think it's important there be a message with a strong role call to the postal service that we don't want them to be closing post offices during this thing. >> do you want to look at my list first? >> mr. chairman, i won't -- i won't ask for a role call vote. >> are you an aye? >> we have at least four republicans voting for it. i think it's bipartisan. >> do you want to have a role call? >> i won't ask for one, but others have that right. >> i won't ask for one if you prefer not to have one. >> i have no preference. as the junior member. >> i would ask for role call. >> okay. the clerk will call the role on this. moran, tester collins begich maemt. >> senator le vin? >> aye. >> akaka. no. just kidding. >> aye. >> senator pryor? >> aye. >> senator landrieu?

>> aye by proxy. >> mccaskill. >> aye by proxy. >> senator tester. >> aye by proxy. >> collins. >> aye. >> coburn. >> no by approximaty. >> senator brown. >> aye. senator mccain. >> no my proxy. >> senator portman. >> no by proxy. i tried to warn everybody. >> hey, that's good. >> senator paul? >> no instruction. >> senator moran. >> aye. >> senator lieberman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are 9. the nays are 0. on the vote by proxy, the ayes are 3, the nays are 4. on this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 4 and the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you. i thank the clerk.

senator carper mentioned the word lunch break earlier, so it stuck with me. we want to try to move an amendment or two more before we break. let's see if we can keep it going. senator moran, do you have any other amendments? >> i have no other amendments, mr. chairman. thank you. >> okay. so now i just think about who is here. senator levin i believe has passed. we'll go to senator akaka for another amendment at this time. >> thank you very much. >> senator akaka? which one would you like to call up at this time?ff akaka 5. >> akaka number 5. >> this amendment on medicare. >> okay. >> i would like to come back to workers compensation at another time, but not now. so i would like to turn to health care. >> okay. >> and my amendment is to strike the provisions requiring postal retirees to enroll in medicare

parts a and b. if they are eligible. and replacing their current health benefit plan with not a not yet negotiated plan. i understand that the postal service estimates it will save $15 billion from these provisions. but as far as i know, they haven't provided anything to support that particular claim. opm, which has much more extensive health benefits, does not believe this will save the postal service money. rather opm believes this will impose costs on the federal employees health benefit plan resulting in higher premiums for everyone, including the postal service. additionally, this appears to

shift costs to the medicare program, which is serious financial challenges already. for this reason, mr. chairman, finance committee staff have informed my staff they support this amendment. the provisions in this bill also could create jurisdictional problems because these changes are in finances jurisdiction. i'm also concerned that the current provisions will impose costs on retirees. we are requiring postal retirees to pay more than $1100 per year in medicare part b premiums with no guarantee how much of that will be offset by savings in a new medigap plan. so therefore, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike the provisions requiring postal

retirees to enroll in medicare parts a and b. if they're eligible. thank you. >> thanks, senator akaka. this respectfully i'm going to oppose the akaka amendment number 5. this is one of those cases where the legislation does give the postmaster the authority to take steps regarding the health care costs of the postal service that not only most private employers, but most public entities that i know of, including state governments, for instance, have taken to reduce the increase in the cost of health care for their employees. the section -- the sections that senator akaka's amendment would strike direct the postal service to require medicare-eligible

retirees to enroll in medicare parts a and b and also direct the postmaster to work with opm to develop medigap-like plans that offer comparable benefits for postal retirees and their dependents. this is an amendment we can argue about how much this will save. it will save a significant amount of money for the postal service, which is critically needed now. it will alter the health care benefit package of the postal employees and retirees. but we think it still maintains a level of coverage for health care that compares favorably to people in the public and private sector. we also have a provision in here that says if the expected

savings are not realized, the new program would end. we discussed that with the postmaster. he is confident enough that they would achieve the savings, that he is willing to be put under that requirement. so for those reasons, this is an important part of the legislation. and what the legislation saves would be dramatically undercut if senator akaka's amendment was adopted. further discussion? >> senator lieberman? >> senator collins and then senator begich. >> i just want to emphasize your last point. the postal service estimates that this provision would reduce its cost by $15 billion. as senator akaka has pointed out, opm says it's uncertain whether or not that's the case. and that's why we included specific language in the substitute amendment that would

