two-week recess while congress was out of town, e.p.a. released several late friday night statements reversing their earlier assertions. but still, the problem is people are still walking around believing these things are true. they hope they can admit that they were wrong quietly, but we are not going to let that happen, not let them get away with it. the american people deserve to know exactly why the e.p.a. is pushing ahead with such intensity to capture alarmist headlines, and then when no one is looking, when their investigation shows that they are wrong, quietly back away from it. now, the e.p.a. in texas, wyoming and pennsylvania not only reversed their assertions but did so with a stunning lack of transparency strategically attempting to make these announcements as quickly as possible and at times they knew congress wouldn't be looking. let me just quickly highlight a few of these examples. parker county, texas, the agency's major announcement, the withdrawal of their

administrative order was announced at a time when knew song was adjourning for easter recess. in dimmick, pennsylvania, e.p.a. made two announcements. the same thing happened there. in pavilion, wyoming, e.p.a. announced the reversal as congress was wrapping up that week. so the same thing was happening that week. now the e.p.a.'s general philosophy is to crucify domestic energy producers, so let's look at the -- three of their crucifixions. start off, parker county, texas. this could be i think the most outrageous of all, the examples that we would be talking about today. i won't have time to hit them all, but i will come back and make the complete statement i was going to make. unfortunately, there isn't quite time to finish it now. but what happened to parker, texas, took place in region six, and that's where my state of oklahoma is located. despite texas state regulators actively investigating the issue, e.p.a. region six issued

a december 7, 2010, emergency administration order which determined -- i use the word determined because that's a word that they used -- determined that state and local authorities had not taken sufficient action and ordered the company called range resources to provide clean drinking water to affected residents and began taking steps to resolve the problem. along with this order, the e.p.a. went on a publicity barrage in an attempt to publicize its premature and unjustified conclusions. the day of the order, e.p.a. issued a press release in which it mentioned hydraulic fracturing. not once, not twice, but four times, in trying to tie that to problems with groundwater contamination. the agency claimed that they also had determined -- again, i use that word -- that natural gas drilling near the homes by

range resources in parker county, texas, had caused the contamination of at least two residential drinking water wells. the regional administrator was quoted in a press story published online, noting that the state of texas was making their order and the emails have been obtained from the day the order was released, showing him gleefully sharing information with rabid antifracking advocates, saying -- and this is a quote by the e.p.a. regional administrator -- quote -- "we're about to make a lot of news. time to tivo channel 8." he was rejoicing. in subsequent interviews, he made comments specifically intending to incite fear and sway public opinion against hydraulic fracturing, citing multiple times a danger of fire

or explosion. when state regulators were made aware of e.p.a.'s actions, they made it clear they felt the agency was proceeding prematurely to which armendaris forward their reply, calling it stunning. now, stunning to quote armendaris were revelations about the way in which the e.p.a. acted in this particular case, which led me to send a letter at that time to e.p.a. inspector general requesting him to preserve all records of communication in connection with the emergency order issued by the e.p.a. region six administrator. subsequent to the e.p.a.'s december 72010 administrative order on january 8, 2011, e.p.a. followed through on regional administrator armendaris' promise to -- quote -- make examples of people, unquote, and

filed a complaint in federal district court requesting penalties against range resources of $16,500 a day for each violation that they allege took place. each violation. now, yoon how many violations there are. i think there are three or four. but, again, this goes back to the same thing that happened in my state of oklahoma with the e.p.a. trying to put a lumber company out of business, except this is a larger company so there are larger fines. anyway, $16,500 a day in order to line with armendaris pursuit of fines which can -- quote -- get very, very high very quickly. if these actions alone didn't create an appearance of impropriety and call into serious question the ability of regional administrator armendaris to conduct unbiased investigations and fairly enforce the law, just seven months prior to the region's actions in parker county, the regional administrator laid the groundwork of how he planned to

reign over his region. in a town hall meeting in dish, texas, he stated -- this is, again, the administrator -- quote, gave an analogy of his philosophy of enforcement. again, we have already talked about that analogy. now, this is a quote that i highlight at the beginning of my speech. remember, armendaris said it's kind of like the romance used to conquer little villages in the mediterranean. they would go into a little turkish town somewhere, they would find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify him, and then they would know that town was really easy to manage from then on. let me go back and be clear about this. president obama's appointed regional administrator for the states of arkansas, louisiana, new mexico, texas and oklahoma, comparing his philosophy of enforcement over the oil and gas industries to roman crucifixions where they would just grab the first five guys you saw in order to set the policy and to scare

everybody else and crucify them. now fast forward to late friday afternoon, march 30, late last year, just a few hours after congress left town for the easter recess. the "wall street journal" reported e.p.a. told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative order' alleged range resources had polluted water wells in rural texas county west of fort worth. under an agreement filed by u.s. district court in dallas, the e.p.a. will also drop the lawsuit it filed in january of 2011 against range and range will end its appeal of the administrative order. a few weeks prior to e.p.a.'s withdrawal, a judge also concluded -- now, listen to this, mr. president -- a judge also concluded that one of the residents involved in the investigation working with environmental activists to create a deceptive video that was calculated to alarm the

public into believing that water was burning, water that was the result of the hydraulic fracturing, when it appears that the residents attached a hose to the water well's gas vent, not the water, and, of course, lit it on fire. and for a long -- i was on a tv show the other night by someone who's -- i won't mention their name. she happens to be one of my three favorite liberals, and she mentioned this thing. this water is burning. well, that judge showed what it was and, of course, made them cease from doing that. and, of course, this is only one of the three recent high-profile incidents of -- of backtracking on behalf of the agency. after they've already scared everybody into thinking that it's a serious problem. so next we go to wyoming. now, this is pavilion, wyoming. last december, e.p.a. publicized the release of -- of nonpeer-reviewed draft findings which pointed to hydraulic fracturing as a cause of groundwater contamination. again, it's always the culprit is haw dral i can fracturing

because we all know you can't get any oil -- large oil and gas out of tight formations without hydraulic fracturing. here again, the e.p.a. stepped in over the actions of the state, made a press announcement disiepped to cap -- designed to capture headlines where definitive evidence linking the act of hydraulic fracturing to water contamination simply didn't exist. the announcement came in december despite as late as november of 2011 regional administrator james martin saying that the results of the last round of testing in pavilion were not significantly different from the first two rounds of testing which showed no link between the hydraulic fracturing and contamination. that's three rounds of testing which showed no contamination from hydraulic fracturing, yet only a few weeks later, e.p.a. announced the opposite. and another revealing reversal by the e.p.a. in the past few weeks, the e.p.a. stepped back and quietly agreed to take more water samples and postpone a

peer-review of the findings, something that the state of wyoming had been requesting for quite some time. again, the damage was done. they didn't do anything wrong. there was no water -- groundwater contamination at all. this is hydraulic fracturing, as i've mentioned many times before, i know a little bit about this because the first hydraulic fracturing took place in my state of oklahoma in 1949. there's never been a documented case of groundwater contamination as a result of it and yet this administration's doing everything they can to destroy hydraulic fracturing. in the demic, pennsylvania, it's the third site, the e.p.a.'s recent backtracking of its publicized attempts to link hydraulic fracturing to groundwater contamination. in this incident, the pennsylvania department of environmental protection had taken substantial action to -- and included working out an agreement with an oil and gas company ensuring residents clean

