A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of the act and budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment for reasons that we described in the debate we had here on the floor yesterday. The U.S. Postal Service says this bill will, in fact, save $19 billion a year.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this motion to

waive be placed at the end of the list of amendments that are in order to vote on now.

If I may, if we are going to vote now--and Senator Collins and I spoke to this at great length yesterday. The CBO score my friend from Alabama cites is a real misreading of the effect of this legislation. It is a kind of form of accounting over the reality of budgeting. The bottom line is that the U.S. Postal Service itself says that if this bill--the substitute to S. 1789--is adopted--and it would be phased in over 3 years--the Postal Service will save $19 billion annually. To me, that is what this is all about--no deficit, a saving.

I ask my colleagues to support the motion to waive the point of the order.

I would yield to my ranking member.

Mr. President, very briefly, I join my colleague in saying that if this point of order by our friend from Alabama is sustained and this bipartisan bill therefore is not able to be brought up, the effect will be that the Postal Service will continue to run ever-greater losses to a point where they, in fact, will have to turn to the Treasury, which they are not doing now, to bail them out. This is a responsible answer to a problem and a bipartisan one.

I urge my colleagues to vote to support the motion to waive the Senator's point of order.

Mr. President, very briefly, I thank Senator Brown from Massachusetts for his statement and his work on the bill.

This point of order puts the whole bill in jeopardy. Right at the beginning of the debate and the vote, it forces Members to decide whether they want to deal with this crisis of the Postal Service. I think it tests Congress again--in this case the Senate. Are we going to face a real problem in one of the iconic areas of American public service, the Postal Service, which cannot continue to do business as it is now--and this bill will force it to change in ways that are significant but will still keep it alive--or are we going to turn away from the problem, which would be the effect of sustaining this point of order. It would also cut off the debate.

We have 39 amendments pending. This bill may change as the debate goes on. The final vote on passage of the bill will require 60 votes. So don't cut it off now.

Let's have this debate and prove to the American people that we can take on a problem and, on a bipartisan basis, fix it. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to waive the point of order.

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.

I thank my colleagues.

We had kind of an existential vote at the beginning which we didn't expect. It is always good to survive terminal action, and now we can proceed. We have 39 amendments pending. I hope we can proceed expeditiously. I hope some of our colleagues will agree to voice votes. On several of these, Senators Collins, Carper, Scott Brown, and I agreed on and we are prepared to accept them. So I hope our colleagues will allow us to do that by consent. But now we can proceed with the first amendment.

Amendment No. 2056, as Modified

Mr. President, I support Senator Tester's amendment.

It simply creates safeguards to ensure that the Postal Service, when it closes a post office, does so as the result of a process that is transparent and takes into account the unique needs of communities, particularly small towns and rural areas.

This does not stop the decisionmaking process at the Postal Service to change the Postal Service. It makes it transparent and fair.

If I may, at this time I ask unanimous consent that if a voice vote is requested and acceptable for any of the amendments relative to the postal reform bill, including this one, that the 60-vote affirmative vote requirement be waived for that amendment.

Mr. President, I want to note for the benefit of our colleagues that on the list of 39 amendments, the first amendment was Senator McCain's amendment No. 2001. He did not call it up, which is an expression of his intention not to go forward with it. I thank him for that, and I hope it sets a precedent that other of the sponsors of amendments will feel moved to follow.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for a voice vote.

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, I also support the amendment, and I thank Senator Coburn for introducing it. This is disclosure and limitation of spending on conferences. Unfortunately, the excessive and outrageous spending by GSA on the conference in Las Vegas brought the whole area of Federal spending on conferences into the public Klieg lights, and I reached a conclusion that we are spending too much.

This amendment would require the posting online of all agency conference spending. It limits the amount that can be spent on conferences and limits the number of conferences agency employees can attend and it imposes a 20-percent across-the-board cut on agency budgets for this purpose. I hope the amendment passes. I hope the bill passes as amended.

There are a couple parts of that that we have begun to work with Senator Coburn and his staff on which I think will make this a better amendment. But bottom line, this responds to a need, and I support it.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment would create a commission similar to the base closure commission to oversee Postal Service decisions regarding which post offices, processing plants, and district offices are to close or consolidate.

