five senators consider the judicial nomination of missouri state judge brian wines to federal district court in missouri. confirmation vote is expected at 5:30. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god who does wondrous things,

blessed be your glorious name forever. remake us in your image and bring our wandering, wayward hearts under your control. lord, infuse our senators with a love for you that will make their obedience willing and joyful. astound them with your limitless resources and supply all their needs from your bounty. keep them humble with the conviction that they can't breathe a breath, think a thought, speak a word, or perform an action without your

mercy and grace. grant our supplications; we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., april 23, 2012 . to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable carl levin, a senator from the

state of michigan, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. america has the best, brightest and most dedicated workers in the world. all those workers need is a fair shot to succeed. but right now many workers in this country don't enjoy the same rights as the wealthy c.e.o.'s. that is a right to negotiate the terms of their employment. a new rule from the national labor relations board will remove unnecessary obstacles to workers' rights to form a union. i solidly support this rule and i urge all my colleagues to vote tomorrow against a resolution of disapproval which would strike down this commonsense rule. the new rule doesn't change or do anything to encourage unions, but it doesn't discourage them either. it just gives workers the ability to vote yes or no while minimizing the chances of intimidation and stalling.

mr. president, tomorrow the senate will also vote on a number of amendments to a bipartisan postal reform bill. this important piece of legislation will safeguard more than eight million jobs of people that depend on the vibrant postal system. it will protect postal customers, particularly elderly and disabled americans and people who live in rural parts of this country. i'm pleased we reached an agreement to allow senators to offer amendments to this bill. i hope once we work through the amendments tomorrow, we'll see a strong bipartisan vote to modernize the postal service and save this important institution from insolvency. mr. president, this institution is so important, it's contained in our constitution. but once we pass postal reform tomorrow, as i expect we will, the senate will move on to consideration of another very important piece of legislation, reauthorization of violence against women act. since its passage in 1994, this piece of legislation reduced the

annual incidents of domestic violence by more than 50%. despite that incredible progress, we still have work to do to keep women and their families safe. mr. president, three women die in this country every day at the hands of abusive partners. weekends, holidays, no days off. and for every victim who is killed, there are nine more who narrowly escape death, in effect are beaten savagely. it would be unacceptable to step back from our national commitment to stop violence and abuse now. this legislation was the brainchild of vice president joe biden when he was a member of the senate. it does a number of very important things such as allow communities to get some support in setting up shelters for these women and their families to go in secret. have a what -- vawa has been abe

partisanship. i hope that proves to be the case again this year. this year it has 60 cosponsors and the support of 47 state attorneys general. i can't imagine why our republican colleagues would oppose such a worthy piece of legislation. i'm hopeful, mr. president, i'm somewhat confidence they won't. by joining democrats to pass this legislation, republicans can help the senate's clear message that this country does not tolerate domestic violence. if the senate doesn't complete work on this critical legislation before we recess for the work period, we'll continue after we come back to try to work through any problems that i see. but i really don't see any at this stage, mr. president. but the violence against women act isn't the only pressing matter the senate has to complete next work period. we must begin work on a number of appropriations bills. we must consider additional judicial nominations, take up legislation to cut taxes for small businesses that expand

hire -- and hire. we have cybersecurity legislation which i've been told the house is going to take up soon. we must address a looming crisis for millions of students in america. the july 1 deadline for interest rates to double on federal student loans is fast approaching. middle-class families struggling and fewer families able to afford the rising cost of higher education, we cannot afford to put this out of reach nor promising young people. doubling interest rates from 3.4% to 6.8% effectively socking 7.4 million students with a $1,000 year in student loan increase would do irreparable harm to aur ability to educate -- our ability to educate young men and women. students have more student loan debt than credit card debt. the average graduate owes $25 thousand when they glad wait.

getting a college education shouldn't burden young people with unsustainable debt. unfortunately some republican colleagues signaled they would rather cut taxes for the richest of the rich than invest in the next generation of young workers. but the business community agrees making college affordable is key to keeping america competitive in a global economy. an investment in education is an investment in our economy. so i hope we all join together, hear the message and work together to stop eight million students in this country from having an increase in the amount of money that they are obligated to pay back for the loans they get to get an education in america today. 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 senate bill number 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. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, as has just been announced by the clerk, the senate is now considering the motion to proceed to s. 1925, the violence against women reauthorization act. at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon the republican leader or his designee will move to proceed to s.j. res. 36, a resolution of disapproval regarding the nlrb election rule. the time until 4:00 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 5:00 p.m. the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of brian wimes to be a u.s. district judge in missouri. and there will be a roll call

vote on confirmation of the wimes nomination at 5:30 p.m. mr. president, as you know and our colleagues know, after a lot of work and good-faith negotiations, we reached a bipartisan agreement last week to complete action on the bipartisan postal reform bill tomorrow, with an agreement that includes almost 40 amendments. 39, i believe, is the number to be voted on tomorrow. although we and particularly our staffs, have been working with sponsors of the amendments, and we expect that probably more than half of them will be negotiated to agreements, modified and/or accepted. but there still will be a significant number of roll call votes which will begin tomorrow afternoon after the respective

party caucuses. though there was a good amount of debate on the postal bill last week, tomorrow once we go from s.j. res. 36, the resolution on the nlrb election rule, to the postal bill in the afternoon to begin voting on the amendment, there won't be much time for debate. and as announced last week, last thursday after this agreement was achieved, as is he have don't those in the chamber -- as is evident to those in the chamber, senator collins and i are here and will be here from now until 2:00 p.m. when we go to the nlrb rule. we'll be here from 4:00 to 5:00, which is the next open block before we go to the judicial nomination. and we're prepared to stay this evening after the judicial

nomination as long as proponents or discussants of the various amendments want to come to the floor to engage in debate and discussion on them. and i hope our colleagues will do that. as senator reid said, this is an important piece of legislation. nobody denies that the u.s. postal service, really an iconic american institution which millions of people depend on, not just for the mail but for their jobs, both directly working for the postal service and indirectly but not too indirectly because they work for related businesses that depend on the mail, we simply can't turn aside, do nothing and let the postal service continue a fiscal spiral downward. the postal service, as we said over and over again last week, lost $13 billion in the last two

years. it's going to run out of -- it's going to go over its debt limit later this year. the postmaster has been very clear that if we don't give him some authority to find a new business model, to economize, that he'll have to take very, very aggressive action, potentially closing, on one list he put out 3,700 post offices, approximately 250 mail processing facilities, kh-bld extremely -- which would be extremely disruptive both to the post office and to the life -- the commercial and personal life of our country. this bill that senator collins and i along with senator carper and senator scott brown offered to our colleagues offers a sensible but tough way forward to preserve the u.s. postal service but to acknowledge that

it's got to change to stay alive forever, but certainly through the 21st century because of the impact of e-mail that has taken and dropped the volume of mail in the last five years by more than 20%. when you lose that kind of revenue, you've got to find ways to economize and you've got to find a different kind of business model, including different ways to raise revenue, all of which is authorized in this bill. i know some people think our bill doesn't do enough. they're ready to basically close down a lot of the postal service as we know it. some people think our bill does too much. we naturally think we struck a sweet spot or a point of common ground. in fact, the postal service has told us that they believe that if our bill is enacted, that it would save somewhere, after it's

fully implemented over the next two to three years, save somewhere between $15 billion and $20 billion a year, to be conservative, probably closer to $15 billion, but it is a significant amount of money. and it creates a series of incentives to alter the business model of the post office including authorizing the post office to get into some businesses it's not been in before as a way to take advantage of its unique assets and raise more money.so this i r the senate. can we -- and in some sense it is a somewhat smaller version of the larger moment of truth we're tbg to have to face -- moment of truth we're going to have to face over our federal budget. but here's a great american institution that is real fiscal trouble. and we have the ability with this legislation to get it back on a path of balance, stability,

and even growth. some post offices will be changed under this bill. mail-processing facilities, some of them, will be closed, though less than the postmaster says he wants to have happen. we have authorized a significant amount of money to be spent to incentivize 100,000 postal employees to retire. they're eligible for retirement, with an incentive we think they will. and that itself would save the postal service approximately $8 billion a year. this is not one of those bills that people enjoy voting on, but it's -- it is our responsibility. it's just necessary that we face the crisis that the postal service is in and help it stay alive and flourish throughout the century. so that's what's on the line. in the bill, the amendments cover a range of topics.

this was a very broad, bipartisan agreement on the amendments. there's some that make the bill tougher, some make it softer. they all zev deserve a good de. that's what senator collins and i are here to do now. before we get to that, mr. president, may i say that i understand that s. 2327 is at the desk and due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2327, a bill to prohibit direct foreign assistance to the government of egypt and so forth and for other purposes. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. lieberman: thank the chair and yield to my distinguished ranking member, senator collins. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. president.

mr. president, we're tbg to resume debate today -- we're going to resume debate today on the postal reform legislation that our committee, on which the presiding officer serves, has worked very hard to produce and to do so in a bipartisan way. as chairman lieberman has indicated, last week we labored very hard to produce a list of amendments that will allow members to work their will on this legislation. there are many different viewpoints on the path forward for the postal service, but, mr. president, there can be no doubt about one fact: the postal service has lost more than $13 billion in the last two years, despite being relieved from a payment that is required

under law toward the health benefits of future retirees. it still lost billions of dollars. and if we fail to act, if we turn down this bill, the postal service will not survive as we know it today, and that is a fact. the postal service later this year will have great difficulty even meeting its payroll if we do not act. the postal service will max out on its credit that it can borrow from the treasury, if we do not act. the postal service will be forced to resort to dramatic and

draconian service cuts that will drive still more customers from the system, if we do not act. so, mr. president, just closing our eyes and pretending that somehow the postal service will find a way through this without our legislation is not a realistic option. as i've indicated, there are a variety of views on both sides of the aisle on what the appropriate path forward should be, and we will have a vigorous debate today -- we started it last week -- on what the best option is for the postal service. for me, the bottom line is this: the postal service will not survive if it pursues a course that risks alienating the remaining customers that it does

have. so resorting to widespread closures of postal processing plants, which would essentially do away with overnight delivery of mail, raising prices so that big mailers pursue alternatives to using the postal service for delivery -- those are not the solutions to the postal service's woes. on the other hand, the postal service clearly cannot continue to do business as usual. it has to innovate, it has to look for new sources of revenue, and we've given some very specific ideas in our bill by allowing, for example, the postal service to provide services and share space with

federal, state, and local governments and to also ship beer and wine with a signature from the customer, just as its competitors fedex and u.p.s., united postal service, are able to do. we also do not prohibit the closure of all postal services. nor do we mandate that a certain number be closed. instead, we set standards. we set service standards. and those service standards would govern the decisions that the postal service would make. and i think that is the appropriate way to approach the very difficult issue of how to

reduce the infrastructure of the postal service. but the fact remains, mr. president -- and it's a painful fact -- that 80% of the postal service's budget is workforce-related. and it is always difficult to recognize when a workforce -- particularly one as dedicated as the american posta postal servie workforce -- is simply too big for the volume of work that the postal service now has. but there are compassionate ways to deal with this workforce problem. and what you are what our billt allows for a refund of an $11

billion overpayment that the postal service has made to the federal employees retirement system known as the fers system. and this is an overpayment that has been verified by an independent board of private actuaries that the office of personnel management relies upon. it has also been verified by the government accountability offi office. so this overpayment, in part, can be used and would be directed to be used by the postmaster general to offer retirement incentives and buyouts up to and capped at $25,000 -- exact same number that is used in buyouts in federal agencies -- to reduce

the workforce. now, more than a third of the postal service's employees are eligible for retirement today. that is why the postmaster general believes that if he provides a bit of an incentive, he can reduce the size of the postal service workforce by more than 100,000 workers. that's about 18% of the entire workforce, and that approach of using retirement incentives, buyouts, incentives like that is very similar to the approach that the private sector uses, that large corporations use when they are faced with the painful task of having to downsize their

workforce. the rest of the overpayment refund would be used to pay down debt, something that the postal service desperately needs to do as it approaches that $15 billion line of credit cap. i want to stress, mr. president -- because there's tbg to be a - because there's tbg to be a lot of discussion about this -- because there is a going to be a lot of discussion about this perhaps very shortly, that these are not tax dollars that are being refunded to the postal service. i read from a letter from the inspector general on the floor last week that verifies that the revenues for the fers payment come from two sources. they come from the postal

employees themselves who contribute to the fers system,, and the revenues come from the pospostpostal service's over res from selling stamps, and the other services that the postal service provides. so this is not a taxpayer bailout. it is not a refund of taxpayer dollars. this is a refund of a substantial overpayment that never should have occurred, and that's a whole nother issue of how it occurred, of money that the posta postal service's empls and that the postal service itself from revenues that it generated contributed to the fers system, an overpayment that

is been confirmed by the g.a.o. and by an independent board of actuaries hired by the office of personnel management. that is a very important part of this bill. if the postmaster general is successful, as i believe he will be, if he aggressively implements these provisions, in compassionately reducing the size of the workforce, the estimates are that that provision alone would save about $8 billion a year. and it would allow the postmaster general to right-size many of the processing plants. some of the processing plants are too big for the volume that they now have you have.

but the answer is not to close them altogether. because that has such a detrimental impact on the delivery of mail. that leaves rural america behind. that would result in there no longer being overnight delivery for first-class mail. i'll give you an example from my state where the postmaster general has unwisely proposed to close one of only two processing plants that we have in a state as large as the state of maine. he would keep the one in the southern most tip of the state but close the one in hamden, maine, which serves northern, central, and eastern and parts of western maine, really serves about two-thirds of the geography of the state.

if that postal processing plant were to close, mail from northern maine being sent from one community in northern maine to another would have to undergo a more than 600-mile round trip to the one remaining processing plant in maine. i can't imagine how many days that that would take, but i am certain that it would cause people to stop using the mails and thus revenue would decline still further, because there would be no possibility of overnight delivery. of bill payments, for example, or bill delivery. this is not the answer, so what is the answer? that plant could be downsized, not closed. we need to preserve the service,

but if the plant's too large now for the volume of mail that goes through the plant, why doesn't the postal service rent out part of the plant? i'm sure that a mailer in the area, they have several mailers in the area, would welcome the opportunity to rent space in that building and be right next to the postal processing plant. that would work very well. there are so many options, but the postmaster general, in my view, has not pursued those options. when it comes to rural poastles, there are so many options. for example, a post office could be open in a rural community, say, from 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning and 5:00 to 7:00 at night so that individuals going to and from work could stop and

do their business, but the postmaster general would be able to -- the postal service would still be able to save funds by not having the postal service open the entire day. a small post office could be co-locateed in a retail facility the local pharmacy, perhaps, or the local grocery store. there are possibilities that need to be explored and which our bill directs the postmaster general to explore in order to avoid the widespread closure of post offices in rural america. that will have a detrimental impact on individuals and the businesses located there. our bill, in essence, forces

more creativity on the postal service by again setting standards with the postal regulatory commission, which is the regulator in this case, and then assuring that the actions of the postal service with regard to infrastructure meet those standards. this bill has many, many other provisions which we discussed at length last week so i'm not going to repeat them now, but let me just reiterate the point that i made at the beginning of my remarks. we have been able to negotiate with the cooperation of both the majority leader and the republican leader and with a lot of hard work by the members of the committee and the floor staff and our staff, a very fair

process that will allow many amendments to be offered expressing a wide variety of philosophies and views on the proper road ahead, but what we cannot do, mr. president, is to fail to act. if we do not act, that will be a death sentence for the postal service, an american institution enshrined in our constitution that is the linchpin of a $1 trillion mailing industry that employs 8.7 million americans. so, mr. president, this debate is not just about rural post offices, important though they

are. it is about our economy and not delivering a death blow to an institution that is the center of much of our economy. and i hope members keep that in mind as they come to the floor with proposals, for example, to essentially privatize the postal service or to do away with post of its infrastructure. because if those amendments prevail, they will deliver a crushing blow to our economy at a time when we can least afford it. they will jeopardize that trillion-dollar mailing industry that includes everything from paper manufacturers to magazine

publishers to newspapers to financial services. all of these industries that are so dependent on the u.s. postal service, and that is an outcome that we must avoid. thank you, mr. president. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask consent that my remarks appear at the opening of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: over the past several months, president obama has kept a pretty busy schedule of campaign events, but as the president heads out for more campaign style events this week, let's not forget what he is actually doing here in washington. it's far more important than what he is saying out on the campaign trail. because when the speeches are

over and all the chairs and posters are put away, great challenges remain. millions of americans are still looking for work. the federal debt continues to cast a shadow over the american dream, and despite assurances made last year, there is no budget in sight from the democratic-controlled senate. as the associated press reports just today, about half of college graduates can't even find a decent job in this country. now, i understand why the president wouldn't want to talk about these things, but that doesn't change the fact that he should, and it doesn't change the fact that his policies are the problem. the american people elected this president to change direction, not to change the subject. they elected the president to change direction, not change the subject.