drinking water. now, in line with the state's department of environmental protection, on december the 2nd of 2011, e.p.a. declared that water in demic was safe to drink. just over a month later, e.p.a. reversed that position. so they go back and forth. now, what do people remember? therm that this process of -- they remember that this process of hydraulic fracturing is the culprit and it is creating serious environmental problems. now, what's -- what may maybe more egregious was to quote secretary michael crantzer, the e.p.a.'s rude meantry understanding -- this is a quote now -- rudimentary understanding of the facts and history of the region's water, independent geologists and water consultant like bob orrin, have been puzzled by the agency's rationale for their involvement in demic because the substances of great concern by e.p.a. are naturally occurring and commonly

found in this area of pennsylvania, yet e.p.a. has chosen this area to attack because of the presence of hydraulic fracturing." in other words, this has been going on for years, long before hydraulic fracturing. by the way, i have to say that we used to -- they used to, in attacking oil and gas, it was always out west, the western states. and the chair knows something about that. and this is different now because we have these huge reserves that are in places like new york and pennsylvania. and so all that time there's not been hydraulic fracturing but as soon as hydraulic fracturing came in, they said this is a result of hydraulic fracturing, when it's been there all the time. well, of course, this is part of the strategy to try to convince americans that -- that we don't have a vast supply of natural resources that we clearly have. last week -- and i was really redeemed by this. i've been saying all along that of all all the untruths that ths president has been saying, the one he says more than any other is that we only have 2% of the

reserves and we -- we -- we use use -- of gas and oil and we use 25%. it's just not true. i don't want to use the "l" word. i don't want to get everybody mad but it's just not true. well, anyway, the u.s. geological survey revealed just a few days ago that president obama's favorite talking point, that we only have 2% of the world's proven oil, is less than honest. the 2% -- the 2% the president quotes are proven reserves but he ignores our recoverable reserves. this is coming from the usgs. in our recoverable reserves which are some of the large nest the world. according to information gleaned from the usgs report, the -- america has 26% of the world's recoverable conventional oil reserves and that doesn't begin to include our enormous oil shale, tight oil and heavy oil deposits. i mean, that's just a fraction of it. but that's 26% of the world's recoverable oil.

our problem is our politicians won't allow us, and particularly the obama administration, to drill on -- on public lands. and be able to capture that. we also hold almost 30% of the world's technically recoverable conventional natural gas. in other words, to put it in a way i think is more understanding, you -- we have, just from our own resources at our own consumption level, we could run this country for 90 years on natural gas at our current level of consumption and for 60 years on oil. and that's -- that's what we have. that's the answer to the problem. it's called supply and demand. it's not a -- there's not a person listening now or not listening now who didn't remember back in the elementary school days that supply and demand is real. but we all know that he remains fully committed to his cap and trade global warming green agenda, a plan that is -- severely restricts domestic development of natural gas, oil and coal to drive up the price of fossil fuels so that their

favored forms of green energy can compete. it's quite simply -- simply a war on affordable energy and at a time -- at that time they weren't afraid to admit it. you know, now they're backtracking a little bit, using hydraulic fracturing, not saying they're opposed to oil and gas. steven chu, the secretary of energy, he's president obama's man. he told "the wall street journal" that -- quote -- "somehow we have to figure out a way to boost the price of gasoline to levels in europe"-- unquote and we all know the infamous quote from president obama, he had said that under his cap-and-trade plan -- quote -- "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." as the president himself has been on record supporting an increase in gas prices although according to him, he would have preferred a gradual adjustment, increasing the average family's pain at the pump. but this isn't a plan that gets

you reelected so the gas prices are skyrocketing with tax cutter failure of solyndra, president obama's dream of green energy economy is in shambles. so you can be sure we won't be talking about this plan to raise energy costs until after the election. well, i would have to say that the president's own deputy energy secretary, d.n.a. poneman made a statement i really appreciated because he said we have very strong belief that the laws of supply and demand are real. they've been saying the laws of supply and demand are not real and gary becker, i quoted this the other day, he's a nobel prize winning economist, the professor at the university of chicago, he has said that supply and demand are the cause of the vast majority of large fluctuations in oil prices and it is hard to believe that speculation has played a major

role in causing a large swing in oil prices. well, the president tried to say it's not supply and demand, we don't need to develop our own resources to bring down the price of gas at the pumps. it's speculation. here is a nobel prize winner saying that that just flat is not true. the -- the president's budget proposal this year alone, i want to get back to how he has made this attempt to tax oil and gas out of business. the president's budget proposal this year lien amounts to 38.6% tax increase on oil and gas companies which would hit my own state of oklahoma where 70,000 people are employed in oil and gas development, especially hard. his proposal specifically would either modify or outright cancel the section 199, that's the manufacturer's tax deduction, something all other manufacturers would be able to enjoy but he could not. the intangible drilling costs,

expensing percentage fleetion, all of these were in his -- in his budget, not just this year or last year but every year since his budget four years ago to try to tax the oil and gas companies out of business. now, his actions have not slowed his rhetoric. in fact, president obama has become so desperate to run from his anti-fossil fuel record that he ran all the way to curbing, oklahoma, my state. we have major intersection of the pipeline down there. this president in his attack on fossil fuels who stopped the exxon -- the x.l. pipeline that goes from up in canada down through to my state of oklahoma. now, he came all the way to oklahoma to say that i am in support of the pipeline that goes south out of oklahoma into texas. wait a minute. that's because he can't stop it. he could only stop the other one because it crossed the line from canada to the united states. so he came all the way to

oklahoma to say that he was not going to stop something he couldn't stop anyway. so president obama is trying to take credit for the increase in oil and gas and i've got to get this out because i think so many people don't understand this, that increase is taking place of the production all on private lands. it's not increasing on public lands. it's decreasing on public lands. but on private lands he has no control. according to a recently released report by the nonpartisan congressional research service since 2007 about -- this is quoting now from the c.r.s. about 96% of the oil production increase took place on nonfederal lands according to the obama financial energy information administration, total fossil fuels on federal lands are down since 2008. are they're down, not up. and during that time natural gas boomed throughout the country. we've gone through the biggest boom on private land but won't

allow us to do it on public lands and that's where these tremendous reserves are. the gas sales from production from federal lands are down 17% since 2008. and finally, according to the p.f.c. energy which is a global consulting firm specializing in the oil and gas industry, 93% of shale oil and gas wells in the united states are located on private and state lands. hardly a federal government triumph that the president falsely attempts to take credit when you put all the pieces together. it's clear what president obama's election strategy is. say great things about oil and gas, say great thing things about coal and the virtues of domestic energy production but under the surface try really hard to manufacture something wrong with hydraulic fracturing. remember, not one cubic foot of gas is -- natural gas can be retrieved in tight formations without using hydraulic fracturing. as i said before, that was

started in my state of oklahoma and we are going to make sure that we -- the truth squad that tells the truth about how we can bring down the price of gas at the pumps and down to supply and demand. i'm going to come back at at a later date and give the long version of what i've given in the last 45 minutes. sigh my good friend from tennessee is here so i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. corker: i thank the senator from oklahoma. i actually learned a lot sitting here listening. i know that energy production is very important to his state and obviously to our nation, and i know he has a wealth of knowledge regarding this issue. so i candidly enjoyed hearing your remarks and look forward to hearing the balance of them at another time. i'm going to be very brief. i came down here because i'm really distressed about where we find ourselves.

