we are making the same mistake again. we are telling them what they cannot -- can and cannot do. there are a lot of positives in this bill. and hopefully they wilimprove as we move throughhe amendment process. but i will predict to you that the bill as written now is not going to fix the post office. we will have this back again, and we do not have the luxury of not fixing at this time. i co-sponsored senator mccain's bill not because it is the best solution, but because i think it is better than the one that has been negotiated. i do not like appreciation for what you have come up with as a compromise. i think there is a lot of great stuff in it. but if you want to t the post office out of business, you have to let them do what they know they have to do. you want to get them out of trouble, you have to let them go to a five day week.

the of the thing you will recognize is that people will adjust to five-day delivery. there will not be medicines missed on saturday because they will come in on friday. the question is, do we want to wait five years and allow them to continue to lose money, maybe less, until they fally get to the point where we say, you can run this as a business and it meets the products that you have t there and the demand out there. this is a slow death. we have an opportunity to fix things, to give them the power to do what they need to do. i just think we are not going far enough. that is my worry. i know my view is the minority. i understand that, but i will predict to you are probably will

not be here when we are doing this again -- i probably will not be here when we are doing this again, but he will be doing it again. -- you will be doing it again. that means there is a lot of unpleasant as for us to not allow the post office to close a facility, no matter what amount of heat we take for that. we are saying, you are n capable of making these decisions. we are saying that we would rather not have the political heat. you have to go to five-day delivery quickly. and you need to give them the capability to control their costs. if you do that, and give them other ways to increase their revenue, they will solve the problem, and we will not micromanage.

>> senator, do you want to respond? >> i want to very quickly respond to one point that my friend and colleague made. since he was critical of the 2006 act, which senator carper and i were the lead sponsors of come out in 2005, the gao put the post office on its high-risk list. as a result of the bill that became law that we ought third in 2006, the gao took the -- that we offered in 2006, the gao took the post office off its high-risk list. and immediately following, the postal service did do better as a result of those reforms. and for the first time, we started tackling the huge,

unfunded liabilities of the postal service, which had never been tackled before. are we back in a worse situation now? absolutely, and there are a lot of reasons for that. but the fact is, the gao thought our law was sufficient to remove the postal service from the high-risk list. >> my point was not to be critical. there is no question a lot of positive things came out of that, but it did not fix the problem because we did not go far enough. and you are doing the exact same thing again. if you want the postal service to survive, give them the ability to make the decisions they need to make to survive. let them go to a five-day delivery and let them have the flexibility to open and close facilities that they know need to be opened or closed. anything short of that does not

mean it will not help. it will help. but it will get right back here. if we want them to be able to compete in the market, give them the tools to do so, and the management and authority to succeed. and that does not mean that they do not have a great relationship with their contracts, and it does not mean that they can't skimp on things. but we are keeping them from making the critical decisions that they need to in order to survive. the postal reform of 2006, which was actually a substantial accomplishment, but something else happened. e-mail took off and the postal service has seen a volume of mail drop 22% in the last three years. most of that is due to the

activity of the mail. some of it ias a result of the bad economy. i think postal reform would have achieved more if it was not for the changes in the environment. i think we are giving a lot more authority to the post office -- the postmaster then in the -- a van in the earlier bill, and i think he will use it. senator mccain? >> i have to say, it was predicted that the male and other forms -- thae-mail and other forms of communication would be on the rise. it did not surprise some of us. the problem is, we are seeing an industry that was incredibly important for americans to be able to comnicate with one another for a couple of centuries that now is being taken over by technology the

same way that the horse and buggy business was taken over by the automobile, the same way the bridal business went out of buness. we are seeing technology and communications that no longer require the use of the postal service. the only way the postal service is going to survive is to adjust to the times and be able to make the decisions that every other industry in america had to make as we go to this new technology and information technology that has changed america. it has given rise to dramatically new industries, such as google and facebook and all of the other things. these things were major factors in the arab spring. to somehow place into law prohibitions for this industry

to make the necessary moves to survive, and even thrive -- because there is certainly a role for the postal service in the 21st centu, but it is not the old world. when you say they cannot go to five days a week and you cannot close facilities, you are preventing them from keeping up with the 21st century. i appreciate the 2006 reforms that were made, but the predictions of the time -- and i will be glad to get you the congressional record -- were that wwould never need to address this issue again. well, here we are. i am trying to help the postal service. i am tryi to help them make the decisions that every major industry in america is making today to adjust to the new information age. and when you put into law that they cannot make those decisions, is there anybody that

believes they would not save money by going to a five-day work week? can't they decide whether that is best for the few short of the postal service? or do we in -- for the future of the postal service? or do we, in our wisdom, say, no, you have to continue delivering mail on saturday? wh is $3 tax to most americans, is a fairly sizeable sum -- what is $3 billion tax to most americans, that is a fairly sizeable -- what is $3 billion? to most americans, that is a fairly sizeable sum. the postal service has to, as i say, adopt to changing to the times. again, to make my point, the

average household 10 years ago received by pieces of mail a day. it now gets four pieces of mail today and by 2020, three pieces of mail per day. total mail volume is down from 46 billion pieces since its peak in 2006. first-class mail volume will be 50% off its feet by the year 2020 the mail volume is declining because of the permanent shift to e commerce. let the postal service recognize that and make the necessary adjustments. that is what the president of the united states wants to do. as usual, i am on the side of the president of the united states. [laughter] half the postal service is involved in the delivery and 80%

of the costs are for pay and benefits. again, the u.s. estimate is $30 billion over 10 years. the gao, an organization that we use with incredible regularity and frequency and has more, frankly, credibility than any other organ as ossian in washington today -- organization in washington today said in a report, moving to a five-day workweek would increase efficiency and better align its delivery operations which reduced mail volumes. i would point out that the postal service's plan has a number of steps designed to extend service as much as possib, key post offices open on saturday, and deliver to post offices in volume on

saturday, and deliver express mail each week. i go to town hall meetings all the time and not one town hall meeting where i have been has been a priority to keep saturday mail delivery. it has been about the fact that we continue to tax and spend and borrow. taxpayers in america are on the hook for the postal service, as we all know, in a variety of ways. i hope my colleagues would vote to read these to give the postal service the flexibility to do what is necessary to get back on the path to fiscal stability in very difficult circumstances, and in light of a rapidly changing technology. by the way, i just got one of these new phones. >> i know cindy, and i think she

would like to get a note from you, a handwritten note. [laughter] >> thank you, pal. could i ask for considerati of amendment no. 5, which is five- day mail delivery. >> yes, you may. let me respond briefly. to clarify, senator mccain, this would authorize -- >> mr. chairman, could i interrupt? is it possible for me to speak out of order? we are doing markup on the transportation bill and i need to go vote. >> go right ahead. >> let me remind my friends what i said earlier. ,hee the auto industry com

postal service is a neighbor is similar situation. they need to be able to right- si. while we share their goals, the way that we get there is different. i understand that from the legislation it would allow for of labor contract negotiations. it also sets up a blacklist for closing post office locations. we have been strong supporters over the years, but we do not need a brac-like structured to figure out how to close post offices and other stores. we do not need them to decide

they do not need a 50 dawson doar post -- $50,000 post office. here is what we need to do. we nd to come up with savings, of roughly $20 billion a year, for the postal service. if you have not figured out the tools here, the flexibility we provide, if you have not gotten there within two years, you can go from six days to five days. that is it. i think that is a pretty smart approach. as i said earlier, it gives labor and management the opportunity to see if they can do what those in the auto industry did, and that is, negotiate a deferred wage structure not just to maintain business in this country -- negotiate a different wage structure and not just to

maintain business in this country, but to grow it. it is a huge thing, and i'm still getting my arms and my head are rounded as well. but i think when you get your head around it and i'll let -- and let the postal service do what they need to do, i think you will feel a lot better about this. >> the senator carper, come back soon. very briefly i will post senator mccain's amendment, amendment no. 5. i must say that personally before we begin these negotiations, we should go to the five-day delivery right away. after some discussion, i found there were a some disadvantage to that five-day delivery. from what i understand, we are going to five-day delivery after

two years, unless the postal service can reach the level of savings without it that is their role. i'm doubtful that they can do that without going to five-day delivery. to me, this is easing into something that we will probably have to do in the end. it is a reasonable compromise. is there any further discussion? >> well, let me just say that is there any argument that we could save $3 billion a year? is there any argument that the president believes is is the way to go? is there any argument that the postal service believes this is the way to go? so, let's kick the can down the road for a couple of years. >> senator collins. >> the regulatory commission did an in-depth review of this issue and challenge the postal service's $3 billion estimate.

they found the savings were much less than the postal service had anticipated, d they also found that doing away with six-da delivery would have a disproportionate impact on rural americans who do not have access to broadband services. in fact, there is a counter analysis from the regulator, from the postal regulatory commission. they also warned that it would cause a decrease in volume for the postal service, as the advertisers, newspapers, and other companies sought other means of delivering their notices on surday. >> further debate, senator jn synd >> let me chime in here. -- senator johnson?

>> lumley time in here. the postal service is already competing with the process. we need to make sure that we have exclent management in the post office, people that know how to compete in the private sector. and we need to give those managers the ultimate flexibility. if we try to micromanage from congress, i do not think that is going to work. as i read this amendment, it says that it will allow the postal service to choose. that is the kind of flexibility we need to give those managers in recognizi the fact of we are down from over 200 billion pieces of mail per year to 167 billion. we are designed to handle 300 billion pieces of mail and we are at half that level right now. we have to give them the flexibility to right-size their organizations to they can compete with the private sector.

we should give them the flexibility to allow them to compete with the private sector affectively. i guess i just have a question, a broad question. maybe this evolves around the discussion today. i do not have a clear understanding of the role of the postal service. it the arguments that senator coburn and senator mccain and senator johnson make, if people ca to be in therivate sector and i was talking about what senator carper was talking about with general motors and ford, it is not my job decide about their ability to compete. that is for the private sector to decide and government ought not to get involved. but my question is this -- is there something different about

the postal service? is this not a function of the government to deliver the mail? and is there not some role for congress to play in determining what the basic standard should be? or is th just a private-sector issue that we turn it over to the postal service and let them decide? i know my answer to that when i'm dealing with the private sector, but this is a bit of a hybr for may. decisions were made that the private -- that the post office was supposed to be self- sufficient, and if that is the case, then i guess they make the decisions. but is there something unique about the postal service that says we do determine a role senate.

>> its an important statement. >> it is established in the constitution >> there was an attempt at an earlier reform to make it caused by public and create a certain independence. but its interaction with both the federal government as being part of the federal employees, etc., is deep. it is just a fac. the mill has undercut the volume. -- email has undercut the volume. but there people who depend on

the mail. even though the volume has been going down, our population has been going up and the post office has to deliver to more and more people. maybe somebody wants to ange this, but we have given it by law and derived from the constitution a very unique responsibility, which is universal service. that is a big responsibility. it has been deemed over our history to be very important. we will deliver the mail to you, the post office will deliver the mail to you wherever you are in the country whether or not it is profitable, whether or not it makes sense. if you he a certain sense of uncertainty about i it is just because it is certainly not a private corporation. it is not totally a public function,ut it is more public

than private. likehe rest of our government, we're trying to get it back into fiscal governments. otherwise, it will go under. -- fiscal governance. otherwise, it will go under. >> so we allow them go back to five-day delivery -- if that does not gwork, then we will go to something else. i'm trying to figure out what the rose for the congress. >> i think that we all are. it is a very important principle that the post over -- the postal service will provide mail to anyone in this country where ever they live and we're trying to do it in the most cost- effective way we possibly can. >> am i allowed to respond? >> will you yield?

>> the reason why the post office is in difficulty today is because of competition from the private sector. they are why they are experiencing these massive deficits. they want to continue to be able to serve. they know that there has to be savings and efficiencies enacted because of the overwhelming deficits that they are running. by the way, less and less real mail is being delivered and more and more junk mail is being delivered by the post office. more and more people are using these devices rather than sitting down and writing a letter. so the postal service itself has said that they can be more

efficient, they can get on a path towards less and less cost to the taxpayers of america if they go to a five-day delivery. i am sure there are people who believe that it was the obligation of the government to bail out the horse and buggy industry when automobiles were invented. we are in a year of changing technology. if you think that it is the government's responsibility to stick with mass communication and you think that is the obligation of government -- i do not. i do not think the taxpayers ould be on the hook between -- for $1.1 billion annual because we will stick with six-day postal service delivery. as you said, it is a question

over what you believe the role of government is in our society. if you think it is to maintain six-day delivery no matter what, no matter what declinen il delivery goes on, whether it is necessary, fine. that is obvious how you will vote. >> we are athe fundamentals here and it is important discussion. the question now is on the mccain amendment no. 5. >> senator 11. >> no. >> know. >> senator carv. >> know by proxy. >> senator pryor. >> no. >> senator mccaskill.