yet, day after day, week after week, as our nation's challenges deepen and another economic crisis draws nearer, this president wants to change the topic. he wants people to focus either on something else or to overlook the things he is actually doing to make the situation worse. let's take, for example, gas prices. gas prices have more than doubled under this president. yet, rather than doing something about it, he blames it on speculators and energy companies instead of increasing domestic production, he's focused on a plan to tax american energy manufacturers, a plan that would increase the cost of energy rather than lower the cost of gas. the national debt has skyrocketed more than $5 trillion under this president. yet, rather than actually doing something about it, he pretends we should erase it. if we could somehow erase it by just whacking millionaires.

look, millions are looking for work. yet, rather than doing something about it, he passes a health care bill that would impose massive new costs, he continues to threaten new taxes, and he empowers federal bureaucrats to cook up new rules and regulations that make it even harder for businesses to grow and to hire. unless congress acts, one such rule goes into effect next week. most people haven't heard about it because the president hadn't been talking about it, but i'm happy to because it says all you need to know about this president's approach to jobs and the economy. as a favor to big labor, the president is right now rushing a plan that would restrict an employer's ability to educate workers about unionization efforts as well as increase their legal bills and the already high cost of complying with federal regulations, and get this.

the administration hasn't even provided an analysis of the costs involved in moving forward with this proposal. so tomorrow, senators led by senator enzi will have an opportunity to vote on this effort to make it even harder to do business in this country. we'll have a chance to stand up against what the president is doing to the economy, and in the process we'll be reminding people to focus on what the president does rather than what he says. look, at a time when america's corporate income tax is now the highest in the world, we should be looking for ways to make it easier for businesses to hire, not harder. at a time when unemployment is above 13% for young people between the ages of 20 and 24 in this country, we should be finding ways to make it more likely they can find work, not harder. but this is the obama economy.

this is the president's approach. this is the painful legacy of his failed economic policies. the president may not want to discuss it, but republicans will. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i woman to the floor to discuss s. 1789, the 21st century postal service act. i regret to say there is a fundamental problem with this bill that we have to address, and i wish it weren't so but i'm afraid it is. the bill would increase federal deficit by $34 billion. this violates the deficit neutrality provisions for spending that we adopted as part of the budget control act of last summer, just last summer.

as a result, there are at least five budget points of order that lie against the bill, and i, ranking republican on the budget committee, will be raising points of order at the appropriate time. this means it would take 60 votes in the united states senate, 60. our hundred members to say we don't want to agree and follow the law we passed last summer, that we promised the american people would make a difference and we'll just spend this money anyway because we think it has an important need. under the senate rules, no committee can bring a bill to the floor that spends even one penny more than already is going to be spent under the current law, or increase the deficit more than it would increase under current law. current law is the budget control act of last summer, and it was passed, as we all

recall, as part of a major debate over the debt ceiling, the raising of the debt ceiling so we continue to borrow money, borrowing at the rate of about 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed. we knew that had to end, so some decisions were made and spending was constrained although i would contend not nearly enough. in other words, the spending and debt under the postal bill violates the debt limit agreement reached just last summer. in august we agreed to modest so insufficient savings. in fact, the discretionary spending under that bill is not even cut. last august we talked about big cuts, but the reduction in growth is what occurred, and spending this year would increase $7 billion over the spending of last year.

and now the senate has already -- is already spending more than we agreed to at that time. this is particularly odd since the president and the senate majority leader have accused the house members, the republican house, of breaking the budget agreement by trying to save a little more money than the budget control act said that they should save. and this argument is not sound, of course. the debt deal established basic spending caps, basic limits, the amount, maximumth amount that could be spent on discretionary accounts and not one word in that law prevents us or any member of congress from doing the duty to try to save more money. not one word in that law requires the congress to max out and spend up to that cap, to that limit. so this is not a matter of

interpretation. caps are the maximum, not the minimum that we can spend. but this bill does violate that legislation. it spends above the agreed upon limits. so only in washington does spending below a cap get you accused of breaking a deal while spending more than the agreement explicitly states means people just look the other way. the majority leader and the chairman of the budget committee are proud of the budget control act. they say it has ironclad restraints on spending. they say we don't even need a budget, which is clearly not accurate. but the budget control act did have certain spending limitations on us and they've been proud of those and they said those are sufficient to put

us on a sound course, and we're going to follow those, they've implicitly said, i suppose. but where are they when it comes to making sure that this agreement they so proudly talked about is actually followed? it's curious that we don't have leadership from the majority leader, the budget committee chairman, to tell the committee look, we understand the postal service has serious problems. we understand that. something probably needs to be done to fix that and improve that situation. it may even cost some money and we may need to come up with some money. but due -- to do so shouldn't we comply with the law of the united states in what we agreed to just last summer? so as this unfolds you'll hear some say that part of the reason

that the spending increases are in the bill is because the bill requires the treasury to repay the postal service $11 billion that the postal service has in the past overpaid to the u.s. treasury, in effect, for retirement contributions of current employees. so i'm not debating that argument. and whether or not it's an overpayment. i'm not debating that. we've got experts that have looked at and said it basically is accurate that the united states treasury does owe the postal service $11 billion. and under some circumstances maybe we are required to pay that back. i don't argue that at this point. what i would say is if we pay it back, is it not an expenditure of the united states?

if you're behind on your car payment, and you have to make that payment, well, you have to make the payment. but don't you have to get the money from somewhere? and if you and your family have agreed to you're not -- agreed you're not going to borrow not so much but so much new money and shouldn't you look to see where you can cut spending to pay for that? that's all we're talking about here. certainly owing a debt doesn't mean you don't have to pay the debt. but as a matter of coring scoring, a matter of integrity and accounting you have to understand that it costs money. the money comes from somewhere. most people understand, i think, that the united states government borrows money through t-bill sales and we pay inta on the money -- interest on the money we are borrowing and the fastest growing item in our budget is interest on our debt.

so we ought to be cutting spending to pay for this if we need to pay for it. over ten years, that's $11 billion, well, that's a lot, but $11 billion is a little over a billion dollars a year, and this year alone we'll spend, as i recall, approximately 3,700 billion dollars. we couldn't find $1 billion a year to pay the money back? we have to borrow it in addition to the money we agreed to borrow, the debt limit we agreed on to breach? the $11 billion is only one third of the debt impact of the legislation. it is only one-third of the amount by which the bill breaks the agreement of last summer.

so what else accounts for the total of $34 billion? most of the deficit increase from the bill, about two-thirds, would occur because the bill would reduce the amount that the postal service is supposed to pay to the office of personnel management to fund the future retiree health benefits under the current postal service employees -- or for them. coverage for when they retire. and the postal service is famous for having good health care and good retirement programs, and what they're legally entitled to, somehow should be funded if at all possible. if there's money to fund it. in 2006, congress enacted the postal accountability act to set the postal service on a self-sustaining course. according to one of the managers of the bill, that law included

-- quote -- "a requirement that the postal service endorsed at the time" -- close quote, a requirement that the postal service agreed to, that they would prefund the future retiree health benefits of the current postal employees on an accrual basis. and that 2006 law set out a schedule of those required payments to the government. now six years later, the postal service does not want to make those required payments, or says they are unable to. we already enacted a bill last year partially relieving the postal service of some of their required 2011 payment, so this bill would defer those payments and stretch out the amount of time to pay them. how much is the postal service allowed to defer?

$23 billion, almost, almost 23 more billion dollars. the legislation allows the postal service to defer $23 billion in payments for retiree health benefits. since the decision apparently that's been made and included in this legislation is that the users of the postal service, the stamp buyers, aren't -- shouldn't be required to pay this money. the idea is the taxpayers will pay the money. so the taxpayers will pay it. just pick it up. you know,ates tough thing, not enough money going into the health care fund. yeah, we promised that postal would stand on its own but don't want have enough money, so we're not so serious about paying this $34 billion total

that we would actually find the money to pay for it. we're just going to add it to the amount that we're borrowing each year. and this year for the fourth consecutive year we will borrow about 1,300 billion dollars. it's an unsustainable path. so this means that the treasury has to go out and borrow the money over the next ten years because the postal service is relieved from making the health care payments. again, a budget produced under regular order that i have truly felt we should have done and remain disappointed deeply that has not occurred, should have planned for this and would have planned for this, hopefully, by including policy changes somewhere else in the government that would have offset the deficit and the debt increase caused by this bill.

and because the bill doesn't do that, because it adds to the debt of the united states, violates the pay-go requirements and the budget control act, i will raise a point of order and it will require the vote of 60 senators to waive it. if this new spending is necessary -- and i suspect some of it may be -- then isn't it worth cutting spending somewhere else in this massive government to pay for it? do we really have to break our spending agreement before the ink is dry on it, the first real bill on the floor of the senate after the budget control act agreement of last summer violates substantially the spending limitations of that

act. so this is at a time when we're facing the fourth straight deficit in excess of $1 trillion, the four largest deficits in had the history of the american republic. washington is in a state of financial chaos. we are in denial. we are not recognizing, owning up to the fact that we do -- there are limits on what we can do. you tell me how long we can borrow a trillion dollars a year. how long we can spends substantially more than we take in and add the difference to the interest payment of the government every year. the government services administration is throwing lavish parties in las vegas, the government accountability office has identified $400 billion -- $400 billion -- maybe we could pay the $34 billion out of this $400

billion -- being spent every year, each year on waste. inefficiency and duplication. that's the official government accountability office. far worse, the senate's democratic majority has failed to produce a budget plan in calendar years between, 2011 and now 2012, in fact this sunday in fact marks exactly three years since the last time the senate has passed a budget. a budget means responsible behavior, it means that we know there are many places we'd like to spend money. there are a lot of places we'd like to spend money. but since we know our money is limited, we adopt budgets, or we're supposed to doop a budget, there's an absolute legal requirement we do, it just doesn't require congress to go to jail if they violate it. so it requires, and forces congress to make tough choices.

now we say the postal service needs more money, and we won't stay within our budget limits, we'll just borrow it and give it to them, knowing that this is not a responsible behavior but hey, we don't need to make tough choices, do we? because te senate can't say no and because the president refuses to exercise managerial discipline, we are set to spend another $34 billion in borrowed money. so the white house warns that republicans want to cut too much spending, but the american people know the truth, and the truth is that we have never spent more money than we are spending today, and spend it more recklessly and with less accountability than we have been spending the taxpayers' money.

so this is in many ways a decisive moment. this is not a mere formality, phoeu budget point of order. -- my budget point of order. it is not just something i'm going through the motions of. i believe it's a crucial vote. now i respect so deeply my colleagues who have worked on this legislation. it is very complex. it is very important. it is a very difficult issue. this country has got to confront rationally the difficulties in the postal service. the world is changing. e-mails and other things are occurring. i won't say this is a horse and buggy whip manufacturing system, but it has to alter to keep up with the times, and we can't just throw money at it. by throwing money at it often, you keep it from reacting to the realities of the situations they're in. so i respect deeply the people

who worked on this, but i do believe it's a crucial vote. even if one supports every dollar of spending in the bill, colleagues do you support a violation of the budget control act in such a dramatic fashion so soon after it was adopted? vote to sustain the budget point of order. that's what i ask my colleagues to do. let's stand up for fiscal responsibility. in effect, it would send the bill back to our good committee and it would say to them look at it. if you can spend less, please do so. but if you feel you have to spend money on this postal fix, find out where it should be paid for. propose how it should be paid for. and that would meet the requirements we made through each other just last summer. it would meet the requirements

that we and the promises we made to the american people. we said, okay, we're not raising the debt limit until you agree to spending cuts. and that was a total of $2.1 trillion in spending cuts. and we agreed that we wouldn't increase the debt limit more than the amount approved in that legislation. we wouldn't increase the debt over that amount. we would honor the paygo rule. that was part of that legislation. that's what we promised each other, and the american people. we don't need to violate that now. and remember, a vote to sustain the point of order would not kill the postal reform bill. but a vote to waive the point of order and just spend the money would be a vote to ignore spending requirements and would, i believe, kill our professed

commitment to fiscal responsibility. so, mr. president, i thank the chair for the opportunity to share these remarks. i see we have as much of a, is as much of a $34 billion problem here. it's going to be difficult to fix it but certainly not impossible. i would hope if this bill is sent back, i know my colleagues would figure out a way to pay for it. i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum, but i will be responding. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, let me start by responding to the ranking member of the budget committee by saying that i could not agree with him more that it is absolutely unacceptable that we have not had a budget pass in the senate for more than 1,000 days. that is totally unacceptable. it's one of the reasons that we are in such a financial crisis in this country. so, i completely agree with senator sessions that we should be doing a budget resolution on

the senate floor. and i wholeheartedly agree with his comments that it is absolutely irresponsible for us to be proceeding without a budget resolution. and as a member of the appropriations committee, i would say to my colleagues that it makes it very difficult for us to carry out our work due to the cooperation of the chairman and ranking member of that committee. we are operating under allocations for each subcommittee. but it would be far, far preferable if there were a budget resolution that passed, and it should have passed last year, the year before. and it should be passing this year. so we're in complete agreement on that point. and i know that's been a great source of frustration for the senator from alabama, as the ranking member of the budget committee. having said that, mr. president,

let me explain a few facts. first of all, there are no tax dollars being authorized by this reform bill. there is no transfer of taxpayer money to the postal service. what we have here is a very strange and unusual budget situation, and the score that c.b.o. has is incredibly misleading because the postal service, oddly enough, is part of the unified budget of the united states, even though most of its accounts are off-budget. but it participates in federal

employee retirement systems and the health benefits systems and the workers' compensation systems, where postal dollars that come from postal employees and from ratepayers, postal ratepayers, are commingled, if you will, with tax dollars that come from other federal agencies into the retirement system, the workers comp system and the health benefits system. and that creates this odd situation which makes it very difficult for c.b.o. to score this bill correctly. now, the inspector general of the postal service puts a -- it far more bluntly. the inspector general says in a february 22 report from this

year called "budget enforcement procedures and the postal service" -- and let me quote. the i.g. says, "the postal service's off-budget status exposes the postal service to, quote, an inappropriate and illogical application of the scoring process that threatens its ability to reform and heal its financial condition. scoring and budget enforcement were created for a good purpose, but they are undermined when the scoring process assumes that unlikely or inappropriate inflows to the treasury must occur." end quote. let me give you a couple of examples because it's incredibly important that we walk through the score so that our colleagues

can understand the unique on-budget, off-budget status of the postal service. particularly in the area of reducing payments to retiree health benefits or recovering overpayments to the fers system and how the c.b.o. scoring method obscures the true savings achieved by refunding the fers payments. now, again, let me repeat. since 1971, the postal service has received no federal subsidy to operate other than some very minor appropriated dollars for functions that the postal service is legislatively mandated to do, such as mail for

the blind and overseas ballots for our troops. that's it. prior to 1971, there was a taxpayer subsidy year after year to the postal service. that ended with the postal reform act in that year. so from the sale of stamps, the cost of shipping packages, the rates that mailers and magazine publishers, newspaper publishers pay to get the print versions delivered comes the revenue for the postal service. and even the money that the postal service uses for retiree benefits comes from the combination of the contributions the postal workers make and the money that the postal service invests. so there is, as i mentioned earlier, a significant

overpayment into the federal employees retirement system, and we, along with the administration, the g.a.o., the independent actuaries, the postal service inspector general all have proposed that that overpayment be returned to the postal service. and it would be used in part to finance these buyouts and retirement incentives to reduce the size of the postal workforce. now, let's look at how c.b.o. scores this particular part of the bill. first of all, c.b.o. gives this bill no credit whatsoever for the buyouts, and here's why: c.b.o. argues that the postal

service already has buyout authority. but, mr. president, as you know better than anybody in this chamber, our bill changes the status quo in two critical ways. first of all, the postal service has no cash right now to do these buyouts. that is one of the reasons that we're so eager to get the money from the overpayment to fers refunded to the postal service. second, in our bill, in our substitute bill, we specifically direct the postmaster general to use a portion of this money to entice 18% of the current postal workers to accept this offer.

