Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2011

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I ask unanimous consent to call up the Warner amendment No. 2071, with a modification that is at the desk, and I ask that it to be considered in the original order of the previous agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank all our colleagues. We have made good bipartisan progress on a bipartisan bill that I think will go a long way toward solving the current crisis situation in our U.S. Postal Service.

We have several amendments remaining, approximately nine rollcall votes--hopefully fewer as this goes on--and a number of other amendments that we hope will be considered by a voice vote and perhaps even, in the wisdom of the sponsor, withdrawn. At least I look at the occupant of the chair, and I know he is a man who is very wise, and I thank him.

Mr. President, in the normal order, Senator Manchin of West Virginia is next up.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, respectfully to my dear friend from West Virginia, I am going to oppose this amendment, and let me put it in this context. The U.S. Postal Service is in trouble. It is losing about $23 million or $24 million on the average every day, more than $13 billion in the last 2 years. It is not going to survive if the status quo prevails. It needs to change. This bill provides for change but in a way that we think is balanced and reasonable. My friend from West Virginia has introduced an amendment that would prohibit all change for the next 2 years and therefore I think open the way for a kind of death spiral for the U.S. Postal Service.

There are many protections in our bill before a post office could be closed, even more or just as many before a mail-processing facility could be closed. We added more protections yesterday with the McCaskill-Merkley and the Tester-Levin amendments, but they allow change because without change this Postal Service of ours will die.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, next on the list is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2026.

I object on the same grounds we discussed earlier in this debate. It is irrelevant to the subject matter of the Postal Service.

I thank my friend from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 2076

Mr. President, this is an excellent and thoughtful amendment introduced by the Senator from New Mexico, and I am glad to support it. I urge that it be accepted by voice vote.

Mr. President, next is the amendment offered by Senator Paul, amendment No. 2027.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, next on the list is Senator Cardin's amendment No. 2040, which I understand he will withdraw.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Maryland for moving expeditiously. I hope it will continue.

Next is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2028.

Mr. President, I respectfully oppose this amendment. This would actually fracture the U.S. Postal Service as we have known it, as a national institution that maintains national standards, including the promise of universal service wherever one lives or does business, by authorizing localities to break away. I think that in doing so, it would jeopardize the foundation promise our Postal Service made since the beginning of universal service. So I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, the next amendment is Senator Carper's amendment No. 2065.

I thank my friend from Delaware.

Amendment No. 2029, as Modified

Mr. President, we go now to Senator Paul's amendment No. 2029.

Mr. President, I support the amendment. The underlying bill requires the Postal Service to send us a detailed plan for attaining long-term financial solvency. This amendment would add several factors to the list of items that should be considered in the report. I think it strengthens the bill, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2066

Mr. President, next is Senator Carper's amendment No. 2066.

Mr. President, I support the amendment on executive compensation. I believe it addresses this matter in a manner that President Bush 41 might have called prudent. I urge it be adopted by a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2039

Mr. President, the next amendment is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2039.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, next on our list--we are moving well; I thank my colleagues--is Senator Casey's amendment No. 2042.

Amendment No. 2042

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment by my friend from Pennsylvania. Everybody acknowledges that the Postal Service is in crisis, losing $23 million a day. Mail volume has dropped 21 percent in the last 5 years. That means everybody--we simply cannot afford every mail processing facility that exists because there is not that much mail anymore.

The Postal Service will only survive if we change it. Our bill allows for orderly change. This amendment would basically maintain the status quo for 4 years. I think doing so is a kind of invitation to the Postal Service to go into bankruptcy. Our country cannot afford that. So, respectfully, I would oppose the amendment.

The next amendment is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2038. He has asked that I withdraw from the list that amendment on his behalf.

Next is Senator Landrieu's amendment No. 2072.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for proposing this amendment. I support it enthusiastically. It will strengthen the protections regarding the closing of processing facilities, and it requires the Postal Service to take into account the impact of any potential closing or consolidation on small businesses.