>> senator collins. >> no. >> senator brown. >> senator mccain. >> aye. >> senator paul. >> yes. >> senator marin. >> no. >> senator lieberman. >> no. >> on the vote of those present, the yaes are five and the nays are twelve. >> to strike title three regarding fica reform.

leme tell you why i am offering this. fica reform should not be done in postal reform. most employees affected by this are not postal employees and the savings expected from the exchange will have very little effect on the postal service's deficit. fica has not been reforming close to 40 years. we neeto look at comprehensive reform to make sure we get it right and we could include adequate measures to reduce waste and fraud. there are complex issues related to the appropriate benefit levels that deserve more analysis before we cut benefits. in a hearing held in july, the

witnesses raised serious concerns with reducing fica benefits, particularly at retirement age. employees may not be able to say for a deduction in income because of social security and other savings plan. a group of memberin the house education which has jurisdiction on fica and the house, they are reviewing retirement age benefits to determine fair benefit amnts. include a review in state workers' comp program, which could prompt changes to the

federal program. if we act prematurely, we may fixed benefit levels too low, harming, disabling employees and even too high. we must make sure not to make arbitrary cuts to benefits that could harm employees disabled by ailments sustained in serving their country. elderly disabled employees, if we pass this section as part of postal reform, it also will create jurisdictional problems in the house where all of a sudden the government reform is part of postal governance. it will also benefit from the

input of house education and workforce committee staff who have been focusing on this issue. these are reasons why i am asking that the strike it. mr. chairman, i offer the amendment no. 1. >> thank you. interestingly, the administration through the the thent of labor felt amendment was moving so well. employees for workers' compensation, this parcular provision for thilegislation relates to all federal employees, not just to employees

of the postal service. this is numerically justified because -- this is one of the ways in which the postal service is cause i separation because the independent and a -- this is one of the ways in which the postal service is q uasi-independent. it happens to be responsible for 40% of the caseload. senator collins will note for the record that we feel that the program now needs tightening. it is more generous than we can afford. i think we have done it in a way that does not fall below the standard of those workers compensation programs in

america, including most states. and we will save some money. thank you for your leadership on this one. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to point out that their reason that this is a government-wide reform is that the director >> of the obama administration -- the direct request of the obama administration, the largest number of works when comp claims are made here. the obama administration argues that they do not want to treat postal workers differently from other federal employees. so that is the rationale for why it applies across the board. we have needed workers' comp reform in the federal system for many years. that has been documented by countless ig reports.

there is a gao investigation going on right now. each time you take a fraudulent case off of the roles, it saves between $300 dollars -- $300,000 and $500,000. there are real inequities between postal workers and other federal workers who have lived their whole lives and then retire and get a lesser benefit than someone who stays on workers' comp, past retirement age, and is able to get a higher benefit that is tax-free.

that is why the vast majority of states do not allow this. i uld note to my colleagues and friends from hawaii that the percentage of 66 and two-thirds that we're proposing in the law is identical to percentage that is paid for benefits in hawaii and 39 other states. so these are not draconian changes. many of them, nine of the s changes, are identical to what was proposed by the obama administration. since then no there was a letter that was circulated this morning as an example of a person whom the senator was concerned about, would be somehow treated

unfairly, under the provisions of our bill, the prison guard case that you circulate, this person would be grandfathered and would see no reductions in benefits whatsoever. so we worked very hard to come up with a fair approach. this involves substantial money. the postal service would strongly support this changes. it pays out more than $1 billion each year for workers' comp claims. we need better programs to rehabilitate people and get them back to work. that should be our goal, to help people be out for the shortest possible time ando help them get the recovery and the rehabilitationhat they need so that they can return to work.

that is what our bill does. i think it is important that we enacted so i propose the amendment. >> what with the savings be of the $1 billion a year? >> the estimate is that it would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars across the board. i am sorry, hundreds of millions of dollars. i cannot believe i said hundreds of thousands. [laughter] no wonder you looked at me like that. each person that you can return , the long-term savings are between $300,000 and $500,000. >> who is grandfathered? >> we would grandfather totally

people who are currently on the lls who are totally disabled and have what is called a permanent total disability. so there would be no change. >> what percentage currently of people on the roles could be grandfathered? >> about a quarter of the people on the rolls. i also wanted to know that president obama's proposal, which of which we have inc., the omb says it will save $500 million in 10 years.

>> $500 million over 10 years. that was the obama administration's estimate for across-the-board savings. >> we actually believe that this proposal will save more than that. although, it has not been fun nationally -- it has not been financially estimated. we're giving something to the super committee as it works in striking a balance. >> keep in mind that the postal employees are proportionally represented in that pool. that is why there are more savingthat would accrue to the postal service. >> further debate? senator carpenter, would you like to respond? >> in the case of reductions at retirement age, i find that 30 states do not have any

reduction at retirement age. but there are complex issues related to the appropriate benefit level that should be analyzed before we act. whe there was discuion of women's comp during the day in 2006, since that time, this coittee has not considered a single bill on workers' compensation reform, nor have there bany hearin on workmen's compensation until the hearing that was held this july where was the only member that participated. there are three different reports pending that would help chges to fica.

they're looking at thprecise qutions regarding benefit levels. it is time to work with you and with the committee and were gone workmen's compensation reform. but we cannot hold all the survival of the postal service hostage on workmen's compensation changes. the benefit levels too low for disabled members and we should

be cautious not to make arbitrary cuts that could hurt those who are permanently disabled in the service of this country. >> just three quick points. the inspector general of the department of labor has reviewed this program every single year since 2002. it has said that the reforms, that reforming the system is needed. second, the reason that states do not have a retirement problem for what to do when a person reaches retirement age is that the vast majority stay and limit

the number of weeks that they can receive workmen'comp. it is very rare for someone to reach retirement age. there is a weekly limit that we do not have been the federal system and we're not proposing one. finally, the treatment for people over retirement age for renew people who are coming into the system when they reach retirement age in this bill is identical to the proposal of president obama. so this is not just a republican idea. it is the president's proposal >> president obama is getting a lot of bipartisan support this morning. [laughter] >> it is very heartening. >> the department of labor has an admitted that the changes to benefit amounts in their proposal is somewhat arbitrary.

round numbers based on rough calculations. oddly, the basis to determine what elderly disabled people will have to live on for the rest of their lives. as i mentioned, gao has a bipartisan reque pending to look at retirement age to determine benefit amounts. this is in response to the administration's proposal. it is not clear that there's contains responsible changes to benefits. we simply do not have the information we need to decide the fair benefit levels. i think what we're doing is premature and offer this amendment. >> thank you. would you like a roll call vote on this?

>> yes. >> the clerk will call the roll on the amendment no. 1. >> senator a cauc akaka. >> yes. >> senator lender. >> no instruction. >> senator tester. >> yes. >> senator collins. >> no. >> senator coburn. >> know by proxy. >> senator mccain. >> know by pxy. >> senator johnson. >> jo. >> senator paul. >> no. >> senator marin. no. >> senator maryanlieberman. >> no.

-- on this vote, the yeas are 5nd the nays are 11 and the amendment does not pass. >> thank you. i think you'll go to senator johnson and then mccaskill then paul. they all have amendments pending. senator johnston, your up next. >> i would like to offer johnson amendment no. 1 and only. like my colleague from kansas, i am new to this process. as i studied the issue this is an eye-popping chart that gao should study back in 2010.

when you total live up to the year 2020, it ends up being $250 billion. it is a quasi-governmental agency, but we will be the hook for those. my amendment recognizes my concern about the $6.9 billion referred to as an overpayment. i think the overpayment is primarily the result of the recalculation based on actuarial functions, which can change. when you take at -- when you take a look at an overpayment in a pension fund, i like that there is a question there, particularly with growing concerns like the u.s. postal service light it does not. you want to make sure that those retirement systems are properly funded and have a little bit of

a surplus. the fact that we're trying to -- other than the fact that we're trying to spend the surplus. my amendment would allow the postal service to offer up to 1- year service for individuals in the civil service retirement system and, of the two years for encouraging retirement. i understand the rationale to use retirement to reduce the workforce. but we're spending a retirement surps, which would be a good buffer. i think we passed out a sheet. we went to the office of personnel management to receive what kinds of cases could potentially result in. the range is eye-popping. according to this sheet, it could be as low -- as low was a $6,000 benefit and as high as two hundred $80,000 benefit to an individual. i just do not think that, in the time that we are running $1

trillion deficits and the postal service is looking at a 10-year annual deficit that we should be offering something that is unprecedented. office of personnel management has stated that this is an unprecedented payout to individuals and it could unfortunately act as an incentive to a future areas where we are trying to reduce the government work force to handle it the exact same way. that is why i offer my amendment and i would urge people to support it. >> thank you. i appreciate the amendment. obviously, one of the major responsibilities that the postal service has now is, by necessity, to reduce the level of employment. 80% of the cost is personnel. it is much higher than fedex and

ups. but this is a different kind of initution and it has the requirement of universal service. it does need more personnel. in fact, the network that it has to deliver to the so-called mile" is a benefit so great that others purchase of the services of the u.s. postal service for the delivery of that last mile. unions have actually cooperated with some significant reductions in workforce. but we need more. there have been some suggestions that we should legislate to override existing contracts, collective bargaining agreements, to allow in voluntary departures from the

postal service. but we thought that that was not a fair thing to do. working with the postmaster general, we create this system of incentives, basically a bonus to retire of not more than $25,000 and not at the request of the postmaster to add "either/or" for those eligible for retirement and savings will be enormous. as you say, it does mean that it should be spent. the estimates are that this program to cut the workforce of the postal service by an additional 100,000 employees

will probably consume about a third, maybe less, a third of the money of the refund from the first pension system. there will still be two-thirds of that as a cushion. cost-effective over the long run was to except the suggestion -- was to accept the suggestion of encouraging people to retire and the savings will be much greater than what they cost. i appreciate your point. they are thoughtful and i respectfully vote for the reasons i have stated. >> as the chairman of the new sheet -- the other negotiators,

it was a far more generous proposal that was originally proposed to us. that is why we kept it at one year, service credit for the c srs program and two years for the first program. keep in mind that the postmaster general will determine what is offered within the confines of a set of money. the postmaster general has told us that he believes that it will be approximately $1.7 billion that would be used for the buyout program to reduce the total workforce by almost 20%. he is talking about 100,000 to 110,000 employees. i felt giving him this limited

flexibility makes sense because we have essentially a tap on the ogram as a whole. i will also note that crs ran the numbers and had a different result then you have come up with. i know you're sort of opm and take a worst-casecenario, but one that could happen. i hope before we go the floor that we can try to reconcile why crs comes up with a different number than opm does. >> thank you, senator kaulitz. >> i am sorry. one other point. -- senator collins. >> i am sorry. one other point. >> go ahead. >> in some cases, the credit would not exceed the monetary pet, which is capped at $25,000.

>> is that something we can work towards, a $25,000 total compensation cap? i think you were referring to the cash payout versus the service payout, which could be quite higher, correct? >> yes. >> let me just stojump in here. the bonus payments that might be offered and the credit service, neither of those should be more than $25,000? you can only have one. employees have to decide whether they will get the cash payment or the credit services. we can make it clear that you cannot take both their either one cannot exceed $25,000. >> that is not the information i have. i would feel better that it was capped at $25,000 whichever way

you do it. >> senator johnson, i think we shld continue to work on this. did limit -- you are right, we limited the service credit to one yearf credit if you're in the c.s. irs -- the csrs system. we will continue to work on it becae there was a general understanding that this was an either/or and that the net financial effect would be the same. that is the limit of $25,000. if not, you should be open about that and make a judgment that it is worth it or it is not. it will leave it to you if you want to go forward with a vote

in any case. but i think you raise a good point. >> if you're willing to work with me before it comes upon the floor, that is fine. we can vote on it and just work toward making sure there is a cap. >> if for some reason we do not reach an agreement, then you are free to introduce an amendment on 4. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> -- an amendment on the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would like to ask a couple of questions. i have two amendments.

first, on amendment no. 2, the issue of comparable compensation, i want a little discussion from whoever on how to arbored great a deal on the wage issues -- to arbitrate a deal on the wage issues. the issue for me and i can only speak as a former mayor who negotiated contracts and someone who was on the other side, a legislator, who does not work for city bankers. i have been on both sides. here's what can happen with a large organization like this. the demonstrators take studies that are developed on a mass scale which have a sizable amount of small businesses which they then tried to compare to something of this magnitude, which is very problematic. or they take industries of non-

like industries and compare them. lp me unrstand what the product -- the thought process is behind it. what is the thinking behind it? when i was on the management and, we ma sure that we compared like to like. we did not include small businesses because they are just not the same kind of compensation packages that you can prepare when you're going to an arbitration. does my question make sense? >> know, next question. [laughter] >> in that -- no, next question. >> [laughter] >> in that case, i have amendment no. 2. >> the folks from labor may say

that we tnk the patient be comparable to pay for fire, for police,or first responders, maybe for the cstruction industry. folks on the management side can agree or they can say, well, not really. maybe think -- maybe we think is to be more like on the retail side. there may be an argument as to whether or not the work is comparable. at the end of the day, they changed sides given the output from both camps. i presume that ther i some kind of case history. of course they have that sort of thing. maybe they have some case history that builds up over time. but that is the way that i am told that it works. >> part of my conversation is

that i want to be on the record. i couldrobably dispense with both of these potentially. >> go ahead. >> i want to make sure that we're clear that the process you laydown will develop over time and we have to be very careful when we are in the process that management does not pick -- again, i was an assembly member who dealt with a mayor who picked small businesses that paid no benefits and said that this is with the private sector pays, which is totally irresponsible in building pay packages. that is what i see in the building of this and i want to put that on the record. amendment no. 1, this is much trouble with this one. it is very broad the way it is written in the current bill. but me read you something and then get a response from both.

in the municipal law that we drafted -- there is to ways to do this. you leave it kind of broad and hope that there recognize these other things. this is how we did it in the city and had long term success. there will have power to determine all adequate fax, the facts.s -- adequate back it to the drafters of this, do you see that as a piece of how you see this broader discussion of how an arbitrator reviewed items in determining the outcome of wages and benefits? >> go ahead. >> can i ask you what you were reading from?

>> what i read was what we did in the municipal code in our labor law. when it went to arbitration, the big debate was what is included and what is not included. what we want to be -- what we want to do is being somewhat prescriptive. the with the bill as written, it is kind of broad so an arbitrator can select. are these the kinds of things you envision, not limited to, that the arbitrator would utilize in the determination of wage and benefits. if that is the thought process behind the language, i want to make sure that that is on record. if it does not, then it is problematic. these are the kinds of things that we now have i he negotiated in my time nine different union contracts. we were to avert -- we worked

over 20 union contras over a 20-year spread. i want to know what are the benefits behind the language. >> if we go back 41 years when your predecessor was involved, one of the reasons that the postal service was created is that the pagwage benefits was na good thing. the wages were lousy and the benefits for a lousy. people called in sick and it was not a good situation. we decided to move from the old

system to a postal service, which was designed in professionalizing it and paying people decent wages. there is a line that says we cannot go back prior to 1970. looking at the language before us in the bill today on arbitration says that -- we are looking and another two hundr billion dollars if we do not that the arbitrator has to consider the position of the postal service. we are talking about the compatability.

both sides have thepportunity and then the arbitrator decides on a case-by-case basis. title 39 is pretty broad and lays out how the postal service will operate all kinds of different ways. it basically says that not only is the financial condition of the post of party -- of the postal service is part and parcel, but the benefits situation is on the table. looking at turng -- a title 39, broad as it is, it is a lot. >> if i can just quickly respond, it is a good question. the language in our proposal, we went over a fair amount. of it is thating i

it broadens the authority of the arbitrer on a wider array of factors that are relevant to arbitration. and then we site 3. the final condition of the postal serce, pay comparable it, and everythinin title 39 of the u.s. code which relates to the personalervice -- to the postal service. it is different from your amendment. five understand what you're getting at. your amendment says that nothing in the settlement construe the factorin rendering a decision. to me, that's as they can go beyond relevant factors. so the wording of our proposal is "in rendering a decision, the arbitration board shall consider such relevant factors as" and then it mentions the

three. it is not limited to those three. it tells you the difference between the language and the substitute before the committee and your amendment is the word "relevant," that factors have to be relevant to the arbitration. >> let me give you a scenario to make sure, again. let's assume they are at a point where they are in a hard position financially, worse than today. a contract gs through negotiations and the arbitrator says they deserve these pay adjustments upward. and you -- and yet the post office may not have the full resources. does your language say that that

takes precedent over the other component, whi is the compensation. do youollow me? like today, if an arbiter look at it and said that is the predominant decision on the financial condition versus the compensation of the employee, now you have a significant conflict. it if -- if it is driven by this, i can tell you what will happen. i have seen it. people will drive this number in order to win over a year. i want to make sure there is some equity in recognizing the forces of management to manage, not just to put on the backs of employees. do you follow where i am going >> -understanding is that those three items that we site, those relevant factors, are not exclusive. >> they are not limiting.

>> they are not -- all relevant factors. one does not preempt the other. we mentioned financial condition of the postal service as one because we want to make clear we believe that that is something that the arbitration board should consider. the postmaster has said to was that, in his understanding, the arbitrator is already considering the fiscal condition of the postal service in their arbitrations -- not that it is a good thing to stated, but i tend to think that to be more important than the other two examples given. that is a personal expression of what my intentions are. >> the original bill that i ha introduced only had financial status of the postal service. to address concerns that you and some of the postal employees

unions raised, we made clear the comparability was also a standard. that is important because of their work arbitrators' decisions on both sides of that issue. so now that that is in law, it is clear. rper wantednator car pe to make it more clear with any of the issues in total 39 also considered. where i started out, this is far, far broader. it represents a considerable compromise. because it clarify is conflicting findings in previous arbitration, i think it does accomplish some of the goals that you have outlined.

>> mr. chairman. >> yes, senator 11. >> i think what he is driving at and can be clarified by putting into this language what you, mr. chairman, just said, that it is not limited to theseelevant .actors no apparen any relevant factor can be considered. the arbitration board shall consider any relevant factor, including these three. i think that is what you said. i think that would address his point. and from what senator collins said, i am not quite as sure about making this statement. >> senator levin, read it again. >> i apologize. >> yes, this is technical stuff. in rendering a decision under

this paragraph, this is the way the current wording of the bill is "the arbitration board shall consider such relevant factors the senatort i think senato said and with the chairman said is intended is that "shall consider any relevant factor," including those three. back to the debate over "including." >> are there any other relevant factors that the chairman said beyond these three? if so, they ought to be considered. >> i do not think of any. the reference to all of title 39 leaves it quite broad.

the reason why weut the word "relevant" in is so that in normal arbittor would not go too faafield. >> another way to cure it is if the senator would be willing to put the word "relevant" in front of the word "ctors" in his amendment so that it will not be construed to mean the relevant factors of arbitration will be taken into consideration to render a decision. >> my understanding of your amendment is that you are not striking our language, but you are adding yours. >> i want as much clarification because here is what i will say if i am postmaster general, in arbitration. the senate and the house said the these are the only relevant issues.

he has the word "relevant" rick they are. >> i would like to give time to the folks you're drafted -- >> can i ask your question? would that be adequate for you, if the word "relevant" would be put in front? >> i agree with what you said. here are three and then 39 covers a lot of area, which does not bother me. but i want to keep this show moving. >> i think senator kaulitz mike -- >> yes, yes. >> you want more time. >> can we do that? >> yes, come back this afternoon. we can handle it by then. if not, we will e where we are. it is an important discussion provide i think it will clarify intention and that would be important.

i am sorry, but i have to go to senator paul. [laughter] i am not sorry to go to you, senator paul. [laughter] >> thank you, and move it along. this is a man and no. 1 and this would provide flexibility in mailbox age. this will grant the individual who owns the house and mailbox that would go with the decision of the owner of the property on how to use the mail box. it will allow you to use your mail box as you see fit. if you bought it and paid for it, you can do with it what you wish. >> say a little bit more about what your intention is here. [laughter] >> what are you up to?

>> i guess it goes back to magna card and 1218 and we will start there. [laughter] i think it was article 57 of the that anyone would not be deprived of their property without just then due process. i think the anomaly of the confli of the concept that you own your property but you do not owner mailbox. >> am i correct in saying that one result of the passage of this amendment would be that alternative delivery service can use the mail box? >> back in the old days, back in the 1970's, people would destroy he post office because you would have first class mail as

such a great thing to have. it does not seem that first class mail is all the possible. it would solidify and codify the idea that private property is private property and that the individual has the right to exercise the decisions on how to use private property. >> here is part of a problem that i see with this. you are reviewing it from the point of view of property, but the effect of the passage of this amendment would be to further hurt, may be crippled the finances of the post office. one result would be that private operations, which in some sense are trying to supplant the

postal service, could basically a cherry pick the most lucrative routes and services and a private postal service, which as you said earlier, is bound by the constitutional, legal, statutory requirement of universal delivery, no matter where you live, and make it harder for the post office -- the postal service to survive financially. it also leads to an -- and also lead to an increase in rates paid by citizens in the mail paid by the soap --he postal service. >> i do not think this changes the laws, but i do want into the record that you are opposing article 57 of the magna carta. [laughter] >> i'm not sure the united

states constitution would establish this. >> it is interesting that the mail was part of the constitution, but it did not say in the constitution that your mailbox did not belong to you and you could not decide who could put things in your mailbox. it does go against the grain of the usage of private property. it illustrates the point and that is why i brought it forward. let people buy the house and decide where you stand. >> is their discussion? >> mr. chairman, i agree with your concerns. i think what would happen, particularly in urban areas, is that alternative carriers would do a of these less-expensive routes and the rural areas would be left to the postal service. that inevitably would do -- would cause a decline in volume and inevitably would cause an

increase in rates. i do not think this is a good idea. i hope we will oppose the amendment. >> i think that might have been true in the 1970's and 1980's when anybody thought they could make money doing this. i do not think anybody thinks they can anymore. it is probably impossible to make money at 47 cents. but even though we have the prescription at the mailbox, i get fedex thrown on my doorstep they bring the doorbell and they are gone, whether i am there are not. i do not think any one of them will compete at 47 cents. they might compete at a three day or four day deleries. this is more about the philosophy of private property then it is about -- i do not think it wouldhange anything. i do not think anyone wants to get into first-class mail delivery. i do not think it is probable. >> would you like a couple

called? -- i do not think it is profitable. >> would you like a roll call? >> yes. >> i would pejoratively say the argument here is whether you live like to stand by our own constitution, or some other document. [laughter] >> which b the way, discriminates against women. [laughter] >> the some might argue that the constitution would somehow derived -- [laughter] >> toomey, more seriously, this amendment raises the financial risk at a perilous time financially for the post office. the clerk will call the world. >> senator levin. >> no. >> senator a kupka. >> no. >> senator carper. >> no. >> the senator dreier.

>> know. -- no. >> ok, no instruction. >> senat mccaskill to say nong instruction. maybe will pass until we have clarity about the proxy's. i do not want to answer for a colleague without them being here. >> the senator webb tester. >> we are going to pass again. the senator has a no vote. >> centre baggage. >> no. >> senator collins. >> no. >> senator coburn. >> know by proxy. >> senator brown. >> know by proxy. >> senator mccain. >> i by proxy.

the -- i, by proxy. -- aye, by proxy. >> senator maryann. >> aye. >> senator lieberman. >> no. >> ask the court -- the clerk to go back to the senators we ask? senator mccaskill is no by proxy. >> and senator brown just appeared, so rather than his voting by proxy -- >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are two, the nays are 7. on a vote of by proxy, the gays are four, -- the yeas are four

and the nays are four. >> senator pryor. >> i think senator landrieu wanted it did -- it to be noted napoleonicoted by cod code. [laughter] maybe we have not passed one yet. maybe ne will be non- controversial deal. i would like to ask the senator mccaskill be added as a co- sponsor. >> this is which one? >> amendment no. 2. >> ok, amendment no. 2. >> what is says is whenever the postal regulatory commission makes recommendations throu

their advisory process that the postal service would have to respond inriting and say how they are implementing the recommendations, or if they are not, why the are not implementing those recommendations. i think this is high -- this has been an issuover the years that the prc will make recommendations, but oftentimes, the postal service just ignores them. this is more transparency and accountability. i do not think we need a roll- call vote. >> did you put this as a straightforward amendment? >> i did. >> i support this. >> thank you. >> further discussion? >> it would also be apopate for the prc to be giving answers to the postal service at times as well. i do not have enough time to go through the history of that and try to amend your amendment, but it is true for the postal service.

what is accurately set forth need to be true for the postal rate commissioand the things that they are responding to when they do not think the postal service makes decisions. i will just make that a comment and support your amendment. >> thank you, senator levin. for the discussion? if not, all in favor? those opposed? the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. senator mariann. -- moran. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i have one amendment and it deals with rural post offices. the reality, i suppose, is there are some post offices that have outlived their usefulness, their viability. but the reality is that others have not. i have yet to see the criteria by which the postal service reaches a conclusion as to which which ones remain viable and which ones do not.

the postal service announced this year but the potential closing of 3700 post offices. 134 are in a state of kansas. a significant number, b probably not in ordinate compared to other numbers in the senate. we have attended, staff of mine, have attended 90 of those closing mean-spirited i cannot think of an itance in which any member of the community -- of those closings. i cannot think of an incident in which any member of the committee goes to those meengs and comes to it -- comes away with an idea of a plan in place as to whyheir post office was chosen, or as to anything the community can do about it. it seems to me we have the postal service going to the motions of conducting these etings and explain to a community that their post offices on the list, for whatever reasons that

representative explains. and almost without exception, whate is no answer as to wh someone can do about there is no answer. this amendment creates a set of criteria that the postal service must use in conjunction with the postal rate commission. it sets out the criteria tt the postal service should ntent -- consider as the basic services. and perhaps, it goes to the question i waseading earlier -- is there not some standard by which we would expect the postal service to provide to americans across the country, perhaps in a number of days, but in this case communities, rural versus suburban, what the standard

should we have four basic minimum service? at this -- and this speaks to those national retail standards and take into account those four things in my geography, proximity of the postal service to customers, and the maximum amount ofime and customer should be expected to travel, the population factors, density, age, demographics, requirements to serve rural areas such as alaska or hawaii that may have needed regard to transportation. and to make sure that the postal service looks at available retail areas that are in the areas served by the postal service, again, in the nature of the community. many constituents of mine will attend one of these meetings and come away wondering why our town was chosen and not a town down

the road. this sets a criteria for which we have some level of ability to determine why us and not somebody else. but more importantly, it creates the opportunity to then appeal that decision based upon the criteria to the postal rate commission. in addition, this amendment requires the postal service to look at other options, such as shortening the length of hours for the local post office. for example, having a postmaster therefore fewer hours and during the workday -- vera for fewer hours during the workday. the concept that is out there foco-locating with a local school or restaurant or a grocery store, in order, again, to save costs. and finally, this amendment -- that is the nature of the amendment and i would indicate the effective date of this

amendment is upon enactment. and the language of the amendment, and therefore the language if adopted would say it applies to post office is currently under consideration. they would become subject to the criteria we have now created. in my view, it is a pretty straightforward -- created transparent process, determine what levels of service are to be expected, determine what a post office in a community meet those standards, give the community a chance to disagree, and have a more independent agency determine whether or not the postal service has followed that procedure. >> thank you, senator, for all of your work on this amendment. senator brown. >> in response to the self-

proclaimed new guy, thank you for your thoughtful amendment. it is something that we wrestled with for many hours to t to get a good compromise because it is not the first time we have heard it. i think it has affected every senator in congress in their states. obviously, i think you have more than most. it is certainly something i agree with. i think a bipartisan memberof the commission agreed and ask it would taken up. do you need a role call? >> i would ask for one. >> i want to thank you for the work you did on this. i think is a good amendment and i'm going to support it. the postal service has a lot of post offices, more probably than it can afford now. one of the numbers i haveeen about the ptal service that startles me is that it has more retail outlets, if you can put it that way, then starbucks,

wal-mart, and mcdonald's combined. we have got to close some post offices. i have been through this a few times in connecticut, and here again, this is not a typical business. there was one case in a small town years and years ago where the postal service here in washington tried to close the post office and on a shirt -- a sheer numbers basis, they were right. but that little post office was not only important to the businesses and the people in town, but there was also a sense that it had become a community center. people would go down and pick up the mail, they would chat. it is very difficult to close post offices, b it is necessary to do that now. and i want to stay for the record -- senator mccain said something earlier, which is that this bill will stop the closing

of post offices by the postal service's, and it will not. including with your amendment, it creates what i would say are somef plummet -- are some thoughtful due process for closing the post offices. and i think it would be good instead of closing a post office to consider reducing the number of hours or serces, or providing services through a rural carrier. i think this is a very balanced amendment. theoesn't, in the end, stop postmaster from doing what it thinks is necessary to keep the post office is going, but it creates some reasonable due process before post offices are

closed. i support the amendment and thank you for the amendment. >> first, let me commend the senatofor his work on this amendment and what he has tried to do. i have one question, and that is if you referenced the appeal to the regular tour commission. where is tha >> i'm sorry. senator paul was visiting with me about the magna carta. [laughter] >> i do not want to miss the recommendation because i think this is a very important piece of work and i think you are on track to reaching an important point. where is the reference to the appeal to the prc? what page or line is that on? >> answe forthcoming. >> ok.

>> i believe that has to do with the service stanozol -- service standards. >> the staff is kind enough to tell me that anytime the service standard is violated if there is a peak -- an appeal to the post of regulatory service. >> it is already in law? >> correct. >> secondly, that would be that any post office that is proposed to close after these standards are adopted could make an appeal on the basis but the standards ever adopted by this piece were violated. >> that is true, and it is affected -- effective upon its enactment. but it also includes those post office is currently being considered by the post office today. >> it includes them, but is not

limited to them. >> it is not >> the words "market dominant products" on page 3, i'm not sure what that means. if their market competitive products, would that not be good enough? >> if i may, that is a term of art within the arce post a world. the products are defined in different categories. for example, products where the postal service is the only provider of, such as first class mail, is one category. products where there are packages competing with ups and sex are another category. those are terms that -- and fed ex. are another category. those are terms that actually mean something.

>> changes that affect the universality of the service, in essence. in other words, is that with the term is intended to mean? -- is that what the term is intended to mean? services other than market dominance, they do not have to do service standards other than that? >> this is one where we want to call an expert witness. it is a good question. and maybe the deputy postmaster or somebody from his team would like to respond. would you like senator levin to repeat the question? >> know, i've got it. -- no, i've got it. >[unintelligible] it goes back to the service. that is all. >> and market domenick products

are? >> those not covered by first class mail. [unintelligible] >> i would just like to commend senator moran. thank you for the leadership you have taken. you have shown us this is the way it is supposed to work. we know this is suppod to stem the bleeding and we know they ve more post offices, and we also know they can provide good service to folks in these communities. we could have somebody there to sell stamps several times a day. we can have rural letter carriers. we have had some say if you have

a rural letter carrier, just be there when you want to buy stamps. that is not very convenient. but how about where they take a lunch break? or maybe a convenience store down the road, or a drug store. i visited a drugstore in the chicago area, walgreen's as a matter of fact, and they ha a post office. this is a new generation of pharmacy. there are a lot of alternatives. the question should not be -- the goal should not be how we closed a post offices, but you do -- but to provide good service and cost effectively. >> i have had wonderful conversations with both the son of -- senator clins and senator carper as well as my

otherolleagues. would it be appropriate for me to ask the postmaster general or the postal service to confirm i understand in that they are not going to rush out and closed post offices while this legislation is pending? they're going to let this take effect? >> you are not here under subpoena -- [laughter] but do you want to answer? >> the postmaster general has agreed [unintelligible] >> senator moran, we did specifically raise that issue with the postmaster general when we raise the issue that you thoughtfully brought forward. >> thank you. and to conclude, and to shorten the day, i will withdraw my request for roll-call.

but i do want to point out one more fact. as we try to find savings within the postal service, at least with the postal rate commission, you can close 10,000 of the smallest post offices in the country and effectuate savings equal to seven tenths of 1% of the revenue of the post office. while it is important to find every nickel and dime, there really is a much bigger picture here that we do not -- that we need to make sure we do notose sight of. as a member that represent a pretty rural state, i want to make certain that rural america is not the target for savings exclusively. we want to share our burden and responsibility with others. but seven tenths of 1% is the expected savings in closing 10,000ost offices. this amendment, in my view, a the chairman indicated, is a reasonable opportunity for us to

demonstrate the need of post offices across the nation. >> i am reluctant to do this, but an amendment to this important that has good bipartisan support, i think is important to have a message of a strong will call to the pet -- to the postal service that we do not want them to be closing post offices during this. >> do you want to look at my list? [laughter] >> i will not ask for a roll- call vote. >> we have at least fou republicans voting for it. i think is bipartisan. >> i will not ask for one, but others have that right. >> i will not ask for one if you prefer not to have one. >> i have no preference, as the junior member. >> i asked for a roll-call vote. >> the clerk will call the world.

>> senator levin. . aye. akaka. senator a >> no. roll] clerk calls worl

mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are, the nays are zero. of those by proxy -- the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you. senator carper mentioned the word of lunch break earlier and it has stuck with me. we want to keep it going. you have other amendments? >> i have no other amendments, mr. chairman. >> ok, thank you. senator levin, i believe, h passed, and we will go to senator akaka for an amendment. >> olike to offer akaka 5. it is an amendment on medicare. i would like to come back to

workers' compensation oanother time, but not now. now i would like to turn to health care. >> ok. e crux my amendment is to strike the provisions -- >> my memo is to strike the provisions requiring workers to enroll in medicare parts "a" and "b" if they are eligible and replacing their current plan with a not yet negotiated plan. i understand the post office estimates it will save $15 billion from theserosions, but as far as i know, they have not provided anything to support that particular claim. opm, which is much more extensive health care

experience, does not believe this will save. believes it will incur further cross. additionally, this will shift costs to the medicare program, which has serious financial chalnges already. for this reason, mr. chairman, the finance committee staff supports this amendment. the provisions in this bill could also create jurisdictional problems. i am also concerned that the current provisions could incur a cost on retirees. we are requiring postal retirees to pay more than $1,100 per year in medicare part b

premiums with no guarantee of how much that will be offset in savings by the new medigap pls. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike the provisions requiring postal retirees to enrolled in medicare parts "a" and "b" if they are eligible. >> thanks, senator. respectfully, i will oppose a man and no. 5 -- amendment no. 5. this does allow the postal service to take steps regarding the cost of the post will have your service, not only as private employers, but even the most public entities that i know of, for example, state

governments, have taken steps to reduce the cost of health care for their employees. the sections that senator akaka's amendment would strike direct them to require medicare eligible retirees to enroll in medicare parts a"a and "b" and also to develop parts in the medicare plan for postal retirees and their dependents. this is an amendmenthat we can are how much it will save. it will save a significant amount of money for the postal service, which is critically needed now. if alter the benefit packa of

the postal employees and retirees, but we still think it maintains a level of health care coverage that we tnk is still quite favorable to those 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. and we discussed that with the postmaster and he is confident that they would achieve the savings, that he is willing to be put under the requirement. for those reasons, this is an important part of the legislation and what the legislation states would be dramatically undercut if senator adopted.mendment is >> i just want to emphasize your last point. the postal service estimates that this provision would

reduce its costs by $15 billion. as senator akaka has pointed out, opm says it is uncertain that is the case. that is why we included specific language in the substitute amendment that would allow opm and the postal service to scrap the program if they agreed that it would not save the postal service money. there is a safeguard, if you will, that has been built into the language. begitch?or berdyc >> has there been an assessment of what this will cost of folks? my assumption is that if one save one pays. >> folks are paying in

medicare now. in some ways, they are paying twice. they are paying into medicare when they are active employees, and if they do not enroll in medicare part "b" or "d"they are not getting the benefit of the payroll deductions of the years made by employees and the postal service and they are, instead, getting the federal plan. in a way, they are paying twice. >> right, but i guess my question is, when you now require them to take the benefit -- they are not taking it now. it is actually a bonus to medicare. i am taking a different hat on for a second. it is like free crash -- free cash flow for medicare without having to pay out.

have the medicare folks responded in any way on the impact that this would have or not have? i do not know the answer to this question. >> i do not believe the committee has had any response. you are askin whether there has been any response from medicare of ministers -- medicare ers.ster wors we are saying that this quasi-- public entity, medicare, to have the right but others do, which is to take advantage of the medicare program. but in this case, i think the priority has to be to rescue the postal service, even though it at some cost to medicare. >> thank you. >> senator akaka?

>> 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 this. opm runs one of the largest health-care entities in the country with about $40 billion in total cost. i have not seen the postal service analysis for how they believe this will save money for them. estimatest opm's cost more than i do the postal service. >> ok, further discussion? senator akaka, would you like a roll call? >> yes. >> the clerk will call the roll on amendment no. 5. >> the senator levin. >> aye, by proxy.

>> senator akaka >> aye. >> the center prior -- senator pryor. senator landrieu. begitch.ag senator collins. said mr. cockburn. >> aye, by proxy. >> senator brown. >> no. >> the senator mccain. >> aye, by proxy. >> senator johnson. >> aye, by proxy.

>> of senator moran. >> no. >> senator lieberman. >> no. >> is it possible there is a little mischief going on? >> i sense there may be. >> on this vote, the yeas are 11 and the nays are 6 and the amendment is agreed to. the crux of cake, thank you. senator -- >> ok, thank you. senator akaka, congratulations. senator pryor, would you like to bring up one of yours? ok, you are done. retiring undefeated. [laughter]

will break for lunch. the >> i want to thank the committee for passing -- senator mccain talks about when he has publicly if people did not talk about the post office. if you are in a small town in montana and you have a public meeting the about the st office, -- i'm sorry, if you have a public meeting, the post office is the first to come up. it is an issue that people have talked to me about in extension because the post of this closure will close a lot of communities and better it's never healthy for work -- for rural america -- that is never healthy for rural america. the amendment i want to take up now deals with executive compensation. i want to thank the undefeated senator pryor and senator mccaskill for joining me in offering this amendment.

it treats the postmaster general the same as it treats a member of congress, $174,000 a year. the 2006 reform bill had talked about the day and allow the postal board of governors to set the salary of the postmaster general as the vice-president. as a result, the postmaster general could earn $276,840 per year. this will take back to $174,000. to let you know, that could save about $200,000. you could keep open post offices in five places in montana. as we look for everybody to make

sacrifices, i think it is entirely appropriate that the administrators of the postal service also make their sacrifices. with that, i would urge my colleagues to support it. >> is there further debate? >> earlier in our debate we were talking about making sure the -- that we allow the postal service to do what it needs to do, really, sort of get out of the way. that wshould let them proceed, whether it is closing a ocessing centers or post offices or going from six-day to five-day service. our role should be to step out of the way. this amendment runs, i think, in contravention to that.

the postal service is the second-largest business in america, i believe. they have over half a million employees. they have 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 is a reason why ups a fedex pay their co's $1 million a year or more per year. they do it because they want to be able to attract the best talent they can finto run those big operations. the postal service makes those big corporations look small by comparison. we need excellent people. we need some of the best talent at the postal service leading the organization to get out of

the wilderness and bring it back to be successful in the 21st century. and to say to people who are working hard to turn the postal service around, for your efforts we are going to lower your pay in some cases by $100,000, or $75, or $50,000, i do not know how that attracts the best talent. i just do not see it. my grandma used to say to me something about penny wise and pound foolish. this is penny wise and pound foolish. we may feel good about saving a couple hundred thousand dollars, but we are talking about losing executives i could help the postal service save billions of dollars by implementing the law that we are providing. i would urge us to defeat this amendment. i was prepared to offer a

second-degree amendment. i think we should just defeat it outright. >> if the goal here is to make the u.s. ps and -- into -- to make the u.s. postal service into the ups oard fed ex., then we should just privatizet and get done with it. change the constitution and make sure we do not have any obligation. if any of us are sitting around the table because of the money we make, we are not sitting here for the right reason. the postal service is a public service, unless you wanto take the u.s. off of theront of the postal service. and to say we cannot find good people to run t postal service because of salary, maybe that is the exact reason we need to pass this amendment. it also has some implications on our side, too, because if we cannot find anyone to leave the postal service out of the woods, how the hell are going to get our deficit out of the

woods? this is the most money i have ever made in my life, $170,000. it does not compare to $800,000, but it is a lot of dough. if you cannot hire someone good enough for $174,000, you will nofind someone good enough for $800,000. there's no reason why on guard screener why the administrator should not sacrifice, too. it is the wrong message sent by this committee. >> mr. chairman, could i suggest, since i believe your plan is to come back to 30 p.m., that maybe we could try to work on -- back at 2:30 p.m., that maybe we could try to work on this amendment. i am sympathetic to both of the arguments you are tryinto make. this is a huge enterprise. but on the other hand, i am 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 cld be paid at the level of the vice president. this is one of the largest enterprises in the united states. i find i have sympathy with both of your points and i wonder if we could try to work, since we are going to break, to try to come to a meeting of the mines. >> i think that is a consuctive idea. i would like to see that to the extent that we are paying money to the secretary and the cabinet, that it be tied to results. better financial performance. i am not averse to doing that.

when i see companies, big companies, who pay millions of dollars to co's who lead their companies down t drain, i am not interested in doing that. we are not talking about paying millions of dollars to leave the postal service, despe the fact that it is the second-largest entity in -- company in america, i think maybe we can work something out. maybe we ought to try to do that over lunch. >> mr. chairman, that would be my same point. i would like to see fair compensation. the part that bothers me is the bonus compartment. -- component. a lot of us signed a letter on the fannie mae and freddie mac bonuses. the thing i would caution is in metric that we have reasonable and good and solid metrics, not what they did over at fannie mae and freddie mac.

they did a major to see what they could achieve without much work and they got a million- dollar bonuses. we want to attract good people to plic service, but at the same time, the bus component is what bothered me. exactly where you were going, susan, which this is where i am bothered. i would be happy to take a break. >> the problem is going to be that my schedule this afternoon is packed. but jamie wise, my right hand, will work with your staff. >> and you will vote by proxy and you will have to sign off on any agreement that we make. i hope that we can come to some agreement. i understand what senator tester is trying to say, but i do not want to cut -- taking the onus off is one thing. it just seems to me that he is running a very big -- taking the

bonus off is one thing. it just seems to me that he is running a very big operation. the prodding of a bonus is one thing. i think we should come back and -- the depriving of a bonus is one thing. i think we should come back and discuss this. i think we will be able to finish this afternoon. amendment wass put forward with sincerity. it passed with some surprising votes. it also opposes something that not only the four of us has supported, but also that the obama administration has supported. the bipartisanship here was short lived.

it diminishes savings here by a very substantial amount. i hope we can come back and reconsider it at some point, if not here, then on the floor. we did a lot of good work. we have good debate. we should have a good lunch and reconvene at 2:30 p.m. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> senators returned after lunch and approved the bill addressing the postal service. a similar bill has been approved by

good afternoon, good afternoon. welcome, new hampshire. "new hampshire today"ack heath here at wptl. we're having a special three-hour aernoon program now until six. it's a gorgeous new hampshire afternoon out there, 65 degrees, a second day. you know that snow of october has melted for the most part and the golf courses are open. coming up today, we're going to be joined by sevel of the presidential candidates on the gop side of things. we're also simulcasting live on c-span3. go to c-span.org and click 3 or

channel 249 on many of your cables. c-span may replay the program. carl cameron coming up shortly, but we're on the eve of the two-month marko the first in the nation presidential primary. first actual primary votes will be cast a week after the iowa caucus. joining me now is one of the candidates preparing for the debate tonight in michigan, newt gingrich, a regular on the program here in new hampshire. he's back in new hampshire. good afternoon, thank you very much for joining us on "new hampshire today." >> listen, glad to be talking with you, and, of course, i'm going to be at the granite state patrts debate thursday night, and then friday with veterans at country cooking circle restaurant and we're going to be opening our new newt 2012 head quarters in manchester, so

looking very much to being back in new hampshire. >> got all those towns and cies correctly pronounced, as i'm not surprised. i also know you're a c-span junky, so delighted to be on c-span as well this afternoon. tonight's debate in michigan, there's a lot of, i call it, the scandalous week of college sports with penn state and the herman cain allegations. i know you and mr. cain have deveped a pretty good rapport, he's been complimentary on a lot of policy issues. do you think the issue of herman cain will come up tonight, not saying by you, but do you think it will be an issue? >> i hope it does not come up, because i frankly would like us to stay focussed on the whole concept of policy and how we create jobs d what are we trying to accomplish. i ink there's a more positive

use or our time and the country's time. herman is going to have to work out what happens with him and the various accusations, but i don't think that's something the rest of the candidates need to get involved in. >> iran, things seem to be getting tense. israel, you know, reportedly test fed jerico missiles recently, russia has warned against their nuclear capability. if israel was to take a preemptive strike against iran, what should the united states' policy or position be? >> i think the united states' position should be recognize those acting in their own self defense, that the israeli memory of the holocaust has moved the country towards a sense of fear and that two nuclear weapons would be the equivalent of a second holocaust. if you were the prime minister of israel, you'd be praying every day whether you had to take preemptive action over

iran, because you could not be the person who presided over the entire destruction of your entire country. >> mr. speaker, do you think the penn story will be asked? is this something that stays clear of a presidential debate? >> i don't know, this kind of abuse is wrong. it is a criminal violation. it needs to be reported. i don't know any of the details that i've seen on television, so i'not in a position to comment on them, except to say the people who look like they are going to be going to jail for libel, not libel, if they committed perjury e faced with that as a reality. m not sure what you say beyond that. it's a tragedy and it's a tragedy for everybody involved. >> what's your view of president obama now as the republican race is intensifying a candidates are feeling the heat, the national media focusing probably more on your race, and there's

even a feeling that you've risen in some of these polls in new hampshire. who knows, newt gingrich, john mccain the night of the presidential primary was ahead by 19 points so who knows, mr. speaker, but let me ask you this. has president obama benefitted by the focus on the republica? we've talked about his jobs bill essentially being dead, do you sense - how's this president handling what's going on in italy today, stock market, dow jones industrial average down almost 400, how's mr. obama fairing? >> the nightmare for this president is a world spinning out of control, and because he is a genuine radical and because that's his background, he doesn't have any of the right tools, he doesn't have any of the right understanding to try to do the things we need to get the country back in good shape. the result is you have all these politicians, it's appropriate to meet with the europeans, because

they are the same kind of people, out of touch with reali reality, trying to solve problems without solving them, and they think if you hold two more press conferences and three more speeches, that's the solution, it's bologna. president obama is genuinely radical and he's incompetent, and the combination of radical and incompetent is enormously dangerous for the country, whether on t issue of iran or the issue of jobs or the issue of dealing with the deficit or negotiating with congress. i look back at the work bill clinton and i did together. it's amazing even though he is a liberal democrat and i was a conservati republican, we could get together as mature adults, we reformed welfare, we cut taxes, we brought unemployment down to 4.2%, then i watched president obama and it's sad. you don't want the president of

the united states to fail, even if youe a partisan and don't agree with him, when the president of the united states fails, it hurts everybody. >> speaking of former president bill clinton, he just released a book talking about a bunch of action points tat hehinks would trigger a lot of jobs. you talk about the ings the congress could be doing right now on some pieces of legislation to trigger jobs. can you just touch upon if you've heard about the president's book about what specific things you think we could do now to get jobs going? >> let me give you one that easy and one that's hard. the hard one, repeal the dodd frank bill immediately, it's a disastrous bill, killing small banks, driving down the price of housing. it's the major reason the country is a mess. repeal it. it's a 2,300-page bill that does to financial services what obamacare does to health. second, the easy one, and i don't understand why the house

republicans don't do this. there's a bill made by senator webb and senator warner, both democrats from virginia, that would allow virginia to develop oil and gas offshore. it would increase the number of american jobs, it would increase the amount of american eney, and it would increase royalties to the federal government to reduce the deficit. the republicans ought to pass the bill, send it to the senate as a bipartisan act. i don't think harry reid can bottle it up. it's a bill written by two of his democratic senators, and if the senate sends it to the president, i don't see how in this economy the president can veto it. that could be an example of a specific small building block towards prosperity that could be totally bipartisan and that would set the stage to then look for similar building blocks. >> let you go, mr. speaker, earlier on in the polling cycle, a lot of people are ready to write off your candidacy, seems now the gingrich campaign is gaining steam, can you win this

nomination? >> sure. this is wide open. anybody can potentially win it right now, because i think the voters are very, very worried and looking fr real leadership and trying to understand what should be ne next. okay? i look forward to seeing you in new hampshire. >> good luck tonight in the debate. >> thanks. >> newt gingrich live from michigan, where the republican field is set to debate in a few hours, and he'll be back in new hampshire tomorrow, as you know, newt gingrich has been a fairly regular visitor to new hampshire. interestingly enough, herman cain's campaign, nothing to do with the allegations he's on defense about, doesn't seem to be that existent here in new hampshire. we have not seen much of hermann cain in terms of staff, he was on the program with me out of atlanta, georgia, but not much cain campaign presence here. we'll have to see in the days to come. tomorrow is two movant months

away from the new hampshire primary. we'll open the phone lines now. we foeskt on the primary today. 866-823-1077. we'll take your calls. let me tell you what's comingp on "new hampshire today" as well. carl cameron, formerly of wuatv is one of the senior political reporters for fox news, and carl is on the trail of these candidates. he'll be joining us ortly. also coming up, governor christie joining us here. he's in new hampshire for mitt romney, who, of course, is prepping for the debate out in michigan, so mitt romney sending a pretty heavy-hitting surrogate in governor christie joining us in a few mments on "new hampshire today." mike denahee will be joining u

as well, and dave card out of washington, d.c. will be joining us for our packed 4:00 hour. we'll be hearing from governor huntsman and see if his campaign could benefit from any loss in the cain momentum nationally or who are in new hampshire. governor huntsman joining us at 4:00, then in the 4:00 hour, ron paul will be on with us. ron paul will be joining us and, of course, he's been a regular on the program. get his take on iran. i imagine it will be dramatically different of nt gingrich in terms of supporting israel, b that's my guess. we'll hear from ron paul in a few moments. also coming up, secretary of state bill gardner on why new hampshire's first in the nation on the primary cendar. might be interesting for our c-span viewers to know why new hampshire is first, and we'll hear from secretary of state bill gardner. go out to the listener line as

j-dog fields the call here and see what's going on out there as we wait for carl cameron from fox news. 866-823-1077, our number, and interesting what newt gingrich just said, if you just missed him a few moments ago live from michigan, newt gingrich calling presidenobama a radical, radical liberal. that was actually only part of the slam, really, a very -- pretty -- not a friendly depiction of the president. today it seems like he even turned up the heat more. i guess we're going to go to florida, and i guess that's florida offline -- maybe watching c-span. michelle, good afternoon, you're on new hampshire today. >> i am watching c-span. i have a question i would like you ask governor christie when he comes on, why governor romney cannot call in himself. i understand he's prepping for

the debate, but so is newt gingrich, and he di call in and made his vis, solutions known, and i would like to hear from governor romney himself, not his surrogate, christie,if that's at all possible you could ask that question. >> okay, whereabouts in florida are you calling from? >> tampa, florida. >> appreciate it. i assume the weather's nice down there. governor christie is a big wig, i enjoy having him on, but when governor romney is on next, i'll ask the question. >> it just seems that there's -- i haven't heard from governor romney lately on anything, really. >> of course, he's probably happy last week the spotlight was off him, but i hear you, michelle, appreciate it, thank you. take care in tampa. out to bedford, new hampshire, jim, how are you, good afternoon? >> jack, how are you today? >> good, sir.

>> like your last caller, ask guests you have today or maybe you can give me your opinion, the candidates this time don't seem to be spending too much money ght now. i don't know about you, but i remember my mailbox being full this time of year within the last few cycles and last few primaries, and i'm curious when some of these campaigns start to think about ratcheting up a notch here and not relying just on the debates and trying to get some of their messages out. i saw a rick perry ad on last night and a little ron paul, but are they all relying on just the debates, and will that change? >> hold on, stay on the line with us. it's a very good qution, because governor perry, for example, his campaign just started advertising on this show and on this station, but there's always a line. there's always a line when kind of the onslaught of the paid advertising starts. this race, one reason why we're doing a special today, delighted c-span is joining us, we're on the eve of two months until the

new hampshire primary. that's not a long way to go. you know, jim, wh they've waited and held their powder, if you will, money's that honey in politics, i don't know. it seems very late. last time around it was a wide open presidential election on the democratic side and republican side, but our next guest of fox news -- carl, you on? >> hey, man, how are you? >> carl, good. jim,an you hear carl? >> absolutely. >> jim, ask the question to carl cameron, i think he'd be the best guy in the country to answer this. >> honored to speak to you, carl. welcome back to new hampshire here. the question is, going back to '96 and '92 or the primaries in the past, it really was a primary fought through direct mail and tv and radio, but this cycle they just really seem to be relying on the earned media in the debates and not really getting their own message out with paid media.

i was wondering how you think it's affecting the cycle. >> well, it's definitely affecting the cycle. there's a bunch of reasons for it, some are tactical and political specific to this race, others are more 30,000 feet. one thing the campaigns are aggressively using social media, facebook and the like, that's something rick perry really pioneered in texas when he abandoned direct mail and radio and most tv ads almost entirely to use social media, so there are alternatives people are using that aren't as expensive. second, debates have become gasoline. they can show up at the station and get all the attention from the passing cars by using the debate stage. that's worked well for candidates who have less money. the last thing is, the frontrunner, mitt romney, has stayed out of iowa, tried to stay off the air and not spend a lot of money. his rivals realize if one of the guys with the deep pockets isn't spending his mone they've got

to save theirs too so that when mitt rney and rick perry start spending, they can try to keep up a little bit with the bigger purses. that's part of why it's happening. the candidates who don't have money used to be knocked out of the race easily. this time around, because of social media and because of the unbelievable number of debates, they've been able to hang in doing it for cheap. >> there you have it, jim. >> thanks so much. that's what makes new hampshire grt here, you don't need the big bank accounts to run and have a formidable campaign. than, guys, appreciate it. >> carl, delighted to have you here, how are you, sir? >> hey, old boss. sorry i missed the deadline, never did that when i was working for you. >> listen, love your stuff. i don't know where to begin, but tonight's debate, herman cain, is his story engulfing him or is he going to pull through this, your thoughts. >> it's definitely engulfed him.

he denies all the charges and at this point there isn't substantial evidence. against allegations that are verbal and don't appear on paper, and in the case of the to settlements with the national restaurant association were not settled by herman cain but settled by his, at the time, former employer, and he took the responsibility of the settlement. so he's at a real disadvantage defending himself. having said that, this debate is supposed to be the economy, in michigan the unemployment rate is two points higher thanhe national average, but when you have somebody leading the polls, as cain is. he's in a tie with romney in iowa and nationally, hard to imagine thison't come up. we've heard most of the candidates weigh in, saying these are serious charges, we hope it works out for herman and hope everything's okay, but it hasn't gone away of the we're now well into the second week of

this, and there's the specter of a possible news conference with his accusers standing shoulder-to-shoulder against him, talking about the details we're stuck with allegations that can't be proven and seemingly can't be disproven. it's really, really difficult for any kind of political candidate. everybody knows it in new hampshire. if a candidate is explaining a problem, they are not talking about what they are trying to get elected with, they are defending themselves, and that ultimately is a losing position. >> of course, bill clinton in '92. >> there's a distinction with that. when bill clinton came to new hampshire in october of 1991 in a ten-week campaign that was incredibly short, he was first

dised for being a nobody, but he had been elected there more than four times and had been through problems and overcome them and argued them to a draw or a victory. cain can't say that. >> right. i'm looking at a trend line on a piece of paper here. i look at romney, if you go back to august through today, pretty steady right across the board. you know, i look at rick perry when he entered the race, 23% in some polls, he's just come down, and i'm just curious, cain doing well nationally, if cain is to drop, who does this help? who would some cain droppage help? >> $64,000 qution. the first instinct is newt gingrich. now, mr. gingrich has his own history and some would say baggage he would have to, again, overcome. if he were to rise in the polls and contend for the top spot,

he'd face questions about his marriages and past decisions he's made. the other potential beneficiary remains rick perry. he is the conservative governor of texas. he has more money than everybody except romney, has the name recognition and political style and, frankly, cowboy boots to kick what needs to get kicked in order to come back. perry'a very, very tough counterpunching attack politician. he hasn't gone on the air with criticism of mitt romney on tv yet. when perry starts the attack ad, the blitz won't stop. it will a straight on until it's over, win orlose, and when that begins if cain has faded, perry may be able to absorb some ofhe conservative vote that has been anybody but romney, and yet the settle on a choice. harry could come back and get that, but two months before iowa, two months and a week

before new hampshire is not a heck of a lot of time, so time's running out. that's why this debate tonight has the -- people are saying it's kind of an elimination round for a lot of second and third tier candidates,f they don't have a break-out moment, it may be a leave-behind moment. >> any interest in saying hi to governor christie of new jersey? >> tell you what, governor christie is missed on the campaign trail. everywhere we go. people say the same thing about tim pawlenty. all the candidates that flirted, got out, or ner got in, they could be the most popular. >> let's ask the question. you're going on to fox news tonight, he is the governor of new jersey, governor, with carl on the line of fox news, any regrets? any regrets of not running? >> no regrets at all. i've got plenty of great things i need to get done in new

jersey. i'm happy to be up here today to help governor romney, and i'm going to continue to help h. he needs to be the next president of the united states. >> carl, unless you have a question, we'll let you go and speak with the governor. >> pin down governor christie and make sure he gives you a refusal of the vice presidential spot. hey, governor, over here in michigan waiting for the debate. the question is, wil you categorically rule out under all circumstances serving your country as a vice president or leave that door open just a fraction? >> i've given my statement i'm running for president. as far as vice president, not in mycontrol, pal. this is going to be the decision of our party's nominee, who i believe will be mitt romney. i'm not going to get into that. >> doesn't sound like he ruled it out. thanks, carl cameron of fox news. >> thank you, thank you very much, guys.

>> governor, jack heath here, thanks for joining us on "new hampshire today." how are you, sir? >> i am sir. >> doing okay? enjoying the granite state? >> hpy to be here to help governor romney. >> 65 degrees, only a few months to go before the primary. let me talk a little bit about how you think this race is going, governor. i was saying to carl cameron that mt romney's path has been so steady and consistent, governor perry when he got in was really leading, now he's dropped pretty dramatically. herman cain has come up, but mitt romney is sort of that steady boat there. is this going to be the way it goes for mitt romney towards the nomination? >> i absolutely believe it is. what governor romney is showing, he's the adult on the stage. he's the guy that's not going to be caught up by the ups and downs that happen in the campaign. he's been throug it before.

he's got a plan and vision for america, and he is going to be the guy who's going to be the adult, the grown up on the stage who is going to give the well thought out answers and push forward the good plan. >> and in terms of jobs, governor, what's your reaction to sort of this impasse? i have not seen a time where the ideological left is more cemented in the conservative right, you know the drill, you can almost see this, governor, president obama's going to say the republicans are almost like the 1936 fdr reelection when his numbers aren't great, run against the big banks, corporations, wealthy, anyone with money and say they are not paying enough and blame the republicans for the lack of jobs in the economy. how is this going to work for the president? >> listen, i think let's first say it's the only strategy the president has available to him, because if this race is run, which i think it will be, on

barack obama's record, he's a one termer, so all he can do, he knows the american people are angry, and you see in every poll about the right direction or wrong direion of the country, but people overwhelmingly believe we're on the wrong track and they are angry. president obama is going to try to make folks angry at somebody else, whether it's wall stree or corporate america or the congressional republican, he wants them to be angry at anybody but him. i don't think ultimately it works, because i think every election is not about yesterday, it's about tomorrow, and i don't think the president's going to have any credibility selling a plan what he's doing in the next four years, but remember this, he can complain about republicans in the house as much as he wants, but for the first two years he had a huge majority in the house and senate and did nothing with them to create jobs in america. >> governor christie in new jersey joining us. before you go, i know you're here for a few events for mitt

romney, who is prepping for the debate in michigan. we did have michelle from florida ask why other candidates are calling in and why governor christie is calling in on behalf of mr. romney. i think the short answer is you're here and are a big name yourself, but let me ask you this question, if mitt romney is the nominee, you and i know president obama is going to say something like this, and i'd love your response, governor christie. mr. romney, you talk a lot about creating jobs and building an economy, when you were making your hundreds and millions of dollars buying and close factories and companies, how many jobs are you responsible for cutting out of the economy, how many jobs are you responsible for? >> first of all, he would say not as many jobs you're responsible for destroying. a fair look at governor romney's

record shows he created a lot of jobs at bain capital, started a lot of companies. listen, when you're in the business governor romney is in, sometimes it's going to be a success, sometimes it's not, but he was in there battling every day, getting experience, while the president of the united states was being a community organizer. who are you going to trust over the next four years, somebody who's proven already in the first four and doesn't have the first idea how to lead or bring people together in congress or somebody like governor romney who's worked across party lines, stood by his principles and has the private sector experience to show he can create jobs? i'm sure governor romney will answer that question next fall when they are debating on the big stage, is to point out the president's record. this is about the president and governor romney's vision of the future. >> governor christie of new jersey here. good folks there. before we let you go, governor,

in new jersey, i know where the new stadium is and know tere's a big game sunday night with the jets and patriots. >> jets are going to win. >> governor christie, thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> we're going to te a break on "new hampshire today." our friends from c-span, we have julio from chicago and a couple other callers lined up. thank you for your patience.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, today's debate concerns the senate joint resolution number 6. in a larger context, though, we really have been having this debate for 34 months. the theme is that the obama administration's relentless impositi of new and destructive regulations have really not helped us get into a recovery and, in fact, i think are freezing our economy.

we've seen it with the environmental protection agency when it tried to regulate carbon emissions and greenhouse gases using the clean air act, a purpose for which congress never intended the law to be used. we've seen it with the national mediation board when it overturned nearly a century of precedent and issued a new rule making to allow unions to be formed more easily b harder to decertify. we've seen it with the national labor relations board when this took the shocking step of challenging boeing's decision to create new jobs by building a new factory in south carolin simply because south carolina is a right-to-work state. today's issue involves bureaucratic overreach into a symbol of american innovation and creativity. the internet -- because the

federal communication commission has now decided to regulate the internet. last december three.c.c. commissioners on a party-line vote voted to impose rules that restrict how internet service providers offer broadband service to consumers. these rules known as net neutrality impose 19th century-style monopoly regulations on the most competitive and important job-creating engine of the 21st century: the internet. this marks a stunning reversal from a hands-off approach to the internet that federal policy-makers have taken for more than a decade. during the last 20 years, the internet has grown and flourished without burdensome regulations imposed by washington. powered by the strength of free market forces, the internet has been an open platform for innovation, spurring business development, and much-needed job

creation. the former democratic f.c.c. chairman william canard stated in 1999, "the fertile fields of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are blooming because, from the get-go, we have taken a deregulatory, competitive approach to our communications structure, especially the internet." now the present f.c.c. is reversing that policy that has been successful beyond our expectations. broadband internet networks have powered the information and communications iustries, which in 2009 accounted for more than 3.5 million high-paying jobs and about $1 trillion in economic activity. this industry has been an engine for major economic growth, even during these difficult times.

yet the f.c.c.'s rules could severely jeopardize this industry'industry's vast potent. net neutrity is intended to limit how internet service providers develop and operate their broadband networks. the net neutrality order allows the f.c.c. to tell broadband providers what kind of business practices are reasonable and unreasonable. the f.c.c., however, did not bother to clely define in its rules what the agency considers to be reasonable. this point is vital to understand. with such an arbitrary and yet poorly defined standard, companies will be forced to err on the side of caution. rather than risk possible punishment from the f.c.c., many mpanies will simply decide, maybe we won't invest right now in new technologies, maybe it's too risky to develop and deploy

new services. at the very least it will delay such investment. this kind of regulatory uncertainty will be crippling for companies and particularly small providers. we have heard exactly that from a small wireless internet provider in buy i would called lariat. this is a provider that is serving remote areas and trying to expand to other unserved areas. lariat testified before congress that these f.c.c. regulations are already harming its ability to attract investors, grow its business, hire more workers, and serve new customers. forcing broadband companies to ask the government for permission before moving forward is exactly what we should try to avoid wn reviving our economy. this f.c.c. regime will lead to stagnation in internet innovation in the united states, placing us at a disadvantage

against overseas competitors who are not burdened with similar rules. moreover, internet providers will end up spending resources on lawyers and lobbyists in order to comply with the f.c.c.'s rules rather than investing those dollars in innovation. small companies will find it even more expensive to navigate washington, d.c., this certainly won't help consumers, particularly in rural areas and will only increase the costs thoaf bear. before any new regulations are forced on american businesses, it is the government's responsibility to clearly show, one, there's an actual problem in a need needs to be addressed. that should be foremost. with the f.c.c. ting such a large departure from the agency's previous light-touch approach, one might think the f.c.c. could point to a long list of net neutrality violations and problems that

need to be fixed. that is not the case here. in a 134-page regulatory order, the f.c.c. spent only thr paragraphs attempting to catalog alleged instances of misconduct, and within those three short paragraphs, every alleged problem was addressed. under the f.c.c.'s existing rules. or, if not, it was fixed by the provider under pressure from the public or the competiti marketplace, where it should be fixed. as former f.c.c. commissioner mayor death baker noted in her statement dissenting from the f.c.c.'s net neutrality order, "the commission," she said, "was unable to identify a single ongoing practice of a single broadband provider thatt finds problematic upon which to base

this action." to put it simply, the f.c.c. has issued new rules without even demonstrating that intervention is actually necessary. despite protests to the contrary, these net neutrality regulations on broadband providers clearly establish the f.c.c. as the internet's gatekeeper, a role for which the government is not suited. innovation does not work on a government timetable, nor does it thrive through a maze of roadblocks. ironically, supporters of net neutrality insist that providers are the ones who may become gatekeepers of the internet. these people say the openness of the internet is far too important to be left unprotected by the government. this is a false premise. in fact, the internet has been

an open platform for innovation since its inception, and it has not needed any sort of net neutrality rules from bureaucrats at the f.c.c. and to make matters worse, congress has never given the f.c.c. the explicit authority to regulate how internet providers manage their networks. that's why the new rules represent an unpress did noted power grab by the unelected commissioners at the f.c.c. in fact, current law stes -- and i quote -- "it is the policy of the united states to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulation." that's the law today. the f.c.c. has lost this fight

already in the courts. last year the d.c. circuit court of appeals struck down the f.c.c.'s 2008 attempt to impose net neutrality in the comcast v. f.c.c. case. the court ruled that the f.c.c. was acting beyonthe reach of its congressionally provided authority and cautioned that regulations should be imposed onlyith explicit congressional delegation. this was validation that regulatory agencies cannot make policy without congressional direction. rather thaback down, however, the f.c.c. doubled down. the current f.c.c. order tries an even more expansive interpretation of the law than was useed in the comcast case. f.c.c. commissioners

inexexplicably cim the agency can apply heavy-handed regulations under section 7706 of the telecommunications act. this was a section of the law that was intended to remove regulatory barriers to broadband investments, not to raise them. if the f.c.c.'s legal theory is left unchallenged, the f.c.c. will have nearly unbounded authority to regulate almost anything on the internet. it is congress's role, not the f.c.c.'s, to determine the proper policy framework for the inrnet. over time, and aid by the current administration, regulators throughout the government have gradually try to seize increasing control over so many if a sets of american lievment it is time for the senate to stop this overrea.

we write the laws of this country, not unelected bureaucrats. that's why we're here today. thanks to senate majority leader harry reid, former senator don nickles and the great senator, late senator ted stevens, one of the tools congress has to stop rogue agencies is the congressional review act. the congressional review act allows congress to review a rule before it takes affect and even to nullify that rule if congress finds that it is inappropriate or if it overreaches or if congress itself hasn't delegated this power to an agency. as senators reid, nickels and stevens said at the time of this bill's passage, congressional review gives the public the opportunity to call the attention of politically accountable elected officials to concerns about new agency rules. if these concerns are

sufficiently serious, congress can stop the rule. we believe the concerns about the f.c.c.'s net neutrality rules are sufficiently serious to warrant the consideration of senate joint resolution 6, the disapproval resolution senator mcconnell and i introduced to nullify the f.c.c.'s net neutrality order under the congressional review act. the house has already passed its version of the resolution. we need only a majority of senators to send this bill to the president's desk. even a net neutrality supporter, senator olympia snowe, who has authored net neutrality legislation, is a cosponsor and supporter of our resolution today. while senator snowe and i don't agree on the need for net neutralityaw, we are in complete agreement, and she

stated beautifully, that congress, not the f.c.c., should determine what t proper regulatory framework is for the internet. if the senate does not strike down these regulations soon, they will go into effect on november 20, further jeopardizing jobs in this fragile economy. i guess you could say that it will allow more lawyers to be hired. but more innovators? probably not. that is not the mix we need to assure that our economy will get back on track in this country. studies indicate that net neutrality rules could significantly affect our economy. if net neutrality reduc capital investment in broadband infrastructure by even 10%, it could cost our country hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next decade.

we must preserve the openness of the internet a a platform for innovation and economic growth. we must keep the competitive advantage that we have in this country for innovation. the last thinge ought to be doing is put restrictions on our providers when many countries who are also advanced in this area are not doing the same ey think. so, when we go to global competitiveness, you're putting our companies at a disadvantage. why would we do that? we must stop. the job-kelg regulatory -- the job-killing regulatory interference by our government today in so many areas. and we can start right here, right now by keeping the internet free, voting for this resolution of disapproval and saying to the regulatory bodies in this town, congress must

authorize a dell tkpwaeugs of authority for your agency -- a delegation of authority for your agency to pass rules and especially when congress is in disagreement with those rules. this is a key policy decision for our body. we need to step up for the responsibility that congress has. you know, our constitution divided the powers between three branches of government. if congress doesn't stand up for its one-third of the powers of this government and lets unelected bureaucrats run over our prerotives, we will become a weaker branch, and our government will become weaker for it. we need to have three equal branches of government, and that means each branch of government

must fulfill its responsibilities under the constitution. congress must delegate its authority explicitly for a rule to be made. that is the way the constitution intended for congress to fulfill its job as the elected representatives of the people of our country. the house has passed this resolution. i hope the senate will tomorrow. i hope the people will speak and say even if you disagree on the basic issue of net neutrality that it is not the right of the f.c.c. t pass such sweeping regulations that will affect the economy of this country without explit authority from congress, which it does not

have. thank you, mr. president. and i would like to just ask my colleagues to come to the flo if they want to speak on this amendment, on this resolution. there are four hours equally divided, and that time is now running. so i would say to my republican colleagues, we have quite a list of those who want to speak. they must know that the time will run out in about three and a half hours now. so i ask them to contact me if they wish to speak. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from the great state of west virginia. mr. rockefeller: mr. president, i rise today to oppose the senate joint resolution number 6, a resolution brought under the congressional review act about ich i'd like to talk to disapprove the federal communications, f.c.c.'s open

inrnet rules such as they are. americans want the internet to be free and open to them. they want to go where they want to go. they want to see what they want to see. they want to do what they want do on the internet. they don't want to have somebody blocking them. they don't want to have gatekeepers. they want it to be a nice, a nice, open forum for them. and they care about the internet. everybody uses the internet. they want to be able to develop ne business. they want to read. they want to watch video. they want to reach out to friends and family and community. and they want to do it online. and they want to do all of these things on the internet without having to ask permission from their broadband provider. the f.c.c. hasromulgated balanced rules that let americans do all of these things and keep t internet open and

which keep the internet free. so let us be clear from the outsed, no matter how -- outset, no matter how s.j. res. is dressed up in language that suggests it will promote openness and freedom, it will not do that. the resolution is misguided. it will add uncertainty, in fact, into the economy. it will hinder small businesses dependent on fair broadband access, where otherwise they might be put in a slower lane. tkhoepbt want to be in a -- they don't want to be in a slower lane. they want to be in a fast lane. they want to be able to compete with other parts of the country. it will undermine this legislation, this resolution. it will imperil the hallmark of freedom. the f.c.c. rules were the result

of hard work and conseus and compromise. the agency had extensive input from agencies of all quarters and they opened it up and said send in your comments. they had written iut from more than 100,000 commentators. out 90% of those filing supported -- who did that supported adoption of open internet rules. open internet rules. on top of this, the rules are based on long-standing and widely accepted open internet principles which were first articulated during the bush administration, the second bush administration. these rules do three basic things, mr. president. first, they impose a transparency obligation on providers of broadband internet service. this means that all broadband providers are required to publicly disclose to consumers accurate information regarding

the network management practices. second, the rules prohibit fixed broadband providers from blocking lawful content, from blocking applications and services and devices. this means consumers and innovators will continue to have the right to send and receive hraufpl internet traffic -- hraufpl internet traffic with broadband providers subjected to a more limited set of prohibitions. i'll speak about that in a moment. third, the rules aim to ensure that the internet remains a level playing field by prohibiting fixed broband providers from unreasonably discriminating in transmitting lawful network traffic, which they have done. finally, the rules are meant to apply with the complimentary principle of reasonable network management which provides

broadband providers the flexibility to address congestion or traffic that is harmful to the network. these are the principles i believe everyone can support. i see nothing wrong with them. the word reasonable sometimes doesn't scare me. sometimes it should but it doesn't. i ask my colleagues what's wrong with transparency? what's wrong with that? why would twaoept promote internet -- why would we want to promote internet blocking? why would we want to have some people on the fast lane or some people in the slow lane? what is unreasonable about reasonable network management? i believe the f.c.c.'s effort along with the ongoing oversight and enforcement will protect consumers. and i believe it will provides companies with theertainty they need to make investments in our growing digital kpheufplt many champions of the open

internet would have preferred a stricter decision. i'm one of them. i myself have real reservations about treating wireless broadband differently from wired broadband. i think the f.c.c.'s decision was nevertheless a meaningful step forward, and in a moment i will talk about other people who feel the same. supporters of the joint resolution failo acknowledge the f.c.c.'s open internet rules have received overwhelming support from broadband internet service providers, consumers and puic groups, labor unions as well as high-tech companies. at&t c.e.o. randall stevenson stated earlier this year that while he wanted in fact no regulations, the f.c.c. open internet order, heaid, ended at place where we have a line of sight, and we know and can commit ourselves to investments.

time-warner cable stated at the time of the order's release of the rules adopted, they appear to reflect a workable balance between protecting consumer interests and setting incentives and innovation by broadband internet service providers. numerous analysts from major investment banks found the open internet orders removes what they call regulatory overhang and allows telecom and cable companies to focus on investment, google, facebook, twitter, ebay, skype and other leaders in the nation all urge the f.c.c. to adopt commonsense baseline rules -- their words -- critical to ensuring that the internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation and global competitiveness.

there are more than 150 organizations who wrote congress to oppose this joint resolution. i hate doing this. i hate reading lists, but i'm going to do it anyway. the communication workers of america, the afl cry, the naacp, the united states conference of catholic bishops, the american library association, the american association to independent music, leadership conference on civil and human rights, the league of united latin american citizens, the national organization for women, and techet. a lot of folks in tech net. they have a lot at stake on this. mr. president, i have their letters here, and i would ask that they be added to the "congressional record" at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rockefeller: to be sure, there are those who disagree with the f.c.c.'s open internet rules and there is an avenue for these complaints, and it's called the judicial system.

some are using it. two companies have filed lawsuits claiming that the f.c.c. went too far. several public interest groups have filed lawsuits claiming that the f.c.c. did not go far enough. well, it's their legal right to go to the courts and when they choose to do that, they can do that. so let's think for a minute what a world would look like without a free and open internet. in world without freend open internet, consumers and entrepreneurs would have no transparency as to how their broadband provider manages its network, no ability to make informed decisions about their broadband provider. in a world without a free and open internet, there would be nothing to prevent your broadband provider from steering you only to its preferred web sites and services, limiting, therefore, your choice as a

consumer. if you are a rural american, broadband internet access has the power to erase distances and allows to you have the same access to shopping, educational matters, employment opportunities as those living in urban areas. that's a time-honored principle around here. but, not if the web site that you seek to access is blocked by your internet provider, your broadband provider. consumers and entrepreneurs, small businesses need the certainty that they can access lawful web site of their choice when they want, period. in a world without a free and open internet, there would be nothing to stop broadband providers from blocking access to web sites that offer products that compete with those of its affiliates. that happens, mr. president. in a world without a free and open internet, companies could pay internet providers to

guarantee their web sites open more quickly than their competitors. now, in a world without a free and open internet, companies could pay internet providers to make sure that their o online sales are done more quickly. wcialtion that's not the american way and it's particularly disturbing in tough times like these. in a world without a free and open internet, there would be nothing to prevent iernet service providers from charging users a premium in order to guarantee operation in the fast line, quote, unquote. if you're trying to start a small business, struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford to pay the toll, you run the risk of being left in the slow lane. that's not good. with inferior internet service.

that's not right. unable to compete with larger companies. that's very wrong. and what if you are an innovator or a start-up company and you have the next big idea? with broadband, the next big idea does not have to come from the suburban garage or from the silicon valley. it can come from rural america. it can come from anywhere. a free and open internet is all that is required to give that big idea a global reach. in a world without a free and open internet, the ability of the next revolutionary idea to reach others to make it to the greater marketplace would be entirely dependent on a handful of entrenched broadband gatekeepers and toll collectors. now, i'm not totally opposed to the congressiol review act, but i got toay, mr. president, it's extraordinarily blunt --

this extraordinarily blunt instrument, it means that all of the rules adopted by the f.c.c. must be overturned at once. this would even mean tossing out commonsense provisions about transparency. do our opponents know this? it would deny the agency the power to protect csumers. do our opponents know this? what's the sense in all of that? i don't get it. and there's another part that if they take out what you're doing through -- if s. res. would have passed and they just took these rules out, you couldn't come back and have the f.c.c. put them in. you'd have to go through a whole congressional legislative process to reinssert them into the public law, which means many of them would never end up there. i also want to address t argument of supporters of the joint resolution that the f.c.c.'s open res will somehow

stifle innovation in the internet economy. that is just so wrong, i don't know what to say. over the past 15 years, it is the internet that has been the greatest engine of the u.s. economy. it leaves everything in its du dust, creating more than 3 million jobs, as the senator from texas indated. the open unts net rules will help sustain this -- the open internet rules will help us stain this growth. people have to want to know what the rules of the world are, they want know what the world is bringing for them. if they decide they don't like what's coming, they'll tell you and they're not going to invest of the very simple. according to hamilton consultants, the open internet ecosystem, which led to the creation of 1.8 million jobs related to applications and e-commerce and as well 1.2 million jobs related to infrastructure. moreover, investment innovation has continued to increase since

the adoption of the f.c.c.'s adoption of the open internet rules, not decrease, as the supporters of this resolution will tell you. the facts show that in broadband -- that iestment in broadband networks increased in the first half of 2011. in fact, investment in networks that support broadband was more than 10% higher in the first half of 2011 than in the first half of 2010. and more of that investment in internet companies surged in 2011, and this is after ty sort of adjustednd had taken into account what they saw coming. -- saw coming in the way of the rules. there was a $2.3 bilon investment going into 275 companies in the second quarter,

all of them of this internet type. that is the most investment in internet companies in a decade. plus shortly after the framerk is adopted, america's leading wireless providers announced that they were accelerating their deployment of their fourth generation networks. it seems it is giving entrepreneurs and investors the certainty they need to invest and create jobs. certainty is key. they're not going to invest in what they don't know. we see that in so many other areas. we see that in so many other areas. people have all this cash, they don't have certainty. here they have certainty. they understand the sent. they understand what's coming and they like it and they're investing like never before. the f.c.c.'s open internet rules also, mr. president, protect small businesses. as estimated, about 20,000 small

businesses operate on the internet. more than 600,000 americans have part- or full-time businesses one ebay alone sms i was not aware of that. the f.c.c.'s open internet rules mean that small entrepreneurs will not have to seek permission from broadband providers to reach new markets and consumers with innovative products and services. this is a very important point. it means that small business can be located anywhere in this country, including rural america, and through open broadband have the opportunity for their ideas and products and services to have a global reach. that's the point of all of this. and as we all kw, small businesses were responsible for nearly 65% of all jobs over the last 1r5 years. far from preventing investment, the f.c.c.'s open internet rules will foster small businesses because they trust it, they see

it, they see what moody's is saying about it, they see what the wall street investors are saying about it, they see that it's encourage investment, they like that, they trust that and so they take risks that they might otherwise not take because they rust. it is not the faceless bureaucrat. it is on paper. they understand it. they've probably seen it commented on it. maybe some of them di't like it as much as they should have. some of them thought it should have intn stronger,ome thought it should have been weaker. such is life in america. so, anyway, i think what they conclude is that what's going on is supporting what they're doing. finally, i want to notehat when it comes to education and privacy and intellectual property, global internet governance or network security, the government has long provided

and necessarily so reasonable rules of the road to make possible consumer protection, fair trade, and open markets. the f.c.c.'s open internet rules are no differe. they take, as has been quoted by many, a light-touch approach. like that phrase -- and keep the playing field fair. they keep the internet open and free for consumers, for businesses, for everyone in this country who wants access to broadband internet. so that is why, mr. preside, i support the f.c.c. open internet rules, and i encourage my colleagues to

they say these regulations are burdensome and are trying to fix a problem that does not exist. the kind of problem that if it did exist would be handled by market forces. >> who supports keeping the sec rules in place? >> in congress, generally democrats. outside of congress, public interest groups have called for both of you these rules and stronger rules to be enacted >> the sec has something to regulate. why do they contend that regulations are needed? >> basically there is a concern that companies, especially as they start to handle more and

more different kinds of content online, that they will begin to block or kind of throttle access to competitor's services or other websites. the fcc says these regulations are needed to preserve the traditionally open nature of the internet while others say this is going to serve as more government control. >> has there been any reaction from the white house on this? >> yes. a similar resolution passed the house earlier this year. the white house at that time threatened to veto. just earlier this week, the white house said that if this resolution passes the senate, president obama would likely veto it as well. >> what are broadband service providers saying about their practices? >> in general, they denied that any kind of anti-competitor behavior is taking place and

that rules are needed. >> what are the chances this measure will advance in the senate? >> it comes down to simple math. republican backers only need a simple majority, but to do -- to do that they will need nine democrats or so. i talk to the senate commerce chairman, jay rockefeller, yesterday. he said he is hopeful that all democrats will oppose the resolution. >> what are the chances that it will advance? >> at this point, not very good. >> jobs smith reports part national journal daily. thank you for your help. >> thank you. >> in just a few moments, a hearing on u.s. policy towards syria. washington journal is live at 7:00 eastern.

>> on washington journal this morning, a look at problems with the housing and urban development program. our guest is washington post investigative reporter betdebbie cenziper. diane swonk will take your questions about the economy. where admiral karl schultz. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about today here on c-span. the senate finance committee holds a hearing on unemployment assistance at 10:00 a.m. eastern. members will look that successful state programs and look at the national level. at noon eastern, federal reserve

chairman ben bernanke discusses financial literacy at fort worth texas -- fort hood texas. >> every weekend on american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. this weekend, collaborator, conspirator, or innocent boarding home owner? mary surratt and charges she was involved in prevent lincoln's association -- assassination. from lectures on history, a boston university professor on the presidency and cold war policy. look for the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> we still as a united states government are still purchasing and doing business with these people. >> the part that we have been purchasing as part of this

ongoing investigation are rare, hard to find, and obsolete parts that are still being utilized in major weapons systems. the internet purchasing of platforms demonstrate that contractors or subcontractors that are in need of these hard to find, rare, obsolete parts have an outlet through these producing platforms to acquire these parts. the concern is that the intent to deceive certainly exist. >> what are we still purchasing? i just tested very simple question. is the united states government still purchasing from these counterfeiters that are putting out inferior products? >> the internet trading platform has 60 million line items and parts purchased on a regular basis. >> what's more from the senate

hearing on counterfeit parts from china online at the c-span video library with every program we have aired since 1987 archived. it is washington your way. >> now, a hearing on u.s. policy towards syria. senators heard from a state department official who says that some arab leaders have offered a safe haven to syrian president assad in hopes that he will step down. this is 1.5 hours.

>> hearing will come to order. i want to thank everyone for being here today. i will have an opening statement, and then we will go to the statement from our witnesses, and then go to questions. i want to thank everyone for being here today. the senate foreign relations committee meets today, and our subcommittee on near eastern and south and central asian affairs subcommittee meets to examine u.s. policy towards syria. we know that syrian men, women, and children have courageously, and that is an understatement, engaged in demonstrations for more than six months in their country. they see it democratic reforms and protections for human rights, but the assad regime has responded with terrible, unspeakable violence. the united nations estimates that more than 3500 people have been killed since the unrest began in march of this year. over the past week, syriana's the third largest city of homs has been engulfed in perhaps the worst violence we have seen in syria this year.

in just a week, more than 100 people have reportedly been killed. all this is coming during the muslim holiday, all this coming after months and months of repression and violence. perhaps most important of all, this comes one week after the assad regime agreed to an arab league deal for reform. in direct violation of this agreement, assad's forces have not removed tanks and armored vehicles from streets and towns across the country violence aimed at demonstrators has not stopped or even slowed. political prisoners, and there are reportedly tens of thousands of them, have not been released -- neither international journalists and toward human rights monitors have been admitted into syria. assad made it clear to the world

that he has no interest in or no intention to pursue democratic reform. in fact, he has proven to the world of democratic reform is now not possible while he remains in power. for months, i and others have spoken about this great the situation in syria. i shared accounts of a regime whose brutality at affects 22 million syrians, as well as my constituents in pennsylvania. i told the story before of a syrian-american who lives in suburban philadelphia. he was visited by his brother earlier this year. he is also a doctor and was not engaged in politics of any kind. upon his return to syria, after visiting his brother, he was tortured and killed by assad's forces just for having visited the united states of america. the press has reported accounts of schoolchildren are arrested, parents and community members murdered, disappearances and

mutilations all across the country of syria. in an august "washington post" op-ed, i wrote that mr. assad should step down from power. they have responsibility to bear witness to the truth and work against it. ambassador robert ford has taken on this critical task and represented the united states with honor and distinction. i would also add with remarkable courage. i applaud the work of the ambassador and his top notch staff. we are grateful for their sacrifice and service. but we must continue to take specific and visible actions to support democratic reform.

first, we need to make it clear to regime's supporters that their behavior will not be tolerated, and they will be held accountable, just as the regime will be held accountable. the administration, working with european allies, should sanction more individuals within the regime who are complicit in the repression of protests. to date, 17 individuals and 18 entities have been sanctioned. the world needs to know their names, and they need to decide whether they, those who are and listen, will continue to aid and abet a regime that has killed thousands. this week i will send a letter to the treasury department to urge the administration to expand the list of individuals to be sanctioned by the united states. the administration can do this by executive order and should do so as soon as possible.

that is first. second, the u.s. must play a constructive role in isolated, or i should say continuing to isolate, the assad regime. i called for the establishment of eight friends of the syrian people contact group. this group can serve as the main point of international engagement for the democratic opposition and the syrian people. the arab league, the gulf cooperation council countries, and others could form the core of such a group. it would send a clear message of international solidarity and support of democratic change in syria. i hope that this suggestion would be seriously considered by the arab league when it meets to discuss syria at this saturday. the u.s. should continue to fully support these regional efforts to pressure the regime. in its agreement with the assad government, the arab league continues to send international monitors to see firsthand the situation in syria.

those monitors are needed now, not days or weeks from now, but now. the arab league should send them today. if assad blocks the deployment of these monitors, the arab league should suspend syria's membership in the organization. the united states should also pursue a resolution condemning the assad regime at the united nations. strong international opposition and committed to a isolating the assad regime is key to bringing about democratic reform. the united states senate as well to support these efforts to isolate the regime. through our regular interaction with embassies in washington, individual senators can express concern about the ongoing violence and show support for democratic change in syria. third, the courageous syrian political opposition must work

to communicate a unified vision for the future of the syria. this opposition faces many disadvantages that other protesters from across the region did not face. syria did not have a tahrir square in which two other members. they do not have open borders to find safe haven. they do not have the full attention of the international media, which have been barred from the country. despite these challenges, i believe that the syrian opposition will be involved directly in the country's future. it is imperative that the syrian national council answer questions about its composition and its intent. who are the members of the syrian national council? where does it stand on the role of the international community in stopping the violence and supporting democratic reform?

most importantly, how will minorities be treated in a post-assad syria? we have yet to hear a clear message from the opposition on the essential issues. the syrian national council must be committed to protecting all, all, of ethnic groups the syrian national council must speak with one voice and make it clear that they will advocate minority rights in the new government in hopes to create. the syrian people deserve answers to these key questions, which will in large part determine the degree of support the opposition has inside and outside the country. secretary of state hillary clinton said in a speech on monday that assad "cannot deny his people's legitimate demands indefinitely. he must step down, and until he does, america and the international community will continue to increase pressure on him and his brutal regime."

so said secretary clinton. my questions today will center primarily on how we can and will increase the pressure on this regime. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses on a number of key issues. first, what can regional powers, including the arab league and turkey, due to play a more constructive role in supporting the democratic reform process in syria? second, what is the impact of current u.s. sanctions on the assad regime? third, how is the united states working unilaterally and with the european union to strengthen the sanctions on syria? another question is how does the u.s. assess the current state of the syrian national council? what are the criteria by which to this movement should be judged in order to gain international legitimacy? finally, what are the assessment of our witnesses are growing sectarianism in syria and whether it could lead to a

civil war? we are fortunate to date to have with us two witnesses who can speak about u.s. policy in syria. the hon. jeffrey feltman, assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs at the department of state -- mr. feltman, we are grateful you are here. and luke bronin, deputy assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes at the treasury department, we are grateful you like your as well. these witnesses have extensive experience in the region. we are grateful for their witness here today, their testimony today, and grateful for their service. i would say in conclusion, before turning to senator risch, if he has opening comments, this is a matter of basic justice for the people of syria. a long time ago, st. augustine

said, " without justice, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?" the syrian people have been robbed of a lot of things. robbed of their dignity, robbed at some times of their life and their freedoms. we have to speak out with one voice on matters of basic justice for this country. i know there are a lot of americans that are deeply concerned about this issue. we are grateful that we have so many people here to listen to this testimony and to listen to the questions of our witnesses brought i am grateful for our colleagues being here. ranking member risch, if he has any opening comments. >> thank you very much, senator casey. welcome to all of you. we have any issues that are important under the purview of this committee that deals with

the near east and north africa. the questions and issues surrounding syria certainly are at the top of that list. all of us have watched -- not only us in this committee -- all americans, the world has watched as things have unfolded in the middle east and the arab world this spring. we have watched them play out, and now everything seems to be focused on syria. that seems to be where the unresolved, the current unresolve issues, are. there is a difference between syria and what happened in libya. the opposition in syria is essentially unarmed, and as a result, they do not have the ability that the libyans had, the libyan people had come to do what they believed needed to be done. we need -- we is the united states -- need a policy that is

clear, that we will do everything we can to cut off the sources of assad's finances, and the flow weapons, and do everything we can to isolate this regime. mr. ford, i agree with senator casey that mr. ford is the right person. i disagree with appointed him ambassador because assad had been so brutal with his people. having said that, i agree with the president that mr. ford is the right person for the job g i think it is in the interest of every american, and indeed in the interest of the civilized world, to isolate this regime as much as possible. this is a bipartisan issue. it is an american issue. i am anxious to hear the suggestions we get from the panel and hear about the efforts we are making in that regard, and all of us can commit to move forward to do our best to isolate the regime, which

will hopefully to the results all of us want to see. >> we will start with the opening statements and then we will go to questions. i spoke to both of our witnesses, and they agreed to keep within five minutes if they can. both of your full statements will be made part of the record for this hearing. >> chairman casey, ranking member risch, thank you for inviting us here to discuss our goals with regard to the syrian strategy. bashar al-assad is destroying syria and destabilizing the region. as secretary clinton said, the greatest source of instability in the region is not the people's legitimate demand for change, it is the refusal to change. an orderly democratic transition is clearly in the united states' interests, as it

is in the interest of the syrian people. it will contribute to stability in the region and undermine iran's influence. our message to president assad can be summed up briefly -- step aside and allow people to begin a transition to democracy. we would like to see this transition proceed as quickly as possible, but we should be prepared for the process, unfortunately, it to be long and difficult. much has already changed since the unrest began eight months ago. internally, a large and growing number of the syrians have concluded that assad must go. protests started in the remote village of dara and now take place in every city and village and town in the country. for the regime to maintain power, the syrian army has had to occupy its own country. the regime's overwhelming use of force has not been able to

suppress syriana's courageous street protesters demanding the universal rights. internationally, syria is increasingly isolated as the international community loses patience with assad's brutality and broken promises. nearly all of that syria's neighbors recognize that assad is dangerously at fomenting instability, and that is why we find it is unusual arab league and leadership on a country that is considered very important politically and strategically in the arab world. the arabs want assad to stop destroying syria. the gulf cooperation council described the regime as "a killing machine." after years of strengthening ties with syria, turkish president erdogan said, "goes to suppress their people will not survive. the rule of the people is coming." the coverage has destroyed assad's standing in the street. he has become a pariah in the

arab world. almost all of the arab leaders i talked to say the same thing -- assad's rule is coming to an end. it is inevitable. some of these arabs have even begun to offer a safe haven to encourage him to leave quickly. we welcome the efforts of the arab league to stop the violence, but the regime must be judged by its actions, not by its words. the killing, as you said, mr. chairman, has continued unabated. we urge our arab partners to assume a greater role in exerting international pressure, including at the u.n. economically, sanctions and financial mismanagement by the syrian regime are changing the countless of syria pasta business elite. oil revenue is now almost nonexistent. the regime's access in the unites states and european banks has been frozen. syria is cut off from most of

the international financial system. as cash starts to dry up, more syrians see that the regime is not sustainable. a problem and our international efforts, ambassador ford, as both of you mentioned, and his team are doing courageous work. thank you, committee, for confirming him. he is currently on leave and will return to the post soon. overall, we are following a deliberate course that takes into account unique circumstances. the best way forward is to continue support for the non- violent opposition while working with international partners to further isolate, further pressured the regime. this creates an environment in which the syrians to take control of their own future. you mentioned at the syrian national council. we welcome the establishment of the syrian national council, a broad coalition of opposition groups from inside and outside syria. when you consider that of the

past 40 years, syrians have been prevented from engaging in any political activity, what the opposition has already achieved is truly remarkable. we in the united states have not endorsed any particular opposition group. the syrian people alone will decide who can legitimately represent them. the opposition must continue to expand and consolidate its base within syria by convincing more syrians of the legitimacy of its vision and transition plan, which demonstrates that there is a better alternative to assad. we understand that the syrian people need to protect themselves. a violent resistance is counterproductive. it will play into the regime's hands, it will divide the opposition, it will undermine international consensus. to create better protection for civilians in the near term, we are pressing for access to human rights monitors and journalists. we will relentlessly pursue our strategy of supporting the opposition, and diplomatic and

financially pressured the regime until assadis gone, and until the syrians are able to complete the democratic transition. assad may through his brutality be able to delay or impede this transition, but he cannot stop it. >> thanks very much. mr. bronin? >> chairman casey, ranking member risch, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am pleased to join assistant secretary of state feltman. we have a great relationship with the state department and the state department's syria at team. i would like to review the role of financial sanctions in our strategy. since the syrian uprising began in march 2011, president obama has issued a three executive orders. the first, and april, targets of those responsible for human

rights abuses in syria. the second, in may, it directly sanctions president assad and senior members of his regime. the third, signed in august, imposes a full government blocking program providing all transactions with the government of syria, freezing regime assets, banning the export of services to and investment in syria, and banning dealings in assyrian oil or petroleum. each executive order delegates to the treasury the authority to designate additional entities, and we have made full use of that authority to target insiders and to deny the regime the resources it needs to sustain its continued repression. since the uprising began, we have designated more than three dozen individuals and entities. our actions have targeted insiders and officials, such an assad advisor, a foreign minister, and a prominent businessman and frontman for corrupt officials.

we have imposed sanctions on the largest mobile phone operator in syria, owned by an assad crony. we have designated intelligence, syrian air force intelligence, all deeply complicit in the brutal use of violence against peaceful protesters. demonstrating the full range of the syria's illicit conduct, we used the existing authority to target the commercial bank of the syria for providing financial services to syrian and north korean entities that facilitate weapons of mass destruction proliferation. and we have used our authority to highlight the role of iran, designating the head and deputy head of the islamic revolutionary quds force and iran's law enforcement forces for assisting the regime's brutality. iran claims solidarity with the

popular movement sweeping the arab world today, but iran's real policy is plain -- to export to syria the same repressive tactics employed by the iranian government against its own people. has been steadily increase the pressure on the assad regime, we have done so in close coordination with our allies around the world. like the u.s., the eu as is needed numerous officials and insiders, are prohibited investment in this year in energy sector, frozen the assets of the commercial bank of syria, and if implemented a ban on the importation of the syrian oil and gas to europe. the back of these coordinated, multilateral measures has been profound. today, the government of syria finds it increasingly difficult to access the international financial system. its ability to conduct trade in dollars has been severely constrained, and it has been deprived of its most

significant source of revenue. the eu previously accounted for more than 90% of syria's crude exports. as a result of the eu's ban, that market has effectively been eliminated, and despite their efforts to find new markets, there at the present seem to be fueling the fires. iran itself is under pressure from wide-ranging international sanctions. working in concert with our allies, we have used our tools to sanction assad and sent his regime is clear message -- your reprehensible actions have consequences. continued repression of popular dissent will only increase your isolation. we will continue to identify individuals and entities that are complicit in the assad regime's abuses. we will expose, target, disrupt the regime's sources of revenue

and support, and will continue to engage our partners around the world, urging them to block this. to block syria's access to alternate oil markets. i look forward to continue our work with this committee, and i'm happy to answer questions you have. >> mr. feltman, first of all, i want to ask you about the region, and in particular, maybe we can review a couple of countries in the region that can, should, and will play a role in this. let me start with turkey. in your statement, in your full statement, you mentioned some of the parts of the statements that prime minister erdogan has made. you said in your statement that he believes the opposition will be successful in "their glorious resistance to the

crackdown." certainly is helpful when have a neighbor saying that. i guess i would ask you a couple -- a broad question, and then more specifically -- number one, on this idea of the contact group, how do you assess that, and is there any effort to be undertaken by the state department or the administration to move that ford, a contact group? that is in the broad question. the second, more specific question, is what about the role that turkey has played and can continue to play, and what can we do to move them from being somewhat constructed so far to being more healthful to put pressure on the regime and help in the region?

does that make sense? i know this second question is not as specific as you may want it. >> we welcome your proposal for a contact group for the friends of the syrian people. in fact, we are running with it this idea. we are talking with others about it. i have a very senior colleague who is working on coordination with our european allies pretty much full time. i am in touch with the arabs. what we would like to do is try to get the arabs themselves to play a leadership role in this. one of assad's propaganda tools is, oh, this is just an outside plot. he needs to see that his brother arabs are participating with the contact group. we are exploring and we take the idea as a positive one. >> i think the fact that the arab league has now made an attempt that he seems to be kind of thumbing his nose at, for lack of a better

description, there might add a sequencing problem, but the arab league has taken some action. i would hope that would set the table for what could be a broader effort. that is just an opinion i'm interjecting. >> we agree with you, senator casey. the committee, the arab league's committee that is dealing with this serious issue, headed by the qatari prime minister, includes several arab states. they our meeting on friday. the committee on friday will be discussing a number of options to present to the ministers on saturday. we are encouraging them to look at the issues such as the contact group. we would very much hope that, given assad's clear rejection of their proposal, that they would help us with the security council on things like that. we agree with you that the arab

league is playing an important role, and now is the time for the arab league to take some action. on turkey, you raise an important issue. it is worth remembering that one of the assad family's foreign policy successes come in their own view, is that first of a father and then the son were able to have with turkey. they were close friends. they develop economic ties, political ties, diplomatic ties. it was a very positive relationship from this year in perspective. that is in tatters at this point. when you have statements from the prime minister of turkey such as what i just described, you can see what has happened. they have provided basically a safe haven on turkish soil or syrian refugees.

turkey is a posting somewhere between 70 508,000 refugees on --7500-8000 refugees on turkish soil, protecting them from the assad regime that they fled separately, they are providing space for the opposition. there is little ability for these courageous activists inside syria to get together, because state and clearly they have no rights for a peaceful protest, freedom of speech --

they clearly have no right to a peaceful protest more freedom of speech. turkey is providing some space for the organization, for the opposition forces to meet to lay out a vision. and turkey has, in essence, put on a defacto arms embargo to make sure that arms and not flowing through turkey that through the clique to use against their own people. there is a lot of trade between the 2 countries. there are turkish traders. that is all dried up because of the instability in syria. but we are in close contact with turkey on all of these matters. >> what would you hope that they could do in the next couple of weeks to be constructive? given the fact that the economic trade between the countries is dropping, which would allow them to join the european union and us and japan and canada. and canada.