In this bill we have constructed what I think is a clear and fair system for making exactly those decisions. The language in the bill is not status quo language. If this bill is enacted, there are post offices that will close or be consolidated as well as mail processing facilities that will close. That simply has to happen, but it will happen according to a system of due process that gives most heed to the fiscal crisis of the Postal Service.

In other words, I think we have a congressional answer to this problem. We don't have to yield it to another BRAC commission.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment. I thank Senator Wyden and those who worked with him on this amendment for, frankly, calling our attention to this important matter and working to ensure that our efforts to salvage the U.S. Postal Service-- to change it, to keep it alive--do not come at the expense of our critical efforts to ensure access to the voting booth by mail as well as no-excuse absentee programs that rely heavily on dependable mail service. I support the amendment.

If there is no further debate, I urge that we adopt the amendment by voice vote.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment on the list, the so-called McCaskill-Merkley amendment, be dropped a few places down because we are working on some compromise language that we hope will lead to a voice vote of acceptance.

That would mean Senator Coburn's next amendment, which is amendment No. 2061, is now the pending business.

Madam President, a while back we skipped over the McCaskill-Merkley amendment. We were working on a modification. The modification is ready now. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the McCaskill-Merkley amendment No. 2031.

Madam President, I appreciate the work that has been done on this amendment. I know there is a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle because of the concern about rural post offices. This establishes, again, some standards. It effectively asks the Postal Service before it considers closing a rural post office for 1 year after enactment of this legislation

that it explore every other opportunity to continue to provide service other than closing the post office.

The one clear authority given in the modified amendment is to close a rural post office when there is no significant community opposition, which is to say, when the Postal Service has convinced the people of the community that they have a good alternative to the current post office. So I think we have reasoned together.

I hope this enables our colleagues who may have been thinking of more absolute prohibitions to closing post offices to step back from that. This is a rational, fair approach. I support the modification and the amendment.

I urge that the amendment be adopted by voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote and ask unanimous consent that the motion be laid upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment of my friend from New Mexico. I know there are a lot of people who don't want to lose 6-day delivery. But the greater imperative is not to lose the Postal Service as we know it.

The Postmaster asked for the immediate authority to go from 6 days of delivery to 5. In this bill we have given the Postmaster authority in many different areas to save money. We said, as a result, that we will not give him the authority to go from 6 days of delivery to 5 for 2 years, hoping that within the 2 years he can save enough money not to have to make this change. Frankly, I am skeptical that he can. We wanted to give him 6 days of delivery--that last opportunity.

To pull this procedure out of the bill, with a lot of due process before the move can be made from 6 to 5 days, removes the credibility from the bill and will jeopardize its ultimate adoption.

With a lot of respect and affection for my friend from New Mexico, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Madam 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.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois. He has explained the amendment totally. It is a good amendment. I support its passage, and urge we adopt it by voice vote.

Madam 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.

Amendment No. 2034

Mr. President, I wish to join my friend from Maine in respectfully opposing Senator Akaka's amendment.

This workers' compensation program has gotten out of control. Senator Collins has worked hard on this with others. Her reform proposal for the Postal Service struck the Obama administration as so sensible that they asked our committee to extend it to all the Federal Government employees.

I urge opposition, respectfully, to the Akaka amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. It deals with some issues that the committee and the bipartisan bill have dealt with in a fair and balanced way. It kind of breaks through that proposal we have made. It would permit the Postal Service to move to 5- day delivery service immediately. It would increase rates without a cap. It also removes some protections that are in the bill at this time.

I think this amendment, if adopted, would lead to the kind of curtailments in postal operations that would actually not help the Postal Service but diminish revenues and put it more dramatically into deficits.

With respect to my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, who sponsored it, I oppose this amendment.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2049

Mr. President, the next amendment on the list is Senator Mikulski's amendment. Senator Mikulski has decided not to introduce her amendment. I thank her for that, and we will go next to Senator Akaka's amendment numbered 2049.

I rise to support the amendment offered by my friend from Hawaii. The Postal Service is going to need the support of all its employees and managers to turn around its current decline.

Postmasters and postal supervisors are a real and important human asset for the Postal Service and we should do what we can to foster productive and constructive collaboration between the Postal Service and the senior employees. The Akaka amendment just clarifies and strengthens existing requirements for consultation, not collective bargaining, for the scheduling of changes and terminations of pay and benefit programs. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I believe the next amendment in order is amendment No. 2025 by the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Republicans' tax hike on the middle class has just been defeated. Their plan would have raised taxes by about $1,000 for 25 million middle-class families while giving millionaires an average of a $160,000 tax break. So let's look at that. Their bill would have raised taxes on 25 million middle-class families by about $1,000 a year, and it would have given millionaires a $160,000 tax break. Those numbers are staggering. Their bill would have raised taxes on parents trying to pay for college, on families--especially large families--with children. So it is no wonder a majority of Senators opposed that legislation.

In just a short time there will be a bill that will pass cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans, including every middle-class taxpayer and more than 97 percent of small businesses. This plan, proposed by President Obama, would cut taxes for 114 million American families. Theirs raises taxes for 25 million middle-class families. This is the only bill that has a chance of becoming law, so it is the only plan that would actually give a middle-class family the security of avoiding their fiscal cliff. The House should take up this legislation and pass it.

President Obama believes we must keep taxes low for 98 percent of Americans. Democrats agree. So do the majority of Americans. A majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, around this country believe taxes should remain low for the middle class but the top 2 percent should pay their fair share to reduce the debt. The bill the Senate is about to pass respects the will of the American people, including a majority of Republicans in America outside the Halls of this Congress. Republican Members of Congress disagree with a majority of Republicans.

The President, of course, has said he will sign the bill immediately. But now Republicans are threatening to hide behind yet another arcane procedural maneuver to stall this crucial legislation, and this will get the attention of the American people. They are threatening to do something called blue slip this because revenue-raising resolutions must be originated in the House of Representatives. But my Republican colleagues have very short memories. Senate Republicans are all too happy to bypass the procedural hoop when it suits their purposes. They are willing to go around it when it is time to reauthorize the FAA. They were willing to sidestep it when we passed the Violence Against Women Act. We did that here in the Senate. They were willing to dodge it when we passed the Transportation bill that was so important to this country. But now their excuse for stalling a tax cut for 98 percent of the American people is an old procedural trick that the American people do not understand, and rightfully so.

If Republicans in the House fail to act on this bill, taxes will rise by $2,200 for the typical middle-class family of four. That is $2,200 less to spend on gas, groceries, rent, and life in general for these people. This tax hike on ordinary families couldn't come at a worse time--just as our economy is doing its utmost to get back on its feet.

Republicans should not force middle-class families off their fiscal cliff to protect more wasteful giveaways to millionaires and billionaires--an average of $160,000 a year per millionaire. Democrats believe this country can't afford more budget-busting giveaways for the top 2 percent of earners. Again, Republicans in America agree with us. It is only here in the Senate that the Republicans don't agree. But that is a debate we are willing to have, and the House Republicans need not hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage in order to have that debate. They can and should pass our middle-class tax cuts immediately.

Once we give middle-class families security, we can spend the next 5 months debating whether wealthy families need more tax breaks. We know how the American people feel--just like we do.

Mr. President, in 2010 the country was staring at what had taken place the prior 8 years--8 million jobs lost. What has happened in the years since 2010 that my friend the Republican leader talks about? This administration has created 4.5 million jobs. We haven't filled the hole we lost during the 8 years of the prior President, but we have made some progress. We all acknowledge we need to do more, but don't ever compare today with 2010.

First of all, everyone understands, all you folks who love to give tax cuts to the millionaires, our bill does that also. The first $250,000 they make is treated just like a middle-class family.

I would also point everyone to this. I have talked about the Republicans around the country supporting this legislation. Of course they do. They know the deficit needs to be handled, and they know that about $1 trillion is what our legislation will do to fill the hole of the debt.

But also, people who are in this great country of ours who have done so well understand that they are supposed to contribute more. They know that. My friend doesn't like to hear polls, but let me give him another one. Sixty-five percent of these really rich people are willing to pay more taxes. Again, the people who are unwilling to do this are people who signed a pledge for this person, Grover Norquist. And remember, there was a little vacillating about a month ago, so he came up here and had somebody renew their vows with him.

So we are on the side of the angels; we are on the side of the American people because this legislation that is going to pass is what is good for the American people. And I ask that we have that vote now.

Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Remember, I always get the last word.

Mr. President, they may have different newspapers in Kentucky than I read. I get my Nevada clips every day. I try to read some papers from back home. We have now 28 months of job growth in the private sector, 20 months in a row. That is pretty good.

This legislation is about the debt. It is about the debt. We have to do something about the debt, and we have tried mightily to do that. We have tried mightily.

We had the Conrad-Judd Gregg legislation. Seven people who are Republican Senators who cosponsored that wouldn't vote for it and allow me to get it on the floor because they had adopted the Republican leader's philosophy that the most important thing we can do is defeat President Obama for reelection. Then we went to Bowles-Simpson, which was a program we put together when we couldn't get that legislation. That was so good, by two of our best financial minds in the Senate, Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad. And Bowles-Simpson didn't make it. Then we had a series of talks with the President and the Speaker. Always, we could never quite get it done. Why? Even though my friend and I care about him, John Boehner said, I want to do big things, not little things. One of the little things he couldn't do is get his caucus to agree to just a little bit of revenue so we could have a deal, the grand bargain. Then we tried the Biden talks. The majority leader in the House of Representatives walked out on those talks. Then we had the supercommittee, and about 1 week before, by statute, Patty Murray and her troops were supposed to offer the legislation, I got a letter signed by virtually every Republican Senator saying: No thanks. Grover wins again. No revenues.

This is about our country, about doing something about a debt. It will contribute about $1 trillion to the debt. That is not bad.

Mr. President, required reading for decades now has been George Orwell. College students read it now just like I did when I was in college. George Orwell came to the conclusion that we have arrived at a time where up is down and down is up, and that is what my friend, the Republican leader, has done. If there were ever a statement Orwellian, it is his.

We haven't done the appropriations bill. Stop and think just 1 minute. Does the minority leader think 85 filibusters had anything to do with that? Eighty-five filibusters. We haven't done a budget. That is poppycock. We have one. We did it, and my Republican friends--I appreciate it--voted with us. We have our numbers right now. We could have done every appropriations bill. Chairman Inouye marked them up. We can't do them because we have to overcome 85 filibusters.

For my friend to say, let's do something important, please--is this bill we are going to pass important? You bet it is. He said it would only pay for the government for 1 week or whatever the number was. Over 10 years, it is $1 trillion. Over 1 year, it is $100 billion. Even in Las Vegas that is not chump change.

I wish we would vote now.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the score for the substitute is incredibly misleading. As the Postal Service has told us, this bill would save the Postal Service $19 billion, and that would return it to profitability. The problem is the unique status of the Postal Service in that it is off-budget for operations but on-budget for workers' benefits accounts. This is true despite the fact that these accounts the Postal Service pays into are not funded with tax dollars.

The postal employees are contributing. The Postal Service, from its revenue, is contributing.

For the retirement accounts, we are not talking about tax dollars from the Postal Service. These are contributions from the postal employees and by the Postal Service from its revenues. But because of the unified budget, it is considered to be an on-budget status for these benefit accounts--most likely because they are shared with other Federal agencies that are using tax dollars.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the motions to waive. If they do not and this bill falls, it will spell the end of the Postal Service.

Mr. President, let me repeat for my colleagues one more time: There are no taxpayer dollars authorized by this bill or appropriated by this bill. The score is caused by the unique status the postal service accounts have within the unified budget. The operational accounts are off budget. The employee health benefits and retiree accounts are on budget because those accounts are also used by Federal agencies.

Let me again quote from the inspector general who explains the system very well. He says the source of the Federal employee retirement funding comes from two streams of revenue. First, the U.S. Postal Service contributes 11.9 percent of the employees' salaries to the fund and the employees contribute .8 percent. The postal service's contribution comes from revenue paid for postage, and this money comes from ratepayers. The employee contribution is made in exchange for a defined benefit.

There are no tax dollars authorized or appropriated by this bill. It is a quirk of the way the unified budget works. And that is why we should vote to waive this point of order. We are not talking about taxpayer dollars here.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I too support the amendment offered by Senator Tester and Senator Levin.

It simply makes clear that the Postal Regulatory Commission may review an appeal of a post office closure if it violates either the overnight delivery service standard or the retail service standards that are created by our bill. So I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment. I wish to commend the Senator from Oklahoma for offering an amendment that would prohibit the kind of lavish spending on Federal conferences we have seen recently at GSA. So this is an excellent amendment. It will save money, provide more transparency, and put a cap on how much can be spent. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma is right in line with the bill. We do encourage the Postal Service to look at colocations--for example, in a local pharmacy or a grocery store. In many small communities, that may well be a viable option, and it may well improve customer access. So I think this is a very good amendment that is in line with other language already in the bill. I urge its adoption by a voice vote.

Madam President, while I think the changes the Senator has made in his amendment do improve it considerably, I am still very concerned about the idea of imposing a mandatory retirement system, and let me tell you why.

First, to me, it smacks of age discrimination in some cases. Second, we could be losing some of our most experienced and best personnel we need to implement the major changes that are authorized by this bill. Third and finally, I find it a little odd that we would want to tell people who are still in their working years and have had a good career and are contributing and are good employees that we do not want them to work anymore. I think the approach in our bill of offering incentives is a better way to go.

Madam President, first, I congratulate my colleague from Maine for an excellent amendment. As she indicated, the Postal Service made a major miscalculation, a mathematical error, in the study it did on the Hampden processing center in our State. So that Senators know, the amendment would say if a proposed consolidation of a mail processing center is appealed to the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Commission can be asked to review the underlying study's methodology and the estimated savings to make sure it is correct because right now there is no way to challenge a mistake that is made by the Postal Service in conducting these very important studies that are going to decide whether processing centers stay open.

I commend my colleague from Maine for a very well thought out amendment, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.

Madam President, this amendment would also take $8.9 billion that is supposed to go to pay for retiree health benefits of postal workers and instead redirect those funds to maintain 6-days-a- week delivery of the mail. I hope we always have 6-days-a-week delivery. I think that is an asset. I think we should strive to preserve it. That is why our bill prohibits going to 5-day delivery for 2 years, to wring all the waste out of the system.

Madam President, this amendment would strike the Federal workers' compensation title in the bill and replace it with very minor provisions that provide no significant cost savings.

The amendment would strike the reforms that bring parity between workers' comp benefits and retirement benefits for Federal workers. It makes it much more comparable to the States' workers' comp plans. The Federal plan is more generous than any State plan. The amendment does nothing to combat the rampant fraud nor constrain costs which have increased by $1 billion.

In the current workers' comp program, we have 2,000 postal employees who are over age 70; we have 6 Federal workers who are age 100 or older. These individuals are not coming back to work. We are trying to focus this program, as it should be, on returning injured workers to work. It is very similar to the proposals that the Obama administration has made. It grandfathers in everyone for 3 years as well as those age 65 and older.

Mr. President, let me just reinforce that this is not giving collective bargaining rights to postmasters or to postal supervisors. I support Senator Akaka's amendment. All it is trying to do is strengthen a provision that is in current law that asks for the Postmaster General to consult with the postmasters and the other supervisory organizations when there are changes made in work schedules or benefits. They should have the right to have their views heard. It does not give them a veto. It does not authorize collective bargaining or contract negotiations in any way. I wish to emphasize that because there has been misinformation about what this amendment, in fact, entails.

I support this amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, there are at least three problems with the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.

The first is a practical problem. How is the Postal Service going to deal with a situation where at one house there is a monopoly on the use of the post office box and at the next house there is not a monopoly? How is that going to work?

Second, mail often contains highly sensitive pieces, such as medical records, bills, personal correspondence. Continuation of the mailbox monopoly is necessary to preserve the safety, the security, and the privacy of mail.