i want to first say that i want to thank the ranking member and the chair of the homeland security subcommittee, dealing with postal reform, i want to thank them for working flu threw the committee process and bringing the bill to the floor in that manner, something we don't do enough of. i want to thank them for allowing us to have amendments, a free for all with things that are pertinent to this bill. personally, i'd like to see a lot more reforms take place in the postal bill and there's no question in my mind that, you know, we're sort of kicking the can down the road and we'll revisit this in another couple years because of the way the bill is designed, i don't think there is any question that's going to happen. but what i really want to speak about here is the fact that the world and our nation, all of our citizens watched us last august as this country almost came to a halt as we voted on a proposal to reduce the amount of

deficit spending taking place in our nation at a time when the debt ceiling was being increased. and there was a lot of drama around that. both sides of the aisle came together and established a discretionary cap on the amount of money that we would spend in 2012 and 2013. and, again, the whole world and certainly most citizens in our nation were glued to the television or reading newspaper accounts about what was happening. and so we committed in a bipartisan way, at a time when our nation has tremendous deficits, to basically pare down spending. what's happening with this bill and the same thing happened with the highway bill that was just passed, is that people on both sides of the aisle are saying, well, you know, the postal service is very popular, so therefore what we're going to do is not worry about the budget caps that we've put in place.

and it's just hard for me to believe. i know there's a lot of accounting around the postal reform bill that it's difficult for people to comprehend but one thing -- and what's happening with this bill, both the ranking and chair continue to talk about the fact that some money came from the postal service into the general fund and now it's just being repaid. and, by the way, i agree with that. but the problem is that it still increases our deficit by $11 billion, and it absolutely violates the agreement that we put in place last august 2. and the responsible way for us to deal with this, mr. president, would be to say we understand that this is money that should go back to the postal service, but to live within the agreement that we put in place, we need to take $11 billion from someplace else. and what i fear is getting ready to happen today -- and, again, i know there was a budget point of order that was placed against this bill. i supported that budget point of

order. the ranking and chair who again, i respect tremendously, said let us go through this process and see if there are some amendments that actually pare down the cost. well, that's not happening. so what i fear is going to happen this afternoon is that in an overwhelming bipartisan way congress is going to say one more time to the american people you absolutely cannot trust us to deal with your money. because we are western politicians, western democracies are having the same problems in europe, and basically the way that we get reelected is we spend your money on things that you like without asking for any repayment of any kind. and that's what's happened in this nation for decades. that's what we're seeing play out right now in europe. we're able to watch the movie of what's going to happen to this great nation. and yet -- and we have politicians here in this chamber

that have agreed to what we're going to spend this year and already because we have two popular bills in a bipartisan way people are saying, well, it doesn't really matter what we agreed to. we really don't care that the biggest generational theft that's ever occurred in this nation is continuing, we're basically taking money from our children to keep us in elective office by not making tough choices. i'm afraid that's what's going to happen this afternoon on this bill. i'm just coming down one more time to appeal to people on both sides of the aisle, which are participating in this, to say look, we made an agreement, we made this graiment greament just last august 2 -- agreement last august where we said how much money we would spend and we're violating it again on this bill. would i would say is if is the postal service is so popular, let's take money from some other place that we don't consider to be the priority that this is.

but we don't do that. instead, what we're doing is exactly what has happened in europe, what has happened here for a long time. we have this deal, this arrange ment between politicians of this body and citizens where we continue to give them what they want but we won't set priorities, we will not ask them to pay for it, and what's happening is our country is on a downward spiral. and these young pages who are sitting in front of me are going to be paying for it. it's absolute generational theft. and this afternoon we're going to take another step in that direction. i just appeal to everyone to say look, if we want to pass this, pass this postal reform bill, let's cut $11 billion some other place. i mean, that's what the states that you represent have to do. that's what the cities that you come from have to do. but we won't do that here.

so look, i'm not talking about one side of the aisle or the other. what i think is going to happen this afternoon is that people on both sides of the aisle are going to break trust with the american people, violate an agreement that we just put in place and basically send a signal to the world that you absolutely cannot trust the united states senate to live within its means, that we'd rather do things to get ourselves reelected now than save this nation for the longer term. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. and let me talk, mr. president, today, i rise today to express my support for the violence against women reauthorization act. and specifically i want to talk about how crucial the tribal provisions in this bill are for native american women. for the past 18 years, this historic legislation has helped protect women from domestic

violence, from sexual assault, from stalking. it as as hast strengthsened the prosecution of these primes and provided critical support to the victims of these crimes. and it has been a bawnch effort. democrats, republicans, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, health professionals, all have supported this federal effort to protect women. why? because it has worked. since its passage in 1994, domestic violence has decreased by over 50% and the victims of these crimes have been more willing to come forward. knowing that they are not alone, knowing they will get the support they need, knowing that crimes against women will not be tolerated. unfortunately, not all women have seen the benefits of the violence against women act. that is why the tribal provisions in the reauthorization are so important.

native women are 2 1/2 times more likely than other u.s. women to be raped. one in three will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. it's estimated that 3-5 native women will experience domestic violence in their lifetimes. those numbers are tragic. those numbers tell a story of great human suffering, of women in desperate situations, desperate for support and too often we have failed to provide that support. but the frequency of violence against native women is only part of the tragedy. to make matters worse, many of these crimes go unprosecuted and unpunished. here's the problem. the tribes have no authority to prosecute non-indians for domestic violence crimes against their native american spouses or partners within the boundaries of their own tribal lands.

and yet over 50% of native women are married to non-indians. 76% of the overall population living on tribal lands are non-indians. instead, under existing law, these crimes fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction, but federal prosecutors have limited resources. they may be located hours away from tribal communities. as a result, non-indian perpetrators often go unpunished the cycle of violence continues and often escalates at the expense of native american victims. on some tribal lands, the homicide rate for native women is up so ten times the national average. but this starts with small crimes, small acts of violence that may not rise to the attention of a federal prosecutor. in 2006 and 2007, u.s. attorneys

prosecuted only 45 misdemeanor crimes on tribal lands. for perspective, the amendment is river reservation in arizona, which is -- the salt river reservation in arizona, which is a relatively small range, reported over 450 domestic violence cases in 2006 alone. those numbers are appalling. native women should not be abandoned to a jurisdictional loophole. in effect, we have a prosecution-free zone. the tribal provisions in the violence against women reauthorization act provide a remedy. the bill allows tribal courts to prosecute non-indians in a narrow set of cases that meet the following specific conditions. the crime must have occurred in indian country. the crime must be either a domestic violence or dating violence offense or a violation

of a protection order. and the non-indian defendant must reside in indian country, be employed in indian country, or be the spouse or intimate partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe. this bill does not -- and i emphasize does not -- extend tribal jurisdiction to include general crimes of violence by non-indians or crimes between two non-indians or crimes between persons with no ties to the tribe. nothing in this provision diminishes or alters the jurisdiction of any federal or state court. i know some of my colleagues question if a tribal court can provide the same protections to defendants that are guaranteed in a federal or state court. the bill addresses this concern. it provides comprehensive protections to all criminal defendants who are prosecuted in tribal courts, whether or not