allow opm and the postal service to scrap the program if they agree that it would not save the postal service money. so there's a safeguard, if you will that has been built into the language. i can. >> senator begich? >> has there been a response from folks on medicare what this will do to their costs? my assumption is if one saves, the other pays. does anyone have? >> one point i would make on that is postal employees are paying into medicare now. >> right. >> so it's rather -- in some ways, they're paying twice. they are paying into medicare when they are active employees. then if they don't enroll in medicare part b or d, they are not getting the full benefit of

all those payroll deductions over the years made both by the employees and the postal servic and they are instead getting the federal employees health benefits plan. so in a way, they are paying twice. >> right. but i guess my question is when you now require them to take the benefit, the cost, they're not taking it now. they're paying into it. it's actually a bonus to medicare. i'm taking a different hat on here for a second. it's like free cash flow without having to pay. it's not bad deal. >> but that's not fair. >> well, i understand that. but i'm not sure i want to -- i guess that's the question. have medicare folks responded in any way on the impact this would or would not have? i want to know the answer to this question. >> i don't believe the committee has had any response. you're asking whether there has been a response from the cms

administrators of medicare? >> yes. >> it would raise costs for medicare. we're in an unusual situation. we're saying that this large entity, this quasi public business, the postal service, ought to have the right to take the same kinds of actions that every private business and moses of the states as far as i know and other municipalities are doing for their employees, which is to take advantage of the medicare program. but in this case, i think our priority has to be to rescue the postal service, even though it may add some cost to medicare. >> very good. thank you. >> senator akaka? >> senator, let me add that the office of personnel management has stated that its health care actuaries do not believe the postal service will save money on this. opm runs one of the largest health care plans in the country.

the fehb with 8 million participants at about $40 billion in total annual costs. i have not seen the postal service's analysis for how they believe this program will save money for them. but i trust opm's cost estimates more than i do the postal service's. >> okay. further discussion? hearing none, senator akaka, would you like a role call? >> yes. >> clerk will call the roll on senator akaka's amendment number 5. >> senator levin. >> aye by proxy. >> senator akaka? >> aye. >> senator carper? senator pryor? >> aye. >> senator landrieu? >> aye by proxy. >> senator mccaskill? >> aye by proxy. >> senator >> aye.

>> senator begich? >> yes. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator koby burn? >> aye by proxy. we get them verified just by my staff about it too. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> aye by proxy? >> senator portman? >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> aye by proxy. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> is it possible there's a little mischief going on? >> i think may be, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of

those present the ayes are 4, the nays are 5. on the vote by proxy, the ayes are 7, the nays are 1. on this vote, the ayes are 11, the nays are 6, and the amendment is agreed to. >> okay, thank you. senator acontact car, congratulations. let's see. no one else on the republican side has any additional amendments. senator pryor, would you like to bring up one of yours? you're done. okay. you're retiring undefeated. senator tester? perhaps after senator tester, if it's okay, we'll break for lunch. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the committee for passing the moran-tester amendment on ten miles. senator mccain talked about the fact when he has public meetings, people don't talk about the post office. if you're in a small town, and you have a public meeting on a

post office, i guarantee it will be the first issue that comes up. or a public meeting, the post office will be the first one that comes up. with the ten-mile issue that senator moran brought up, it's an issue that people have talked to me about in extentia, because the post office closures is really going to close a lot of communities. that's not ever healthy for rural america. so i want to express my appreciation for offering the amendment. appreciation to the committee for passing it. the amendment i want to take up now deals with executive compensation. i want to thank the undefeated senator pryor and senator mccaskill in joining me in offering this amendment. it's simply restricts the pay of the postmaster general to the same for the member of congress. $174,000 a year. prior to 2008, the postmaster general's salary was set by law. however, the 2006 reform bill had been talked about today allowed the postal board of governors to set the postmaster

salary at the same rate as the vice president. it also allowed the postmaster arizona and as many as a dozen senior executives to receive bonuses up to 20% of their base pay. as a result, the postmaster general could earn $276,840 per year. this will take it back to $174,000. to let you know, that could save about $200,000. you could keep open post offices in towns like willow creek, wyola. five post offices could be saved for this. it's a common sense amendment. and i think as we look for everybody to make sacrifices, i think it's entirely appropriate that the administrators of the postal service make their sacrifices. so with that i would urge my colleagues to support it, and thank you very much. >> thanks, senator tester.