This amendment reminds us how many people and how many businesses, including particularly small businesses, across America depend on the

U.S. Postal Service and why it is so important for us to change it to save it. So I thank my friend from Louisiana for proposing this amendment.

I urge adoption of this amendment by voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

Next is Senator DeMint's amendment No. 2046.

Amendment No. 2046

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. It is taking a bill that has the urgent purpose of saving the U.S. Postal Service-- changing it to save it--and bringing in a matter of internal labor union business.

The fact is no postal employee is forced to join a union, but once one does, the union leadership can guide the policy positions the union supports through the democratic processes within the union. No postal employee himself or herself is forced to involuntarily support the advocacy or political activities of a union. That is their choice-- whether to join it. But once they do, their leadership has the right to participate in a political process.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

Madam President, next we have Senator McCaskill's amendment No. 2030.

Amendment No. 2030

Madam President, we will go to Senator Pryor's amendment No. 2036.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Arkansas. This is a good amendment, and I support it wholeheartedly and move its adoption by voice vote.

We will now go to Senator Rockefeller's amendment No. 2073.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

Some questions were raised about parts of the bill relating to accessibility to Medicare by postal employees. I think there has been a good meeting of the minds with this modification. I support the amendment as modified and urge its adoption by voice vote.

Before we get to Senator Rockefeller's second amendment, Senator Coburn has asked me to withdraw amendment No. 2059 on his behalf. I thank him for that.

Amendment No. 2074

We will now go to Senator Rockefeller's amendment No. 2074.

Madam President, I support the amendment, as modified, and urge its adoption by voice vote.

Madam President, next on the list is Senator Schumer's amendment No. 2050.

Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment by voice vote.

Madam President, I move reconsideration and ask the motion be laid on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2071, as Modified

Next will be Senator Tester, amendment No. 2032. Senator Tester is not on the floor right now. I know we were building up to Senator Warner's amendment as the last amendment, but this may now be the second-to-last amendment. Next we will have Senator Warner No. 2071.

Madam President, I move for reconsideration and ask the motion be placed on the table.

The excitement builds now as we move to the last amendment. Senator Tester has amendment No. 2032.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Montana for his amendment. He explained it well and I urge its adoption by voice vote.

Madam President, I move for reconsideration and ask that motion be laid on the table.

Madam President, colleagues, we have completed all the amendments on the bill and we are ready to vote on final passage.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 1789 and give the Postal Service both the financial footing and the business tools it needs to compete in this new communications age.

Let's start by facing facts. USPS is losing business and losing money. If we

do nothing, on May 15th the Postmaster will be allowed to implement his own downsizing plan, which is far more severe than this bill allows and will lead to a loss of jobs and services that could be painful in this fragile economy, especially to our small towns and rural communities.

We have another choice.

To all my colleagues who say they are worried about the burdens the Postmaster's proposal to close 3,700 post offices will impose on families and businesses of their states, I say: ``Vote for this bill.''

It requires the Postal Service issue service standards that ensure communities throughout the country have access to retail postal services, and requires offering alternatives to closures, such as reduced hours at existing facilities, or permitting private contractors or rural carriers to provide services.

To all my colleagues who worry about the loss of postal processing facilities in their states, and the jobs and services that will go with them, I say: ``Vote for this bill.''

While it permits the Postal Service to eliminate excess capacity, it also requires it to maintain an overnight delivery standard--although for somewhat smaller geographic areas. And the maximum standard delivery time--3 days for a letter mailed anywhere in the continental United States--would remain unchanged.

That means fewer plant closings.

To all my colleagues who worry about the loss of Saturday delivery, I say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which takes a responsible, balanced approach to this difficult issue.