the defendant is a native american. defendants would essentially have the same rights in tribal court as in state court. these include, among many others, the right to counsel, to a speedy trial, to due process, the rights against unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy and self-incrimination. in fact, a tribe that does not provide these protections cannot prosecute non-indians under this provision. some have also questioned whether congress has the authority to expand triballal criminal jurisdiction -- tribal criminal jurisdiction to cover non-indians. this issue was carefully considered in drafting the tribal jurisdiction provision. the indian affairs and judiciary committees worked closely with the department of justice to ensure that the legislation is constitutional. in fact, just last week, 50 prominent law professors sent a letter to the senate and house

judiciary committees expressing their full confidence in the constitutionality of the legislation and its necessity to protect the safety of native women. and that's their quote. this letter -- their letter provides a detailed analysis of the jurisdiction provision. it concludes -- and i quote -- "the expansion of tribal jurisdiction by congress as proposed in section 904 of s. 1925 is constitutional." i would ask, mr. president, consent that the full text of their letter be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: i respect my colleagues' concerns about the tribal provisions of this bill and i'm willing to work with any senator who may have concerns about these provisions. native american law can be daunting but i want to stress just how much effort, research, and consultation went in to

drafting the tribal provisions in the violence against women act. title 9 has taken almost entirely from s. 1763, the stand against violence and empower native women act, the save native women act. this bill was passed on a department of justice proposal submitted to congress last july. that proposal was the product of extensive multiyear consultations with tribal leaders about public safety generally and violence against women specifically. it builds on the foundation laid by the tribal law and order act of 2010. the save native women act was cleared by the indian affairs committee in a unanimous voice vote. the presiding officer, who serves on that committee, knows that this is a committee, senate indian affairs committee, that works in a bipartisan way. this passed by a unanimous voice

vote through the senate indian affairs committee. shortly thereafter, its core provisions were again vetted and incorporated in the judiciary committee's violence against women act reauthorization as title 9. in short, the safety for indian women title has been vetted extensively and enjoys wide and bipartisan support. the tribal provisions in this bill are fundamentally about fairness and clarity and affording native women the protections they deserve. as a former federal prosecutor and attorney general of a state with a large native american population, i know firsthand how difficult the jurisdictional maze can be for tribal communities. and one result of this maze is unchecked crime. personnel and funding run thin, distance is a major prohibitive

factor, and the violence goes unpunished. title 9 will create a local solution for a local problem by allowing tribes to prosecute the crime occurring in their own communities. they will be equipped to stop the escalation of domestic violence. and tribes have already proven to be effective in combating crimes of domestic violence committed by native americans, but let me reiterate this very important point. without an act of congress, tribes cannot prosecute a non-indian, even if he lives on the reservation, even if he's married to a tribal member. without this act of congress, tribes will continue to lack authority to protect the women who are members of their own tribes. with this bill, we can close a dark and desperate loophole in criminal jurisdiction. beyond extending the jurisdiction of tribes within

specific constraints, the bill will also promote other efforts to protect native women from an epidemic of domestic violence. by increasing grants for tribal programs to address violence and for research on violence against native women, and also by allowing federal prosecutors to seek tougher sentences for perpetrators who strangle or suffocate their spouses or partners. all of these provisions are about justice. right now, native women don't get the justice they deserve, but these are strong women. they rightly demand to be heard. they have identified a desperate need and support logical and effective solutions. that is why native women and tribal leaders across the nation support the violence against women reauthorization act and the proposed tribal provisions.

let us work with these women to create as many tools as possible for confronting domestic violence. there are many, far too many, stories of desperation that illustrate why the provisions protecting native women are in this bill. i want to share just one story now. this is the story of a young native american woman married to a non-indian. he began abusing her two days after their wedding. they lived on her reservation. in great danger, she filed for an order of protection as well as a divorce within the first year of marriage. the brutality only increased. it ended with the woman's abuser going to her place of work, which was located on the reservation, and attempting to kill her with a gun. a coworker trying to protect her took the bullet. before that awful day, this young woman had nowhere to turn

for help. in her own words -- she's are her own words -- after a year of abuse and more than 100 incidents of being slapped, kicked, punched and living in horrific terror, i left for good during the year of marriage, i lived in constant fear of attack. i called many times for help but no one could help me. the tribal police did not have jurisdiction over the daily abuse because the abuser was a non-indian. the federal government had jurisdiction but chose not to exercise it because the abuse was only misdemeanor level prior to the attempted murder. the state did not have jurisdiction because the abuse was on tribal land and the victim was native american. her abuser at one point after an incident of abuse actually called the county sheriff himself to prove that he was

untouchable. the deputy sheriff came to the home on tribal land but left saying he did not have jurisdiction. this is just one of the daily, even hourly stories of abuse, stories that should outrage us all and that could end through local intervention. local authority that will only be made possible through an act of congress. we have the opportunity to support such an act in the tribal provisions of vawa. i encourage my colleagues to fully support the tribal provisions in this very, very important bill. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. mr. president, 42 days ago --

that's more than 1,000 hours -- 42 days ago, 74 senators from this chamber voted to pass a badly needed long-term transportation bill. at that time i joined many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to call on the house to consider the senate's bill or a similar bipartisan bill that would provide highway and transit programs with level funding for at least two years. now, while the house has not yet passed a long-term bill, i am pleased that they voted to go to conference with the senate. that means we're one step closer to finally having legislation in place that would support nearly two million jobs -- about 6,600 of those in new hampshire -- a bill that would maintain current funding levels and that would asroeut an increase in -- avoid

an increase in the deficit and the gas taxes. i urge the house and the speaker to immediately appoint conferees so we can continue moving forward and finally pass a long-term transportation bill. we can't wait any longer. 937 days have passed since our last federal transportation bill expired. if you're counting, that's two years, six months and 27 days. and if the house doesn't join the senate and support a reasonable bipartisan transportation bill that's paid for, states and towns won't have the certainty that they need from washington to plan their projects and improve their transportation infrastructure. according to numerous studies, deteriorating infrastructure, the highways, the railroads, the transit systems, the bridges that knit our economy together cost businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost

productivity. that's because we're not making the investments we need to make. and this is no time to further saw programs that encourage economic growth and create the climate for businesses to succeed. in new hampshire, we've very directly experienced the consequences of this uncertainty. the main artery that runs north and south in new hampshire -- interstate 93 -- is congested. currently we have a project underway that would reduce that congestion on our state's most important highway, it would create jobs, it would spur economic development. and although this project has been underway for several years, the pace of the project has slowed dramatically because we don't have a transportation bill in place. businesses and developers along the i-93 corridor can't hire workers or invest for the future while the project remains

uncertain. we need to act now to unleash the economic growth that this project and transportation investments across the country will make possible. now, we know projects like interstate 93 produce good jobs. new hampshire's department of transportation has said that work on just one section of the highway -- just one section between exits 2 and 3 -- created 369 construction jobs. and all around the country we have projects like interstate 93 that are waiting on congress to complete this effort. for every $1 billion we spend in infrastructure investment, it creates 27,000 jobs. it shouldn't be so hard to get this done. if barbara boxer and jim inhofe can agree on legislation, then the house ought to be able to agree on legislation.

