Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, following leader remarks the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. The majority will control the first 30 minutes, the Republicans the final 30 minutes. The filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the substitute amendment and the postal reform bill is 1 o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. President, I really hope we can work out an agreement on the postal reform bill. I spoke to Senator Lieberman, the chairman of the committee, late last night, and he is hopeful, as I am, that we can move forward on this legislation. It is a shame if we cannot. As we speak, there are more than half a million men and women working for the Postal Service, and 25 percent of them are returning veterans. We have 30,000 post offices around the country. We have about 8 million people who depend on the post office for their jobs. So to think that we can't move forward on this would be really untoward. It is something we really need to get done. I am hopeful we can get that done. People can offer amendments, and we should do that as quickly as possible and move forward on this legislation. If there is no agreement, we will have to vote on the substitute amendment tomorrow morning. I repeat, it would be too bad if we cannot get it done.

Enshrined in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, the U.S. Postal Service has delivered this Nation's letters and other mail since the day of the quill pen and the inkwell. That is why we have inkwells here. That is what these are. I have paper clips in mine now, but originally that was the only way people who sat at these desks and did their work could write. Most of the time it was for mail.

Mail has been delivered through the years when stamps cost a nickel. Mail has been delivered through the years when mail traveled up and down America's waterways by steamship, and it has been delivered through two world wars when soldiers sent letters home to their sweethearts and families. Through it all, the U.S. Postal Service has been there to deliver the mail, rain or shine. But today America's postal system is in crisis.

We kind of use that as a throwaway, ``through rain or shine.'' When I was a little boy, we had really bad snowstorms all over the West. In Searchlight, NV, we had a little snow a few times a year. But we had 3 feet of snow on the level. It was very, very bad.

I can remember a man named Con Hudgens. The mail came to Searchlight. There was a railroad that went through Nipton, CA, which was 22 miles from Searchlight. As that train sped through Nipton, they had an apparatus that would snatch the mail that was on the train. That mail was for Searchlight. They sorted it that way. This old man, Con Hudgens, walked through snow 22 miles to bring the mail. That is what we talk about when we say that mail has been delivered through rain or shine. That is the mantra of the post office.

But today America's postal system is in crisis. Today a personal note from a

friend or payment to the electric company can be delivered online with a few quick keystrokes on your computer. This changing technology has meant serious new challenges for an organization that has serviced citizens of this Nation from its very beginning. It has served this Nation whether they live on city streets or rural routes.

Although the world the post office deals with has changed, the postal system's message and mission have not changed; that is, to deliver letters, packages, medicines--much of which is vital--online purchases, birthday cards, phone bills to hundreds of millions of Americans no matter how rural or how urban the places they call home. Neither has the current crisis changed the importance of that mission. Nearly half of rural households don't have broadband Internet access, making it difficult or impossible to pay bills or ship packages online. Rural families in Tuscarora, NV, or Baker, NV, in Elko County, NV, rely on the Postal Service. That is their way of communicating.

Small businesses benefit from cost-saving options offered at the post office, such as bulk mail. American businesses rely on the U.S. Postal Service. As I indicated earlier, 8 million people's jobs are dependent on the Postal Service.

For seniors who cannot leave their homes, mail carriers deliver livesaving medications--an important link to the outside world. Elderly Americans rely on the U.S. Postal Service.

I will go home tonight to my home here in Washington, and there will be some mail there. A lot of it is what some people refer to as junk mail, but for the people who are sending that mail, it is very important.

And talking about seniors, seniors love to get junk mail. It is sometimes their only way of communicating or feeling they are part of the real world. Elderly Americans, more than any other group of people in America, rely on the U.S. Postal Service.

Unless we act quickly, thousands of post offices--I indicated there are more than 30,000 in America--many of them rural, will close. I said this earlier today, and I will repeat it. These rural post offices are the only way people in those small communities have to communicate with the outside world. There may be some medicine they are getting, it may be to keep in touch with their family or friends, but it is their way of keeping in touch with the world. Hundreds of mail-processing facilities will close, and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of dedicated postal employees are at risk.

Timely, dependable mail delivery is not the only thing at stake in this debate. Today the Postal Service employs, as I have indicated, more than half a million middle-class workers, and the postal system gives more than 130,000 men and women who volunteered for this country in the armed services a chance to serve again. A quarter of all postal employees are veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces. So there is really a lot at stake in this debate.

The Postal Service has been playing an important role in the history of this country and the lives of its citizens for more than 200 years, but it has also seen a 21-percent drop in mail volume over the last 5 years and is on the verge of insolvency. Yesterday the Postal Service lost about $20 million--1 day.

Changing times demand a leaner, more modern post office. To make that possible, we must pass legislation. The Senate must act. We must change the Postal Service business model. They cannot do it on their own. They need legislation. They need it to keep pace with technology and to keep up with the times.

The bipartisan bill before this body enacts reforms that are major but measured. The people who have worked on this so hard--I have already talked about Senator Lieberman. His counterpart, Republican Senator Collins, has worked extremely hard. I have worked with her to maintain the 6-day delivery. This is something she believes in strongly. I really admire her for the fight she has put up to get the things that she feels are important in this legislation.

If we act, it would reduce the number of employees and facilities the Postal Service maintains in a responsible way, and that would protect employees and millions of Americans relying on the mail. It would responsibly restructure the postal system, while preserving overnight 6-day-a-week delivery. It would help the Postal Service innovate and grow by offering new products that will attract new customers and, most importantly, would save the Postal Service from insolvency. It will help an institution enshrined in the Constitution modernize to meet the challenges of a changing world.

What Senators Lieberman and Collins have come up with is not perfect, and we all recognize that. It is not a perfect compromise. It will not make every Senator happy. It will not make every American happy. It will not save every post office. But it is a very good compromise and one that is bipartisan. It will save an institution that has been a part of the fabric of this Nation for more than 200 years. So let's work together to save the American Postal Service, which, by the way, is the best in the world.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 406 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any related statements be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 425, submitted earlier today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 426.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until Thursday, April 19, at 9:30 a.m.; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, and that following the remarks of the two leaders, the next hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes; that the filing deadline for second- degree amendments to the substitute amendment, No. 2000, as modified, and S. 1789 be 11 a.m. on Thursday; and finally, that the cloture votes with respect to the substitute amendment No. 2000, as modified, and S. 1789, the postal reform bill, occur at 2:15 p.m. on Thursday. So there are two cloture votes, one regarding the substitute amendment, No. 2000, and, as I indicated, S. 1789.

We are working on an agreement with respect to the postal reform bill. If no agreement is reached, there will be a cloture vote on the substitute amendment at 2:15 tomorrow.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00. Republicans will control the first half and the majority will control the final half. At 11:00 there will be 10 minutes of debate on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the postal reform bill. At 11:10 there will be a cloture vote--or at approximately 11:10--on the motion to proceed to the postal reform bill. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 today for our weekly caucus meetings. We have to make progress on the postal reform bill today which is so vitally important to more than half a million workers.

Yesterday Senate Republicans once again rejected the idea that millionaires and billionaires should contribute their fair share to help the country prosper. Republicans sent a message to millions of honest hard-working Americans who will file their taxes today: It is fair for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. And that is not fair.

Republicans said that it is fair for Mitt Romney to pay a lower tax rate than his cleaning lady or his chauffeur. That is not fair. My Republican colleagues believe it is fair for hedge fund managers and executives to pay a lower tax rate than schoolteachers and waitresses and busdrivers. But that is something you do not have to take my word for; that is what President Ronald Reagan called a system of unproductive tax loopholes that allows some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.

In 1985 Ronald Reagan knocked the web of loopholes that allowed people making hundreds of millions of dollars each year to pay lower tax rates than construction workers or janitors. President Reagan called it crazy, and, to his credit, he worked with a couple of Democrats--Senator Bradley of New Jersey and Congressman Gephardt of Missouri--and came up with the Bradley-Gephardt Tax Fairness Act. It worked well for a long time, but we have allowed other things to get in the way of that good Bradley-Gephardt legislation. Now we are back to what Ronald Reagan was talking about those many years ago.

This broken system made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a busdriver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That is what President Reagan said. But the same system is in place today, as I have just explained, and, as that radical liberal Ronald Reagan said, that is just crazy. Those were his words.

Yesterday my Republican colleagues used some strong words to oppose the Democrats' plan to fight the inequality. Republicans called our commonsense proposal to ensure that no one making more than $1 million a year pays a lower tax rate than a truckdriver, a secretary, or a police officer--they called it class warfare. It is not class warfare but class welfare--welfare for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. It is class welfare, not warfare.

Republicans are pushing a budget that would end Medicare as we know it--just passed the House--slashing nursing home coverage for the elderly, decimating Pell grant funding, and kicking 200,000 children out of the Head Start Program.

They are calling our proposal class warfare. I wish that were the most ridiculous thing they have said about

our proposal to bring a measure of fairness to America's tax system, but far from it. One Member of the Senate leadership equated this measure to shooting ourselves in the head. The Paying a Fair Share Act--the Buffett rule--would have ensured that millionaires and billionaires paid at least as much as their secretaries, assistants, and even their nannies. Yet Republicans think asking those lucky millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share is just like shooting the country in the head. That is what they said.

Our legislation would have protected 99 percent of small business owners and maintained deductions for charitable giving, and it would have been a small but meaningful step to reduce our deficit at a time when every penny--in this case, every billion--counts.

It does not seem radical to me to ask Warren Buffett, who made almost $63 million in 2010, to pay a higher tax rate than his secretary. The Presiding Office can remember when he came and spoke to a group of assembled Democrats. He carried around with him his tax returns for the last several years. He is the one who told us how much he made in 2010, and he lamented the fact that he was paying the tax rate that he was.

Well, it does not seem radical to me, it did not seem radical to Ronald Reagan, and it does not seem radical to three-quarters of the American people who support our legislation. The wealthiest Americans take home a greater percentage of our Nation's income than anytime in nearly a century. Yet they enjoy the lowest tax rate in more than five decades--the lowest tax rate. So it is no surprise that Americans believe millionaires should shoulder their fair share. Even two-thirds of millionaires and a majority of Republicans around the country agree it is time to fix a system rigged to favor the richest of the rich. Republicans in Congress are the only ones not on board on this issue.

If you need evidence that millionaires and billionaires can afford to contribute a little more, consider this one simple fact: Last year there were 7,000 people who made more than $1 million who did not pay a single penny of Federal income tax--not a penny. Thanks to Republicans, these lucky millionaires and billionaires can keep gaming the system while middle-class workers keep picking up the tab.

I have some procedural matters to do, if the Senator from Vermont wishes to finish his statement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I finish my procedural matters, the Senator from Vermont be recognized.

I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back and the motion to proceed to S. 1789 be agreed to.

I now ask unanimous consent that the only amendments in order to S. 1789 or the Lieberman-Collins substitute amendment No. 2000 be those that are relevant to the bill or the substitute amendment.

Mr. President, as we speak, there are 8 million Americans who are dependent on the Post Office. These are people who have jobs as a result of the Postal Service. We need to do a postal reform bill. Doing nothing is not an option.

I ask unanimous consent that we set up a procedure to allow the Senate to consider amendments relevant to the postal reform bill.

Would the Chair report the bill, please.

Mr. President, relevance is a fair standard. A lot of amendments can be offered. Very few couldn't be offered unless it were something dealing with foreign policy on the Postal Service bill. A lot of people want to offer amendments dealing with situations all over the world. That is why we struggled, for example, to get the Iran sanctions bill moving. A standard of relevance merely asks that we stay on the subject--a subject this morning to which 74 Senators agreed to proceed to.

I regret my friend has objected to this request. But I hope my friend from Kentucky will go home and explain to the people who are dependent on those small post offices around the State of Kentucky and those processing centers that this bill has not been resolved because of him.

If we do nothing, there will be the wide-range closing of post offices. We have more than 30,000 post offices in America. Many of them will be closed. We have hundreds and hundreds of processing centers. They will be closed. The Postal Service, as we have known it, is a fleeting moment in the eyes of Americans when they cannot get their medicine they want, they cannot get the mail they want. The volume is down a lot. But that is what this bill is about: to address some of the problems we have with what we need to have happen as a new Postal Service.

The chairman of the committee, Senator Lieberman, has worked extremely hard. Senator Collins has spent lots and lots of time on this issue. Of course, Tom Carper, who has a tremendous interest in this, has been working on this issue for a long time.

It is a shame we have had this objection. It leaves me with absolutely no alternative but to fill the amendment tree and make sure we stick on the subject of postal reform. I remain hopeful we will be able to work together to get an agreement for consideration of amendments related to this most important task: saving the Postal Service.

Committee-Reported Substitute Amendment Withdrawn

Mr. President, I have been authorized by the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to withdraw the committee-reported substitute amendment.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Lieberman, Collins, and others, I call up amendment No. 2000, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I have a first-degree perfecting amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk to the language proposed to be stricken.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. President, I got ahead of myself. Reading was one of my better subjects, but I skipped a line.

Motion to Recommit With Amendment No. 2017

Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit the bill with instructions, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.

Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, I have another matter of business, but I wish to say to all Senators here, not just the Senator from Kentucky who objected to a reasonable manner to proceed on this measure--all States are going to be dramatically impacted by virtue of his objection. Post offices in Nevada will be closed and in Minnesota, Massachusetts, Tennessee, unnecessarily.

We need to be able to work through this. I do not know how anyone could object to a standard as we have had, as I have proposed: relevant amendments. It is too bad. Eight million people depend on the Postal Service. That is 8 million people who work as a result of the Postal Service. Mr. President, 500,000 people work for the Postal Service directly. So we have an obligation to do something about this legislation.

Even though my friend, who is one of the leaders of the tea party movement around the country, has thrown a monkey wrench into what we are doing on a postal bill--moving to some foreign relations matter--it is too bad. It cheapens what we are trying to do, and it is unfortunate for millions of people in America.