The third argument is that if you repeal the mailbox monopoly, you will leave rural America behind. There will be plenty of competition in large cities, but who will be left to serve rural America? Only the Postal Service. And that will further drive up its costs because it will be losing customers.

I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. President, the bill before us would make some important changes to existing law. There is little doubt that change is necessary; the Postal Service faces an extraordinary financial challenge, and it must make changes to take into account a new reality in which physical mail has in many cases been replaced by electronic communication.

But in making these necessary reforms, we must ensure that all the American people can continue to rely on the United States Postal Service to provide universal service, as it has since our Nation's founding. And we must ensure that in making changes, any reduction in facilities and personnel yields real cost savings to the Postal Service that outweigh the loss in service. One of the things we can do to assure that is to require that there be a real, objective way to test and challenge Postal Service proposals to close facilities. In an effort to meet those goals, I have joined with Senators Tester and Franken and others to propose an amendment that would

make some important changes to the substitute amendment before us.

Here are some of the provisions of our amendment. Under current law, any interested party can appeal a proposed closure of a community's main post office to the PRC, the Postal Regulatory Commission. The substitute before us extends that opportunity for appeal to branches of a post office. The substitute does not, however, extend that same appeal right to postal processing facilities. While the substitute acknowledges the need for some oversight over the closure of processing facilities, it is important to provide a meaningful chance to appeal a proposed closure of a mail processing facility. Our amendment does that.

The importance of providing a meaningful appeal process was reinforced by a recent experience of mine. In February, I wrote to Postmaster General Donahoe about the decision to close six processing facilities in Michigan. In my letter, I asked four questions: How many jobs would be affected at each facility? Of those, how many would be transferred to other facilities? How far would each transferred worker have to transfer? And what were the projected cost savings or additional costs at each affected facility? It seems to me that information is crucial to making informed decisions about whether to close a facility. But when the Postal Service responded to my letter nearly 8 weeks later, the response did not answer any of these questions satisfactorily. An inability to provide that kind of basic information indicates to me that a fair opportunity to appeal is crucial.

Our amendment also clarifies that during the appeal process for post offices, branches, and processing facilities, the proposed closure shall be suspended--not just that it ``may be'' suspended, as is the case under current law. If the Postal Service can close a post office, branch or processing facility while the closure is under appeal, the appeal would be a sham.

Also, under current law and the substitute before us, the PRC has the authority to affirm a proposed closing or order that the matter be returned to the Postal Service for further consideration. Our amendment would grant the PRC the additional authority to reverse a closure decision.

Our amendment would also require that the Postal Service consider whether a proposed closing or consolidation is consistent with new retail service standards that the bill requires, and whether the proposed action achieves real and substantial cost savings. And our amendment provides that the PRC set aside Postal Service decisions to close post offices and branches that do not achieve substantial economic savings. If our goal is to help save the postal service money, surely it is important that we do not allow actions that degrade service to our communities without actually saving money.

Postal reform is among the most significant issues we will consider this year. It touches every town and village, every person and every business across our Nation. The Postal Service's universal service obligation--the obligation to ensure that all Americans have access to an affordable, efficient postal system in order to communicate with one another--is among the most important obligations any agency or department has. It sets the Postal Service apart from private-sector firms that are under no obligation to serve all markets. The Postal Service's first obligation is not profit. It is service.

Historically, the United States Postal Service has played a vital role in uniting Americans across the vast expanse of this continent, in connecting Americans far from home with their loved ones, in helping businesses reach customers across the Nation and the globe. Establishing a postal service was among the first acts of the Continental Congress, an act that predates even the Declaration of Independence. The need to establish an efficient postal system for the colonies was deemed so important that Benjamin Franklin, one of the most respected leaders not just in America, but the world, was named our first postmaster general.

I have heard from many of my constituents on this issue, as I am sure all of us have. They recognize the need to reform the Postal Service and find efficiencies so that it can continue to serve all Americans. But they also want us to do this the right way--to ensure that any changes we make, in fact, put the Postal Service on a sound financial footing, and that we carefully balance the need for savings with the need to maintain service for all people and in every community across the Nation. I believe our amendment will help us meet those goals, and I urge the bill's managers and all our colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. President, first let me welcome the Vice President here today, our good friend who served for so many years in the Senate.

It reminds me of the negotiation he and I conducted in December of 2010. I got a call from the Vice President one day, and he said: The President thought we ought to talk about the possibility of extending the current tax rates for everyone because the economy is not doing very well, and the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes on anyone in the middle of this economic situation.

I said: Mr. Vice President, I think that is something we would be interested in.

So the Vice President and I negotiated for a period of time and agreed that because the economy was not doing well in December 2010, we ought to extend the current tax rates for everyone.

I can remember the signing ceremony. I was there. The majority leader was not. The Speaker of the House was not. The President made a speech in signing an extension of the current tax rates for everyone that I could have made myself. Forty Members of the Senate on the Democratic side voted for it.

Today, my colleagues, the economy is growing slower than it was in December of 2010. So we know this is not about the economy; we know this is about the election. We all know there is an election going on. There is politics from time to time practiced here in the Senate. I am not offended by that. But I think what the American people would like to hear from us is a response to the economic situation.

This proposal guarantees that taxes will go up on roughly 1 million of our most successful small businesses. Over 50 percent of small business income--25 percent of the workforce--will be affected by it. It guarantees that taxes will go up on capital gains, on dividends, which provide the income for a huge number of our senior citizens. This is a uniquely bad idea. It may poll well, as my friend the majority leader indicated, but, of course, the fact that he needed to mention that illustrates the point that this is more about the election than it is about the economy.

So I would predict there will probably be bipartisan opposition to this proposal. I am sure a few arms have been twisted in order to get the result. The Vice President is at a disadvantage: he can't speak, being an occupant of the chair. But in this particular instance, he is actually better not to because he would have the dilemma of trying to explain the difference between the economic situation the country confronts today and the condition the country confronted in December of 2010 when the economy was doing better. So be grateful, I say to my friend the Vice President. This is a debate I don't think you would want to lead.

With that, my colleagues and friends, I urge a ``no'' vote on this very, very bad idea for the U.S. economy.

Let me briefly add that I listened carefully to what my friend the majority leader said. He once again was making it clear this is about the campaign. It is about the campaign and not about the economy.

But if you listen carefully to the rhetoric, what he is saying here is that these million businesses didn't create this success; that we somehow need to take this money because we will spend it better on their behalf.

Now, I know my colleague is going to get the last word, and that is fine. I am happy for him to have it. But the fact is this: The economy is in worse shape today than it was in December of 2010--worse shape today. The growth rate is slower. The President signed this bill, advocated its passage back then because the economy didn't need to get hit with a big tax increase. The growth rate is slower today. The economic situation remains largely the same. The worst we could do in the middle of this economic condition is to pass this tax increase.

Now my friend the majority leader can have the last word, and then we will be happy to go to a vote.

Mr. President, I heard my good friend the majority leader say this is about the deficit. This will produce enough revenue to operate the government for about 1 week. This would produce about enough revenue to operate the government for about 1 week.

This is not about the deficit or the debt, this is about the campaign. We all know there is a campaign going on, but why don't we do serious legislating here? No budget, no appropriation bills, no DOD authorization bill. When are we going to actually pass things in the Senate?

This is a uniquely bad idea for the economy. The good news that I can say to the American people is that it isn't going to happen today. It ought not to

happen anytime. This is part of the fiscal cliff we are facing at the end of the year. The Chairman of the Fed is concerned about it, the Congressional Budget Office, which Republicans certainly don't run, is concerned about it. We have heard talk on the other side that we should have Thelma and Louise economics and just drive the country right off the cliff. We all get in the car and go right off the cliff together and see what it is like.

The American people know a campaign is going on, but why don't we in here try to do something important for the country now. The campaign will take care of itself. This is not a serious piece of legislation because it is not going anywhere, and thank goodness it is not going anywhere because it would be bad for the economy and the single worst thing we could do to the country.

I ask for the yeas and nays.