that is a big difns. so there is -- that is a big big difference. so there is a mandatory move to reduce the workforce by 18% and there's the cash to allow tom offer buy -- to allow him to offer buyouts to do that. now, why c.b.o. doesn't do that as a savings to the postal service is beyond me. now, there's another way to reduce the workforce, and again the funds for this would come from the fers refund. and that is, our bill provides new authority to the postal service to offer one or two years of credited service toward a pension annuity so that some worker who's just lacking a year or two in -- to reach the number

of years necessary for retirement could be credited with that extra year or two of service, depending which retirement system the worker is in. unfortunately, the c.b.o. gives -- makes an assumption that only several thousand employees would take advantage of that offer and credits the bill with savings of only $643 billion over ten years. since these kinds of service credits have never been offered before, it's not clear how the c.b.o. came up with this assumption. this is a know precedent for it. there are no data for the c.b.o. to use. and, again, our original bill did not include the hard

requirement for the 18% reduction. but our substitute does. and yet c.b.o. does not recognize that change. now, the postal service has told us, as the presiding officer would attest, that these requirements and this new authority and the funds to -- for the buyouts and the service credit would allow them to reduce their workforce in the neighborhood of 100,000 employees and saves them $8 billion a year. that is not reflected in the estimate. so i use that example because it shows how strange the scoring is. this is a quirk of the budget

scoring rules because when there's a transfer of postal service money -- not taxpayer money, postal service money -- from one account in the treasury, such as the retirement account, into an off-budget postal operations account, the c.b.o. makes this assumption that savings are not going to occur. so, when you transfer the $11 billion overpayment, the refund, from the pension account to which the postal service has been overcharged into a postal operating account, it gets credited as $5.5 billion instead of $11 billion. that means an on-budget account

loses $11 billion, as c.b.o. looks at it, and the off-budget accounts only gains $5.5 billion. this is very complex because it's so obscure and because, frankly, it's so illogical. the result is a net score in the unified budget of $5.5 billion, as a cost to the treasury. and that simply not the reality. again, these aren't taxpayer dollars. -- again, these aren't taxpayer dollars that went into the overpayment in the first place. so here we have a provision that's being scored as a $5.5 billion cost to the treasury when in fact they aren't tax

dollars, and it's only because this is a unified budget where some of the accounts are on-budget, some of the accounts are off-budget that we have this anomalous result. it just doesn't make sense. let me give you another example. the c.b.o. acknowledges that our reforms of the federal workers' compensation program would save $1.2 billion, but c.b.o. doesn't count this reduction as a savings because of the way that the department of labor charges agencies for participation in the workers' compensation program. again, that just doesn't make any sense when the c.b.o. itself

acknowledges that these are real reforms that are going to save $1.2 billion. yet we only get credit for $200 million of the reforms. mr. president, there's -- there's another issue here. the c.b.o. does not account for what would happen if the postal service allows service to continue to deteriorate. instead, because again the c.b.o. doesn't recognize the reality that all the big mailers and small mailers tell us, which is that revenue will be driven out of the system if the service cuts associated with plant

closures and wholesale closures of post offices are allowed to proceed. the bottom line, mr. president, is that were it not for 50% discounts being applied over and over again to the savings that we achieve for five-day delivery, retiree health care, the pension refund, on the basis of these strange behavioral assumptions and reflecting the odd combination of off-budget and on-budget accounts being brought together in a unified budget, the bill would have scored approximately $24.6 billion more in off-budget savings, making the bill a net

saver of $14.8 billion. this is so frustrating, mr. president, because it is so complex. but i think if our colleagues just look at the example of the fers overpayment, it becomes very clear because there are no taxpayer dollars involved and yet it is scored at -- as a cost to the treasury of $5.5 billion. how can a refund of an overpayment that involved no tax dollars end up being scored as a cost to the treasury of $5.5 billion? that is how illogical and quirky this estimate is, and it is

because of the unique status of the postal service and how its various accounts are reflected in the budget. but, mr. president, in addition to my absolute conviction that this score is very misleading, let me make another point, and that is, if we do not proceed with this bill, if this budget point of order brings down this bill, the postal service will not survive as we know it. and, again, we are not providing a taxpayer subsidy in this bill. in fact, i would argue we're preventing a taxpayer bailout in this bill because later this

year, if the postal service cannot meet its payroll and, thus, is unable to deliver mail, i think the pressure for the taxpayer bailout will increase substantially. and i do not want to see us return to the pre-1971 era where the taxpayers were on the hook for the postal service. and our bill would avoid that outcome. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: may i say that -- in my -- does the senator from maine wish to

speak? ms. collins: mr. president, i don't know if this would be appropriate, so i'm going to suggest the absence of a quorum to find out whether i could replace the presiding officer in the chair very briefly so that he could add his comments to this issue. but if that's going to create an issue, then i don't want to proceed. mr. president, i'm informed by the staff of the floor that there will be a new presiding officer arriving in moments, so i will just suggest the absence of a quorum and take my seat. the presiding officer: and i will just ask the clerk to call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank the chair. i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: mr. president,

thank you from liberating me from the chair so i may now speak in my capacity as the senator from connecticut. i want first to thank my friend from maine, senator collins, for what i thought was a very convincing, insightful description and really a critique of the c.b.o. estimate of the financial impact of this bill. this is tough to follow. the two of us, senator collins and i, and others on the committee, have been deeply saturated in this for probably too long, but the fact is, when -- when the c.b.o. estimate of the bill came out saying that it was going to cost more than we were saving, i was shocked. and as i read over it, part of it is because they're not simply considering the post office, the postal service budget, which we're out to save -- that is, to

cut a lot of money from it so that it can be saved -- but they're -- and as senator collins said, the postal service is off budget, it doesn't spend taxpayers' money except for those two little matters of paying for ballots for military personnel and others overseas. and the i think the other was for blind people in this country. but the rest of it is all paid by the ratepayers. so -- and as you go over one by one, as senator collins did, the elements of the -- of the costs -- and i put them with quotations around them -- they're just not real. this is -- this is form over substance. this is a kind of "alice in wonderland" accounting that doesn't relate to the reality of the postal service's budget or the federal budget. the so-called fers repayment that's coming from the federal

government is -- is -- everyone agrees, including senator sessions, who stated his intention to make a budget point of order on our bill, on our postal rescue bill, that -- that the postal service did overpay this amount of money, just as if a taxpayer had overpaid taxes. well, that's -- that's -- if i overpaid my taxes, that's my money that i'm asking for back from the government. in this case, the postal service has overpaid to the federal pension -- retiree pension fund and it's asking for its money back. there's something else to be said here about the reality of accounting in the real world. when the approximately $11 billion -- it may be more -- is paid back to the postal service, that only happens once, when it's -- when that total is paid back. but what we have demanded in the

bill be done with a part of that money which is to get involved in this incentive to early retirement -- or retirement when one is eligible, members of the postal service mandating that 18%, about 100,000 postal service employees retire, that saves $8.1 billion on a recurring basis every year. so you've got the one-time -- it may come in two or three payments, but only one-time $11 billion repayment to the postal service for the overpayment it made, and then every year it saves $8.1 billion forever. that's a pretty good deal for the -- both for the taxpayers and the postal service. secondly, and senator collins went on i think very effectively about this, the prefunding of health benefits.

the fact is that in the postal reform act of 2006, you might call it an excess of caution, the postal service was required to make payments into the retiree health benefits fund greater than most any other business or government in -- in the country, and we've just spread this out to a four-year payment schedule according to the normal discounted rate that other federal -- normal discount rate that other federal programs pay for their retirees' benefits. senator collins talked at length about the impact of the -- the way in which the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, refuses to score, as we say, count dollar-for-dollar the amount of money saved by early retirement, which doesn't make any sense because that is what will be saved. now, i want to enter into the record at this point and speak to it the estimate of the united states postal service about what

our substitute bill, 1789, will save. and it's quite dramatic. all along, our goal has been to get to a point over three or four years where we would save as close to $20 billion a year as we could. that's the number that postmaster general donohoe gave to our committee as what he needed, the postal service needed to get back in balance. on the current course, in the year -- fiscal year 2016, the u.s. postal service will lose -- i'm reading now from a statement which i'll enter into the record -- that postal service has given us -- will lose, will have a deficit of $21.3 billion. in 2016, under -- okay, i've got

the right number. under the passage of the substitute, 1789, the loss is reduced to $1.8 billion. that's from $21.3 billion to $1.8 billion. well, of course, we want to get it to total balance but we're clearly going to hit balance after that on the course we're on. that means that, according to the postal service, that the passage of s. 1789, our substitute bill, will save the postal service over $19 billion a year by 2016. and that's -- that's exactly what the postal service needs to stay alive. and we do it without compelling layoffs. we do it -- we do it with incentives to retirement. we do it without mandating, as some of the amendments we'll vote on tomorrow, the mass

closure of mail processing facilities or post offices around the country, which, as senator collins has said, would so kind of shock therapy, would so jolt the system that people would turn away from the post office in increasing numbers and, in fact, it would accelerate the loss of revenue. and we do it without an immediate move from six days of delivery to five days because that's a tough one for a lot of people. we've given the post office two years to essentially prove that it can -- can -- can get back in balance without that -- that move from six days to five days of delivery. so -- and we've added new sources of revenue, and we've created a process here which isn't scored by the postal service that we think can add more money because it will develop a new -- a new business model, a new way to use the asset that the post office -- the assets that the post office has to make more money. the fact is that -- i want to

just emphasize this again -- this saving of $19 billion which will result by 2016 if this substitute bill, 1789 is adopted, does not take any taxpayer funds. in fact, it properly returns certain overpayments from the postal service. the c.b.o. score for s. 1789 is simply misleading, profoundly misleading because of the kind of accounting rules that -- that don't relate to the reality of the budget for the postal service. and so i'm proud of what we've been able to accomplish. it took a lot of work. and senator collins has said, if this -- if this point of order that senator sessions intends to

make at some point in the debate debate -- hopefully after the amendments are voted on -- is sustained, it will end this bill and instead of, therefore, having adopted a bill which if it went all the way to enactment would save $19 billion for the post office every year by 2016, the post office's deficit-debt spiral would continue downward. i would predict that there would be massive cutbacks in services and -- and loss of employment by people both in the postal service but particularly among the 8 million people who are in jobs that depend on the postal service in the private private sector for their livelihood. so with all respect, i will vigorously object to the point of order that my friend from alabama, senator sessions, will make. mr. president, i note the presence on the floor of the distinguished senator from

virginia. does he wish to speak? i yield the floor. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, first of all let me thank the chairman and -- and senator collins for their -- their work on this bill. i know it has caused a great deal of interest and consternation but the numbers are overwhelming that without this kind of legislation, the fate of our postal service would be in great jeopardy. and i want to commend both the chair and -- and ranking member for their very good work. i intend to support the legislation, know they've had to make some hard choices but i think they are putting the postal service back on the path to sustainability and i want to commend their leadership. i also want to thank them both as well for an amendment that

they've been kind enough to include i believe in a revised bill or the managers' package that takes on a related issue that affect not only postal employees but all federal employees and that is the absolutely dreadful performance that's starting to be corrected but the absolutely dreadful performance that o.p.m. and agencies of the government, including the post office, have done in terms of making sure that our federal employees receive their retirement benefits in a -- in a timely manner. the presiding officer and i, both from the commonwealth of virginia, we have 130,000 federal employees in virginia. there are 140,000 federal employees across the river in maryland. i'm happy that senator mikulski has cosponsored the amendment

that i'm going to talk about in a few moments. i want to explain the problem we're facing and why i'm asking the senate to pass this amendment during the consideration of its bill to reform the postal system. over the past year, i and other members of both parties have received hundreds of requests for assistance from federal retirees who express -- who have experienced significant delays in obtaining their full retirement benefits. delays that oftentimes exceed 12 months, sometimes as much as 18 months and more. in the meantime, these federal retirees, no one questions that they deserve and should receive these benefits, but since there is slow processing and antiquated technology, we're not getting to these earned retirement benefits, these retirees face inordinate hardships trying to pay their bills and survive on partial payments while the required

paperwork moves through the system. remarkably, in 2012, our whole retirement system is still a paper-based system. o.p.m. also relies upon every other federal agency, like the post office and others where federal employees work, to assemble and submit the retirees ' paperwork in a timely and efficient manner. but as we have seen with the occasional snapshots that have been taken, some agencies literally have a 30% to 50% error rate in submitting the background materials for the retiree so that o.p.m. can appropriately process this -- process the paperwork. and part of the goal of this postal reform, i know, is going to be to encourage some of the voluntary retirements in the postal system. again, why this amendment is so timely.

meanwhile, the retirees wait and wait for benefits, benefits that they have earned and unfortunately benefits that they can't get access to. we continue to hear from recent federal retirees who literally spend eight or ten hours a day trying to get through on the customer service line to find out where the benefits are. i'd like to share a few examples of what we're hearing. we recently heard from a retired colonel from williamsburg, virginia, who wrote when i retired in march, 2011, and at the time of this writing, o.p.m. still has not figured out my full retirement pay. my savings are getting low. from here in northern virginia, in dumfries, virginia, we heard from a federal retiree who said i have been subjected to severe financial hardship because of not getting my full benefits. i was recently told that the bank is repossessing my auto because i cannot afford to make the payments. and they are not able to make the payments because this retiree was not getting her benefits. she was existing on partial benefits until o.p.m. could deal

with the processing. from warrenton, i am seeking assistance with obtaining my husband's health insurance which was canceled unexpectedly. he worked for d.o.d. i notified o.p.m. with the appropriate forms and a copy of his death certificate, all of which was apparently lost by o.p.m. i tried to obtain new forms but was told that it would take up to six weeks. i am 80 years old and need my health insurance now. my husband and i were married for 60 years. this is just unacceptable. this is not the way we ought to be running this important part of our federal government. in january of 2012, o.p.m.'s retirement backlog exceeded 62,000 cases. 62,000 federal employees, retirees who were waiting to get their benefits in a backlog. and again, let me point out, many of these retirees were waiting for more than a year. we saw huge backlogs in disability claims, death benefits and court-ordered

benefits. by o.p.m.'s own account, it takes almost 700 days, nearly two years, to process some death benefits. now, recently, after my meetings with o.p.m. and other members of the delegation, o.p.m. has made some limited progress in reversing the tide of retirement claims. the retirement backlog is now at 52,000 claims. and o.p.m. has hired new staff and is starting to modernize its outdated processes. but it's clear that more ?eedz to be done. i also want to compliment senator akaka who was kind enough to allow me to join an oversight meeting on this matter in february of this year. what i heard there worried me. i sent my staff to o.p.m.'s retirement processing facility last month to see the problem up close. unfortunately, my staff reports confirmed my worst fears. the current process is largely manual, cumbersome and contributes to significant delays and potential errors. we have been told that the newest o.p.m. technology is 12

years old. that's pretty remarkable. it's simply no longer feasible to expect that manual data entry for retirement and benefits claims makes sense when we have technology that can dramatically lower processing time and increase accuracy. o.p.m. needs to modernize its technology in the long run, but in 2012, they need to at least start taking some short-term steps. it is just unacceptable that they rely upon paper processing in 2012. o.p.m., as i mentioned, has made some progress but ultimately they still want to remain committed to a paper processing system. it doesn't make any sense. and the kicker is this problem is not new. as indicated by this press story, federal agencies have routinely pointed the finger of blame at o.p.m. for causing these delays while o.p.m. points a finger back at the individual agencies for not getting the information to o.p.m. in a

timely manner. now, you might think that this story was written just in the last few weeks. there actually have been stories written in the post in the last few weeks about this subject, but today i'm quoting -- the day i'm quoting from on this story, actually, may 9, 1988. that's 24 years ago. ronald reagan was president when this was written. and we have had four presidents since then, yet o.p.m. continues to offer the same excuses and the same kind of back and forth finger pointing between agencies. we have seen this show before, and it needs to be taken off the air. so what are we going to do with this amendment and how does this affect trying to move the ball forward? my amendment will do three things. first, it requires o.p.m. to report to congress, g.a.o. and the public about the timeliness and accuracy of postal service claims, requiring o.p.m. to compare the postal service with performance of other -- all

other federal agencies. so we need to figure out because we don't know at this point with that 52,000-claim backlog whether the backlog is because the agency that the employee worked for didn't get the information to o.p.m. in a timely manner or whether o.p.m. hasn't processed this. this will require -- this amendment will require the postal service to assess how it's doing getting this information to o.p.m. and compare that with performance of other federal agencies. this will allow us to see which federal agencies have the best and worst track records in submitting paperwork to o.p.m. the snapshot we saw a little bit earlier this year at the hearing in february showed that a number of agencies had literally a 30% to 50% error rate in submitting their retirement paperwork to o.p.m., and with close to 100,000 potential new retirees, actually a much larger number but the effect of this bill may urge the voluntary retirement of 100,000 postal workers to retirement, o.p.m. is going to

get hit by a tsunami. second, the report will also require o.p.m. to provide a claims aging report. we know -- we need to know how long retirement applications have been pending at o.p.m. by the way, we don't have any of that information right now for the 52,000 cases that are currently pending backlog. no basic aging report. and third, the amendment will require o.p.m. to at least move forward a little bit in modernizing one piece of their technology so that o.p.m. can at least receive some electronic payroll data from the postal service system. 551,000 people work for the postal services right now. if this legislation passes, which i hope it will, and we see the voluntary retirement of 100,000 postal workers over the coming months or year, that is a new tsunami of retirement benefits claims that are going to need to be processed by o.p.m. the bottom line is this -- o.p.m., while they are trying to make some progress -- and i

commend director barry for some of the actions he's taken -- we need to urge them along and get more data about how they do not only with the post offices but with all federal agencies. my amendment will move forward in that direction. the one mikulski amendment focuses on these key reporting requirements and mandates more transparency so that we can untangle the choke points. i believe that we need to honor the dedication, the commitment of our federal work force, including our postal workers and making sure that when they do retire, they get their federal retiree benefits in a timely and efficient manner. again, mr. president, i want to thank the chair and the ranking member for their hard work on this postal reform bill. i look forward to supporting it. i also hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this warner-mikulski amendment, that while tangential to the overall reform of the postal service, making sure these retirees get their benefits in a timely manner is something we should

all agree on. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank my friend from virginia, most importantly for focusing our attention. i know senator collins and senator akaka have also been involved in this on this really unacceptable situation where federal employees are retiring because of a lot of failures here, the failure to implement an effective -- in 2012, an effective electronic system for this purpose, paper processing, meaning that people have to wait these very long times after they retire, and while they are waiting, they are getting a significantly reduced benefit which causes real hardship, and the senator from virginia is absolutely right. we mandate here that the -- in this bill, the underlying bill that the postal service accept a goal of 18% in reduction of work force. the total number of career

employees in the u.s. postal service is about 545,000. 18% comes out to around 100,000, which is our goal for reduction. this has to happen if the postal service is going to get back in balance because, as senator collins said earlier today, 80% of the operating budget of the postal service is personnel costs. obviously, it's a labor-intensive operation. so you could have another 100,000 people. in fact, it keeps going. by 2017, from now, this year, you will have a total of 138,000 postal employees eligible to retire, and the postal service is just going to have to work to incentivize them to retire so that the service overall can stay in balance.

i want to thank senator warner because we have worked very well together on a modification to his amendment, which i think most significantly will require the office of personnel management to submit a report to congress related to the completion of retirement claims for postal iniew tiffs to keep the pressure on them to end this really inhumane in many cases, really unacceptable situation. i know when the proper time comes, we intend to support this modified amendment. it strengthens the bill. it does the right thing. i thank the senator from virginia for expressing his intention to support the overall bill. i would yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i, too, want to commend the senator from virginia for offering this amendment in conjunction with the senator from maryland.

i wrote to o.p.m. in july of last year about this very issue. i was very concerned about reports from my own state and from "the washington post" about the tremendous backlog at o.p.m. in processing the retirement applications of federal and postal workers. this is just wrong. as the senator's statement shows, it has caused some real hardship to individuals. and so i was pleased that the chairman and i could work with the senator to modify his amendment so that it would be germane to this bill, and i look forward to -- at the appropriate time with working with the chairman to accept the amendment. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i just want to thank the chair and

the ranking member for working with me on this amendment to get it appropriately modified. this is an area that i think there is broad bipartisan consensus, that we need to make sure, whether postal workers or other workers in the federal system, that when they choose to retire, they can expect those retirement benefits in a timely manner, and i want to again commend the chair and the regular member for the fact that putting in place this very reasonable plan that's going to encourage the voluntary retirements of that approximately 18% of the work force, 109,000 i believe it amounts to, it's going to be a lot easier to make that sell if those postal workers can then expect to receive their retirement benefits in a timely manner. i think if they are hearing the current scuttlebutt, that they may have to wait 12-18 months to get their retirement benefits, it becomes a much harder effort for the postmaster and the management of the postal system to make, even if they have got

the right incentives in place, to kind of get over that hump if they have to wait a long time. so i very much want to thank, again, the chair and the ranking member, senator lieberman, senator collins, for their support on this. and i think trying to shine a little light on this, not only the postal service but vis-a-vis how other federal agencies are doing, i look forward to working with it on them. i hope to lend my assistance to make sure we get this fixed. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from recognized. mr. lieberman: thanks to the senator from virginia, he makes a really important point here, of the $19 billion in savings that the postal service itself believes will result annually as of 2016, $8.1 billion will come from the reduction in salaries paid because of retirements that

are incentivized under this bill. and it's common sense that if workers thinking about retiring hear there is such a backlog that they're only going to get half of what they deserve for their pension until the paperwork the is cleared, they're probably not going to rush to retire and therefore we're going to save less money. so very good point. mr. president, we're approaching the hour of 2:00. according to the unanimous consent that governs the -- our activities today here in the senate we're going to go to another matter, the nlrb rule. i want to thank particularly senator sessions and senator warner who came to the floor to discuss their amendments. senator collins and i will return at 4:00, we'll be here until 5:00 when we go to judicial -- a discussion of a judicial nomination and we'll be here after the vote tonight as late as anybody's here to discuss and debate amendments before we go to the vote tomorrow.

so i thank the chair very much. i thank my friend from maine and i would yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: i'd ask further proceedings under quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i would make a motion to proceed to s.j. res. 36. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 361, s.j. res. 36, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the rule submitted by the national labor relations board relating to representation election procedures. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by between the two leaders or their designees. the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi scw thank you, mr. president.

mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to ask for disapproval to stop the national labor relations board's ambush election rule. this rule that i'm objecting to was rushed into place by a national labor relations board that's bound and determined to stack the odds against the american employees and put employers -- employers and to put employees in an unfair situation. despite the fact that unemployment has remained above 8% for the past three years, and small business growth is the most important factor in reversing the lackluster trend, the national labor relations board has chosen to impose new rules to aid big labor at the expense of employees, particularly small business employers, and the jobs they would create. if the senate does not act now to stop this rule by passing my resolution, it will go into effect on monday, april 30, just ten months after it was first proposed. the changes that are being made

are going to be a big surprise for the employers and employees that get caught in this net, particularly as i mentioned the small employers that do not have the human resource departments or the in-house counsel. i would expect that we elected representatives of the people are going to face a lot of questions about what we did to stop this blatant effort to stack the odds in big labor's favor, and we will be asked. this rule will shift the law significantly in favor of big labor. let me take a moment to explain. under current practice, there's a 25-day waiting period between the setting of an election by a hearing officer and the actual secret ballot election. employers can use this time to familiarize themselves with the requirements and restrictions of the law. this is very important because there are many ways that an unknowledgeable employer with the best intentions could make a misstep that would be heavily penalized by the national labor relations board.

employers also use the time to communicate with their employees about the decision they are making, and correct misstatements and falsehoods that they may be hearing from union organizers. parties also use this time to seek review of a decision made by a hearing officer or a national labor relations board regional director. under the new law, the new regulation, the 25-day waiting period is abolished, and employers may face an election in as few as ten days. is it fair to the employees to only have ten days to learn how this will affect his or her life? and how much his or her money this will cost. under current law both parties are able to raise issues about the election at a preelection hearing covering such issues as which employees should be included in the bargaining unit and whether particular employees are actually supervisors. under the new regulation, parties will be barred from

raising these questions until after the election. employees will be forced to vote without knowing which other employees will be actually be in the bargaining unit with them. this is important information that weighs heavily in most employees' vote. additionally, because of the national labor relations board's decision to allow microunits like specialty health care unions, the unions will essentially be granted any bargaining unit they design, and employers will have a very limited time to weigh in. under current law, when either party raises preelection issues, they're allowed to submit evidence and testimony and file posthearing briefs for the hearing officer to consider. and have 14 days in which to appeal decisions made with respect to that election. under the new regulation, the hearing officer is given the broad discretion to bar all evidence and testimony unrelated to the question of representation and all

postelection briefs, and no appeals or requests for stays are allowed. this can be quite a disadvantage for employees as well. what this all adds up to is an extremely small window of time from filing a petition to the actual election, little opportunity for employers to learn their rights or communicate with employees their rights. and less opportunity for employees to research the unions and the ramifications of forming a union. the nlrb is ensuring that the odds are stacked against employees and businesses. this vote is an opportunity to tell nlrb to reverse course. if we pass this resolution as i hope we will, the senate will not be the only branch of government telling the nlrb it's off track. last month, a district of columbia federal court told the nlrb that several provisions of

its notice posting regulation were well exceeding their authority and struck them down. this was a judge appointed by president obama. two weeks ago, another federal court, this time in south carolina, also ruled against the nlrb. it found the entire notice poefgs regulations violated congressional intent. following up on these two rulings, the d.c. court of appeals just stayed the entire rule until appeals are completed. the court in that case was frustrated that the nlrb did not postpone the rule itself given the multiple treatments in the courts. unfortunately, that reckless sense of blind mission is consistent with this administration's nlrb. it's kind of like thelma and louise driving off a cliff. well, mr. president, i for one do not want to see the nlrb drive our economy off a cliff. i hope this resolution will pull them back and encourage them to

focus on their statutory mission. the national labor relations board enforces the national labor relations act, which is a carefully balanced law that protects the rights of employees to join or not join a union and also protects the right of employers to free speech and unrestricted flow of commerce. since it was enacted in 1935, changes to this statute have been rare. when they have occurred, it's been the result of careful negotiations with stakeholders. this change is one-sided and super quick and ambushed to set up ambush elections. the national labor relations board is not an agency that typically issues regulations. listen to this: in fact, over 57 years, the national labor relations board has finalized only three regulations through formal rule making, two of which occurred last year.

let me repeat that. in over 75 years, the national labor relations board finalized only three regulations through formal rule making and two of them occurred last year. as i mentioned, one of those was already struck down by one court and stayed by another. most of the questions have come up under the law are handled through decisions of the board. board decisions often do change the enforcement of the law significantly, but they're issued in response to the actual dispute in question of law. in contrast, the ambush election is not a response to a real problem because the current election process for certifying whether employees want to form a union is not broken. this rule was not carefully negotiated by stakeholders. instead it was rushed into place in over just six months. despite the fact that it drew over 65,000 comments in the

two-month period after it was first proposed. labor law history provides an interesting contrast to this rushed regulatory approach. in the late 1950's, congress became concerned about undemocratic practices, labor racketeering and mob influence and certain labor unions. to address this, the senate created a special committee, the select committee on improper activities in the labor or management field, and operated for three years and heard more than 1,500 witnesses over 270 days of hearings. based upon their investigations, the senate negotiated and passed legislation to protect the rights of rank and file union members and employers. the legislation is known as the landrum-griffin act. the issue of how much time there should be between the request for election and the actual

election came up during those negotiations. my colleagues may be surprised to learn that it was senator john f. kennedy who argued vigorously for a 30-day waiting period prior to the election. as he said -- quote -- "there should be at least a 30-day interval between the request for an election and the holding of an election in which both parties can present their viewpoints. the 30-day waiting period is an additional safeguard against rushing employees into an election where they're unfamiliar with the issues." end quote by john f. kennedy. fairness to the employees, that's what senator john f. kennedy was talking about. the 30-day waiting period provision he supported did not ultimately become part of the law and obviously it's not the law today. instead, the nlrb adopted a practice of a 25-day waiting period in almost every case. but this caution about the need for employees to have a chance

to become familiar with the issues is just as true today. employees who are not aware of the organizing activity of their work site and even those who were need to have an opportunity to learn about the union they may join. they will want to research the union to ensure it has no signs of corruption. they'll want to know how other work sites have fared with this union and whether they can believe the promises the union organizers may be extending. employees should have every chance to understand the impact of the unionization. for example, they will no longer be able to negotiate or raise individually with their employer. doing your job better than fellow employees may no longer bring any benefit whatsoever. union rules may even hinder sales. once had the opportunity to visit a shoe factory. i was in the retail shoe business and we visited a shoe factory, and as we went through it, i saw some of the boxes of

some of the shoes that we normally carry and was kind of interested in what the new fashion looked like, so i went over and i opened a box. and the roof caved in. not really, but it seemed like the roof caved in because it has to be somebody that has union authority to be able to open that box. it can't be the supervisor. so i actually shut down the factory for about 30 minutes just by picking up a box to look at what the shoes were in there that were probably going to be coming in my store at one point in time. grievances cannot be brought straight to the employer, but they'll instead have to go through the filtered union management. once a union is certified, the national labor relations board is instituted significant restrictions for when it may be decertified. in other words, when the employees can fire a union as their representative. barred from petition -gs for

recertification for a full year after the election. so, there really is a very small window in which employees have any opportunity to get rid of a union they do not support. and rush into the judgment and stuck with it. four tkebgdz decades employers recognized the opportunity to get relevant information before casting their vote. the nlrb is choosing to ignore this caution and rank-and-file employees will suffer. fairness to the employee? this situation is exactly what the congressional review act was intended for. when an agency takes regulatory action not supported by the people and their representatives, the congressional review act gives congress the chance to repeal that regulation. in this case, those advocating this are doing so because they cannot pass the bill they really want, which is card check. now, card check is where you just have to have the people go

in and stand over somebody's shoulder while they check a box that says they want to be in a union, and then with enough signatures, there are enough boxes checked, there is no secret ballot election. many have referred to this as a backdoor card check, this particular nlrb regulation is a backdoor card check, and for good reason. both proposals seek to restrict all communication with employees prior to a union election for union organizers only. under both scenarios, employees are likely to hear only one side of the story and employees can be cut out of the process altogether. but the other side cannot pass card check because once the american public found out about what they were trying to do, they objected. it took a little while because the card check legislation was deceptively named the employee free choice act, when in reality it would have forced employees

into the exact opposite of a free choice. any senator who opposes card check should also be voting for this resolution to stop ambush elections. another reason the congressional review act was designed for just this situation is that there is simply no other way we would be allowed to have a vote on this issue in the senate. back in december the house of representatives passed chairman klein's legislation that would have effectively killed the ambush election regulation and codify a 35-day waiting period before an election. the workforce democracy and fairness act was passed with bipartisan support, but it has no chance of being called up for a vote here in the senate. so this vote is the one chance senators will have to stand up for employees and small businesses that want fairness. with any measure, the current law and certification system provides that fairness. the national labor relations board keeps data on elections,

timing and sets up annual targets to process elections and decide complaints swiftly. last year they exceeded two of those targets and came within .3% to meeting the third. there is simply no justification for this regulation. last year initial elections and union representation elections were conducted on a median of 38 days after the filing of the petition. almost 92% of all initial elections were conducted within 56 days of the filing of the petition. not only are the vast majority of elections occurring in a timely fashion, but unions are winning more than ever. unions win more than 71% of elections, that i highest win rate on record. the current system does not disadvantage labor unions at all. but it does ensure that employees whose right it is to make the decision of whether or not to form a union have a full

opportunity to hear from both sides about the ramifications of that decision. this resolution will preserve the fairness and swift resolution of claims which occur under current law. it will not disadvantage unions or roll back any rights. let me repeat that. this resolution will not disadvantage unions or roll back any rights. what it will do is prevent the small business employers out in america from being ambushed and employees from being misled with insufficient information in the union contracts that they cannot get out of. under a successful congressional review act disapproval, the agency in question is prohibited from issuing any substantially similar regulation. that means the national labor relations board could not just reissue this regulation and could not finalize many of the other bad ideas they initially

proposed. i will be speaking about some of those later on in this debate. let's not wait for the courts to strike down this rule as they have the other nlrb's regulatory effort. that would be two out of three in the last 75 years. now, with the president's appointment of the national labor relations board when we really weren't in the senate recess, the senate didn't confirm the people, who were pushing this effort, but most of this was done under the previous people. so with the president's recess appointments in place, the national labor relations board is poised to push forward other bad ideas aimed at helping union bosses. not employees, not job creators. it's time to stop this agency and level the odds. i'm pleased to have 44 fellow senators cosponsoring the

resolution, and i will now yield time to other members who would like to speak in favor of it, first allowing the senator from iowa, the chairman of the committee, an opportunity probably to speak against it. i yield the floor. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent paul eddenfield, a member of my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, by the way, i yield myself how much time i consume. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i also wanted to clear up one parliamentary question here. the occupant of the chair stated that we had two hours evenly divided. i believe that's today. for the agreement on the entire debate on the congressional review act if i'm not mistaken is four hours evenly divided? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. harkin: i thank the chair. this congressional review act challenges the latest chapter in an unprecedented republican assault on unions. the amount of time this congress has wasted scrutinizing and bullying the national labor relations board over the last two years is simply astonishing. this time the debate is about whether the nlrb acted appropriately when it streamlined its procedure for setting up a union election and eliminated unnecessary bureaucracy to make the agency more efficient. this seems like a commonsense

and logical step, that if taken by any other agency my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be applauding as they stepped forward for good government and efficiency. because these reforms were put forward by the nlrb, and agency my republican colleagues seem to want to do anything to undermine, we're all standing here today debating the merits of this eminently sensible action. it is a real shame at a time we should be working together to bo rebuild our economy. republicans are instead distracting this body with partisan tax on the national labor relations board and on unions. now, i would welcome the opportunity to spend this time on the senate floor debating thousand make life better for middle-class families. i would even welcome the opportunity to have a real debate about unions and the important role they play in our country. what i deeply regret is that we

are instead going to spend time discussing the wild misinformation that has been spread about national labor relation board rules that were properly undertaken, well within the agency's authority and completely sensible. so let me take a moment to try to set the record straight. in december, after receiving public input, the nlrb announced that some internal agency procedures governing union elections would be changed. these are modest changes that not only make the procedures more rational and efficient but also ensure that workers and employers alike will have an opportunity to make their voices heard in an environment free of intimidation. these changes, while modest, are desperately needed. they will address the rare but deeply troubling situation where an unscrupulous employer uses delay and frivolous litigation to try to keep workers from getting a fair election.

let me briefly explain how the process works and how the new rules will help. ever since the passage of the neighbor labor relations act in 1935, workers have had a federally protected right to choose whether or not to form a union, and our national policy, as stated in that act, has been to encourage collective bargaining. workers ar who are interested in forming a union -- about 90% of the time the employer and the union reach an agreement covering when the election will be held, the timing of it, and who is in the bargaining unit. that's the ideal situation. that's what happens the majority of the time. although you'd never know it from the rhetoric surrounding these rules, the new procedures address only the roughly 10% of

situations where these preelection issues are in dispute and the rules say nothing about 90% of the elections where the two parties reach a voluntary agreement on election terms. so this chart kind of shows us only a tiny fraction of election petitions will be affected by these rules. so as i said, 90% of the time the proposed union and the employers reach an agreement: when the election is going to be held, how it is going to be held, they just voluntarily agree on that. only 10% of the time do we have employers, some who are highly unscrupulous, who will do anything to prevent their workers from having any kind of a voice in the running of the facility, then they go to extreme lengths, extreme lengths to frustrate the will of those who want to form a union. so again the rules that we're talking about don't even affect

90% of the businesses. will not even affect it. now, this 10% of the time, when the parties can't reach an agreement, the nlrb then holds a hearing to decide who should be in the bargaining unit. the nlrb's proposed rules deal with the mechanics of that hearing and they attempt to cut back on the frivolous litigation that has plagued the hearing process. that's the proposed rule. they deal with the mechanics, cut back on this frivolous litigation. under the old rules, management could litigate every single issue they could imagine at the hearing. they could file post hearing briefs over any issue, no matter how mierntion could appeal any decision to the nlrb here in washington. and in many cases the election would be put on hold while the board reviewed the case. the workers then had to wait for the resolution of this litigation before they could even vote.

when a party -- when the management side took advantage of every opportunity for delay, the average time before workers could vote was 198 days. again, we're talking about this 10%, talking about that. the management took advantage of every opportunity, the average time before workers could even vote was 198 days. and we have some cases where it's been as long as 13 years before employees were able to vote in a union election. now, while the election process drags on, workers are often subjected to harassment, threats, and, yes, firing. a study by the center for economic and policy research found that, among workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign, one in five is fired. one in five is fired. and you know what kind of signal

that sends to the rest of the workers. a cornell university study found that workers were required -- were required -- to attend an average of 10 anti-union meetings during worktime before the election. now, by law, workers have the right to organize. as i said, our official policy, as stated in the national labor relations act, is to encourage collective bargaining. but in practice, we allow delay and inti intimidation to make tt right meaningless. the current nlrb election reforms do not solve this problem entirely, but nevels they're an important -- but nevertheless they're an important step forward. they help clear the bureaucratic red tape that has wasted government resources and denied workers a right to a free choice. employers and unions can still raise their concerns about their participation in a pre-election hearing but they can't play

games to stall the election. under the new rules, employers can't waste time before the election arguing over whether an individual worker is eligible to vote. that worker then can vote a provisional ballot and the two sides can debate the issue after the election, if it matters to the outcome. -- if it matters. what we've had a in the past is, let's say if you had a proposed bargaining unit that was 200 people, let's say they got 100 of them to sign a petition -- they usually try to get about 350% -- they present it to the nlrb, management then says, well, person "a" here shouldn't be in that bargaining unit because they are a supervisered and person "b" shouldn't be in there because that person is really a clerk and not a handler or whatever it might be that wouldn't correspond to the bargaining unilateral. well, let's say they rise raise that issue on five people.

under the present situation, they could then that i can to the nlrb, have hearings on each one of those and then if they didn't like the outcome, they could then take it to court and drag di it out. under the new rules what they would say is, okay, if management is challenging those five people, we'll set a they are bulls aside, we'll have an election. if the election was 150-20 that they form a union, then those five wouldn't make any difference jau one way or the o. but if the election was close, then the nlrb would step in and say, wait a minute, now we have to look at whether or not -- and the election would be put on hold until they decided whether or not those people were rightfully in the bargaining unit to vote. so again these are some of the games that have been going on. another example is appeals. all parties still have the right

to appeal any decision they disagree with, but now all appeals will be consolidated after the election. after the election, which allows the board to conserve its resources, keep the election process moving forward. these common sense changes remove unnecessary delays from the process. they cut down on frivolous legal challenges, and they give workers a fair up-or-down vote in a reasonable period of tievment the new rules don't encourage unionization and they don't discourage it. they just give workers the ability to say "yes" or "no" without having to wait several months or even years to do so. now, there is rampant misinformation about this rule. to be clear, the rule does not allow a so-called ambush election where an employer is taken by surprise and has no ability or no opportunity to communicate with workers about the pros and cons of a union. as anyone who is are who has en

around a workplace, employers always know what's going on and they have ample opportunity express their views. they can encourage their employees to listen to anti-union messages while the union isn't even allowed into the facility to talk to other workers. this also does not change the content of what an employer can and cannot say to its workers. it doesn't restrict an employer's free speech rights in any way. finally, and i want to really make this clear, the rule does not mandate that elections be held with any -- within any particular time frame. for anyone who's actually read the new rules, it is clear that it does nothing of the sort. what these rules do accomplish is to help ensure that employers and employees have a level playing field, where corporate executives and rank-and-file workers alike have an equal chance to make their case for or against a union.

some workplaceplaces will choosa union, some will not. but protecting the right of twoarks make that choice bring some balance and fairness to the system. indeed, many employers -- employers -- have recognized that the new rules are fair and balanced. catholic health care west, a health care company with 31,000 employees, filed comments stating that -- quote -- "reforms proposed by the nlrb are not prounion or pro-business; they are promodernization." end quote. and, further, catholic health care west said they will -- quote -- "modernize the representation election process by improving the board's current representation election procedures that result in unnecessary delays, allow unnecessary litigation, and fail to take advantage of modern communication technologies." end quote. mr. willie west, founder and

owner of west sheet metal company in sterling, virginia, wrote an gnarl in the "hill" newspaper stating "these seemingly minor changes do not create changes for me and will not affect my ability to create jobs. in fact, if the nlrb standardizes the election process, it seems to me this will reduce uncertainty and turmoil in the workplace, especially for small businesses." especially for small businesses. end quote. mr. west is exactly right. the rules are an improvement for small businesses and for those who want a cooperative relationship with their employees. again, keep in mind, 90% of the time they have to problem. we're only talking about this 10% of the time. that's what these rules -- that's what these rules are aimed at. the new rules promote consistency among nlrb field offices. they simplify procedures for all parties, making it easeiers for businesses to plan -- easier for

businesses to plan. the old rules gave an advantage to the businesses with the most money and those most willing to manipulate the system to frustrate their employees' right to vote. some of these businesses in that 10% would afford expensive lawyers to exploit the system and delay the system. the old rules don't work for small businesses on a bucket. by creating a fairer, more transparent process, the nlrb is leveling the playing field for small businesses. most importantly, the rules also take a small step to level the playing field for ordinary americans. the people who do the work in this country and deserve a voice in the decisions that affect their families and their futures. polls show that 53% of workers want representation in their workplace. 53%. but fewer than 7% of

private-sector workers are represented, and one of the reasons is the broken nlrb election system. even though more workers than ever are is reserving an interest innin in having a voicn the job, the number of union representation elections conducted by the nlrb declined by an astounding 60% between 1997 and 2009. when workers do file for nlrb elections, 35% give up in the face of extreme employer intimidation and withdraw from the election before a vote is even held. let me repeat that. workers have gone around, they've gotten signatures, they've gotten the requisite 30%. they usually get a lot more than that, 40% to 50%. they file with the nlrb. one out of every three of those give up in the face of extreme employer intimidation. why? because one out of every five is

being fired. being fired because there's no real penalty. -- penalty against the employer for firing someone for union organize. now, it is against the law to fire an employee because they were exercising their right to form a union. to be in union organizing. but it happens all the time and why are employers not -- don't worry about it? because there's no penalties. the penalty is your backpay minus any offsets. i had a young man in iowa, i remember very well, up in mason city, he had been involved in organizing a union at his workplace, he got fired. he filed with the nlrb saying that he was wrongfully dismissed because of his union organizing activities. well, they had a hearing, they had this.

it drug on for three years. three years before the nlrb could reach a decision. and the decision was, yes, he was fired because of his union organizing activities. what was the penalty on the employer? they had to pay him three years' backpay minus whatever he earned in the meantime as a worker. well, how many people can go three years without working? of course he had to work. so he had to go to work and he had to show how much money he made in the meantime. that had to be deducted from what his employer had to pay him. his employer had to pay him practically nothing. and yet, using that as an example, able to frustrate the organizing of a union. so one-third give up in the face of extreme employer intimidation. now, these are the problems that need to be addressed. it's not just a problem for

unions either but for our entire middle class and for the future of our economy. you know, if you take a look at what's happening to the middle class in america, it's being decimated. the american are insisting, even though we're not doing much of it here in washington, i can assure you, the american people have insisted that we have a national dialogue about the growing division between the haves and the have notes in this country, about the detrimental impact that unequality is having on the standard of -- inequality is having on the standard of living of middle-class families. this has led to important discussions about tax holes for corporations and millionaires. but as we've lenders from wisconsin and ohio and be-- learned from wisconsin and ohio and beyond, it's very much about workers' rights. unions have always been the backbone of the american middle class. since we started having a middle class. since 1973, private-sector

unionization rates have declined from 34% of the labor force to 7%, from one out of every three workers in america belonging to a union to now only 7%, 1 in about 15. while unionization rates decline, so did the middle-class share of national income. during some hearings that we had last year -- we had a number of hearings in our committee about this -- and when you track union membership -- this is the blue line -- from 1973 to today and then you track the percent of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements and then you track the middle-class share of national income, look how they all go down the same. as unionization declineed, the number of workers in collective bargaining declined, so did their share of the national income.

that's what's happened to the middle class in america. quite simply, the fate of america's unions parallels the fate of the american middle class. unions are not a relic of a bygone era. they're a very little partner in a fair and successful 21st century economy. if we want to strengthen our economy and rebuild the middle class, we should be trying to figure out how to make unions stronger, how to get more people in collective bargaining, not attacking collective bargaining rights across the country. we should be fighting to ensure that every hardworking american has a right to be treated with dignity and respect on the job and, yes, to have a voice on that job. the current nlrb election reforms may fall short of that lofty goal, but as i said, they're an important step forward and they deserve support. so i urge my colleagues to vote

"no" on this congressional review act challenge to nlrb's rules. now that these rules are about to go into effect, i'm confident they will go into effect, it's time for this body to stop wasting time using the nlrb as an election-year political football. these attacks on this modest rule i think go right after the intelligence of working americans. these attacks want this body to stop, stop these attacks want to make sure that somehow they're going to stop unions from being organized. but ordinary americans in this middle class want us to stop this posturing, move forward on building an economy for the middle class, and, yes, to support the right of people who want to form a union. to get rid of all of this -- these delays and to make sure

that we have rules in place which basically reflect 90% of the employers in this country. 90% of the employers reach agreements with their employees on having an election. it's that 10%, that's what gets to be frustrating. and this is what this rules go after is to make everybody sort of fall in the 90% on that we have a fair -- a fair and expeditious and -- election process, one that is understandable, one that doesn't lead to all these frivolous litigations and delays. so we've got another couple three hours of debate on this. after this is over with, i hope we can start focusing on ways to genuinely help the middle class in america. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: now, most of the small business people i know consider themselves to be part of the middle class. and i appreciate the statistics that the chairman provided about 90% of the elections arriving at agreement prior to the election. i think what this rule is going to do is change it so that only 10% make agreement beforehand because there's no incentive for the union to participate at all. they have the right to just take it over. and there were some statistics about unions and middle class and kind. a myth that the current union procedures discourage unionization. in the 1950's, private-sector union membership reached its height of 55% unionized work force. today they're less than 7% of

the private-sector work force that is unionized. and the decline of unionization in the private sector can be attributed to several social, political and economic factors, including present-day workplace laws at both the state and federal level have greatly improved working conditions. and a decline in the manufacturing base. and the new nature of employment where people are more transient in their careers. and the desire for contemporary employees to have a more cooperative relationship with their employer and vice versa. it's kind of a teamwork factor that most businesses have to operate under today. i think it was also said that employers have unfair access to employees and regularly bombard employees with antiunion propaganda. i think it was even that said it can happen 24 hours a day. the fact is, employer speech regarding unionization is closely monitored and regulated. for example, employers are restricted from visiting employees at their homes, inviting employees into certain areas of the work force to

discuss unionization or to make promises or statements that could be construed as threatening, intimidating or coercive. that's current law. now, employers are required to provide unions with a list of employee names and home addresses for representation election purposes. i think it was also said that changes are needed because current procedures discourage employees from forming unions. the fact is, all employees have the guaranteed right to discuss their support of unionization and to persuade coworkers to do likewise while at work. the only restriction is that they not neglect their own work or interfere with the work of others when doing so. employees as well as unions have the unlimited right to campaign in favor of unionization away from the workplace. the national labor relations board election rule will postpone these legitimate questions after the representation election is held

and could result in more post-election litigation. so there are a lot of -- a lot of factors that were mentioned. i'm not going to go into all of them. as i've stated throughout the debate, the national labor relations board's ambush election rule is an attempt to stack the odds against american employers, particularly small businesses that don't have a specialist in that area or in-house counsel. most small businesses that i know don't -- can't afford either of those, and they can be put into the situation of having to figure it all out in less than ten days. and that's just to figure out the rules so that they don't get some heavy fines from the national labor relations board. and that can be coupled with two other changes the administration is forcing. it's forcing some employers that will be caught in a perfect storm. taken together, ambush elections, the national labor relations board's microunion decision and the department of

labor's proposed rule on persuader activity create a major shift in favor of organized labor. the supreme court has expressed stated that an employer's free-speech rights to communicate his views to his employees is firmly established and cannot be infringed by union or the board. under the national labor relations act, yet the overarching goal of the national labor relations board and the labor department's efforts is to put up barriers that can have the effect of limiting employer free speech. in the micro area under the specialty health care decision permitting microunions, unions can now gerrymander a bargaining unit so it's made up of a majority of employees who support the union n. this decision, the standard for whether unions petition for bargaining unit was appropriate was not changed to make it very difficult for employers to prove it is not happen. the decision will lead to smaller units which will be ease

to organize and will cause fran meantation and discord -- practicing men station and discord in the workplace. allowing microunits will decrease the number of bargaining units in the workplace. the result means that the employer could face multiple simultaneous organizing campaigns, all with shortened election periods thanks to this ambush rule. those two combined would be pretty dangerous. under the department of labor's proposed regulation to require increased reporting of persuader activity, an employer, especially a small employer, will rethink or takenning advice from lawyers or consultants on -- taking advice from lawyers or cullents in what to do when faced with a union organizing campaign. taking away the ability to consult outside parties combined with a shortened election period makes it nearly impossible for an employer to not only educate his employees but to ensure his actions are within the law. over 50 years, the department of labor has exempted from reporting requirements advice

provided to employers. the proposed rule will particularly affect that definition. the complexityies of the national labor relations act almost require an employer to seek advice on what he's per mid to do or say to employees during a union election, especially if an election period is as short as ten days. the proposed rule on persuader activity will chill employer speech to the point that employers will not seek and attorneys will not provide advice on any labor related issue. so unions have turned to these regulatory initiative after losing the public and political battle over the employee free choice acted, otherwise known as card check. organize labor's end game remains the same -- making it easier to organize by taking away the employer's free speech right and the imeem's right to fair information. darpts employee's right -- employee's right to fair information. the to gain voluntary recognition from the union from employers instead of allowing

employees to vote in a secret ballot election. despite a 71% win rate, ambush elections, increased reporting on persuader activity and the decision to allow micro units will set the bar for an employer winning an election impossibly high, especially -- essentially coercing themselves into voluntarily recognizing the union. and i -- i do thank the senator for mentioning that 90% of the elections there's an agreement before the election done in a relatively short period of time that takes care of all the disputes. i don't know if the purpose of congress is to make sure that 100% of situations never occur or 90% or 899%, -- or 9% but everything can't be solved by doing a rush to regulation, particularly by a company that doesn't do those regulations norm eight. in 75 years, there have only been three regulations. two of them were done by the

labor relations board in the last year and one of those has already been set aside by the courts. so this is a rush to action situation and i hope that you will join me in -- in this resolution of disapproval under the congressional review act. it's a -- it's a very difficult bar to reach because the senate will have to pass the resolution of disapproval twice with a majority of votes. that gives the other side the opportunity to see who might support it the first time and see if they can talk them out of it a second time. but after that, it has to go through the house, same procedure in the house, and this is the surprising part to me. if it passes both bodies or both bodies have said i don't think they are interpreting what we put in law, meaning congress who has the -- are the only ones with the right to pass a law, what we put into law, they are trying to change.

and that third step is that it requires the signature of the president in order for the congressional review act to become effective. we're an equal branch of government to the administration, and the administration writes the rule, we disapprove of the rule because we say it doesn't follow the laws that we have already passed, and then the administration who wrote the law gets to say whether the votes of the people in the house and the senate really have any effect at all. the congressional review act has a definite place but it should have been done using the authority of congress itself, not the authority of the congress and the administration combined. we're at a point where there is a heavy hand in the administration, and that will have a drastic effect on business in this country. if business fails, there will be less employees, not more.

i yield the floor and suggest -- okay. the presiding officer: the majority has 36 minutes 25 seconds. mr. harkin: mr. president, we're going to have a lot of time to flush out some of -- flesh out some of these arguments again tomorrow when the vote gets near. but i thought i might pick up on a couple of three things here that my good friend from wyoming said -- and he is my good friend. we do a lot of work together and he's a -- he's a great senator and a good friend of mine. he just happens to be wrong on this issue, that's all. other than that, he's a good friend of mine. and this is -- this is -- this is the kind of good, healthy debate that we ought to be having on the senate floor on policy. there is just a lot of talk about how this is going to --

they call it, these ambush elections. now we can have ambush elections and stuff. well, that's just not so. the current time, current median time between when a petition is filed and an election occurs is about 37-38 days. again, i have heard from my friends saying that this could be ambush elections and all that kind of stuff, but even one of the nation's largest management side law firms disagrees. this is jackson lewis. one of their attorneys told "the wall street journal," he thinks the time would be shaved to between 19-23 days under the proposal. mr. trauger, vice president of the national association of manufacturers, said the election would be held in 20-25 days under the new rule. so that's not an ambush election at all. all this rule does is just removes these extra legal

hurdles that can cause excessive delays. let's see what else. we keep hearing about rule making and saying well, you know, this board has only issued three of these rules in the past 75 years, two of these rules in the last couple of years makes it sound like the nlrb has ridden off the range here in terms of reasonableness. but the fact is that when the board promulgated rules in the past, they did it through the adjudicateive process, through the adjudicative process, not through rule making. the supreme court and the u.s. courts of appeals have criticized the board in the past for underutilizing its rule-making authority. courts have said that the rule-making process is more transparent and more inclusive,

so through rule making, this board has solicited broader public input in its decisions. so really, what the nlrb has done in the last couple of years, it's opened up the process for comment periods and rule making through the administrative procedures act, something the courts have been asking, sort of advising the nlrb they should have been doing all along, rather than just relying upon the add jute kateive process. -- adjudicative process. so yes, my friend may be right, two of the three in the last couple of years, but actually that's a move in the right direction, that's a move for transparency and openness and letting all different sides have their comments before they issue a final rule, rather than kind of doing it in the dark of the night as maybe they have done in the past. yes, there is this quote about john kennedy, about a 30-day

waiting period. i don't know. i haven't really looked at the senator, then-senator kennedy's entire record. i suppose there are some things i might agree with him on and some thing i probably wouldn't agree with him on, so i don't know what his thought processes were. all i can tell you is that no matter what he said at that time as a senator, the final bill did not have a waiting period. the senate put it in, the house did not. when it went to conference, they dropped it. so i think the rejection of that proposed amendment is -- could be more reasonably understood as an indication that congress did not believe a minimum time between petition and election is necessary. so to quote kennedy, -- well, i guess i could quote president dwight eisenhower, and here's what he said -- "only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join a union of their choice."

president dwight d. eisenhower. well, we better not be trying to prevent them from joining the union of their choice. now, i have also heard this charge that somehow these rules tilt, tilt this more in favor of the unions than management. well, no, it doesn't. now, again, we have mostly been talking here about the certification process. when union organizers get the signatures, they file with nlrb and we have an nlrb process. basically, that's what we're talking about here. but i would point out to my friend on the other side of the aisle that these procedures that we're talking about also applies to decertification elections as well. so since the same rules will apply to decertification elections, the proposed rule will ensure that employees who

have union representation will be able to have a timely up-or-down vote to also get rid of the union. so to me, it's both. it's both on the certification, also on the decertification side. it just makes for things much more expeditious, much more clear, much more understandable. that's why i think many management firms and businesses see this as a reasonable rule, because they would then and when they try to decertify, then they don't have to go through all this other frivolous litigation on the other side. so it applies both to certification and decertification both, so it doesn't really tilt the playing field one way or the other. and again, i applaud the national labor relations board for moving in the direction of more rule making, making it more open, making it more transparent than what they have done in the

past, but it literally boils down to, i guess, mr. president, you know, as long as i have been here, since 1985 in this body, we have had ups and downs on the national labor relations board. what really happens, i mean, let's face it. the national labor relations board has three members from the president's political side of the party and two from the other side. so when you have a democratic president in, the nlrb gets attacked by republicans. when the republican president is in, it gets attacked by democrats and it becomes just a kind of a political football. i understand that, and we should all understand that that's what it is, too. that's what this is all about. now, i just got notified of a statement of administration policy of what's called a s.a.p., statement of administration policy from the

administration that just came through, and it said that the president, even if this vote were held and the other side won, if it was voted to overrule the nlrb, that the president would veto it. and surely, no one thinks there is two-thirds votes here to override the president's veto on this issue. so we're just kind of wasting our time here. it's sort of just another political shot, when there are so many important things that we should be talking about in terms of jobs, job creation, the economy, fair taxation, keeping our jobs from going overseas, education, job retraining. and yet, we're spending our time talking about this. well, be that as it may, the facts, i think, are on the side that this rule is imminently reasonable, fair, will lead to a

more predictable, i think, and less litigious and less conflict ing process when people want to form a union in this country. as i said, 90% of the time, we don't have these problems, but for those 10%, it can be devastateing and it can really thwart individual workers who want to form a union. so i'm hopeful that we can have a little bit more debate on this. i hope that the vote tomorrow will be conclusive and that we will turn this down and move ahead with more important business confronting this country. i yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

mr. enzi: we're having an interesting duel of the statistics here because to take care of the 10% that the senator from iowa says have a problem, we're going to turn the other 90% on their head, and it also doesn't surprise me that the president has put out a statement of policy, a s.a.p. -- i always thought those were pretty aptly named -- but that would be opposed. as i just explained, this is a regulation written by the administration, so i would expect that the administration would not like it and would veto it. there has only been one congressional review action that has succeeded. that was the rule on ergonomics. what happened was they rushed through a 50-day regulation, and the -- in the department of labor, and then we had a change of presidents, and the other president didn't like it so he was willing to sign the congressional review act. this is not a waste of time. this is an important action.

it's to warn boards that the ones that make the rules and the laws are congress, and we delegate that authority, and it was delegated to the administration, to the national labor relations board, and they are abusing their authority. what's changed? well, there is the preelection hearing. in the new rule, it says the preelection hearing is solely to determine whether a question of representation exists. now, the important question such as which employees should be included in the bargaining unit or the eligibility of an employee won't be heard prior to an election. a hearing officer can unilaterally bar testimony or evidence as he or she deems not relevant to the question raised at the preelection hearing under this new regulation. the effect -- a hearing officer will have wide latitude to prohibit certain evidence before an election, even if such evidence is undisputed or stipulated, essentially leading

to the conclusion that an election is proper. under the new rule, parties are prohibited from seeking a review of regional directors' decision and direction of an election by board. all issues to review will be heard after an election. parties could seek a preelection appeal only if the issue would otherwise escape board review. the effect -- parties with a legitimate legal bar to an election will be forced to run an unnecessary election. an unintended consequence is that an employer would have to commit an unfair labor practice in order to have their issues reviewed by a full board. that's a pretty high bar that they're putting in there, if you ask me. okay. the new rule says that a 25-day waiting period between the direction of the election and the election date is eliminated. the impact -- the 25 days allows parties to digest and understand the parameters of the regional director's decision to direct an election and for the board to rule on parties' requests for review of the decision.

and the preelection hearing will occur under the new rules -- will occur seven days after the filing of a petition absent special circumstances. the effect, it forces employers to scramble to retain counsel. again, we're talking about small businessmen here. there is no limit on how small of a business you can organize in this. so it forces employers to scramble to retain counsel, develop a strategy, prepare for a hearing and develop evidence. many employers, especially small ones will be unable to provide a response so quickly leading them to greal to a stipulated election. there isn't anything that gives any protection for the person that's in the middle class running a small business, and trying to keep his business afloat. there used to be some protections, but this new regulation and again, agencies do write a lot of rules but they

don't write ones to this significance, this regulation as i mentioned it's only the third time it's been done by the national labor relations board, it was done in a hurry-up situation, it was approved last -- two out of the three were done by this administration. and one of those has already been set aside by the courts. and that's not a very good record, and now we're trying to do this one in a hurry-up basis and i think there ought to be more consideration for it. part of the role of congress is to take a look at what the administration is doing with their regulations, which we ultimately give them the authority to do, and to see if they're being done properly. this is just a major part of -- of the need for oversight and thankfully, there's a process whereby we can get the right to debate this oversight, and

that's what we're doing at this point. i yield the floor to senator barrasso for such time as he needs. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i rise today in support of my colleague from wyoming and the excellent work that he is doing, continues to do, the leadership that he continues to provide for all of the senate, certainly for the people of wyoming. he is the captain of our team, and i want to agree and associate myself with the remarks of the senator from wyoming and express my concerns about the new ambush election rule that's been issued by the national labor relations board. you know, mr. president, the board is a federal agency and it's charged with conducting labor elections and investigating unfair labor practice charges. the appointed members of this board are meant to help

facilitate a level playing field in the private sector workplace. unfortunately, mr. president, recent actions have demonstrated that the board is much more interested in my opinion in pursuing regulatory changes that favor, that favor unions. they should be focused on ensuring that workers are able to make informed decisions about their place of employment, not show favoritism. let's take a little bit of a look, mr. president, at the ambush election rule. on december 22 of last year, the national labor relations board issued a new rule. the rule which greatly shortens the time period between the filing of a petition for union representation and when that election is held. under the current rules, most union elections take place within about 38 days. under the new rules, the time could be cut almost in half. the ambush election rule also narrows the scope of preelection hearings while limiting the

rights of a party to preelection appeals. i believe that this misguided rule undermines, undermines the basic fairness in the representation election process. it limits the amount of information received by employees regarding the impact of unionization of their workplace. the rule also significantly restricts the ability of employers to educate their employees and to share their perspective. i believe this causes harm to workers, mr. president. the decision on whether or not to join or form a union is a very important decision for workers. employment decisions directly affect an individual's ability to support their family, to pay their bills and to sustain their livelihood. workers deserve to have all of the information needed to make a well-informed decision. in order to seriously consider their options, employees must have the opportunity to hear from both sides on the

implications of unionization. the ambush election rule in my opinion attempts to quickly rush employees through the union election process, without giving those employees the full picture and a clear understanding of the issues. i have great concerns about what i believe is a disregarding of employer input. the ambush election rule disregards the rights of small businesses and employers across this country. the new rule is attempting to silence employers, silence them from discussing vital information to their employees about unionization and with the impact on their lives and on their jobs. under the new rule employers would have a very limited amount of time to share their views, to provide counterarguments and to explain what unionization would mean in the workplace. employers should be allowed time to fully explain the information to their employees.

ultimately, i believe that the purpose of the recently released rule is to leave employers unable, unable, mr. president, to effectively communicate with workers about important workplace issues. the board is infringing upon the free speech rights of the employers. i believe that this new rule prevents employers from getting counsel. in these tough economic environment and times, small business owners are facing an incredible amount of pressure and responsibilities. job creators are working hard to ensure that their products and services are competitive, that they are working to find available markets for their goods and services, they're trying to deal with the financial health of their businesses. many small business owners are unaware of the complicated federal laws that they must adhere to during the union election process. due to the variety of competing priorities and limited

resources, small businesses all across this country often don't employ in-house legal counsel or human resource professionals familiar with unionization laws. under the new rule, however, the time constraints will make it even more difficult for them to find appropriate counsel, to consult on the issues, and to prepare for the election process. employers will be scrambling to find a labor attorney or human resource professional to help explain their rights and to ensure that their actions are permissible under current law. as a result, many employers will be left at risk for unintentionally violating certain federal labor laws or silenced. the national labor relations board should not -- should not -- be forcing employers to preemptively analyze federal labor laws and figure out how best to communicate their views of unionization just in case a

union petition happens to pop up. job creators should be focusing their scarce time and resources on managing and growing their businesses, on trying to put americans back to work at a time of over8% unemployment. mr. president, i view this whole new rule as unnecessary, there is no reason for the new rule. the medium time frame for union elections has been 38 days. from the filing of the petition. about 91% of all the elections held in 2011 occurred within 56 days. these numbers indicate that the petitions and elections are handled and have been handled in a timely manner. furthermore, the current election procedures are not impeding the ability of unions to win the representation elections. according to the national labor relations board's own statistics, unions won about 71% of elections held in 2011.

when i take a look at what's happening with the national labor relations board, what comes to mind are the recent recess appointments made by the president. this new rule that we're facing and discussing today, this new rule is not the first time the obama administration has attempted to use the nlrb to pursue the unions' agenda. the administration continues to take actions and push through policies that are unwise and even in my opinion unconstitutional in order to do the bidding of unions. in an action that was both unprecedented and unconstitutional, president obama's recess appointed three new members to the national labor relations board during a pro forma session of this senate. president obama appointed three individuals. now, the nominations of two of them, sharon block and richard griffin were sent to the senate only a few days before the pro

forma session began. as a result, the united states senate had no opportunity, none at all, to hold hearings or debate the nominees. president obama completely disregarded the constitutional are requirement of advice and consent for executive nominees. the appointments were a heavy-handed effort by this administration to curry favor, in my opinion, with the unions. mr. president, i come to the floor as someone who has talked at great length about the impact of regulations and how they make it harder and more expensive for our small businesses to hire people around the country, and when i look at this, i have to tell you that businesses already are having trouble keeping track of all the changing rules and trying to abide by all of the new requirements they face on almost a daily basis. the only certainty being offered to the job creators in the united states is that the obama administration is going to

continue to change the rules of the game on businesses to meet its own agenda. the ambush election rule is the exact type of regulatory change that makes employers nervous. nervous and reluctant to expand their businesses, to create new jobs, to hire and put people back to work. this federal government should be focused on giving employers stability, predictability, and opportunities in growth. instead of giving them opportunities, what we see is stacking the deck in favor of labor unions. and so i come to the floor, mr. president, as i know my colleagues will as well, in a call to action. and that's to employ the congressional review act. under the congressional review act, congress is able to overturn the ambush election rule by passing a resolution of disapproval. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of senate joint

resolution 36 introduced by senator enzi. the resolution of disapproval rescinds the new union election rule issued by the national labor relations board, and unless congress takes action, the new rule is scheduled to take effect on april 30 of this year, just the end of this month. i call upon the senate to pass senate joint resolution 36 and prevent this dangerous rule from silencing employers and hindering the ability of american workers to make informed decisions. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: i ask unanimous consent to have 17 support letters submitted for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: a few of the ones submitting lefortsz are the

national fed evacuation -- federation of independent businesses, the association of equipment manufacturers, the coalition for a democratic workplace, the u.s. chamber of commerce, national association of home builders and manufacturers and wholesale distributors, national council of chain restaurants, the national grocers association, the national roofing contractors association, and the retail industry leaders association, to name a few of them. i'd also ask unanimous consent to put in the record an article by phil kerpen in the daily caller, will any democrat stand up to obama's nlrb. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: unless there is further debate, by yield back the balance of our time for today. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i yield back the balance of our time for today,

too. the presiding officer: the time having been yielded back, under under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed on s. 1925.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is

recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. if officer without objection. mr. blumenthal: & i asmr. blumet i be permitted to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. on this day, almost exactly at this hour, in bridgeport, connecticut, the lambiance plaza became a scene of devastation and destruction and death. every year -- almost every year in those 25 years we have

commemorated that destruction and tragedy with a ceremony, and we did the same this morning in bridgeport. we went first to the site and then to city hall and then to lay a wreath at the memorial for the 28 workers who were killed on this day 25 years ago. lambian crevment is ground zero for worker safety. and i rise today to talk about all who have been injured or lost their lives because of unsafe work conditions. lanbiance plaza was a tragedy. it was the result of an employer cutting corners to put profits above safety. it was an voidable tragedy.

one of the task that we've as public officials is to ensure basic safety for our citizens, particularly for workers who leave their homes in the morning hoping for nothing more than to come home at night to their families, put food on a table and a roof over the heads of their children. those 28 workers who perished on this day 25 years ago wanted nothing more than those simple opportunities that should be guaranteed in the united states of america, the greatest nation in the history of the world. in protecting workplace safety, we have an agency called the occupational safety and health administration, known as osha, and it is charged by this congress and every congress since its creation with setting

standards and providing for enforcement of those standards, so as to assure basic safety for workers when they leave home every day and they go to their jobs. in bridgeport, at l'ambiance, a technique known as liftslab was in use. it had been under review by osha for five years before the l'am l'ambiencanbiance collapse. years earlier it was prohibited unless certain conditions were met. if that standard had been in effect on this day 25 years ago, 28 lives would have been saved. this morning i was in bridgeport for that ceremony with many of the families who must live with

the tragedies of their loved ones have been perished needlessly and tragically on this date. there were speeches, there was a bell-ringing ceremony, there were tributes not only to the workers and their families but also to their brothers and sisters who searched with a fer ross i-- with a fer ross if ferd determination for hours and for days when it became clear that they could not be rescued. but none of today's ceremonies or any of the other r. ceremonies in the past 25 years can bring back those workers who perished because liftslab construction was used on that site. and when the upper story fell

first, all of the bottom stories collapsed as well, meaning that those who worked under that top story could not be saved. and eventually when osha adopted the standard to be applied to liftslab construction, it said no one could work under that top story when it was put in place. osha, in short, recognized the hazards of liftslab construction well before l'ambiance collapsed. and its enaction over the 8.7 years that it took to adopt the standards contributed significantly to the collapse that occurred 25 years ago to this day. i wish i could say that osha has learned from this horrific

incident at l'ambiance. i wish that i could say that the standard-setting that is so necessary to be achieved promptly and effectively now is done routinely. unfortunately, the contrary seems to be true, and i want to thank senator harkin, the chairman of the senate committee on health, education, labor, and pensions, for a hearing last week that illuminated so dramatically how much work there is still to be done. the g.a.o. has done a study showing that the average length of time to complete those standards is more than seven years, that that figure takes into account the standard set since 1981 to the year 2000.

the final number of regulations published by osha has declined every decade since the 1980's while 24 final standards were published in the 1980's, only ten final standards were published between 2000 and 2010. workers are still at risk because regulations are delayed for years. and just as one example, the dangerous result effects resulted from the inhalation of silica dust found in common sand has been widely known for many yeempletz silica dust has been -- many years. silica dust has been classified as a car sin again to humans by the united states toxicology program. it is a known cause of lung cancer and silicosis is an often failts -- often fatal disease. and yet despite the scientific

evidence and the hazards associated with silica dust, its use on work sites across the country is ineffectively regulated by inadequate osha standards and those standards have been on the books since 1972. preventing the dangers of silica is simple and easy. employers simply must ensure that when cutting materials, the blade must be wet to ensure that the silica dust is not airborne. simple and easy solutions that can be achieved by standards that osha has a responsibility to set. according to osha agency officials, they began work on updating the ineffective silica standards back in 1997, more than 14 years ago. the most recent draft proposal for for a new silica standard was submitted for review to the office of management and budget, o.m.b., in february 2011.

o.m.b. has been processing that draft for over a year. and in the meantime, workers are put in danger, workers contract disease, and workers are put at risk of fatal disease. these lengthy delays are simply unacceptable, as the l'ambiance tragedy demonstrates, standards delayed is safety denied. workers and their families suffer real-life consequences when the federal government fails to implement effective standards protecting people in their workplaces. osha itself estimates that up to 60 worker deaths per year could be prevented by strengthening the silica regulation and other regulations from 1972 and yet the new rule continues to be delayed by procedural and

political roadblocks. there's still work to be done and i hope that we will make progress under senator harkin's leadership on an osha rule making standards more effective and more easily adopted. there are a number of steps, simple and easy steps, that can be adopted. expediting approval of safety standards is one of them. despite a general consensus within industries on permissible exposure limits -- that is p.e.l.'s to dangerous chemicals -- osha rules for hundreds of those chemicals haven't been updated for nearly four decades. osha should direct and congress should direct osha to update obsolete p.l.l. -- p.e.l.'s to reflect consensus among industries, experts and reputable national and international organizations. easier court approval also must

be enabled. the current standard for judicial review is a major factor in affecting the time line of osha's standard-setting process. the existing substantial evidence standard requiring that osha research all industry processes associated with the issue being regulated is disproportionately burdensome when compared to the requirements placed upon other federal agencies. and the standard should be reevaluated. and, finally, deadlines and time lines for standards setting should be adopted directed by the congress. to minimize the time it takes osha to issue occupational safety and health standards, experts and agency officials agree that statutory time lines for issuing standards should be imposed by congress and enforced by the courts. i look forward to working with my colleague on these measures and others, and i hope that the

memory of those 28 workers who were killed 25 years ago on this day will inspire and move us to take action as quickly and effectively as possible. but each year others are added to that list in other sites in connecticut. 49 last year alone. and around the country, hundreds in the states of my colleagues here in this body. let their memories also inspire us to redouble our efforts to protect people in the workplaces around connecticut and the country. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: i would ask to vitiate the quorum call, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and i would ask to speak for ten minutes as within morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i rise today in support of my amendment to strike section 208 from the postal reform bill. section 208 would authorize the u.s. postal service to move to five-day delivery service within two years. the u.s. postal service faces significant financial problems. changes must be made for the postal service to adjust to a digital world. the budgetary concerns are very real. we all know this. but an imminent reduction of service to five days a week is

not the answer. number one, a shift to a five-day service could result in the loss of up to 80,000 jobs nationally. is this the time to be proposing 80,000 layoffs? two, five-day service would undercut a market advantage that the u.s. postal service currently has over its competitors. and, three, especially in rural america, many of our businesses and most vulnerable citizens depend on six-day postal delivery. newspapers, advertisers, pharmacy delivery services, senior citizens all could be hurt by the loss of saturday service. last week i met with the community of mule creek back home in new mexico. mule creek is small and rural. folks there told me they have no cell phone service, no high-speed internet. they depend on their post office it is the lifeline, the center

of their community. and not just five days a week. for many working people, saturday is the only day they can sign for packages, including for delivery of prescription drugs. i know that some of my colleagues believe that moving to five-day service is necessary because of the postal service's financial problems, but we need to give the changes we're making in the bill a chance to take effect. two years simply isn't enough time before we make such a drastic and far-reaching change. we should not rush prematurely to five-day service. i urge support for my amendment to protect jobs, to strengthen the competitiveness of the postal service, and to protect the millions of americans who depend on that service. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: mr. president, how much time do i have? i understand it might be 10 or 15 minutes. the presiding officer: time is not controlled, senator. mr. corker: so i have 10 or 15 minutes minimally. thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about amendment number 2083 that i'm offering to the bill that's before us. i think all of us know the u.s.

postal service is absolutely not sustainable in its current form. mail volume has greatly declined over the past decade and will continue to decline over the next decade. the united states post office has known this for a long time 6 they knew that mail volume was declining and that the market for their products was changing. but the economic crisis made things far worse than they could have imagined. and now the united states post office is on the edge of financial ruin. but we didn't get here only because of the economic crisis. it's because the u.s. postal service's business model is fundamentally broken. the usps lost $5.1 billion in this last fiscal year and $3.3 billion in the first quarter of this current year. i know that some have tried to blame the requirement that the usps prefund their retirement health benefits for the usps

financial losses, but the fact is that these recent losses are not -- and let me underline "not" -- due to the prefunding requirement, because congress has allowed the usps to delay this last year's payment. the united states post office has also nearly reached their statutory borrowing limit. faced with this situation, it is abundantly clear that the usps must make radical changes in its existing infrastructure and business model. and, again, mr. president, usps should have, could have and, indeed, has wanted to begin making these changes to its outdated, excessive infrastructure, but congress -- all of us here, or at least some of us here -- have tried -- have blocked these attempts. we should give the usps the flexibility to meet these challenges and make business decisions on how to deal with the paradigm shift in their primary market rather than

further limiting their ability to adapt. my amendment to s. 1789 gives the u.s. post office greater flexibility in three primary areas: facilities and service, pricing, and labor. on the facilities and service, it allows the united states post office to continue cloating post offices, using the existing procedures for post office closures. they already exist. instead of creating further barriers to closures, which this bill does. these procedures are well thought out and give ample opportunities for public comment and appeals. it also allows the post office to proceed with their proposed change in delivery service standards, something they have proposed, a key component to their five-year plan of profitability. this amendment also allows the post office to immediately

implement five-day delivery if it chooses, a move that the u.s. post office believes may save nearly $2 billion a year. the underlying bill, on the other hand, requires a two-year delay in further study of this issue with the -- which the post office already knows needs to happen. mr. president, we don't need a study to tell us what we already know. the post office needs flexibility in its delivery schedule, and a number of interested parties including the post office and the president, the president, support moving to a five-day delivery. furthermore, my amendment allows the post office to close processing and distribution centers, something the post office has identified as needed action for nearly a decade. on pricing, my amendment removes the arbitrary c.p.i.-based cap

put in place by the 2006 postal accountability and enhancement act. put simply, this gives the post office more flexibility to adjust their prices as markets change. current law and 1789 actually mandates that the post office provide some services at a loss. it is unbelievable the calls we have been receiving in our office that basically point to the tremendous corporate welfare that is in existence, people calling me, not wanting these changes because it affects their business. a congressional mandate at the u.s. post office provides certain services -- it mandates that the post office provide certain services without covering their costs, and that makes very little sense. please note, mr. president, that this would not allow the post

office to arbitrary raise rates. at will. they would still be subject to the postal regulatory commission, the p.r.c. regulation. finally on labor, my amendment gives the post office greater flexibility to reduce its work force as needed and negotiate contracts that makes sense for its financial situation. since labor costs make up approximately 80% of the post office's cost structure, it is clear that any good-faith postal reform proposal must include labor reform. first, it prohibits the inclusion of a no layoff clause. let me underline this. in the future, in the future, in future collective bargaining agreements. it does not alter c.b.a.'s currently in place that contain these clauses. this is only for future, future

clauses. as mail volume continues to decline, the post office must have the flexibility to change the size and makeup of its work force as needed. second, this amendment eliminates a provision in existing law that requires fringe benefits for post office employees be at least as good as those that existed in 1971. these benefits represent a huge portion of fixed labor costs which currently place a major burden on post office operations. eliminating this provision will give the post office more options in contract negotiation rather than hamstringing them. so, mr. president, my amendment is a balanced approach that strives to give the u.s. post office maximum flexibility in multiple areas as they work towards financial stability. and here's the best part,

mr. president. according to c.b.o., which just contacted us today, this bill saves $21 billion over the next decade. let me say that one more time. c.b.o. has just contacted us. here the post office is in tremendous financial straits. we have a bill before us that hamstrings them and keeps them from doing the things that we all know if this were our real business we would allow to happen. our bill obviously, our amendment gives them the flexibility to do the things that the post office needs to do and that most every american understands that they need to do, and this amendment saves our nation $21 billion over the next ten years. unfortunately, by the way, this $21 billion is not enough to fully offset the cost of this bill. it is my understanding, by the

way, there is no attempt to offset the cost of this bill over the next ten years. so in conclusion, mr. president, it's clear that the united states post office must make drastic changes, and i applaud those portions of 1789 that allow the usps greater flexibility, but there are far too many provisions in the underlying bill, senate 1789, that would put more restrictions on the united states post office, not fewer, and limit the organization's ability to adapt to changing times. i urge support of my amendment. mr. president, i thank you for the time. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, it pains me greatly to disagree with my friend and colleague from tennessee with whom i have a great friendship and great respect, but what he is essentially offering comes pretty close to a complete substitute for the provisions in our bill. and i want to go through the provisions to make sure that our colleagues understand fully what the choices are that are presented by senator corker's amendment. first, let me say that i do strongly oppose his amendment because of the impact that i believe it would have on postal customers, whether they are in rural america, whether they are

a big mailer, a small mailer, a residence, a business, and what the impact ultimately will be on postal revenue. let's first discuss the issue of six-day delivery. now, there are a lot of different views on this issue. senator corker has presented one, as has senator mccain, of moving immediately to five-day delivery. on the other hand, there are members who have filed amendments who want to prevent the postal service from ever moving to five-day delivery. here is what is in our bill. our bill recognizes that the postal service should, if possible, avoid deep cuts in its

service, and certainly eliminating one day a week of delivery is a deep cut in the service that it is providing. it recognizes, however, that if the postal service cannot wring out the excessive costs that is in its current system, that it may have no choice but to eliminate saturday delivery in order to become solvent. so what we do is allow a two-year person during which time the postal service would implement the many cost savingses provisions that are in our bill, including a work force reduction of 18% -- that's about 100,000 employees, through compassionate means, such as

buyouts and retirement incentives, and then have the g.a.o. and the p.r.c., the post regulatory commission, certify that despite undertaking all of these cost-saving moves, it is not possible for the postal service to return to solvency without this deep service cut. but to move immediately to eliminating saturday delivery would come at a real cost, and it may not be necessary. it may not be necessary at all. i would also point out that the experts in this area are the members of the postal regulatory commission. the experts are not at c.b.o. the experts are the regulators of the postal service, the

p.r.c. and when the p.r.c. examined the issue of eliminating saturday delivery, here's what it found. first of all, it found that the potential savings were far less than the postal service estimated. in fact, that they were half as much as the postal service estimated. second, they found that eliminating saturday delivery put rural america in particular at a disadvantage, because rural america often does not have access to broadband, to internet services and to alternative delivery systems, so that the p.r.c. which looked at this issue very carefully and issued a report found that the savings

were less by half and that the consequences were far more severe for rural america. saturday delivery also gives the postal service itself a competitive advantage over nonpostal alternatives. if we are here trying to save the postal service, why would we jeopardize an asset that the postal service has that its competitors do not, and that's why we came up with this carefully crafted compromise on this issue. i believe that cutting saturday delivery should be the last resort, not the first option, because it will inevitably drive away customers.

that's one reason the american newspaper association is so opposed to doing away with saturday delivery. it is one reason that many of the mail order pharmaceutical companies are so opposed to this, because many seniors depend on receiving their vital medications through the mail. but again, we have -- we have said that if there are no other alternatives, this measure could proceed, but i can't imagine any large business operating this way, cutting service first. my colleagues often talk about how important it is to let the postal service act like a -- quote -- "real business" but this is the last thing a real business would do. real businesses know that their

most valuable asset is their customer base. businesses do literally everything else before slashing service and raising prices or anything else that might alienate or drive away their remaining customers. and they don't do this out of the goodness of their heart but because they understand what drives their bottom line. the fact is that if more customers leave the postal service, the revenue will plummet. so again, reducing service, eliminating saturday delivery should be the last resort, not the first option, and that is exactly what our bill does. the senator's amendment would also

repeal the c.p.i. link to postal rates. i am at a loss as to why the senator would propose that. eliminating that protection, that orderly system, would be devastating for many mailers. and, again, mailers need predictable, steady, stable rates. think of a catalogue company that prints its catalogue so many months in advance. it now can count on what the postal rates are going to be. under the senator from tennessee's amendment, that stability, that predictability, would be gone. the reason in 2006 that we

rewrote the rate-setting system was that it had been an exactly litigious, time consuming system, both the mailers and the postal service hated the system that we had prior to 2006. both agreed at the time that it was important to have stability, predictability in rates, and to have a system that didn't involve this very expensive, litigious rate-setting system. so we went to the c.p.i. linked system so that we could have stable, predictable, and transparent pricing increases. this amendment repeals the section of the current law on rate setting that mailers have repeatedly testified is the

heart of the 2006 reforms, and something that they need if they are to continue to use the postal service. and that's why the mailers, the largest customers of the postal service, are such strong supporters of the predictable system that we put in place in 2006. let me turn to another issue. there's so much i could say on all of these, but i can see a lot of members have come to the floor. the senator's amendment would also eliminate the standards that we put into the bill to protect overnight delivery within certain delivery areas. we have recently learned that

the postal service's own preliminary analysis submitted confidentially in secret to its regulators at the p.r.c. reveals that its service reduction plan to slow mail delivery, shut down postal plants, will lead to more than a 9% decrease in first-class mail and a 7.7% reduction in all classes of mail. the postal service in this preliminary estimate said that the first year losses alone would be $5.2 billion that the postal service would lose if we proceed with this plan. and now that those numbers have become public, the postal

service is back pedaling and criticizing its own estimates, but those are the estimates that are in its own survey that was filed with the p.r.c. and they don't surprise me, because they're consistent with what i'm hearing from major postal customers. and once those customers turn to other communications options and leave the mail system, they will not be coming back. revenue will plummet, and the postal service will be sucked further into a death spiral. now, there are many other comments that i could make about the amendment offered by the senator from tennessee. let me say that i think his amendment essentially

constitutes a substitute to the bill that is before us, in that it makes so many fundamental changes. i believe that it would be devastating for the postal service, that it would cause large and small mailers to leave the postal service, setting off the spiral -- the death spiral from which the postal service might never recover. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: the senator from maine and i have a lot of different, but i want to thank her for her tone and i not wants to thank the senator from connecticut, too, for the way they continue to work together, to try to produce legislation in this body. so i thank them both for being

the way they are. they're two of my most admired senators -- senators that i admire mote most. i have a very different point of view on this issue but i thank them for the way they continually work together to try to solve problems, and i look forward to continuing to work with them on this issue. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i just want to say briefly thanks to my friend from tennessee, not just for his kind words which mean a lot to me but for coming to the floor to discuss his amendment. there are different points of view about this. and i think as i said very simplistically at the beginning of the debate, some think that our bipartisan committee bill does too little, some think it does too much. i think we've hit the right common ground spot, and i repeat again what i said earlier in the day. there is some due process in this. we don't allow for what might be called shock therapy for the

postal service because don't want think it will work and we think it would have the net effect of diminishing the revenues of the postal service by cutting business. but, here's the report that we got today from the u.s. postal service itself. just to indicate to my friend from tennessee and to others who may be following the debate, this substitute bill of ours, 1789, is not just fluff. the postal service itself estimates that over the coming three years, that is, by 2016 fiscal year, our bill if enacted will enable the postal service to save $19 billion annually. they were hoping for $20 billion, but $19 billion is pretty close. and i think we've done it without the dislocations to the

millions of people in our society who depend on the mail and depend on mailing industries for their jobs as well as the hundreds of thousands of people who work for the postal service. 18% of whom, we hope will receive incentives that will be adequate for them to think about retirement. but this is a bill that creates a transition that will keep the postal service alive, and we think even healthier without the kind of jolts, sudden jolts that the amendment offered by my friend from tennessee would provide. so -- would impose. so i would respectfully oppose the corker amendment. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: mr. president, before i discuss my pending

amendment to the postal reform bill, i would like to take a moment to honor four brave soldiers based out of scofield barracks from hawaii who died in a helicopter crash in afghanistan on thursday. they made the ultimate sacrifice, in service to our country, and we'll never forget them. my thoughts and prayers and i know those of many others in hawaii and others across the united states are with their families tonight. and we honor and thank them, and are so sorry for their loss. mr. president, i rise to discuss my amendment, 2034,

regarding federal workers' compensation, which is cosponsored by nine senators, including senators inouye, harkin, murray, franken, leahy, shaheen, kerry, lautenberg, and brown of ohio. i have serious concerns with the provisions of the proposal reform bill that would make changes to the federal workers' compensation program known as feca, not just within the postal service but across the entire government. these provisions would cut benefits to elderly disabled employees and eliminate a supplement for dependents, many who are already injured have their benefits cut retro actively. this is particularly unfair

because most employees affected by these far-reaching cuts are not even postal employees. many are defense and state department employees injured supporting missions overseas, federal law enforcement officers and firefighters injured saving lives, or prison guards attacked by inmates. the sponsors of this bill argue that changes to workers' compensation must be included in this legislation to place the postal service on a sound financial footing. however, the fact is that the changes would have very little effect on the postal service's deficit. according to the congressional budget office, these changes would actually cost the postal

service an additional $21 million in the first three years. any changes to benefits for those injured in service to their country should be done in a careful, comprehensive manner. there are complex issues that deserve more analysis before we simply cut benefits people have planned for and depend on. at a hearing i held last july, witnesses raised serious concerns with reducing feca benefits, especially at the retirement age. the disabled employees may not be able to save enough in time for a reduction in income because they missed out on wage growth, social security, and

the thrift savings plan. because of this disadvantage, the federal government, mike most -- like most states, provides benefits that last as long as the injury, even if that is past the normal retirement age. at the request of a bipartisan group of members from the house committee on education and work force, the government accountability office is currently reviewing both pre and postretirement age feca benefits to determine fair benefit amounts. acting on this proposal now without waiting for g.a.o.'s analysis is irresponsible. as a result, we may set benefit levels too low, seriously harming disabled employees, or

too high, taking funding away from other priorities. we must be extremely caution not to make arbitrary cuts to benefits that could have serious detrimental effects on elderly, disabled employees. last november, the house passed a republican-led bipartisan feca reform bill, h.r. 2465, by a voice vote. the partisan -- bipartisan sponsors of this bill chose not to make any changes to benefits without more information on appropriate benefit levels. i believe their actions were correct, and the senate should enact similar legislation by passing my amendment.

my amendment would strike the governmentwide feca provisions in this bill and replace them with the house-passed feek feca reform bill which makes a number of commonsense reforms that will improve program efficiency and integrity without reducing benefits. among other things, my amendment contains program integrity measures recommended by the inspector general at the department of labor, the accountability office, and the administration that will save taxpayers money. my amendment would also update benefit levels for costs and disfigurements that have not been increased since 1949 and it will protect civilian employees

serving in dangerous areas such as iraq and afghanistan by giving them more time to file a claim and making sure age rates from terrorism are covered even if the employee is off duty. everyone understands that the postal service is in the midst of a serious financial crisis that must be addressed. and chairman lieberman and ranking member collins have done a great job in bringing this on. however, breaking old promises to injured federal employees to save the postal service just a tiny fraction of its deficit i believe is wrong. so i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i yield back my time.

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i have the greatest respect for the senator from hawaii. i know that he cares deeply about this issue. but it is simply time for us to reform the federal workers compensation program for postal workers and for other federal workers. and for this reason, i oppose his amendment because it does not begin to solve the problems that have been repeatedly documented in the program by the inspectors general at the postal service, at the department of labor, by g.a.o. and by the

obama administration, which has called for many of the reforms that we have incorporated into this bill. senator akaka's amendment takes on only very minor reform which are already included in the bill. it does not even attempt to constrain the rapidly growing costs of the program and it truly does nothing to effectively combat the fraud in the program. let me start with some background to show you the growing, the escalating costs of the federal workers compensation system. from 1997 to 2009, the program's costs grew by an astonishing $1

billion, as this chart shows. that was a 52% increase in program expenditures. it's one of the reasons why president obama's administration has submitted changes to this program over and over again. our bill, according to the c.b.o., would reduce the program's outlays for workers comp by $1.2 billion over the next ten years. i would note that the obama administration supports across-the-board reforms, just as we put in our bill. it makes no sense to have one system for postal workers and one system for federal employees when they all participate in the same program now. the postal service, however,

makes up more than 40% of all workers comp cases for the government, and the number of postal employees on the long-term rolls has increased by 62% since 2003. with paying more than $1 billion a year in workers comp payments, the postal service is the largest program participant providing over a third of the program's budget. and these changes are supported by the leaders at the postal service. the amendment would block desperately needed reforms to a program that has not been updated in over 35 years.

now let me talk a little bit about the structure of benefits in the program and why there is a problem. under the current program, a worker who has dependents and is out on workers comp receives a payment at the rate of 75% of his preinjury salary. and these benefits are tax-free. currently more than 70% of beneficiaries are receiving compensation at that level. in addition to that, it's important to understand that that 75% tax-free benefit rate is higher than that paid by any -- any -- comparable state workers compensation system.

and given our current tax code, 75% of salary tax-free is equivalent for most people to a full salary after taxes. now, we do want to make sure that we have a workers comp program that takes care of our injured workers, that is compassionate, that helps them recover and return to work. but the current program in the federal government does not accomplish that, those roles. first of all, it does not encourage injured workers to get the help that they need to recover and to return to work, as these statistics will demonstrate. right now the program across the board federal and postal workers has 10,000 -- 10,000 --

beneficiaries age 70 or older, 2,000 of whom are postal employees. they're receiving higher payments on workers comp than they would under the standard retirement program. that's almost a quarter of all beneficiaries in the program who are over age 70. of the workers -- of the beneficiaries, 430 of them are over age 90. and six of the workers comp beneficiaries are age 100 or older. mr. president, these employees are not going back to work. if they were still working, it would be a miracle. they'd be retired.

and it is not fair to postal and federal employees who work their entire lives, retire at age 60 or 65, and receive a retirement benefit that is 26% lower than the median benefit received by workers compensation recipients. that is just unfair. that means that people who remain on workers comp make more money than if they had continued working, and much more than they would make in the retirement systems for federal and postal workers. now, mr. president, i want to

make sure that as we reform this system -- and one of the major reforms is to move people at age 65 from workers comp to the normal retirement system. but we have exempted from these reforms those who are least able to prepare for it, those who are totally disabled and unable to return to work, and those who are age 65 and over. and i think that that is a very fair approach. another protection that we've included for those current claimants who would be affected by the reforms in the bill is the three-year waiting period. if a claimant is not already grandfathered and, therefore, is not disabled and unable to

return to work, then that individual would experience no reduction in benefits for three years, regardless of that individual's age. again, the reforms that we've included in our bill closely track the reforms proposed by president obama's administration. finally, let me just say this program has proven to be highly vulnerable to fraud. g.a.o. reported as recently as november that the vulnerabilities in the program increase the risk of claimants receiving benefits that they're not entitled to. there are many reasons for that. i'll go into that further at another time. but the department of labor inspector general reported that the removal of a single

fraudulent claim saves on average between $300,000 and $500,000. what's more, these vulnerabilities are not new and they are not rare. when the i.g. looked at 10,000 claimant files a decade ago, there were irregularities in almost 75% of them. and it resulted in benefits being reduced or ended for more than 500 claimants. so, mr. president, this is a troubled program. it needs to be reformed. it needs to be made fairer. it needs to be fair to injured workers. there needs to be more of a focus on return to work. and it needs to be fairer to workers who spend their entire careers working for the postal service or the federal government and then retire and

receive a far lower benefit than an elderly individual who remains on workers comp. thank you, mr. president. i urge the defeat of the amendment. mr. akaka: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: mr. president, i would like to address a number of statements that my good friend, senator collins, has made about the feca provisions in this bill. first, it has been argued that these changes are necessary to save the postal service money. however, since most employees affected by these cuts are not postal employees, the savings expected from these changes would have very little effect on the postal service's deficit. in fact, according to c.b.o., these changes would actually

cost the postal service an additional $21 million in the first three years. in addition, it has been said that the feca recipients over retirement age get 26% more income than similar employees who work their entire career and retire under the normal retirement systems. this statistic comes from a recent g.a.o. report that looked at only a small sample of nonpostal workers eligible for csrs retirement. in fact, according to g.a.o., their recent report only examines 8% of the active federal workforce, and does n