cities and businesses need the certainty as we get to the new construction season, and the longer the house waits to appoint conferees, the harder it will be for congress to pass a long-term bill. i urge the house to swiftly appoint representatives to negotiate with the senate so that we can come together and make federal investments -- make the federal investments nose get transportation pro -- investments necessary to get transportation projects moving and get people back to work. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lieberman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1789 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 296, s. 1789, a bill to improve, sustain and transform the united states postal service. mr. lieberman: mr. president, on behalf of senator warner, i ask unanimous consent to call up the warner amendment numbered 2071 with a modification that it is -- that is at the desk, and i ask that it be considered in the

original order of the previous agreement. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment as modified. the clerk: the senator from connecticut, mr. lieberman, for mr. warner, proposes amendment numbered 2071 as modified. at the appropriate place, insert the following -- mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i think all our colleagues, we made good bipartisan progress on a bipartisan bill which i think will go a long way towards solving the current crisis situation in our united states postal service. we have several amendments remaining, approximately nine roll call votes, hopefully less as this goes on, and a number of other amendments that we hope will be considered by voice vote , perhaps even in the wisdom of the sponsor withdrawn.

at least i look at the occupant of the chair and i know he's a man who is very wise, and i thank him. mr. president, in the normal order then, senator manchin of west virginia is -- is next up. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. manchin: mr. president, i on behalf of my cosponsors, senator rockefeller, senator mikulski and senator merkley, i call up amendment number 2079. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from west virginia, mr. manchin -- mr. manchin: i ask further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized for one minute. mr. manchin: this amendment is the only one that will give us a chance to save truly the american postal service, it's the only one. it's a two-year prohibition

against closing any of our post offices and postal services. we're talking about a lot of good things have been done, a lot of amendments have been made already, the nibbles around the edges. this is the only amendment that basically says for a two-year period, you have got to sit down and restructure this. $200 million is what they are talking about. i can go on many, many different directions with this. that's one day in afghanistan, one day. but we're talking about if you lose -- this is what the little state of west virginia will lose, 150 post offices. now, they are saying well, we have a one-year moratorium. we can restructure this and show where the savings should be. i can tell you, i have a lot of different ideas on where the savings can be, sir, but i can tell you right now you can start with the postmaster general earned 100,000. there are a lot of ways you can save these. you take these liveliness out. they get their medicines, they have their lifelines with these post offices. they have nothing else.

their towns have just about gone away except for that connection. i'm asking basically for my colleagues to consider keeping these lifelines, let us work, give us the two-year period we need. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, respectfully to my dear friend from west virginia, i am going to oppose the amendment. let me just put it in this context. the united states postal service is in trouble. it's losing about $23 million or $24 million on the average every day, more than $13 billion in the last two years. it's not going to survive if the status quo prevails. it needs to change. this bill provides for change but in a way that we think is balanced and reasonable. my friend from west virginia has introduced an amendment which would prohibit all change for the next two years, and therefore i think open the way for a kind of death spiral for the u.s. postal service. there are many protections in our bill before a post office can be closed, even more before

a mail processing facility -- or just as much when a mail processing -- before a mail processing facility can be closed. we added more protections yesterday with the mccaskill-merkley amendments and the tester-levin amendments, but they allow change because without change, this postal service of ours will die. the presiding officer: all time is expired. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any member in the chamber who desires to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 43. the nays are 53. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i move that we lay the -- i move for reconsideration of the vote and lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: next on the list is senator paul's amendment

number 2000. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. paul: at a time when america's infrastructure is crumbling, at a time when the post office is losing $4 billion a year, does it make sense to send $2 billion to egypt? does it make sense to borrow money from china to send it to egypt? at a time when american citizens are being prosecuted in egypt, at a time when american citizens are having international warrants sworn out on their arrest by egypt, does it make sense to send -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the house will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. paul: i met last week with a young pro-democracy workers from egypt. she's afraid to return home, afraid she will never see her children again. she's afraid of the cage they put her in to prosecute her for political crimes. she fears the egyptian freedom

movement will die in its infancy. i ask for as long as pro-democracy workers are being prosecuted, american and egyptian, i ask unanimous consent that we have an amendment, amendment number 2023, that it be called up for a vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i object on the same grounds we discussed earlier in this debate that, this amendment is irrelevant to the subject matter of the postal service. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to not offer my next amendment, which is 2026. and yield back. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank my friend from kentucky. next will be senator bingaman's amendment number 2076. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico is recognized. mr. bingaman: mr. president, i call up amendment number 2076. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new mexico, mr. bingaman, proposes amendment numbered 2076. mr. bingaman: i'd ask consent

that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. bingaman: mr. president, this senator is cosponsored with senator udall, would require that state liasons for states that do not have district offices in them be located within the states that they represent. this is a commonsense amendment. there are ten states that will not have district offices in them as currently contemplated. they're operated out of district offices in adjacent states. the substitute amendment would require the postal service to designate at least one employee to be a state liaison. and this amendment i'm offering here says that that person must be located within the state they represent. i ask all my colleagues to support this. i don't see any basis for objection to it. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president,

i rise to support the -- the presiding officer: would the senator suspend for one moment? we do want to move through these amendments promptly but we need your cooperation. it's hard to hear the debate. so would you please take conversations off the floor. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, this is an excellent and thoughtful amendment introduced by the senator from new mexico. i'm glad to support it and move that it be accepted by voice vote. the presiding officer: all time yielded back. the question is on the adoption. all in favor signify by saying aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the amendment is adopted. mr. lieberman: mr. president, next is the amendment introduced by senator paul, senator 2027. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 2027.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 2027, at the end of title 2 add the following: section, capital complex -- mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to consider it as read. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized for one minute. mr. paul: at a time when we're asking post offices and people around our country to suffer the loss of their local post office, i think the very least we can do is show that we're willing to give up some of the post offices around here. we have seven post offices in the capitol. we have a post office in almost every building. i'm asking that we have one on the house side and one on the senate side. if we're asking people to suffer the loss of their post offices in their states, i think the very least we can do is do without a few post offices here. and i hope that my colleagues will support this amendment. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president.

mr. president, this is a commonsense amendment. it would limit the number of post offices in the capitol complex to one on each side, one in the house, one in the senate. it does not affect the processing of mail out of the capitol. i believe we should accept the amendment. i urge that we accept the amendment by a voice vote. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i move for reconsideration, lay that motion on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: mr. president, next on the list is senator cardin's amendment number 2040, which i understand he will

withdraw. senator cardin. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i'm going to withdraw the amendment, but let me just point out this amendment was offered in an effort to make sure we can continue overnight deliver glee most of our -- delivery in most of our country, by keeping processing centers that are necessary open. the underlying substitute that senator lieberman and senator collins and senator carper, brown have brought forward accomplishes that goal. i don't believe this amendment is necessary. and for that reason, i will withdraw -- i will not offer the amendment. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i thank my friend from maryland we're moving expeditiously at this point. next is senator paul's amendment number 2028. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 2028. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from

kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 2028. at the appropriate place, insert the following: section, pilot program -- mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator is recognized for one minute. again, i ask your cooperation so we can hear the senator on the amendment. mr. paul: mr. president, this amendment would allow a pilot program for local postal autonomy. one of the complaints i heard from postmasters as they came to talk to me about this bill is they think there's a lot of middle management in the post office making unwise decisions. if they were given more autonomy at the local level to make decisions about their post office, that they would have more ability to try to find cost-saving measures to try to save their post office for their local community. and i think this program makes sense to give the postmasters more autonomy. i think we'd have more innovation and i think we'd get useful idea from our local postmasters. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i respectfully oppose this

amendment. this would allow -- this would actually fracture the u.s. postal service as we've known it, as a national institution which maintains national standards, including the promise of universal service wherever one lives or does business by authorizing localities to break away. and i think in doing so, it would jeopardize the foundation promise that our postal services made since the beginning of universal s. so i would oppose the amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president? mr. president, this amendment establishes what is essentially a privatization pilot program for the alternative delivery of mail outside of the universal service mandate of the postal service. i believe it would create chaos

by allowing for inconsistent delivery standards across the country. it would cause cream skimming of profitable delivery areas and that would harm rural america. i urge rejection of the amendment. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: this amendment doesn't change any of the postal mandate. the system we've got now is not working very well. i think we do need some innovation, so i think it would be a good idea to vote for this amendment. i ask for the yaifns. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the paul amendment number 2028. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas on this vote are 35, the nays are 64. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed mr. lean lieberman: mr. president, i move for reconsider and ask that the motion be laid on the table.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lean pan: pan: thank you. mr. president, next is senator carper's amendment number 2065. mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from dell -- from gel dell. -- from delaware. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mr. lieberman: i thank the senator from delaware. we go now to senator paul's amendment number 2029. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that amendment 2029, with the modifications at the desk, be reported or called up. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the amendment as modified. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment numbered 2029, as modified. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. senator is recognized for one minute. mr. paul: mr. president, this amendment would add to a technical change to the profitability plan that's already required urn the bill and it would simply ask that when they do the profitability

plan, that they report on whether congress is helping or hurt being. and a lot of times we do things that are well-intentioned that may not work out and i think they need to let us know more about whether congress is helping or hurting the process. and i urge adoption of this amendment. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i support the amendment. the underlying bill requires the postal service to send us a detailed plan for attaining long-term financial solvency and this amendment would add several factors to the list of items that should be considered in the report. i think it strengthens the bill and i move its adoption by voice. ms. collins: mr. president, i, too, support the amendment and urge its adoption. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question's on the adoption of the amendment. all in favor signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i

move for reconsideration and ask that the motion be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: thank you. now addition next is senator carper's amendment number 2066. mr. carp he: mr. president, i call up amendment 2066. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with on 2066. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the chamber will come to order. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations outside the chamber. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. some of our colleagues have raised a justifiable concern about the level of compensation that has gone to some of the most senior officials at the

united states postal service. one -- a compensation for -- compensation package for one previous leader of the postal service was in excess of $1 million. and in a day and age where rank-and-file postal service members are going to be asked to make sacrifices, i think it's important for us to remember the concept of leadership by example. and this amendment makes it certain that compensation packages like i just described do not occur. it would cut in half the number from six to one the number of postal service employees who are able to receive cabinet-level salaries but gives the board of governors the ability to pay for good progress, reducing the budget deficit at the postal service, to pay above that up to about $270,000. and the last thing we say is the idea that senior executives at the postal service don't have to pay anything for health care or don't have to pay anything for their life insurance?

that's wrong. that should end and we do that with this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i support the amendment on executive compensation. i believe it addresses this matter in a manner that president bush 41 might have called prudent. and i move for a voice vote, that it be adopted by voice vote. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i move for reconsideration and ask that the motion be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: thank you. next is senator paul's amendment number 2039. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 2039.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment numbered 2039. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that we waive the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: let's be frank. the post office is bankrupt and only dramatic action will fix the post office. the problem really is labor costs. 80% of the post office costs are labor. if you look at u.p.s., it's about 50%. if you look at fedex, it's about 38%. before we close one post office, before we end saturday mail, before we ask citizens for poorer services or higher prices, maybe we ought to look at the root of the problem. even f.d.r., the biggest of the big-government advocates, said this about collective bargaining "all government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service

so agreeing with f.d.r., i would hope my colleagues from across the aisle will agree with their patron saint, f.d.r., and will support this amendment that would end collective bargaining and in the interest of time, i'll be happy to have a voice vote. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, could we have order, please. the presiding officer: the chamber will come to order. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this amendment would strip from the postal workers the right to collectively bargain. this is an enormous change in labor law. postal workers have had the right to engage in collective bargaining for more than 30 years. we did make changes in this bill in the arbitration process. we made sure that if a contract

dispute went to arbitration, that the arbitrator has to consider the financial condition of the postal service. that will help bring balance into the system. but there is no justification for completely removing the right of workers to collectively bargain. i urge that we reject the amendment. the presiding officer: all time has expired. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment number 2039. mr. paul: request the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 23, the nays are 76. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i move to reconsider and ask that the motion be placed on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, next on our list, we're moving well. i thank my colleagues.

senator casey's amendment number 2042. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i rise to speak on amendment numbered 2042. this is really an amendment to maintain standards that we have had a right to expect and have expected for many generations, and that's the standard of service that the post office has has -- the postal service, i should say, has come to be known for. i'm not asking for anything that this agreement that -- the presiding officer: the senate is -- will come to order. please carry your conversations out the well and outside the chamber. mr. casey: mr. president, i am calling up amendment numbered 2042. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from pennsylvania, mr. casey, proposes amendment numbered 2042. mr. casey: mr. president, this is about the standard of service that we have come to expect from the postal service for many generations, and i realize a lot of work has gone into this

consensus that has developed that we know we need to make changes to the postal service, but one thing we shouldn't change or downgrade or compromise or degrade in any way is the standard of service, and i think what we should do is have a four-year moratorium on the implementation that would lead to changes because there will be a lot of changes made in the next couple of years upon enactment. what we shouldn't do, though, is move too quickly to change the standard of service that people have had a right to rely upon. i would ask for a yes vote on this amendment. i should note for the record the cosponsor, senators brown of ohio, senator sanders, senator baucus, senator leahy, mccaskill, shaheen, merkley and menendez, and i would ask for a yes vote. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i rise to oppose the amendment by my friend from pennsylvania. mr. president, everybody acknowledges that the postal service is in crisis, losing

$23 million a day. mail volume has dropped 21% in the last five years, and that means that everybody -- we simply cannot afford every mail processing facility that exists because there is not that much mail anymore. the postal service will only survive if we change it. our bill allows for orderly change. this amendment would basically maintain the status quo for four years, and i think in doing so really is a kind of invitation to the postal service to go into bankruptcy, and our country can't afford that. so respectfully, i would oppose the amendment. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the casey amendment numbered 2042.

mr. casey: mr. president, i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: .

the presiding officer: are there members wishing to vote or to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 44. the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i move for reconsideration and ask that the motion be placed on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: mr. president, the next amendment is senator paul's amendment number 2038, and he has asked that i withdraw that on his behalf, which i do now. and, therefore -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: and next is senator landrieu, 2072.

ms. landrieu: mr. president, i call up my amendment 2072. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mrs. landrieu, proposes amendment number 2072. ms. landrieu: i -- the presiding officer: there will be two minutes of debate equally divided. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i rise in support of this amendment to offer to my colleagues on behalf of senator snowe and myself, and senator stabenow and senator shaheen. we are very concerned, mr. president, that the post office has not looked carefully enough at the impact that some of its decisions might have on small businesses that rely on their operations. so all this amendment says -- and i understand there is no opposition and i understand we might be able to take it by voice vote -- is that included in the studies that the post office is going to do to analyze their way forward, they must

consider the impact on small businesses that they serve. as you know, mr. president, in some areas, particularly rural areas, this is really an arm of the small business, and we can't have that arm chopped off. so that is the amendment. i don't believe there's any opposition. and if the managers would accept this by voice vote, we could save some time. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i thank senator landrieu for introducing this amendment. i support it enthusiastically. it would strengthen the protections regarding the closing of processing facilities and requires the postal service to take into account the impact

of any potential closing or consolidation on small businesses. this amendment reminds us about how many people and how many businesses, including particularly small businesses across america, depend on the u.s. postal service and why it's so important for us to change it to save it. so i thank my friend from louisiana for introducing this amendment. i'd ask that we adopt this amendment by voice vote. and i move its adoption. the presiding officer: all time has spraoeurd. the question -- all time has expired. the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i move for reconsideration and ask that the motion be placed on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. next is senator demint's amendment 2046. mr. demint: mr. president, i'd

like to call up amendment number 2046. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. demint, proposes amendment numbered 2046. mr. demint: i ask the reading be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. there will be two minutes of debate. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. this amendment is the paycheck protection act, and it protects the first amendment rights of postal workers by requiring postal labor unions to obtain prior approval from their workers before they spend their dues money on behalf of political parties, political candidates or other political advocacy. unions are the only organization in many states that cannot only force people to join, but forcibly use their dues for political purposes without the permission of the members. 60% of union members object to their dues being spent for political purposes without their

permission. this amendment protects their right to have their dues used in a way that they intend it to be used. so i encourage my colleagues to support this freedom, this protection of constitutional rights. it is consistent with the supreme court ruling, communications workers versus beck. and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i oppose this amendment. this is taking a bill that has the urgent purpose of saving the u.s. postal service, changing it to save it and bringing in a matter of internal labor union business. the fact is that no postal employee is forced to join a union. but once one does, the union leadership can guide the policy

positions the unions support through the democratic processes within the unions. no postal employee, himself or herself is forced to involuntarily support the advocacy or political activities of a union. that's their choice whether to join it. but once they do, their leadership has the right to participate in the political process. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. the presiding officer: all time has expired. mr. demint: mr. president, i'd like to yield the balance of my time to senator collins and ask -- the presiding officer: all time has expired. mr. demint: i ask unanimous consent that she might have 30 seconds to explain her position. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i urge support of senator demint's amendment. it protects the first amendment rights of postal workers by requiring that unions obtain

prior approval from workers before spending their dues on political purposes. i think this is probably the one and only amendment where i will diverge with my chairman. but i do urge support of senator demint's amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. lieberman: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 53. under the previous order the

previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lieberman: madam president, i move for reconsideration and ask that the motion be laid on the table. i thank the chair. next we have senator mccaskill's amendment number 2030. ms. mccaskill: madam president, you i call up my amendment number 2030. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from missouri, mrs. mccaskill, proposes amendment numbered 2030. ms. mccaskill: i ask consent -- the presiding officer: there's two minutes of debate equally divided. ms. mccaskill: madam president, senate bill 1789 makes significant changes to the federal employees compensation act, feca, which i support. the changes seek to reduce overspending in the program. but this is an amendment that will allow a couple of considerations that i think are important to include.

the amendment, along with other things, would improve upon the current program by providing those injured while deployed in armed conflict additional time to file a claim for feca benefits and to ensure that deployed employees injured in a terrorist attack overseas while off duty would receive the feca benefits. it also creates an exemption for hardship if someone would be eligible for food stafns, if their benefits are decreased even further. these provisions are similar to the feca reform legislation, house resolution 2465, that has already passed the house of representatives, and i would ask for the consideration of the body of this amendment. ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: madam president, first let me commend the senator from missouri for this amendment. it does make a great deal of sense to have the hardship exem shong and to give more time for

individuals who are injured in war zones, longer deadlines for the paperwork for those individuals who might have trouble submitting the paperwork from a war zone. we're talking about civilian employees who are deployed there. this amendment makes a great deal of sense, and i urge that it be accepted by a voice vote. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. lieberman: mr. president -- madam president, i move to reconsider and ask that the motion be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: madam president, next on the list is senator coburn's amendment 2059, but i don't see senator coburn

on the floor at this time. senator pryor, are you prepared to go? i know you are, semper parotus. then we'll go to senato senators amendment. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. pryor: thank you, madam president. skilled that we go to amendment -- i would ask that we go to amendment 2036. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. clerics cleric mr. pry quoor for himself and mr. begich proposes amendment 2036. mr. pryor: thank you, mr. president. this really hopefully will be a noncontroversial bill. it is a sense of the senate that the postal service should not close any postal facilities or post offices until enactment of this postal reform bill. so here again this is a sense of the senate and the idea is we don't know exactly when the house is going to pass their bill, if they ever do. but we'll have a sense of the senate on the record. the postal service self-imposed

moratorium on closures occurs may 15. hopefully this will give them more time and decides, if this bill does pass, this is a major reset for the postal service. i hope most of the rationale for closing these postal services goes away with the passage of this bill. so, madam president, i would love to have a vase vote on this, if that's pofnlt. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: thank my friend from arc ancht this is a good raiment and i snort whole heart thely. the -- i support it wholeheartedly. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. all those if favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is passed. mr. lieberman: i move to reconsideration and ask that the motion be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: i thank the

dhair. not seeing my friend from oklahoma, senator coburn, on the floor yet, we will now go to the next amendment, senator rockefeller's amendment number 2073. the presiding officer: the senator from west require is recognized. mr. rockefeller: i call up my amendment number 02073 and ask consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: is there 0,? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. rockefeller proposes amendment 2073 as modified. mr. rockefeller: i ask that the reading of the amendment be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rockefeller: as modified, this amendment would simply eliminate a very problematic provision in the underlying bill. provision section 105, but it has a very bad effect and this would clear that up. it would -- it would shift

medicare and raise premiums for current postal workers in many cases by as much as 35%. there's more to it but that's the bulk of it. and i would hope that it would be passed. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the senator from west virginia. some questions were raised about parts of the bill relating to accessibility to medicare by postal employees. i think there's been a good meeting of the minds here with this modification. i support the amendment, as modified, and move its adoption by voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment, as modified. all those in favor, aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes 0 have it. the amendment is passed. mr. lieberman: madam president, i move for reconsideration and ask that the motion be laid on the table.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: before we get to senator rockefeller's second amendment, senator coburn as asked me on his behalf to withdraw amendment 2059. i thank him for that. we'll now go to senator rockefeller's amendment, number 2074. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: madam president, i call up my amendment numbered 2074 and ask consent it be modified with changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. rockefeller: i ask that the amendment be voice voted. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from west virginia, mr. rockefeller, proposes amendment numbered 2074 as modified. mr. rockefeller: i ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: madam president, i support the amendment as modified and at this time move its adoption by voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. as modified. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the eyes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is passed.

mr. lieberman: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: next on the list is senator schumer's amendment shall, number 2050. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york is recognized. mr. schumer: there are more than 35 million households and businesses that receive door delivery in every state across the country. as originally written, the postal reform bill would have pushed the postal service to stop delivering mail to individual doors and mailboxes. instead, the postal service would not install apartment complex style group boxes where all of the mail for a given street or neighborhood would be delivered to the boxes grouped together in one place. rather than have mail delivered to their mailbox or door, homeowners could have been forced to travel further from their home simply to pick up the

mail. my amendment simply preserves the same door delivery only for customers who already receive it. in other words, for new complexes they'll keep doing what they're doing. but for existing houses, they should keep the delivery the way it is. what some people may not know is the postal service already has the authority to eliminate door delivery, so -- but the postal service has not mandated such a change because they know how unpopular it would be. by removing the door delivery provision from this bill we can enensure the postal service will continue to provide the door delivery service that our constituents expect and rely upon. i would urge my colleagues to support -- before -- to support the amendment. and i call up my amendment number 2050. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 2050. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent the reading be dispensed with and my remarks given previous to calling up the amendment be added in afterwards and still hold with their singular veracity. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: madam president, i move the adoption of the amendment by voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is passed. mr. lieberman: madam president, i move for reconsideration and ask that the motion be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: i thank my colleagues again. next will be senator tester, amendment number 2032.

senator tester is not on the floor right now so i know that we were building up to senator warner's amendment as the last amendment, but this may now be the second to the last amendment. so next we'll have senator warner, number 2071. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: madam president, i'd ask to bring up amendment number 2071 where agreed upon substitute text is at the desk. the presiding officer: the amendment is pending. mr. warner: madam president, i'd like to thank the chairman lieberman and senator collins for their help on this amendment. this is a very simple amendment. one of the goals of this process is to encourage retirement of expected 100,000 members of the postal service. unfortunately, right now o.p.m. has over 50,000 person backlog

of processing federal retirement claims. this is unacceptable. they still have a paper processing process. this amendment would require the postal service to report on a regular basis as well as o.p.m. on the status of these retirement processing claims, to hopefully speed this process up, and also compare to the performance of other agencies. this is completely unacceptable that folks who are retiring are waiting sometimes for a full year to get their retirement benefits. so i would again thank the chair and the ranking member for the support of this and ask for the body's acceptance. the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i support this amendment. there is an inexcusable backlog at o.p.m. in processing the application for retirement benefits. it's caused real hardships for some retired federal employees

and postal employees. this bill will obviously increase the number of postal employees who will be seeking retirement benefits. so i think it is important that we have the kind of reporting that the senator from virginia has proposed. i urge acceptance of the amendment and i would urge that it be accepted by a voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. as modified. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is passed. the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: madam president, i move for reconsideration, ask that the motion be placed on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: the excitement builds now as we move to the last amendment, senator tester has amendment number 2032. the presiding officer: the senator from montana is

recognized. mr. tester: madam chair, i would like to call up amendment amendment -- mr. chairman, i call up amendment 2032. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. tester, for himself and mr. pryor proposes an am numbered 2032. mr. tester: i ask further consent that the reading be dispensed with. thank you very much. this amendment is pretty simple. i want to thank senator fall for joining me on it. it basically is an amendment that reduces compensation for the senior execs at the postal service. it limits it to a base salary no more than what we pay our cabinet secretaries which is a scoch under 2 hoontsz. -- $200,000. some of these cuts take place at the lower end, some at the middle management, some at the

upper end. to be fair everybody needs to feel the pain and to be right fair, the postmaster is an important job but also is the secretary of defense, secretary of state and others. i don't think we should be paying him more than what we do our cabinet secretaries. after all, the postal service is public service and i would ask for your concurrence on amendment 2032. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank my friend from montana for his amendment. he's explained it well. i would move for its adoption by voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is passed. mr. lieberman: madam president, i move for reconsideration and ask that that motion be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: madam president,

colleagues, we have completed all the amendments on the bill, and we're ready to vote on final passage. i have a lengthy closing statement which i would ask unanimous consent to place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lieberman: senator durbin just pleaded with me to read it but with all respect to my leader, i'm going to say no. i do want to thank the three colleagues on our committee, senator collins, senator carper, senator brown, for the work that everyone did to bring about a bipartisan bill that will bring necessary change to the postal service in order to save it. make no mistake about it, this bill will bring the change that the post office needs to stay alive in serving the people and businesses of our country. here's the bottom line: the postal service itself says that

within three years as sections of this bill are phased in, they will reduce their cost of operating by $19 billion. and probably in the year after that, they'll go into balance. that's what this bill will accomplish. i thank my colleagues on the committee and i want to thank and i will in the statement by name the staffs of both sides, and the floor staffs on both sides for the extraordinary work over a long period that was done to get us to this point. we still need 60 votes to pass this, and i appeal to my colleagues to do so with a feeling of confidence that we've met a problem here together and have offered a solution that will fix the problem for our country. i thank my colleagues and i yield the floor to senator collins. the presiding officer: the senator from maine is recognized.

ms. collins: madam president -- the presiding officer: other could we please have order. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i believe that the odds of our getting the 60 votes for final passage are increased if i put my statement into the record rather than delivering it right now. so i will deliver my statement after the vote, but i do want to thank senator lieberman, senator scott brown, senator carper, all of the staffs who have worked so hard. today, assuming we get those 60 votes, we have proven that the united states senate can tackle an enormous problem in a bipartisan way and make real progress on an issue that matters to our economy and to the american people. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: thank you. the senator from tennessee is recognized.

mr. corker: i too, want to thank the leaders for their excellent work and the people that joined them. i think the policy has been debated well. i do want to say at the beginning of this there was discussion that there would be a 60-vote vote at the end and that some of the amendments might improve the funding aspect. i still want to say one more time that a vote for this bill is a vote to increase our deficit this year by $11 billion and a vote to violate the budget control act that we just passed last year. so i appreciate the work. i do wish we had worked to pay for this. we've not done that, and i would like to remind everyone voting for this that we are, in fact, adding $11 billion to our deficit, more so than was laid out by the budget control act. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i just wanted to take a moment to congratulate both the chairman, senator lieberman and the ranking member

senator collins for handling a very, very difficult bill. it is in my view the way we ought to legislate, and we had a number of amendments that were important to our members, we're glad that they had an opportunity to offer it and i want to just -- i wanted to just take the moment to congratulate senator collins and senator lieberman for a very skillful job in handling this very difficult piece of legislation. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. under the previous order, the substitute amendment as modified and amended is agreed to. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 296, a bill to improve, sustain, and transform the united states postal service. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on s. 1789 as amended.

the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 62, the nays are 37. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for passage of the bill, the bill as amended is passed. the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: there are a number of issues we're trying to resolve and we're going to try to do that as quickly as possible and notify the senate as 0 what is going to happen next. at this stage i don't know but we're working on this so i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: