately 45-mile round-trip journey that would severely impact our modest profit margin. she concludes, "we have been engaged in this business for 30-plus years. we are seniors and rely extensively on our cottage industry to sustain our ranch

operation. would closing tiller's post office mean effectively an end to the home business?" then she answers her own question, "the answer at this point in time is that it would seriously jeopardize our business." so here is a family living on a ranch quite aways outside of tiller, but till certificate the closest -- tiller is the closest place, would have to drive in to till earthen drive this additional 16 miles to the next post office, would have to do this on a daily basis to ship products. they are fortunate to have internet and have been able to advertise and have the world see their products and advertise them through ebay. but they get customer ratings on ebay. if you've ever been on ebay, you'll see that people who have these small businesses establish on-line reputations because they're judged by each of their customers, they're rated by each their customers. and you feel pretty comfortable ordering from someone who, say, has shipped 500 orders and has a five-star rating. not that comfortable ordering from someone who has a

three-star rating, who customer after customer has said the product doesn't come in a timely manner or it's not packaged well, it's not shipped well. and so this model, this sustained small business completely depends on the u.s. postal service serving that small community. well, let me turn to malheur county and the town of juntura. i'll get a picture of the juntura post office for you. you see it's quite a simple looking structure, a manufactured building. not very expensive to build. certainly not very expensive to have it open a couple hours a day. so we are talking about microscopic costs in the context of postal reform that have a monumental impact on the success of our small communities.

low-cost, high impact. isn't that the type of deal that we argue for everyday? government efficiency? low cost, high impact. well, this little, simple, modular building, a few wooden steps going up to the door, it may not look like much but it is a shipping hub and a communications hub that makes the economy work in juntura, oregon. i have a report from a juntura resident named laura williams, and she went in to a comprehensive analysis of the impact of this very modest building. she wrote up a 42-page report and it examines every aspect of how this very inexpensive investment, the returns it has

for the community. so i thought i'd read to all of you a little bit from that report. she writes that the residents of juntura -- quote -- "will either have to drive to drusey to the west to mail packages, to buy money orders and to complete a variety of other transactions, or they'll have to drive east to harper, 34 miles away, a route that winds through a river canyon dangerously choked with deer during the winter months." that's the end of that first part of the passage. when i looked at her report, she actually compiled numbers of the number of collisions per week with deer on this road as you drive from juntura to drusey. i was astounded by the high rate. it was a rate of several collisions a week. now, i remember when i was a kid

, a small child and we would be driving the rural roads in douglas county and my parents would say we have to watch for deer. if you have a deer come through your windshield, you can be pretty much toast if you're traveling at any substantial speed. if you're on a motorcycle and you go around a curve and you hit a deer, the deer is going to do a lot of damage. so it is -- this may not sound like something that folks who come from cities really understand, but driving round trip -- in this case to harper 34 miles a way, a 70-mile round trip through a road that's dangerous in dangerous weather conditions, dangerous because of deer, certainly an enormous waste of time, an enormous waste of fuel doesn't make any sense. well, she continues. so, again, this is a letter or analysis from laura williams in juntura. she continues -- quote -- "in

essence, juntura is between a rock and a hard place. "now, she then analyzes that 25% of juntura's post office users are seniors who would be particularly impacted by these changes as they rely heavily on the post office to receive medication and may have difficulty driving long distances in hazardous conditions. on her report, she put just one word in bold on the front page, and it sums up her analysis of the impact of closing this humble post office, and that word is disastrous. disastrous for the seniors. disastrous for the veterans. disastrous for the small businesses. disastrous for the sense of community that uses this as a place to connect with each other. now, two weeks ago when we were on in-state work period, i

visited fort clamath which is also on the list to be closed. residents converged on the post office when i came. they wanted to share their stories. i want to share several of those with you now. the first comments are from jeanette and bob evans. bob is a veteran. he receives medication through the mail that often needs to be scanned and signed for. they would have to make a 30-mile trip to pick up medications if fort clamath post office closes. so they feel the impact in that manner. and they might make that trip and find out the medicines haven't arrived yet, so they might have to make multiple trips. they also have a rental business that must follow state law which requires many documents be sent via first-class u.s. mail in order to verify the date of notification. closure of fort clamath will force them to take 30-mile trips

to another city to process this mail correctly. so here is a community that is of modest size, a couple hundred families. it is a beautiful area. it has a lot of residences that are rented out in the summer. they have to send documents back and forth to those who are renting. those folks need to have timely service or they're not going to come to the town. also, once they arrive -- and this point was made by several residents to me -- once the summer renters arrive -- so this is driving the economy of the town, those summer renters want to be able to mail their letters. they want to be able to receive their packages. so that post office -- i don't have a picture of fort klamath here, but that little post office, that's essential to the summer visitors. you lose the post office and then that takes away not only from the business of renting out the summer residences, but from the number of folks who feel like they will come there to spend their vacation. heidi mclean came and she is