is there further debate? senator carper?batewe were talking about making sure that we allowed the postal service to do what it needs to do. really get out of the way and one of the underlying themes what senator coburn was saying and what senator mccain was saying is let them proceed whether it's closing mail processing centers or closing post offices or going from six to five-day service. our role should be to step out of the way. this amendment runs in counter vention to that. postal service, is i believe, colleagues, the second largest business in america. i believe it's the second largest business in america. they have over a half million employees. over 33,000 retail outlets. there are over 500 mail

processing centers. they service every home, every business in america six days a week. there's a reason why ups and fedex pay their ceos a million dollars or more per year. and the reason is they want to be able to track the best talent they can find to run those big operations. the postal service makes those big operations look small by comparison. we need excellent people. we need some of the best talent at the postal service leading the organization to help get out of the wilderness and get back to a situation to be successful in the 21st century. and to say to people who are working hard to turn around the postal service around for your efforts, we're going to lower

your pay in some case withes by 100 or 550,000 or $7500, i don't know how that helps us to track the best talent to lead the postal service at the most i just don't see it. my grandmother used to say maybe your grandparents used to say to you something about penny-wise and pound foolish. this is penny-wise and pound foolish. we may feel good about saving a couple hundred dollars, but we're talking about losing executives that could help the postal service save billions of dollars by providing leadership that's needed and implementing the law that we're providing. i would urge us to defeat this amendment. i was prepared to offer a second amendment. i just think we should defeat this amendment. >> could i respond? >> defeat it outright. >> could i respond, mr. chairman? >> go right ahead. senator tester and then senator collins. >> if the goal here is to make the usps into ups or fedex, we need to take the u.s. off and make it the postal service.

and just make it the postal service, privatize it, get done with it, change the constitution, make sure we don't have any obligation. if any of us around this table are sitting here because of the money we make, we're not sitting here for the right reason. the postal service is a public service. unless you want to take the u.s. off in front of the postal service. and to say that we can't find good people to run the postal service because of salary, maybe that's exactly the reason we need to pass this amendment. and it also has some indications on our ability too. by gosh, if we can't find a postal to get the postal service out of the woods, how the hell are we ever going to get our deficit under control? because we get paid that same salary. this is the most money i've ever been paid in my life. $174,000. it's a lot of dough. now it doesn't compare to 800 grand, which is what it could make. if you can't hire anybody, my

point is you find anybody gad for 800,000. my point is this. if our employees have to sacrifice, there's no reason on god's green earth why the administrators shouldn't sacrifice too. it's the wrong message to be administrators shouldn't sacrifice, too. i think it's the wrong message to be sent by this committee, if you defeat this amendment. i encourage your acceptance of it. >> mr. chairman? >> senator collins. >> mr. chairman, could i suggest, since we're, i believe your plan is to come back at 2:30. >> yes. >> that maybe we could try to work on this amendment? i'm sympathetic to the argument that both of you are making in that this is a huge enterprise. but on the other hand, i'm troubled that bonuses are being given at a time when the postal service is losing billions of dollars a year. and i also wonder if maybe we could cut down the number of people who can be paid at the level of the vice president.

but this is one of the largest enterprises in the united states, so i find i have sympathy with both of your points, and i wonder if we could try to work, since we're going to break, to see if we could come to a meeting of the minds. >> i think that's a constructive idea. the idea, what i'd like to see us do is to align, to the extent that we're paying money say above the capital secretary level, money above that, that should be tied to results. it should be tied to, you know, better performance, better financial performance. and i'm not adverse to doing that. what boils my blood and probably for you as well is when i see companies, big companies, who will pay a boatload of money, millions of dollars, to ceos who lead their companies down the drain. and i am not interested in doing that. we're not talking about paying millions of dollars to somebody to lead the postal service, despite the fact that it's the second largest business in america, but the idea of tying

executive compensation to results, results of which are literally laid out in our bill, and progress toward those results, i think maybe we can work something out. we ought to try to do that over lunch. >> mr. chairman -- >> senator begich. >> that was going to be my same point. i in the same situation, i want to see fair compensation, but the part that bothers me is the bonus component. i mean, we just, you know -- a lot of us signed a letter on the fannie mae and freddie mac bonuses, which, you know, the thing i would caution is we set the metrics that is actually reasonable and good and solid metrics, not like they did at fannie mae and freddie mac. they picked some metrics they could achieve without doing much work and the result was millions in bonuses. we want to attract the right people, we want to attract them for public service, but at the same time, the bonus component is what bothered me, exactly where you were going, susan, was this whole issue of what does that all mean. so, i would recommend the same

thing, take a break and -- >> senator tester, are you willing to hold over until this afternoon? >> absolutely. the problem is going to be that my schedule this afternoon is packed, but jamie wise, my right-hand person or left-hand person, whatever side he's on, will absolutely work with your staffs to try to make this happen. >> fine. and obviously, you'll vote by proxy and you'll have to sign off on any agreement that we make. and i hope we can reach some kind of agreement here. i understand what senator tester is getting at, but i feel like at this moment, with the post master general, for instance, we've talked about the size of it. i don't want to cut his -- taking the bonus off is one thing. it just seems to me he's running a very big operation, he's trying very hard to bring it back into fiscal balance, and it just seems to me like the wrong message to give to him to basically cut his salary. depriving of a bonus is another thing, and we should come back and talk about that. i think we've had a very productive morning. we dealt with some of the really big issues. i think we're going to be able to finish this this afternoon.

senator akaka's amendment on the worker's comp was put forward, as we know, with senator akaka, with the most thoughtfulness and sin seert. it passed -- >> the medicare -- >> i'm sorry, the medicare amendment. i'm sorry it passed with some surprising votes, and it also opposes something that not only the four of us had recommended, but the obama administration had recommended, so the bipartisan support for the president was short-lived here, and we hope that we can regain it. but it does -- it diminishes the savings here by a very substantial amount, and i hope we can come back and reconsider it at some point, if not here, then on the floor. but we've done a lot of good

work, we had good debate. the process is open and i wish you a good lunch and we will reconvene at 2:30.

you can see this program and more on the proposed changes in post office operations. go to our website, c-span.org. click on "video library" and search "postal service." that's your access to c-span's archives and all our related programming. that's at c-span.org. rachael bade covers postal service issues for "congressional quarterly." postmaster general patrick donahoe has said the post office could run out of money by next

fall. why is the postal service in such serious financial shape? >> well, the 200-year-old postal service is going bankrupt because of the internet age, in part. it has too many mailmen, not enough mail to carry, too many post offices and really not enough customers. the most obvious thing is the internet. people these days are paying their bills online. and because of this, the volume of first-class mail has dropped about 20% in the past five years. and with that drop comes a drop in postal service revenues. so, last year, the postal service lost about $5 billion, but it would have lost about $10 billion if congress had not extended the deadline for bills it actually owed the u.s. treasury, and that comes on top of the losses from 2010 as well, $8.5 billion. and donahoe has basically said that revenues are going to continue to drop now, since people are using the internet, rather than licking the backs of stamps and affixing them on envelopes. >> well, senator susan collins of maine, ranking member of the governmental affairs committee,

called the usps financial system "dire." what legislative solution is that committee working on? >> so, that committee actually has a bipartisan bill. it came out of the committee, i believe, in november. and it's expected on the senate floor in the next few weeks. before presidents' day or just after presidents' day. and basically, what that bill would do is it would allow the postal service to recoup a refund from a retirement account to use about $10 billion and take that money and do 100,000 buyouts. right now, the postal service has about 500,000 postal workers, and it has too many, and it needs to downsize. so, basically, they would use that money for about $25,000 buyouts, mostly through attrition. there's going to be a lot of folks retiring. so, they'll be doing that. they would also be phasing outdoor-to-door delivery under this proposal, allowing the

postal service to ship beer and wine, allow people to buy fishing licenses at their local post office, and also consolida consolidate, so closing some offices as well. >> is the postmaster general in agreement with the senate bill? >> the postmaster general has said that he agrees with parts of the senate bill. ideally, he just wants as much flexibility as he can get. and since the postal service is partially government, partially a government agency, it needs permission from congress to do a lot of things. so, he basically supports the buyouts. you know, he would like to move from six-day delivery to five-day delivery, basically eliminating saturday delivery. but the senate bill does not include that provision. they would have to show that they have implemented several other cost-saving measures before they would be allowed to move to five-day delivery under the senate bill. >> in one of your articles, you