The bill prohibits implementation of 5-day delivery for 2 years and requires the Postal Service to determine if the other cost-saving measures in this bill have made cancelling Saturday service unnecessary--and to tell us how it plans to cushion the impacts on the businesses and communities it serves if it decides to go to five days.

Only if the Comptroller General and the Postal Regulatory Commission review the evidence and conclude that the change is necessary, will the switch to 5-day service be allowed.

To all my colleagues who worry about the Postal Service's bleak financial outlook, I say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which provides crucial financial breathing room to help ward off some of the drastic cuts I just spoke of.

First, not one dollar of taxpayer money is being used. This is not a postal ``bailout.''

Roughly $11 billion in USPS overpayments to the Federal Employee Retirement System will be refunded and used to encourage its 100,000 workers at or near retirement age to take voluntary buyouts that could save $8 billion a year.

Money left over can also be used to retire debt.

The bill also reduces the amount the Postal Service has to pay each year to prefund its Retiree Health Benefits, by amortizing its liability over the next 40 years.

This will significantly cut the $5.5 billion annual payment USPS has been making, while still assuring there will be sufficient funds to meet the commitments for future retirees' health benefits.

To all my colleagues who worry that the Postal Service just isn't relevant in the 21st Century, I say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which gives the Postal Service tools to bring in fresh revenues by offering new products and services, such as contracting with state and local governments to issue state licenses, shipping beer, wine and distilled spirits, and creating specialized Internet services.

It also sets up a blue ribbon panel to develop a new strategic blueprint for the Postal Service for this new age.

Finally, in many ways the debate over postal reform is a mirror of the overall budget debate--but writ small.

We confront a financial crisis that could wreak havoc on our economy were the Postal Service to run out of money and be forced to severely slash services. Yet no one wants to cut any services or raise any rates on anybody.

This bill will not solve all the problems that confront the Postal Service, but it is a beginning. This bill represents a clear-eyed and pragmatic way forward for the Postal Service--one that avoids panic or complacency.

It is the kind of balanced and bipartisan approach we will need to deal with the even bigger problems with fast-approaching deadlines racing towards us--like the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the sequestration of military funding.

So to my colleagues who worry about our ability to get big things done and who want to prove to the American people--and ourselves--that Congress can rise above partisan and parochial interests and work for the good of all Americans, I urge you to pass this bill.

I do want to thank the three colleagues on our committee--Senator Collins, Senator Carper, Senator Brown--for the work everyone did to bring about a bipartisan bill that will bring necessary change to the Postal Service in order to save it. Make no mistake about it, this bill will bring the change that the post office needs to stay alive, serving the people and businesses of our country.

Here is the bottom line. The Postal Service itself says that within 3 years, as sections of this bill are phased in, they will reduce their cost of operating by $19 billion and probably in the year after that they will go into balance. That is what this bill will accomplish.

I again thank my colleagues on the committee and the staffs of both sides and the floor staffs on both sides for the extraordinary work over a long period that was done to get us to this point.

We still need 60 votes to pass this bill. I appeal to my colleagues to do so, with a feeling of confidence that we have met a problem here together and have offered a solution that will fix the problem for our country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, with the passage today of S. 1789, we have given the United States Postal Service--created more than two centuries ago in the age of inkwells and quill pens--the tools to thrive in the age of e-mail and the Internet.

Overall, about 8 million jobs hung in the balance, as well as the needs of every household and business in America that depends on the Postal Service to deliver everything from medicines to spare parts.

Passage of this bill is a bipartisan victory that reflects well on the Senate and I want to take this moment to thank the many dedicated staff, from the majority and minority who helped make it possible.

From my staff on the Homeland Security and Governmental I would like to thank Beth Grossman, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Larry Novey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs; Kenya Wiley, Staff Counsel; Mike Alexander, Staff Director; Holly Idelson, Senior Counsel; Jason Yanussi, Senior Professional Staff Member; Leslie Phillips, Communications Director; Sara Lonardo, Press Secretary; Scott Campbell, Communications Advisor; Rob Bradley, Legislative Aide, and Staff Assistant Nick Trager.

From Senator Collins' staff, I would like to thank Katy French, Deputy Staff Director; John Kane, Professional Staff Member; Katie Adams, Professional Staff Member; Cassie D'Souza, detailee from the Postal Regulatory Commission; Nick Rossi, Staff Director and E.R. Anderson, Press Secretary.

From our Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which is chaired by Senator Carper and Ranking Member Scott Brown, I also want to thank John Kilvington, Staff Director for the majority and Justin Stevens, Professional Staff Member, from the minority.

And I would also like to thank all of the staff for the majority and minority leaders, especially Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell and Dave Schiappa who of course make everything happen on the floor of the Senate.

Thomas Jefferson once asked the question: ``What duty does a citizen owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives?''

Answering his own question, Jefferson said: ``A nation that rests on the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its institutions if it is to flourish. Persons qualified for public service should feel an obligation to make that contribution.''

These dedicated staff members answered Jefferson's call to duty and I am proud to be able to work with such people.

Negotiations on the contours of the bill that would become S. 1789 began last October with members of Ranking Member Collins' and Senator Carper's staffs.

The goal was to create a bipartisan bill that would gain support first in the Committee and then on the floor of the Senate.

Today's vote to pass S. 1789 shows the long nights and weekends that went into this bill were worth it.

So again, my thanks to our staffs and for all the work you do for the American people.

Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment. It would limit the number of post offices in the Capitol Complex to one on each side--one in the House and one in the Senate. It does not affect the processing of mail out of the Capitol, and I believe we should accept the amendment.

I urge that we accept the amendment by a voice vote.

Mr. President, this amendment establishes what is essentially a privatization pilot program for the alternative delivery of mail outside of the universal service mandate of the Postal Service. I believe it would create chaos by allowing for inconsistent delivery standards across the country. It would cause cream skimming of profitable delivery areas, and that would harm rural America.

I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. President, I too support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. President, this amendment would strip from the postal workers the right to collectively bargain. This is an enormous change in labor law. Postal workers have had the right to engage in collective bargaining for more than 30 years. We did make changes in this bill in the arbitration process. We made sure if a contract dispute goes to arbitration, the arbitrator has to consider the financial condition of the Postal Service. That will help bring balance into the system. But there is no justification for completely removing the right of workers to collectively bargain.

I urge we reject the amendment.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I urge support of Senator DeMint's amendment. It protects the first amendment rights of postal workers by requiring that unions obtain prior approval from workers before spending their dues on political purposes.

I think this is probably the one and only amendment where I will diverge with my chairman, but I do urge support of Senator DeMint's amendment.

Madam President, first let me commend the Senator from Missouri for this amendment.

It does make a great deal of sense to have the hardship exemption and to give more time for individuals who are injured in war zones and longer deadlines for the paperwork for those individuals who might have trouble submitting the paperwork from a war zone. We are talking about civilian employees who are deployed there. This amendment makes a great deal of sense, and I urge that it be accepted by a voice vote.

Madam President, I support this amendment. There is an inexcusable backlog at OPM in processing the application for retirement benefits. It has caused real hardships for some retired Federal employees and postal employees. This bill will obviously increase the number of postal employees who will be seeking retirement benefits so I think it is important we have the kind of reporting the Senator from Virginia has proposed.

I urge acceptance of the amendment. I urge it be accepted by the voice vote.

Madam President, I believe the odds of our getting the 60 votes for final passage are increased if I make my statement later, rather than delivering it right now. I will deliver my statement after the vote, but I do wish to thank Senator Lieberman, Senator Scott Brown, Senator Carper, all the staffs who have worked so hard.

Today, assuming we get those 60 votes, we have proven the Senate can tackle an enormous problem in a bipartisan way and make real progress on an issue that matters to our economy and to the American people.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, this is an important victory for the U.S. Postal Service and the American economy.

The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $1.1 trillion mailing and mail-related industry that employs nearly 8.7 million Americans in fields as diverse as mail, printing, catalog companies and paper manufacturing. Those industries and the jobs they sustain are in jeopardy.

The Postal Service lost $13.6 billion over the past two years and has seen a 26 percent drop in first class mail since 2006.

But today we have begun to right the ship.

There is still much work to be done, including working with our colleagues in the House to present the President with a bill he can sign.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the solid bipartisan support that this bill received. It's gratifying that so many of my colleagues understand that the Postal Service should not choose the destructive path of cutting service and raising prices.

This vote sends the message that we can't allow the Postal Service to drive customers away to other communication options. Once they leave the mail system, they won't be coming back, and the Postal Service will be sucked further into a death spiral.

As we move toward a conference with the House, we must continue to resist ill-conceived policy changes. We must avoid short term ``fixes'' that undermine service and thus jeopardize the long-term sustainability of this American institution.

Today's vote is also a win for bipartisanship.

Americans are rightly frustrated about what many feel is a dysfunctional Congress. With enormous problems facing our country and Congress having little to show by way of accomplishments, the process we've just completed on this bill demonstrates that it is sometimes possible for Congress to do more and bicker less.

Today we see what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work together; when Senators from big states and small find common ground. We can achieve important policy for those who sent us here.

I want to thank Senator McConnell for working with us so well to preserve an amendment process that fostered healthy debate and allowed our colleagues to get votes on their priorities. Of course, I must also thank Majority Leader Reid for pushing hard to resolve differences in order to create a successful process once the bill was brought to the floor. I know that we would not have had the support that we had for final passage of this bill without the Leaders working together to ensure an amendment process that was fair and reasonable.

As always, Chairman Lieberman's commitment to bipartisanship is unmatched, and it's making him extremely busy and productive in his last year in the Senate. This marks the third bill we have shepherded through to Senate passage in this Congress. I hope to work with him successfully on at least one more bill--cybersecurity.

Senator Scott Brown has already built an impressive record as a key voice for both postal reform and the STOCK Act. I appreciate his partnership on both of these important measures. He has become an independent leader for common sense and I thank him.

I appreciate Senator Carper's leadership on this bill. We have been working together on postal issues for many years, and I am grateful for his expertise and dedication.

My bipartisan cosponsors and I consulted extensively with postal customers, both business and residential, postal workers, and local communities deeply committed to preserving their postal facilities. We could not have gotten this bill passed through the Senate without their important contributions, cooperation, creativity and support.

This bill would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of our staff, and I'd like to recognize some of them personally.

Katy French, John Kane, Katie Adams, and Cassie D'Souza on my staff, have been working for four months as if this bill were coming to the floor the next day. My Committee staff director, Nick Rossi, press secretary, E.R. Anderson, and other members of our team have ably supported them. Justin Stevens on Senator Scott Brown's staff has been an incredible partner as well.

Their colleagues across the aisle were models of hard work and collegiality, and I want to thank them, especially the Chairman's staff, Mike Alexander, Beth Grossman, Kenya Wiley, and Larry Novey, and John Kilvington of Senator Carper's staff. I know it's been hard work, but the staff have the highest level of professionalism, collegiality, patience with each other and the process and it's made the challenge of bringing this bill to the floor a rewarding one.

Finally, I can't thank enough the long-suffering floor staff, who have been incredibly patient, helpful and have gone out of their way to serve many competing agendas with grace. Thank you especially to David Schiappa with Senator McConnell's staff and his team in the Republican cloakroom, and Gary Myrick and his team, with the Majority Leader.

Our work isn't done. Today is just the first step on a long road ahead. We must move a bill to the President's desk. The House has a bill that awaits floor consideration. We will come together for a conference process. More compromises will have to be made along the way. But we can't forget the urgency of our task--saving the Postal Service for the next generation of Americans.

Mr. President, I rise in support, strong support of the SBIR bill. As many of you know, the SBIR bill and the STTR Programs provide vital resources to small businesses, not only in Massachusetts but throughout the country. This reauthorization is incredibly important to not only businesses in my State but businesses in everybody's State.

This compromise bill has been under development and negotiation long before I got here. I applaud Senators Landrieu and Snowe, our chair and ranking member on the Small Business Committee, for their persistence in pushing this bill through. As a matter of fact, I have two amendments that are in the bill that is before us now. I will be offering, not today but in the near future, an amendment which I am about to talk about.

As a small business owner myself for many years, and a longstanding member of many Chambers of Commerce, I believe the Massachusetts small businesses and businesses throughout this country are the economic engine that will help get us out of this economic slowdown we are in. They have the potential to grow, to expand and hire, unlike many businesses throughout the country. Massachusetts is widely regarded as the center for innovation in biotechnology. We are a small State but we have received the most SBIR awards, only after California. That goes to show how important our State is when it comes to creating small businesses. The success of the SBIR Program serves as a reminder that government can play a role in the business community. But it also needs to know when to step out of the way and allow businesses to grow and actually create jobs.

I want to speak about an amendment I filed, amendment No. 212. It is based on S. 164, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2011, which enjoys bipartisan support and is critically needed now. The ranking member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Snowe, is a cosponsor. I am looking forward to getting many other cosponsors and working very closely with the chair on this timely piece of legislation.

We need once and for all to repeal an onerous and costly unfunded mandate that directly affects businesses, not only in my State but throughout the country. This is a jobs amendment, plain and simple. It would repeal part of our Tax Code that absolutely promises to kill jobs, jobs that these young people up here could someday have. If we do not act soon, section 3042(t) would require, beginning January 12, Federal, State, and local governments to withhold 3 percent of nearly all contract payments made to private companies as well as Medicare payments, farm payments, and certain grants. It is an arbitrary tax and it is nearly impossible to actually implement it. It is one of the things we have done that makes absolutely no sense. It has been delayed many times.

The Government Withholding Relief Coalition, a coalition of more than 100 members encompassing a cross section of America, has estimated the combined total 5-year cost to the State and Federal Government of implementing this legislation could be as high as $75 billion.

That makes a lot of sense? That $75 billion is coming out of those coffers at a time we can least afford it, and it is estimated only to bring in about $7 billion over that same time period. It makes absolutely no sense. It is absurd. Any tax that costs more to implement than it actually brings in makes no sense at all. I hope with your leadership and many other Senators' leadership on this issue we can attack these bad laws that are about to click in. It should be repealed immediately. As a matter of fact, last week I received a letter from Massachusetts State Secretary of Finance Jay Gonzalez, warning Congress of the inevitable threat to small businesses' ability to survive in this tough economic climate if we allow the continuation of what I consider a stealth tax. We cannot discuss the health of small businesses on the floor without acknowledging that these very same small businesses we aim to help with the SBIR Program, the bill before us now, will be suffocated by this 3-percent withholding tax. For some businesses it may be the entire net profit of what they make per year.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from Secretary Gonzales printed in the Record.

The Department of Defense alone has estimated this provision will cost about $17 billion to comply with over the first 5 years. Unfortunately, there are many other provisions and reasons why this provision should be repealed as soon as possible. At a time when State and local governments are under extreme fiscal and financial stress, why? I don't get it. Why would we actually start to put in and enforce another unfunded, costly mandate on them to recover minimal funds for the Federal Treasury? This is a question of the Federal Government seeking more funds to pay its bills. Only in Washington--and I have been here a little over a year, very similar to what the Presiding Officer has--only in Washington can they try to convey that something like this is good when they actually spend $10 of everybody's money, nearly, to recoup a dollar. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Many businesses that contract with the government will simply pass this provision on, as we know, back to the government in the form of higher bids on contracts. So having a bid on a contract here, when this particular tax is implemented--it is going to be here and is ultimately going to cost every single one of us more money to do the same thing.

I listen to the administration, I listen to all the political pundits, I listen to everybody talk about the fact that we need to get our fiscal and financial house in order. We are in trouble fiscally. This country, if we do not do something quickly, is going to be in deep trouble. Here we are. We have an unfunded mandate, something that is going to add to the cost of doing business, and here we are. Are we going to take it up and vote on it? I hope we do. I am looking forward to the bipartisan leadership from the Presiding Officer and others on this very important issue.

Many businesses that contract with the government, as I said, will merely pass this on. It will crush them and restrict a critical cashflow and discourage them from participating in government contracts. They will go other places.

Members of the construction industry are also worried that the provision will tax away all of their anticipated profit on government contracts, hence diminishing competition and actually raising costs to the government at a time we cannot afford it.

This provision passed in 2005, long before we got here--but we, as the new breed of Senators, recognize we need to get our house in order. There is a reason the implementation of this has been delayed over and over. Everyone knows it can never go into effect. We will be back on the floor later this session, because we need to repeal this tax. We can do it in the next weeks. I appreciate the effort of the majority leader to now include us in the amendment process so we can actually be part of the process and come up with new ideas, from new people, to look at things in a different way and actually solve problems. That is what this amendment offers. I plan to offer it. I welcome everybody's support.

Before I conclude, I want to wish everybody a happy St. Patrick's Day and I appreciate your listening.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at a time when America's infrastructure is crumbling, at a time when the Postal Service is losing $4 billion a year, does it make sense to send $2 billion to Egypt? Does it make sense to borrow money from China to send it to Egypt? At a time when American citizens are being prosecuted in Egypt, at a time when American citizens are having international warrants sworn out on their arrests by Egypt, does it make sense to send $2 billion to Egypt?

Last week I met with a young prodemocracy worker from Egypt. She is afraid to return home. She is afraid she will never see her children again. She is afraid of the cage they will put her in to prosecute her for political crimes. She fears that the Egyptian freedom movement will die in its infancy.

So I ask--for as long as prodemocracy workers are being prosecuted, American and Egyptian--I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2023 and that it be voted on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to not offer my amendment No. 2026, and I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous to call up amendment No. 2027.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, at a time when we are asking post offices and people around our country to suffer the loss of their local post office, I think the very least we can do is show we are willing to give up some of the post offices around here. We have seven post offices in the Capitol. We have a post office in almost every building. I am asking that we have one on the House side and one on the Senate side. If we are asking people to suffer the loss of their post offices in their States, I think the very least we can do is do without a few post offices here, and I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2028.

Mr. President, this amendment would allow a pilot program for local postal autonomy. One of the complaints I heard from postmasters when they came to talk to me about this bill is that they think there is a lot of middle management in the Postal Service making unwise decisions, and if they were given more autonomy at the local level to make decisions about their post offices, they would have the ability to have cost-saving measures to try to save the post office for their local community. I think this makes sense. I think we would have more innovation and get some useful ideas from our local postmasters.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, this amendment doesn't change any of the postal mandates and, to tell my colleagues the truth, the system we have now is not working very well. I think we do need some innovation, so I think it would be a good idea to vote for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2029 with the modifications at the desk be reported.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment would add a technical change to the profitability plan that is already required under the bill, and it would simply ask that when they do the profitability plan, they report on whether Congress is helping or hurting. A lot of times we do things that are well intentioned that may not work out. I think they need to let us know more about whether Congress is helping or hurting the process.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2039.

Mr. President, let's be frank. The Postal Service is bankrupt and only dramatic action will fix the Postal Service. The problem is labor costs. Eighty percent of the Postal Service's costs are labor. If we look at UPS, it is about 50 percent. If we look at FedEx, it is about 38 percent. Before we close one post office, before we end Saturday mail, before we ask citizens to get poorer services for higher prices, maybe we ought to look at the root of the problem.

Even FDR--the biggest of the big government advocates--said this about collective bargaining:

All Government employees should realize that the process of

collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be

transplanted into the public service.

So agreeing with FDR, I hope my colleagues from across the aisle will agree with their patron saint FDR and will support this amendment that would end collective bargaining.

In the interest of time, I will be happy to have a voice vote.

Madam President, I rise support of my amendment, which has been modified in consultation with the managers of the Postal Reform bill, S. 1789. I am very pleased that both Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Minority Member Collins have agreed to accept my amendment to further strengthen the segment of the bill governing proposed consolidations for the Postal Service's processing and distribution facilities.

With my amendment as part of the underlying bill, the Postal Regulatory Commission, PRC, will now independently verify the Postal Service's methodology and estimated costs savings from proposed plant consolidations. In other words, starting with those facilities currently under review, the Postal Service will no longer have unchecked authority to close or consolidate these important facilities.

The Postal Service has unfortunately proven itself unable to make these decisions, many of which have far-reaching implications for the quality of service of postal customers, without proper oversight, fact- checking and third-party verification.

As part of a major restructuring of the Postal Service's mail delivery infrastructure, Postmaster General Donahue proposed closing and consolidating 232 mail processing and distribution facilities across the United States. Unfortunately for the people of Maine, his proposal included the consolidation of the Eastern Maine Processing and Distribution Facility in Hampden into the Southern Maine Processing and Distribution Facility located in Scarborough.

This was a fundamentally flawed proposal from its inception. The Eastern Maine Processing and Distribution Facility, located approximately 144 miles away from Maine's other mail processing facility in Scarborough, ME, currently processes mail destined for eastern, western, and northern Maine. Without this facility, mail service to communities, families, the elderly, and businesses throughout most of Maine would be severely delayed.

I strongly opposed this proposed consolidation from the beginning. In December, I visited the facility and met with the plant's manager and employees. During the visit, I conveyed my strenuous opposition to the plan and questioned the ability of the Postal Service to save money by shifting jobs from Hampden to Scarborough.

As part of its consolidation process, the Postal Service holds public meetings in communities facing the loss of a Processing and Distribution facility. For Hampden, the Postal Service held a public meeting on January 11 2012, which I attended, along with approximately 300 other Mainers, all of whom opposed the Postal Service's recommendation.

In advance of the public meeting, my staff carefully reviewed the Postal Service's Area Mail Processing--AMP--report, which contained the estimated cost savings for consolidating the Hampden facility. In reviewing the AMP report, we discovered a very large mathematical error.

The Postal Service originally claimed that eliminating two white collar management positions at the plant would save almost $800,000. When my office started asking questions about this, the Postal Service backtracked to claiming that eliminating these jobs would save only $120,000 in advance of its public meeting.

Shockingly enough, the Postal Service's final AMP report which was released in February retained the obviously mistaken claim that eliminating these two positions saved almost $800,000. In all, the Postal Service has resumed mistakenly claiming almost 400 percent more in savings than would be accurate.

Under my amendment, if a local community is opposing a proposed consolidation, it can appear that recommendation to the Postal Regulatory Commission--PRC--which will be able to independently review the Postal Service's methodology and estimated cost savings to guard against facilities being closed due to faulty calculations by the Postal Service. If the PRC concludes that the AMP report was mistaken or inaccurate, the PRC has the authority to prevent closure or consolidation from moving forward until the facts are corrected.

With my amendment being added to the underlying bill, local communities will now be assured of an even playing field and a thorough and accurate assessment of the impact of any closure or consolidation.

In closing, I wish to thank the managers of the bill for accepting my amendment and I urge the Senate to adopt it by voice vote.