the proprietor of the aspen inn that operates seasonally. heidi uses the post office daily to send out information packages to everyone interested in staying with them. once they get word someone is interested, here's all the details. those have to be received on a timely basis because otherwise the customer says, you know what, i got this package from someone else somewhere else. that's where i'm going to go for my summer vacation. and then they sign up and heidi's package arrives a few days later and heidi has lost the business. heidi says they could get by with partial days, but they feel strongly they need access to a local post office and that a round trip to chilliquinn to access mail would be a serious problem for their small business. now, currently, several of my colleagues have worked to put together a process in the

manager's amendment, and they have been working hard on this and i applaud them for taking a step forward from the basic bill. i want to thank them for their hard work, the hard work that tom carper has been doing, senator carper from delaware has been doing, the hard work that senator lieberman from connecticut has been doing, and they have both indicated a willingness to continue working to try to make sure that we do not destroy our rural communities by shutting down post offices. and so we're continuing that conversation. we have -- a group of us have an amendment. right now, senator mccaskill is the lead on it. many folks are involved. senator tester is involved, senator baucus is involved, senator leahy is involved. i don't have the full list in front of me, but i thank all of them because they all understand this basic notion of little money, huge impact. it's a type of solution that we should be driving through this

chamber. now, currently, the -- the plan in the manager's amendment, again, it's a step forward. not quite a step far enough. it's a step forward. let me explain. it says that the post office will set out a series of service standards. they will design a series of service standards and they will design a procedure and that essentially before they close the post office, they will have to do an analysis of whether this closing the post office meets the service, the retail service standards that they have laid out. and that after they announce the decision, that there will be an opportunity for the decision to be appealed, and that appeal will go to the postal review commission, the p.r.c. and the p. ares c. will evaluate whether they met their own service standards, and they will evaluate whether the procedures

were followed. and if they were not, then the p.r.c. can say to the post office you must go back and look at this again. now, it sounds like a system that has some routine to it. why is that not sufficient to protect our rural post offices? let me put it very simply. the post office management is trying to save money. so if they set service standards, those service standards are going to be set in a manner that allow many of our small towns to be shut down, many of our post offices to be shut down. the same reason they put a list of 41. and let me put up tiller again. we have juntura. let's put up a picture of tiller. 41 of these small post offices already said from their internal view of their sense of their spobilities, their service standards, that they want to shut down 41 of these. well, after a lot of protest, we got a six-month delay, and i'm

very thankful that we got that. the postmaster also said that, well, maybe not 41. for now, we'll take 20 of them off the list and then he took one more off the list, so we're down to 20 in oregon, but the others could be added back at any time. so 41 of these. the post office has already said that they want to shut down 41 based on their understanding of their service responsibilities. so a process that we put in the statute that simply says will you be a little more clear in writing about your service standards or your procedures is just window dressing. so what we need is for us, the u.s. senate, to say here are service standards for delivering medical supplies to our seniors and veterans and other families. here are standards for communities that do not have all the electronic communications that our big towns have.

here is a standard for supporting the small businesses in these communities. we need to set those standards because it is us on this floor who have been elected to fight for the people of the united states of america. the post office, they're trying to balance their budget. that's why they said well, we think it's took to shut down these 41. now, the amendment that senator mccaskill, senator tester, senator baucus, senator leahy, a number of us have put forward is completely compatible with the general vision of having an appeal process with the postal review commission, but it gives the postal review commission an actual standard by which to make a decision. otherwise, all the post office has to say is, yes, we considered the issue and that words we consider are right in the current amendment, manager's amendment, not the amendment we're putting forward.

and so it isn't enough for the post office to say yes, we consider the fact that it does affect small businesses like the mohair company that i described earlier. it's not enough to say they considered it. there has to be a standard of service that we on this body are comfortable with in defending the commerce and small towns, in defending the commerce for small businesses. so i really appreciate the work that senator collins and senator carper and senator lieberman are doing, that they are engaged in this dialogue about spending our small towns. i know that they understand the impact that would occur. maybe it's an impact that in some states hits harder than others. it certainly hits hard in oregon. so i look forward to continuing to work with our sponsors of

this amendment led by senator mccaskill to work with the floor leaders on this bill because we must not pass through here, we must not pass through this chamber a bill that would carve the heart of both the economy and the communications out of rural america. thank you, mr. president. mr. merkley: mr. president, i

note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: