Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the City of Saco, ME, one of the oldest communities in New England and one that exemplifies the determination and resiliency of its people. In 1617, 3 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, the English explorer Richard Vines established a test winter settlement along a sheltered cove on the coast of Maine. That settlement where the Saco River meets the sea, grew, prospered, and eventually was incorporated in 1762.

The name ``Saco'' is derived from the Abenaki word for ``mouth of the tidal stream,'' and the sheltered cove, known today as Biddeford Pool, had been a thriving center of Native American villages and cultivated fields dating back to prehistoric times. Although some 37 English families--fishermen, traders, lumberjacks, and farmers--relocated there within 20 years of Mr. Vine's exploration, growth was stifled by frequent armed conflicts with the French during those early colonial times.

The conflicts subsided and in 1716 a young merchant named William Pepperrell purchased 5,000 acres along the Saco River for a lumber operation. The small village began to prosper. In 1752, Sir William Pepperrell, by then a war hero and the first person born in America to be made an English baronet, donated a parcel to be a village common, burial ground, and site for a meetinghouse. Ten years later, the settlers incorporated as the town of Pepperrellborough, in honor of their benefactor.

In 1805, the long name was replaced with the much shorter Abenaki word, but the vision and energy of William Pepperrell lived on. First with water power and then with steam, Saco and its sister city across the river, Biddeford, became leading manufacturing centers of the industrial age in North America. At Saco Falls, 17 sawmills supplied Maine's shipbuilders. On Factory Island, Saco Iron Works opened in 1811, followed shortly by foundries, harness makers, and machine shops. With the arrival of the railroad came the great engine of the community's economy--vast, bustling textile mills.

That Saco is a city built by the skilled hands of past generations is evident in the fine architecture cherished by the residents of today. Nine properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including the First parish Congregational Church, City Hall, and many homes in the Georgian, Federal, Greek Revival, and Victorian styles.

The decline of American manufacturing in the late 20th century presented Saco with one of the greatest challenge in its history. It is a challenge that is being met with the same strength demonstrated by its early settlers. The abandoned mills on Factory Island are undergoing a transformation with residential, educational, and business uses, bringing an economic renessaince to the downtown. Today, Saco is a center for tourism, education, and the arts. Its skilled workers keep the city on the forefront of high-tech manufacturing, including invaluable contributions to our Nation's security in the defense industry. A community that once used waterfalls to power sawmills now uses clean, renewable wind energy to light its beautiful passenger rail station.

Mr. President, the yearlong celebration now underway is not merely about the passing of time. It is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who for more than 2\1/2\ centuries have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Saco, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those here today, it has a bright future.

Mr. President, on December 21, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, finalized the mercury and air toxics standards, MATS, rule for powerplants. These standards, which will be fully in effect in 2016, will require coal-fired powerplants to install pollution controls for mercury and toxic air pollution. When fully implemented, the MATS for powerplants will reduce mercury emissions from powerplants by 90 percent, acid gases by 88 percent, and particulate emissions, including nonmercury toxic metals, by 41 percent. Senator Inhofe's S.J. Res. 37 would disapprove and nullify this rule and, more importantly, make it impossible for the EPA to implement substantially similar rules in the future.

The State of Maine, located at the end of our Nation's ``air pollution tailpipe,'' is on the receiving end of pollution emissions from coal-fired powerplants operating in other States. The pollution reductions required under the rule will improve public health and improve the environment in our State. That is why I will vote to uphold the clean air rule that requires coal-fired powerplants to install pollution controls.

While legitimate concerns have been raised that additional compliance time and more cost-effective options are needed, I have significant concerns with overturning this rule and permanently barring the EPA from issuing any standards in the future that are substantially similar. I will push the EPA to work with utilities to develop reasonable implementation schedules.

Reductions in air pollutants from other States will reduce air pollution in Maine, which has one of the highest asthma rates in the Nation, affecting 1 in 10 adults and over 25,000 children. The EPA estimates that the MATS will prevent 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms.

Every State in the country has issued mercury advisories for human fish consumption because of high levels of mercury in our Nation's streams, lakes, and rivers, and half of U.S. manmade mercury comes from coal-fired powerplants. Mercury is one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, particularly harmful to children and pregnant women, and it threatens our health and environment today. Under the new rule, 90 percent of this mercury would be removed. I am a longtime supporter of efforts to reduce mercury pollution and have sponsored legislation to establish a nationwide mercury monitoring system to accurately measure mercury levels.

The rule also includes standards for 186 other hazardous pollutants, including arsenic, acid gases, and toxic metals. Additionally, the equipment installed to control these pollutants will not only reduce these hazardous air pollutants but also capture fine particles, which are linked to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

I am a longtime supporter of Clean Air Act protections. This landmark legislation, authored by Maine's own Senator Ed Muskie more than 40 years ago, has helped protect and improve our Nation's air quality and public health for decades.

I also support sensible regulatory reforms and have introduced legislation that calls for Federal agencies to analyze the cost and benefits of proposed regulations, including the impact on job creation and consumer prices. This will help cut the tangle of redtape that is holding businesses back from expanding and adding jobs. But when it comes to the air we breathe, I reject the false choice of pitting the environment against the economy because we

understand that for much of the State of Maine, the environment is the economy.

The people of Maine have always been faithful stewards of our environment because we understand its tremendous value to our way of life. Maine's unique forests, landscapes, waters, and wildlife are an important part of our heritage and have helped shape the economic, environmental, and recreational character of our entire State. Protecting our Nation's air quality will positively benefit the natural beauty of Maine and will improve public health, protecting our children and enriching lives.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the service of the women of the American Red Cross Clubmobiles. These brave young Americans served our country with distinction overseas during the Second World War.

During the War, the Red Cross was charged by the Armed Forces to provide for the recreational welfare of the troops. Wherever there was a sizable group of American servicemen permanently assigned, the Red Cross established canteens, which provided a bit of respite from training for war and were tremendously popular. But the canteens were fixed sites, and did not reach many of the combat troops garrisoned at small locations across the English countryside.

In order to extend a taste of home to the troops, the Red Cross Commissioner for Great Britain, Harvey Gibson, thought up the idea of the ``Clubmobile,'' a mobile kitchen set up in an old London bus. In late 1942, several of these Clubmobiles began operating between dozens of bases around the country, serving coffee and doughnuts to those preparing for D-day.

Shortly after the beachhead at Normandy was successfully secured, 80 Clubmobiles and 320 volunteers crossed the English Channel to begin operating their mobile kitchens near the front lines. Each Clubmobile group, consisting of eight two-and-a-half ton trucks named for an American city or State, was attached to an Army Corps and moved with the unit's support elements, often going forward to provide the troops with American music, hot coffee, and doughnuts. Like every soldier, the Clubmobile women were in ``for the duration.'' By War's end, the Clubmobiles were operating across Europe, from southern Italy to northern Germany, and in the Far East from the jungles of Burma to the shores of Tokyo Bay.

A visit from a Clubmobile was one of the most significant events for a young G.I. in combat far from home, and the women of the Clubmobiles, young women from every single State, acted as friends and sisters to the troops with whom they interacted.

These women were trailblazers, every bit as much as the Navy's Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service--WAVES--the Women's Army Corps--WACS--and the Women Airforce Service Pilots--WASPS. They were young, independent, and patriotic. They joined for a variety of reasons, some for adventure, some to serve in uniform as close to combat as they were then allowed, and some to honor the sacrifices of their own fathers, brothers, or friends. Every one of them was dedicated to their country, and volunteered for the Clubmobiles rather than an easier or safer job at home.

The dangers of War were real. During the War, 52 Red Cross women lost their lives, some of them from the Clubmobiles. Their stories are those of a nation at war.

Elizabeth Richardson joined the Red Cross in 1944 after graduating from Milwaukee-Downer College and after a brief career in advertising. She helped pilot the Clubmobile named Kansas City throughout England, Holland and France, listening to soldiers' stories while cracking jokes and sharing her own. Two months after V-E Day, Liz's plane crashed en route to Paris. Liz Richardson, dead at 27, now lies interred at the Normandy American Cemetery. Before she died, she said about her service, ``I wouldn't trade this for anything else.''

Those sentiments are shared by Margaret ``Margo'' Hemingway Harrington of Rye, NH, one of the few surviving Clubmobile women. She said, ``I just got itchy feet, and thought I should be doing something more.''

The women of the Clubmobiles touched the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. servicemen. The Red Cross alone purchased enough flour to make 1.5 million doughnuts, most of which were served through the windows of a Clubmobile.

To honor their memory, 70 years after they were established, Senator Shaheen and I, joined by 11 of our colleagues, introduced Senate Resolution 471, which commends the exemplary and courageous service of the Clubmobiles, honors those that lost their lives, calls upon historians to not let this important piece of American history be lost, and urges the Red Cross to publically commemorate their stories.

Honoring them now is critically important, because only a very few of these women remain. Their stories are every bit as vibrant and important to our victory as those of the men who valiantly fought to defend our freedom. I urge every one of my colleagues to support this Resolution.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a landmark moment in health care for our veterans. Today is the 25th anniversary of the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Nation's first Veterans' Community Based Outpatient Clinic, CBOC. On June 13, 1987, at the Cary Medical Center in Caribou, ME, Governor John McKernan was joined by Senators George Mitchell and William Cohen, and then- Congresswoman Olympia Snowe to cut the ribbon of the new clinic. As the first community based outpatient clinic of its kind in the United States, the Caribou clinic served as the proving ground upon which the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has built a nationwide health care system that delivers much improved access to care for America's rural veterans. Today nearly 3.5 million veterans, approximately 41 percent of those enrolled in the VA health care system, live in rural areas, many of whom receive care at more than 800 community based outpatient clinics.

The history of the CBOC in Caribou, however, began long before the ribbon cutting, when seven Aroostook County veterans dedicated themselves to the mission of improving access to critical health care services to the veterans living in their communities. To accomplish this goal, they established the Aroostook County Veterans Medical Facility Research and Development, Inc. The initial members were Percy Thibeault, Meo Bosse, John Rowe, Ray Guerrette, Wesley Adams, Walter Corey, and Leonard Woods, Sr.

Over a span of 8 years, they committed themselves to convincing the VA to establish a veterans' health clinic in Caribou. They were joined along the way by other concerned veterans, community members, the Cary Medical Center, and a number of Maine veterans service organizations. Their initiative paid off 8 years later, and today, on the 25th anniversary of their historic accomplishment, they deserve to be recognized. Our veterans in rural areas throughout the United States benefit today from the dedication of this landmark work. CBOCs are a vital part of veteran health services today.

These exemplary seven men battled to ensure that health care services were available to every veteran living in rural areas. That battle, despite the VA's best efforts, goes on.

Rural areas are still underserved in the types of medical treatment available. In some cases CBOCs don't even have permanent physicians assigned. The Iraq and Afghan wars have created a new generation of combat veterans, many of whom have new medical needs including prosthetic medical treatments, mental health care, and extensive physical therapy needs.

I am encouraged by the VA's renewed commitment to rural health care, and the $250 million that VA is allocating for programs for rural communities. But I would urge the VA to do more, and expand one program in particular, the Access Received Closer to Home, ARCH, project. ARCH has been tremendously popular in all five of the communities where the pilot program was established. Given Caribou's history, it is especially fitting that Caribou CBOC was selected as one of the five locations.

Our veterans have sacrificed so much for our country. We owe them all that we can to ensure they receive the best care possible. The seven men who fought for the Caribou CBOC knew that, and we honor their dedication to their fellow veterans by carrying on their work.

Mr. President, Aroostook County in far northern Maine has long been a thriving center of farming and logging. In the early years of the 20th century, it seemed that the only barrier to growth and prosperity was a shortage of modern health care facilities and trained medical professionals.

Two local citizens took it upon themselves to remove this barrier. By horse and wagon, Frank White, an attorney, and Charles E. Hussey, a farmer, traveled through the countryside calling on their neighbors and collected $2,500 to establish a center for health care. In the spring of 1912, Presque Isle General Hospital opened with 20 beds, an operating theater with the latest equipment, four physicians, and a training school for nurses.

Much has changed during the past 100 years. What began in one three- story converted house as Presque Isle General is known today as the Aroostook Medical Center, TAMC, with facilities in Presque Isle, Mars Hill, and Fort Fairfield, an ambulance service, and outreach services, such as a dialysis center and primary care clinics, throughout the northern part of the largest county east of the Mississippi. It has a medical staff of more than 60 trained professionals and a workforce of more than 1,000, making it the region's largest employer.

What has not changed is the spirit of service that is the foundation of this remarkable organization. As one who was born and raised in Aroostook County, I am proud of what has been accomplished there and grateful for the contributions and dedication over the generations that have made this invaluable community resource possible.

The commitment that established the region's first public hospital in 1912 was not a one-time event. Less than a decade later, the growing population created the need for a larger hospital. Another, even more successful fund drive led to the opening in 1921 of a facility with more than twice the beds and vastly expanded services. In 1960, a capital campaign of unprecedented size for this area established the A.R. Gould Memorial Hospital that continues to grow and serve Aroostook residents.

The namesake of today's hospital is of special significance to my Senate colleagues. Arthur Robinson Gould was a Presque Isle entrepreneur who built a lumber mill, powerplants, and an electric railroad. In 1926, he was elected to the U.S. Senate to fill the term of Senator Bert M. Fernald, who died in office. Senator Gould is best remembered for the courageous stand he took against the Ku Klux Klan at a time when that hateful group was gaining prominence in American politics. Despite the esteem in which he was held, Senator Gould chose not to run for reelection in 1930, saying, ``I want to get back to my railroad and the pine forests of Maine.''

That simple statement describes the affection the people of Aroostook County have for their home and helps to explain how they could join together to create, sustain, and grow a modern health care organization. By proclamation of the Governor of Maine and the city of Presque Isle, June 9, 2012, is the official day of celebration for this great centennial. I am honored to commemorate the occasion by congratulating the men and women of the Aroostook Medical Center and the people of Aroostook County for 100 years of accomplishment, and I wish them the best in the years to come.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act,

which will help speed safe and effective drugs and medical devices to the patients who need them. This bipartisan, consensus bill was developed through a long and collaborative process involving the FDA, stakeholders, and Senators from both sides of the aisle. I commend the chair and ranking member of the HELP Committee for their tremendous leadership and hard work on this very important bill.

The legislation we are considering today reauthorizes existing user fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices and creates new user fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilar biological products. In addition, the bill reauthorizes programs that have helped make medicines safer for children, upgrades the FDA's tools to police the global supply chain, increases incentives for the development of new antibiotics, and expedites the development and review of certain drugs for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions.

I particularly want to commend my colleagues for including provisions based on legislation I sponsored with Senator Klobuchar to address the shortages of drugs that are causing significant disruptions in care and putting patients at risk.

I continue to hear from doctors, emergency medical personnel, and other medical professionals in Maine who are extremely concerned about this issue. Many of the drugs in short supply are vital, used in hospitals and cancer centers for anesthesia, chemotherapy, and treatment of infections. There are also continuing shortages of drugs used in emergency rooms and intensive-care units.

These shortages are causing serious problems around the country, including forcing some medical centers to ration drugs or postpone elective surgeries. Oncologists have told me of situations where they were forced to change a patient's chemotherapy regime midcourse because they suddenly encountered a shortage of a particular drug. Moreover, for some drugs, there are no effective substitutes.

This crisis is widespread, with more than 80 percent of hospitals reporting that they have had to delay treatment due to shortages. That is why I joined my colleague from Minnesota in sponsoring the Preserving Access to Life Saving Medications Act to give the FDA tools to better manage, and hopefully prevent, shortages of life-saving medications, including requiring manufacturers to provide an ``early warning'' when a drug will not be available.

Providing early warning when a drug will not be available will help both doctors and patients. It builds on the successful model of the FDA's Drug Shortage Program which encourages manufacturers to report potential or existing shortages so that problems can be addressed or other manufacturers can ramp up production. Through this voluntary approach, the FDA was able to avert almost 200 shortages last year.

The legislation we are considering today will give the FDA the information and tools it needs to help address and prevent drug shortages. It will also promote innovation, improve safety, and increase access to the drugs and devices that are critical to our health. Again, I commend Senators Harkin and Enzi for their leadership and encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on April 23, 2012, Dr. Theodora J. Kalikow gave her last lecture as president of the University of Maine Farmington and received a standing ovation from an overflow audience at the campus's largest auditorium. In that same spirit, I rise today to express my gratitude to a great leader and good friend for 18 years of outstanding service to the people of Maine.

There are many ways to describe what Theo as she is known to colleagues, students, and friends has meant to our State. One is to note that in 1998, her fourth year as president, the University of Maine Farmington was named to U.S. News and World Report's best college list for the first time. This year, UMF celebrated 15 consecutive years of receiving that hard-earned and well-deserved recognition.

Another way is to consider the deep affection alumni and people throughout Maine have for this remarkable institution. As just one example, in 2007 UMF opened its new Education Center that integrates technology with teaching and learning. This major expansion was made possible only through the generosity of countless individuals, businesses, and organizations. Over the years, this kind of overwhelming support has enabled this small school of just 2,000 students to keep pace with the top colleges and universities in the country.

Responding to the needs of an ever-changing society is one of the richest traditions a college can have. The traditions Dr. Kalikow has upheld began a century and a half ago when the people of rural Franklin County joined together to establish Maine's first public institution of higher education. When the first class of 31 students matriculated at the new Farmington Normal School in 1864, they did so in a setting that was described by a University of Maine historian as ``rough, crude, and plenty humble.''

Under Dr. Kalikow's leadership, UMF has upheld another noble tradition that of contributing to the entire region by adding to its cultural life, teaching in local classrooms, coaching youth athletics, and helping youngsters learn everything from swimming to foreign languages. From the Health and Fitness Center to the Mantor Library, the doors of UMF are open to the community.

In her last lecture, Dr. Kalikow drew a strong connection between the America we know today as a place of unsurpassed equality, freedom, and opportunity and the ``rough, crude, and plenty humble'' foundation of public higher education laid in Farmington, ME, and other frontier communities across the Nation so many generations ago. These ordinary citizens knew that education was a necessary condition of creating a successful society, she said, and we today are the beneficiaries of their investment.

Mr. President, Dr. Theo Kalikow has increased that investment through an ongoing commitment to teaching and learning. On behalf of the people of Maine, I thank Dr. Kalikow for her contributions to our State and wish her all the best in the years to come.

Madam President, today I wish to offer my congratulations to John T. Cyr and Sons, Inc., on its 100th anniversary. This outstanding Maine company demonstrates why family businesses are so important to our Nation's economy and to communities in every State. The determination and vision that led to a century of success define America's entrepreneurial spirit.

Sometime around 1903, John Thomas Cyr moved his family from Caribou, ME--my hometown--to Old Town, near Bangor, where he found work in a lumber mill. Nine years later, in 1912, at the age of 51, John T. Cyr struck out on his own. Joined by his son, Joseph, they started a livery stable and delivery business.

What began with horses, buggies, and wagons is today a thriving enterprise of 22 luxury motor coaches, 200 school buses, and nearly 250 employees. A company that got its start hauling lumber for a local canoe factory now serves 17 school districts across Maine with an exemplary safety record. They offer tours throughout the United States and Canada from New York City at Christmas to Washington, D.C., in cherry blossom season. As a native of Aroostook County, I know how valuable their daily intercity service is to the towns and cities of northern Maine.

Handed down and nurtured through the generations, this is a true family business, owned and operated by the founder's grandson, Joe Cyr, joined by his brother, Pete, son Mike, and daughter Becky.

Their remarkable story of growth, of meeting challenges, and of delivering value was expertly told in a recent article in Maine Trails magazine. I would like to complement that account with my personal observations.

Before coming to the Senate, I worked at Husson University in Bangor, where I had the pleasure of getting to know Joe Cyr, Class of 1962, and his wonderful wife, Sue, Class of 1965. Joe has been a longtime member of the Husson Board of Trustees, and Sue been a volunteer supporter of uncommon energy. Joe and Sue's generosity to Husson includes significant gifts to athletic programs, a new home for the university president, the annual fund, and most recently, the new Cyr Alumni Center. The countless ways they serve--from the Boys Scouts and the Y to St. Joseph Hospital--touch people of all ages.

People throughout Maine are fortunate to have such a family as the Cyrs, but I am especially lucky--my summer camp on Cold Stream Pond is just down the road from theirs. As much as I cherish our time together, having dinner, playing cards, and enjoying the beautiful Maine summer evenings, I cherish even more being in the presence of those who give so much to others and who see the act of giving as the greatest reward. I am delighted to extend my congratulations to the Cyr family in their business's centennial year and to thank them for their contributions to the State of Maine.

I ask that the Maine Trails article be printed in the Record.

The article follows.

[From the Maine Trails, Feb./Mar. 2012]

Driving Through History

(By Kathryn Buxton)

From horse drawn wagons to modern coaches and school buses, Cyr Bus Line travels through history into an elite club of 100-year-old Maine

businesses

It's midday at Cyr Bus Line, and about a dozen drivers in

black company jackets are gathered, waiting for the next wave

of activity to begin. That's when the company's fleet of

school buses head out to pick up students for the trip home

from Old Town's high school, middle school and three

elementary schools. A fresh layer of snow covers the ground

outside, and everyone is alert and ready to get to work.

Outside, a coach bus pulls in to the lot, returning from its

daily run to Aroostook County. The bus will be washed down

and ready for its 6 p.m. departure from downtown Bangor.

It is a scene that has played out countless times over the

past 100 years since John T. Cyr and his son Joseph founded

the company on South Water Street in 1912. Previous to that,

John had been working for the Jordan Lumber Company in Old

Town. Joseph had been working for the Old Town Woolen Mill.

They applied for a trucking license and were approved by the

Old Town city council on May 21, 1912. John and Joseph had

two horses and the company's frst jobs were hauling lumber

for Old Town Canoe. The Cyrs also operated a livery stable at

the family homestead on French Island (also known as Treat-

Webster Island), and for many years, the Cyr stable was the

go-to place if you needed a horse and buggy to visit friends

or family. The company's wagons and carriages also delivered

mail and served as hearses, transporting local citizens to

their fnal resting place.

Fathers and Sons

John T. Cyr & Sons, Inc./Cyr Bus Line celebrates its 100th

anniversary this year, putting it in an elite group of Maine

companies that have been in business for a century or more.

Old Town Canoe, located nearby in Old Town is one. Another is

the famous outdoor retailer L.L. Bean, which as Mike Cyr is

quick to point out, is also celebrating its 100th anniversary

this year.

``Cyr Bus is a fxture here,'' said Mike Cyr, one of a

fourth generation of Cyrs to work in the family business. ``A

lot of people figured we had already been here for 100

years.''

For the Cyrs, a century of company history is inextricably

meshed with the family history. Through the years many family

members have left their mark on the business. Four of John's

five sons--Joseph, Albert, Arthur and Harvey--all worked for

the company in its infancy (Clibby, a ffth son who worked in

the woolen mill, eventually became an Old Town firefighter).

Albert, 19 and a weaver at the Old Town Woolen Mill in 1912,

was a silent partner for many years, coming on board full-

time as the business continued to grow through the 1920s.

Arthur and Harvey, young children when their father and

brothers founded the company, grew up in the business and

eventually joined their brother Albert in running the company

in the 1930s and 40s after their father and brother died

unexpectedly in 1934. Harvey bought out his brothers in 1951.

Today, the company is run by Harvey's son, Joe Cyr. His

brother, Pete, works in the company's body shop. Joe's son,

Mike, oversees the company's coach division and manages

information technology--everything from the company's two-way

radio system to its computer hardware and software. Daughter

Becky Whitmore is the bookkeeper. Helping them these days, is

general manager Rick Soules, who the Cyrs hired not quite two

years ago. Bringing Rick in was a necessity as the company

has grown and diversified, and as Joe, now 71, has begun to

scale back the time he spends at the office.

Working with family has always been one of the great joys

of the business, according to family patriarch and company

president, Joe Cyr, with the business officially for nearly

50 years.

Joe drove trucks for H.E. Sargent and worked as a surveyor

for James W. Sewall

during the summers before coming to work at Cyr with his dad.

His memories of working alongside family go even further

back--to being with his dad in the office when he was six or

seven, driving a company truck when he was 11 and washing

buses as a kid. At 15, he was driving buses for the family

concern. He also found time to get his degree from Old Town

High School and a year of study at University of Maine at

Farmington and another year and a half at Husson College. He

left school and joined the company full-time in 1962 when a

cousin who had been the company bookkeeper died. For a while,

Joe was not only the bookkeeper, he served as the company

mechanic, secretary and payroll clerk. In just a few years,

Joe was running the company, and after his father Harvey died

in 1967, he bought the business from his mother for $25,000.

Looking back, Joe said he has never regretted the decision

to spend his professional life at the helm of the family firm

and he always has considered himself honored to work

alongside his father, son, daughter, brother and cousins.

``Frankly, I feel pretty darn lucky,'' said Cyr talking from

his winter home in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida where there

is a small community of Old Town snowbirds. Joe started

heading south in the winter 10 years ago, but he still

maintains close contact with Mike, Rick Soules--Cyr's general

manager--and others via phone and e-mail several times a day.

And he reels off facts about the business in quickfire

fashion. How many vehicles in the company fleet? ``250.'' How

many coaches? ``22.'' How many square feet at the company's

headquarters?

``We've got about 20,000 under cover there,'' said Cye,

stopping only to calculate the many expansions they have made

at the 10-acre site since 1980.

milestones and challenges

The company has lived through good times and bad. There was

1934 when the family's two male patriarchs died--John in May

and Joseph in August. There were also two devastating fires

at the company's headquarters on French Island. The first was

in the early 1950s and the company garage and its full fleet

of eight buses were destroyed. The second fire hit in 1970,

destroying the company garage, an apartment over the garage

and one bus. In both cases, the family and employees came

together to get buses back on the road quickly.

There were good times, as well. Nineteen hundred and

twenty-two was an important landmark. That was when John and

Joseph Cyr helped usher in the era of the automobile. They

bought the company's first motorcars--Studebakers--to

transport Old Town children to school. Four years later,

after housing the company fleet at several different

locations in Old Town, Cyr consolidated its operations at a

single location on French Island. The area was growing, and

by the early 1930s, cars were no longer large enough to

transport all the students traveling to Old Town schools from

Stillwater and Gillman Falls. So the city asked Cyr to buy a

bus.

Cyr also had a taxi service, begun soon after the company's

founding, as well as freight hauling and storage services. By

the late 1930s, brothers Albert, Arthur and Harvey were also

operating a regular bus service connecting Old Town, Great

Works, Milford and Bradley, with special runs to locations

including Trenton and Green Lake. By the mid 1940s, the

company's regular motor coach routes had expanded to include

Old Town, Eddington, North Brewer and Bangor.

The company also operated a limousine service, and during

the war transported German prisoners of war for the U.S.

Government to detention camps in the rural reaches of the

state. In the late 1950s and early 60s, Harvey, now head of

the company, expanded its stake in the school bus business.

By 1962, Joe had joined his father, Harvey, in the business

full-time, and John T. Cyr & Sons boasted a fleet of 12

buses, several cars and two dump trucks at its headquarters

on French Island.

In 1976, Joe purchased the fleet of Pinecrest Bus Service,

the company that had been providing school bus service to the

city of Brewer (two years later, Cyr bought Pinecrest's lot

and garage). Then, Cyr bid for the contract to serve the

Bangor school system in 1978. They won the business. The

ramifcations were enormous for the small family-run firm. It

required purchasing more than two dozen new school buses at a

cost of about $17,000 each. It was one of the few times since

Joe had taken the helm they had to borrow money, but it was,

Mike recalled, a calculated risk his dad felt he had to take.

``He figured if he didn't do it, one of the big guys would

come in and take the business,'' said Mike. That year, there

was a 60-cent-per-gallon run up in fuel costs which caused

several anxious hours for the Cyrs. At the time, fuel for

buses was purchased by the bus company. Now, it is common for

school systems to purchase their own fuel, and Joe Cyr said

that adds more stability to contracts. Still, it all worked

out well. ``I still hate to borrow money, though,'' admitted

Joe recently.

Perhaps the biggest milestone came when the city was in the

midst of a two-decade effort to redevelop French Island that

had, over the years, become increasingly overcrowded. As a

result, Cyr moved its headquarters across the river to its

current location at 153 Gilman Falls Avenue in Old Town in

1980. Long-time local residents can still remember the day in

late October when the company's fleet of buses made their way

across the bridge from the island to Cyr's new home on Gilman

Falls Avenue.

Over the years, the Cyrs have also been active in the

community. The business has been a long-time member of the

MBTA where Joe has served as a board member. Joe was for

several years president of the Bangor Chamber of Commerce

during the 1980s and has sat on several boards, including St.

Joseph's Hospital and Merrill Merchant Bank. The family was a

major contributor to the Cyr Family Field House at the Old

Town-Orono YMCA completed in 2001.

close at hand

In 1984, Cyr took over the Aroostook County route, operated

by Bangor & Aroostook Railroad (B & A) since 1957 when the

railroad had ceased service to The County. The same day B & A

shuttered its service, Cyr bought the firm's coach bus and

hired its driver. Passengers didn't miss a day of service.

Today Cyr continues to run the daily transportation lifeline

to the county, connecting Bangor, Caribou, Fort Kent,

Houlton, Howland, Limestone, Oakfield, Orono, Madawaska, Mars

Hill, Medway, Presque Isle, Sherman and Van Buren. (The

service, considered an essential transportation link,

receives an operating subsidy from MaineDOT.) A Cyr bus

departs Bangor every afternoon and makes the return trip from

Presque Isle every morning.

In 1990, the company purchased North-star Tours and began

offering charter tours throughout the country and to Canada

as Cyr Northstar Tours. In 2003, Cyr purchased Maine Line

Tours & Charters, a South Portland-based division of Peter

Pan Bus Lines. The move made John T. Cyr Maine's largest

charter operation, and in 2004, the company was honored as

Metro magazine's tour operator of the year. Nonetheless, the

long hours and splitting energies between operations in Old

Town and Southern Maine took its toll. The Cyrs sold the

South Portland charter operation in 2007.

``It was profitable,'' remembered Mike of the decision to

sell. ``But we just weren't comfortable being in two places

at one time.'' Today the company operations have become

increasingly complex, with three divisions and increasing

federal regulations regarding hours of service for the

company's long-distance drivers and expanded environmental

requirements on buses. At the same time, this year, the Cyrs

estimate, their buses will log more than 3 million miles.

Mike describes the Cyr philosophy as one that has grown from

his dad's unique combination of conservative fiscal approach,

a hands-on understanding of the business and a willingness to

step up when someone presents a challenge. Much of their

business--in both the school bus and tour charter divisions--

comes to them through word-of-mouth. ``My dad hardly ever

says `no,' '' said Mike. ``Someone asks us to do something,

and we fgure out how to get it done.''

``We could have grown a lot more,'' said Joe. ``Instead we

take what comes and do the best job we can. We're not trying

to be the biggest.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Clean Cookstoves Support Act, which addresses a serious global environmental and public health issue. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin.

Nearly half the world's population cooks food over open fires or inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves, using firewood, dung, or coal as fuel. Smoke from these traditional cookstoves and open fires is associated with a number of chronic and acute diseases, with women and young children affected disproportionately. The World Health Organization estimates cookstove smoke to be one of the top five threats to public health in poor, developing countries. This smoke may account for nearly two million deaths annually in the developing world, which is more than the deaths from malaria, tuberculosis, or HIV.

Traditional cookstoves also create serious environmental impacts. The amount of biomass cooking fuel required each year can reach up to two tons per family, and local environmental degradation can result where demand for fuel outstrips the natural regrowth of resources. Recent studies show that emissions of black carbon, or common soot, from biomass cookstoves significantly contribute to climate change, second only to carbon dioxide in impact.

These stoves should be replaced with modern alternatives to reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. Fortunately, modern stoves, designed to burn fuel efficiently, can eliminate up to 90 percent of the black carbon produced during cooking and home heating. This would be relatively inexpensive and could be done quickly it is what scientists call the ``low-hanging fruit'' of environmental fixes.

Through the leadership of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the United Nations Foundation, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves was formed in 2010. Recognizing the severity of the global health and environmental issues, this public-private partnership aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. The Alliance partners are working to help overcome the market barriers that currently impede the production, deployment, and use of clean cookstoves in the developing world.

To assist in this important endeavor, several Federal agencies the Departments of State, Energy, and Health and Human Services, including NIH and CDC, the United States Agency for International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation have committed to contribute to the Alliance in three key areas.

First: support for research and development to improve design, lower costs, and develop global industry standards and testing protocols for cookstoves. Second: diplomatic engagement to encourage a commercial market for clean stoves and promote several strategies, including reducing trade barriers, promoting consumer awareness, and improving access to financing. Third: the launch of international development projects to distribute the clean stoves to targeted areas, including refugee camps, disaster relief efforts, and long-term aid programs, as well as projects

aimed at women and girls. These contributions will assist the Alliance in reaching its goal of spurring the adoption of clean cookstoves in 100 million households by 2020.

Our legislation reinforces the commitment these U.S. agencies have made to the Alliance and requires the Secretary of State in consultation with the relevant Federal agencies, and in coordination with relevant international nongovernmental organizations and private and governmental entities to work to advance the goals of the Alliance. In addition, our bill formally authorizes the agency's funding commitments to ensure that these crucial pledges toward preventing unnecessary illness and reducing pollution around the globe are met.

By supporting the work of the Alliance to replace primitive stoves with modern versions that emit far less soot, this legislation would directly benefit some of the world's poorest people and reduce harmful pollution that affects us all.

This measure addresses an important global pollutant and alleviates a serious public health and environmental concern affecting developing nations. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting The Clean Cookstoves Support Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Clean Cookstoves Support Act, which addresses a serious global environmental and public health issue. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin.

Nearly half the world's population cooks food over open fires or inefficient, polluting, and unsafe cookstoves, using firewood, dung, or coal as fuel. Smoke from these traditional cookstoves and open fires is associated with a number of chronic and acute diseases, with women and young children affected disproportionately. The World Health Organization estimates cookstove smoke to be one of the top five threats to public health in poor, developing countries. This smoke may account for nearly two million deaths annually in the developing world, which is more than the deaths from malaria, tuberculosis, or HIV.

Traditional cookstoves also create serious environmental impacts. The amount of biomass cooking fuel required each year can reach up to two tons per family, and local environmental degradation can result where demand for fuel outstrips the natural regrowth of resources. Recent studies show that emissions of black carbon, or common soot, from biomass cookstoves significantly contribute to climate change, second only to carbon dioxide in impact.

These stoves should be replaced with modern alternatives to reverse these alarming health and environmental trends. Fortunately, modern stoves, designed to burn fuel efficiently, can eliminate up to 90 percent of the black carbon produced during cooking and home heating. This would be relatively inexpensive and could be done quickly it is what scientists call the ``low-hanging fruit'' of environmental fixes.

Through the leadership of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and the United Nations Foundation, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves was formed in 2010. Recognizing the severity of the global health and environmental issues, this public-private partnership aims to save lives, improve livelihoods, empower women, and combat pollution by creating a thriving global market for clean and efficient household cooking solutions. The Alliance partners are working to help overcome the market barriers that currently impede the production, deployment, and use of clean cookstoves in the developing world.

To assist in this important endeavor, several Federal agencies the Departments of State, Energy, and Health and Human Services, including NIH and CDC, the United States Agency for International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation have committed to contribute to the Alliance in three key areas.

First: support for research and development to improve design, lower costs, and develop global industry standards and testing protocols for cookstoves. Second: diplomatic engagement to encourage a commercial market for clean stoves and promote several strategies, including reducing trade barriers, promoting consumer awareness, and improving access to financing. Third: the launch of international development projects to distribute the clean stoves to targeted areas, including refugee camps, disaster relief efforts, and long-term aid programs, as well as projects

aimed at women and girls. These contributions will assist the Alliance in reaching its goal of spurring the adoption of clean cookstoves in 100 million households by 2020.

Our legislation reinforces the commitment these U.S. agencies have made to the Alliance and requires the Secretary of State in consultation with the relevant Federal agencies, and in coordination with relevant international nongovernmental organizations and private and governmental entities to work to advance the goals of the Alliance. In addition, our bill formally authorizes the agency's funding commitments to ensure that these crucial pledges toward preventing unnecessary illness and reducing pollution around the globe are met.

By supporting the work of the Alliance to replace primitive stoves with modern versions that emit far less soot, this legislation would directly benefit some of the world's poorest people and reduce harmful pollution that affects us all.

This measure addresses an important global pollutant and alleviates a serious public health and environmental concern affecting developing nations. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting The Clean Cookstoves Support Act.

Mr. President, today I wish to offer my congratulations to John T. Cyr and Sons, Inc., on its 100th anniversary. This outstanding Maine company demonstrates why family businesses are so important to our Nation's economy and to communities in every State. The determination and vision that led to a century of success define America's entrepreneurial spirit.

Sometime around 1903, John Thomas Cyr moved his family from Caribou, ME--my hometown--to Old Town, near Bangor, where he found work in a lumber mill. Nine years later, in 1912, at the age of 51, John T. Cyr struck out on his own. Joined by his son, Joseph, they started a livery stable and delivery business.

What began with horses, buggies, and wagons is today a thriving enterprise of 22 luxury motor coaches, 200 schoolbuses, and nearly 250 employees. A company that got its start hauling lumber for a local canoe factory now serves 17 school districts across Maine with an exemplary safety record. They offer tours throughout the United States and Canada--from New York City at Christmas to Washington, DC, in cherry blossom season. As a native of Aroostook County, I know how valuable their daily intercity service is to the towns and cities of northern Maine.

Handed down and nurtured through the generations, this is a true family business, owned and operated by the founder's grandson, Joe Cyr, joined by his brother, Pete, son Mike, and daughter Becky.

Their remarkable story of growth, of meeting challenges, and of delivering value was expertly told in a recent article in Maine Trails magazine. I would like to complement that account with my personal observations.

Before coming to the Senate, I worked at Husson University in Bangor, where I had the pleasure of getting to know Joe Cyr, class of 1962, and his wonderful wife Sue, class of 1965. Joe has been a longtime member of the Husson Board of Trustees, and Sue has been a volunteer supporter of uncommon energy. Joe and Sue's generosity to Husson includes significant gifts to athletic programs, a new home for the university president, the annual fund, and most recently, the new Cyr Alumni Center. The countless ways they serve--from the Boys Scouts and the Y to St. Joseph Hospital--touch people of all ages.

People throughout Maine are fortunate to have such a family as the Cyrs,

but I am especially lucky--my summer camp on Cold Stream Pond is just down the road from theirs. As much as I cherish our time together, having dinner, playing cards, and enjoying the beautiful Maine summer evenings, I cherish even more being in the presence of those who give so much to others and who see the act of giving as the greatest reward. I am delighted to extend my congratulations to the Cyr family in their business's centennial year and to thank them for their contributions to the State of Maine.

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 am only going to speak very briefly. I wish to shine a spotlight on a provision of Senator McCain's substitute that has not yet been discussed that actually raises constitutional issues.

All of us believe the labor force of the Postal Service is too large and unfortunately will have to be reduced, and we do that through a system of buyouts and retirement incentives through a compassionate means very similar to the way a large corporation would handle the downsizing of its employees. But Senator McCain's alternative takes a very different approach. It would have this new control board that would be created to impose on the Postal Service an obligation to renegotiate existing contracts to get rid of the no-layoff provision.

I will say I was very surprised when the Postmaster General signed the kinds of contracts he did this spring. The fact is Senator McCain's amendment--section 304 of which amends section 1206 of existing law-- requires existing contracts to be renegotiated. That creates constitutional questions. The potential constitutional issue derives from the contracts clause of article I, which prohibits States from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Of course, this provision does not apply to the Federal Government. The Congressional Research Service has explained in a memorandum to me on this topic in July of 2011 that the due process clause of the

fifth amendment has been held to provide some measure of protection against the Federal Government impairing its own contracts. I ask unanimous consent that the CRS memorandum I just referred to be printed in the Record.

There is also a Supreme Court case, Lynch v. The United States, which makes clear that the due process clause prohibits the Federal Government from annulling its contracts and the United States is as much bound by its contracts as are private individuals.

In the landmark case of U.S. v. Winstar decided in 1996, the Supreme Court cited Lynch for the proposition that the Federal Government ``has some capacity to make agreements binding future Congresses by creating vested rights,'' even though the Contract Clause does not directly apply.

Obviously, one Congress cannot bind another, and no Federal agency can bargain away the right of Congress to legislate in the name of the people. But no one would ever sign a contract with an instrumentality of the Federal Government if that contract could be rewritten by Congress at will.

Recognizing this, the courts have distinguished between acts which affect contracts in general, where the Federal Government is exercising its sovereign powers, and acts directly altering the obligations of contracts to which the Federal Government is itself a party.

The Winstar case I mentioned before illustrates this distinction. Winstar was brought by a financially healthy Savings & Loan institution that was asked by Federal regulators to take over failing thrifts during the S&L crisis of the 1980s. After Winstar entered into a contract with the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation stipulating that it could count the ``goodwill'' of the thrifts it took over to offset the liabilities it was assuming, Congress changed the underlying

law. Based on that change, the regulators reneged, declared Winstar ``inadequately capitalized,'' and seized its assets.

In that case, the Supreme Court held that even though Congress had the right to change the law in general, the Federal Government could still be liable for breach of contract it had entered into with Winstar, and for damages.

I am concerned that if the Postal Service reopens and renegotiates its collective bargaining agreements to comply with the McCain amendment, courts could find the Postal Service in breach of those agreements, and force it to pay damages.

At a minimum, it strikes me that Senator McCain's language could tie up the Postal Service in litigation for years, which would defeat our efforts to reduce the workforce costs faced by the Postal Service.

Bottom line: I am very concerned that if the Postal Service is forced by the McCain substitute to reopen and renegotiate current collective bargaining agreements, the courts would find the Postal Service in breach of those agreements and force it to pay damages and also that it would be found to be unconstitutional. The approach we have taken does not raise those constitutional concerns. It does not have Congress stepping in to abrogate contracts, which is a very serious and potentially unconstitutional step for us to take.

Finally, I would say I agree with everything my chairman has said. Senator McCain's amendment does not address the true problems of the Postal Service. Instead, it assumes that the Postal Service is obsolete, that they cannot be saved, and that we should just preside over its demise. I reject that approach.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, we are going to resume debate today on the postal reform legislation our committee, on which the Presiding Officer serves, has worked very hard to produce and to do so in a bipartisan way. As Chairman Lieberman has indicated, last week, we labored very hard to produce a list of amendments that will allow Members to work their will on this legislation.

There are many different viewpoints on the path forward for the Postal Service, but there can be no doubt about one fact: The Postal Service has lost more than $13 billion in the last 2 years. Despite being relieved from a payment that is required under law toward the health benefits of future retirees, it still lost billions of dollars. If we fail to act, if we turn down this bill, the Postal Service will not survive as we know it today, and that is a fact. The Postal Service, later this year, will have great difficulty even meeting its payroll if we do not act. The Postal Service will max out on its credit that it can borrow from the Treasury if we do not act. The Postal Service will be forced to resort to dramatic and Draconian service cuts that will drive still more customers from the system if we do not act. So just closing our eyes and pretending somehow the Postal Service will find a way through this, without our legislation, is not a realistic option.

As I have indicated, there are a variety of views on both sides of the aisle on what the appropriate path forward should be, and we will have a vigorous debate today--we started it last week--on what the best option is for the Postal Service. For me, the bottom line is this: The Postal Service will not survive if it pursues a course that risks alienating the remaining customers it does have. So resorting to widespread closures of postal processing plants, which would essentially do away with overnight delivery of mail, and raising prices so big mailers pursue alternatives to using the Postal Service for delivery are not the solutions to the Postal Service's woes.

On the other hand, the Postal Service clearly cannot continue to do business as usual. It has to innovate. It has to look for new sources of revenue, and we have given some very specific ideas in our bill by allowing, for example, the Postal Service to provide services and share space with Federal, State, and local governments and to also ship beer and wine with a signature from the customer, just as its competitors, FedEx and UPS--United Parcel Service--are able to do. We also do not prohibit the closure of all post offices, nor do we mandate a certain number be closed; instead, we set standards. We set service standards, and those service standards would govern the decisions the Postal Service would make. I think that is the appropriate way to approach the very difficult issue of how to reduce the infrastructure of the Postal Service.

But the fact remains--and it is a painful fact--that 80 percent of the Postal Service's budget is workforce related. It is always difficult to recognize when a workforce, particularly one as dedicated as the American Postal Service workforce, is simply too big

for the volume of work the Postal Service now has. But there are compassionate ways to deal with this workforce problem, and our bill allows for a refund of an $11 billion overpayment the Postal Service has made to the Federal Employees Retirement System--known as the FERS system. This is an overpayment that has been verified by an independent board of private actuaries the Office of Personnel Management relies upon. It has also been verified by the Government Accountability Office. This overpayment, in part, can be used and would be directed to be used by the Postmaster General to offer retirement incentives and buyouts up to and capped at $25,000, the exact same number that is used in buyouts in Federal agencies to reduce the workforce.

More than one-third of the Postal Service's employees are eligible for retirement today. That is why the Postmaster General believes, if he provides a bit of an incentive, he can reduce the size of the Postal Service workforce by more than 100,000 workers. That is about 18 percent of the entire workforce. That approach of using retirement incentives, buyouts, and incentives such as that is very similar to the approach the private sector uses, that large corporations use when they are faced with the painful task of having to downsize their workforce.

The rest of the overpayment refund would be used to pay down debt, something the Postal Service desperately needs to do as it approaches that $15 billion line-of-credit cap.

I wish to stress--because there is going to be a lot of discussion about this, perhaps very shortly--these are not tax dollars being refunded to the Postal Service. I read from a letter from the inspector general on the floor last week that verifies the revenues for the FERS payment come from two sources: They come from the postal employees themselves who contribute to the FERS system, and the revenues come from the Postal Service's own revenues, which are from selling stamps, mailing packages, and the other services the Postal Service provides.

This is not a taxpayer bailout. It is not a refund of taxpayer dollars. This is a refund of a substantial overpayment of money from the Postal Service's employees and the Postal Service itself, from revenues it generated, to the FERS system that never should have occurred. That is another whole issue--of how it occurred. This overpayment has been confirmed by the GAO and by an independent board of actuaries hired by the Office of Personnel Management.

That is a very important part of this bill. If the Postmaster General is successful--as I believe he will be if he aggressively implements these provisions in compassionately reducing the size of the workforce--the estimates are that provision alone would save about $8 billion a year, and it would allow the Postmaster General to right size many of the processing plants. Some of the processing plants are too big for the volume they now have.

But the answer is not to close them altogether because that has such a detrimental impact on the delivery of mail, and that leaves rural America behind. That would result in there no longer being overnight delivery for first-class mail.

Let me give an example from my State, where the Postmaster General has unwisely proposed closing one of only two processing plants we have in a State as large as the State of Maine. He would keep the one in the southernmost tip of the State but close the one in Hampden, ME, which serves northern, central and eastern and parts of western Maine. It serves about two-thirds of the geography of the State. If that postal processing plant were to close, mail from northern Maine--being sent from one community in northern Maine to another--would have to undergo a more than 600-mile round trip to the one remaining processing plant in Maine. I can't imagine how many days that would take, but I am certain it would cause people to stop using the mail, and, thus, revenue would decline still further because there would be no possibility of overnight delivery of bill payments, for example, or bill delivery.

This is not the answer. So what is the answer? That plant could be downsized, not closed. We need to preserve the service.

If the plant is too large now for the volume of mail that goes through the plant, why doesn't the Postal Service rent out part of the plant? I am sure a mailer in the area--perhaps several mailers in the area--would welcome the opportunity to rent space in that building and be right next to the postal processing plant. That would work very well.

There are so many options, but the Postmaster General, in my view, has not pursued those options. When it comes to rural post offices, there are so many options. For example, a post office could be open in a rural community, say, from 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning and 5:00 to 7:00 at night so that individuals going to and from work could stop and do their business, but the Postal Service would still be able to save funds by not having the post office open the entire day. A small post office could be colocated in a retail facility--the local pharmacy, perhaps, or the local grocery store.

There are possibilities which need to be explored--and which our bill directs the Postmaster General to explore--in order to avoid the widespread closure of post offices in rural America that will have a detrimental impact on the individuals and the businesses located there. Our bill in essence forces more creativity on the Postal Service by again setting standards with the Postal Regulatory Commission, which is the regulator in this case, and then ensuring that the actions of the Postal Service with regard to infrastructure meet those standards.

This bill has many other provisions that we discussed at length last week, so I am not going to repeat them now, but let me reiterate the point I made at the beginning of my remarks.

We have been able to negotiate, with the cooperation of both the majority leader and the Republican leader and with a lot of hard work by the members of the committee and the floor staff and our staff, a very fair process that will allow many amendments to be offered, expressing a wide variety of philosophies and views on the proper road ahead. But what we cannot do is fail to act. If we do not act, that will be a death sentence for the Postal Service--an American institution enshrined in our Constitution that is the linchpin of a $1 trillion mailing industry that employs 8.7 million Americans.

This debate is not just about rural post offices, important though they are. It is about our economy and not delivering a death blow to an institution that is the center of much of our economy. I hope Members keep that in mind as they come to the floor with proposals, for example, to essentially privatize the Postal Service or to do away with most of its infrastructure because if those amendments prevail, they will deliver a crushing blow to our economy at a time when we can least afford it, and they will jeopardize that trillion-dollar mailing industry that includes everything from paper manufacturers, to magazine publishers, to newspapers, to financial services--all of these industries that are so dependent on the U.S. Postal Service--and that is an outcome we must avoid.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, but I will be responding.

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

Mr. President, let me start by responding to the ranking member of the Budget Committee by saying that I could not agree with him

more that it is absolutely unacceptable that we have not had a budget passed in the Senate for more than 1,000 days. That is totally unacceptable. It is one of the reasons we are in such a financial crisis in this country. So I completely agree with Senator Sessions that we should be doing a budget resolution on the Senate floor, and I wholeheartedly agree with his comments that it is absolutely irresponsible for us to be proceeding without a budget resolution. And as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I would say to my colleagues that it makes it very difficult for us to carry out our work. Due to the cooperation of the chairman and ranking member of that committee, we are operating under allocations for each subcommittee, but it would be far preferable if there were a budget resolution that passed, and it should have passed last year, the year before, and it should be passed this year. So we are in complete agreement on that point, and I know that has been a great source of frustration for the Senator from Alabama as the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Having said that, let me explain a few facts. First of all, there are no tax dollars being authorized by this reform bill. There is no transfer of taxpayer money to the Postal Service. What we have here is a very strange and unusual budget situation. And the score CBO has is incredibly misleading because the Postal Service, oddly enough, is part of the unified budget of the United States even though most of its accounts are off-budget, but it participates in Federal employee retirement systems and the health benefits systems and the workers' compensation systems, where postal dollars that come from postal employees and from postal ratepayers are commingled, if you will, with tax dollars that come from other Federal agencies into the retirement system, the workers' comp system, and the health benefits system. And that creates this odd situation, which makes it very difficult for CBO to score this bill correctly.

The inspector general of the Postal Service puts it far more bluntly. In a February 22 report from this year called ``Budget Enforcement Procedures and the Postal Service,'' the inspector general said:

. . . the Postal Service's off-budget status . . . expose[s]

the Postal Service to an inappropriate and illogical

application of the scoring process that threatens its ability

to reform and heal its financial condition. Scoring and

budget enforcement were created for a good purpose, but they

are undermined when the scoring process assumes that unlikely

or inappropriate inflows to the Treasury must occur.

Let me give you a couple of examples because it is incredibly important that we walk through the score so that our colleagues can understand the unique on-budget/off-budget status of the Postal Service, particularly in the area of reducing payments to retiree health benefits or recovering overpayments to the FERS system and how the CBO scoring method obscures the true savings achieved by refunding the FERS payments.

Again, let me repeat that since 1971 the Postal Service has received no Federal subsidy to operate other than some very minor appropriated dollars for functions that the Postal Service is legislatively mandated to do, such as mail for the blind and overseas ballots for our troops. That is it. Prior to 1971 there was a taxpayer subsidy year after year to the Postal Service, but that ended with the Postal Reform Act in that year. So from the sale of stamps, the cost of shipping packages, and the rates mailers and magazine publishers and newspaper publishers pay to get the print versions delivered comes the revenue for the Postal Service. And even the money the Postal Service uses for retiree benefits comes from a combination of the contributions the postal workers make and the money the Postal Service invests.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a significant overpayment into the Federal Employees Retirement System, and we, along with the administration, the GAO, the independent actuaries, and the Postal Service inspector general, have all proposed that overpayment be returned to the Postal Service, and it would be used in part to finance these buyouts and retirement incentives to reduce the size of the postal workforce.

Let's look at how CBO scores this particular part of the bill.

First of all, CBO gives this bill no credit whatsoever for the buyouts, and here is why: CBO argues that the Postal Service already has buyout authority, but as the Presiding Officer knows better than anybody in this Chamber, our bill changes the status quo in two critical ways. First of all, the Postal Service has no cash right now to do these buyouts. That is one of the reasons we are so eager to get the money from the overpayment of FERS refunded to the Postal Service. Second, in our substitute bill, we specifically direct the Postmaster General to use a portion of this money to entice 18 percent of the current postal workers to accept this offer. That is a big difference. So there is a mandatory direction to the Postmaster General to reduce the workforce by about 18 percent and there is the cash that will allow him to offer buyouts to do that. Why CBO doesn't score that as a savings to the Postal Service is beyond me.

There is another way to reduce the workforce and, again, the funds for this would come from the FERS refund. Our bill provides new authority to the Postal Service to offer 1 or 2 years of credited service toward a pension annuity so that for a worker who is just lacking a year or two to reach the number of years necessary for retirement could be credited with that extra year or two of service, depending on which retirement system the worker is in. Unfortunately, the CBO makes an assumption that only several thousand employees would take advantage of that offer and credits the bill with savings of only $643 million over 10 years. Since these kinds of service credits have never been offered before, it is not clear how the CBO came up with this assumption. There is no precedent for it. There is no data for the CBO to use. Again, our original bill did not include the hard requirement for the 18-percent reduction, but our substitute does. Yet CBO does not recognize that change.

The Postal Service has told us, as the Presiding Officer would attest, these requirements and this new authority and the funds for the buyouts and the service credit would allow them to reduce their workforce in the neighborhood of 100,000 employees and save some $8 billion a year. That is not reflected in the estimate. I use that example because it shows how strange the scoring is. This is a quirk of the budget-scoring rules because when there is a transfer of Postal Service money--not taxpayer money, Postal Service money--from one account in the Treasury, such as the retirement account, into an off- budget postal operations account, the CBO makes this assumption that savings are not going to occur. So when we transfer the $11 billion overpayment--the refund--from the pension account, to which the Postal Service has been overcharged, into a postal operating account, it gets credited as $5.5 billion instead of $11 billion. That means an on- budget account loses $11 billion, as CBO looks at it, and the off- budget account only gains $5.5 billion. This is very complex because it is so obscure and because, frankly, it is so illogical. The result is the net score in the unified budget of $5.5 billion as a cost to the Treasury, and that simply is not the reality. Again, these are not taxpayer dollars that went into the overpayment in the first place. So here we have a provision that is being scored as the $5.5 billion cost to the Treasury when, in fact, they aren't tax dollars, and it is only because this is a unified budget, where some of the accounts are on- budget and some of the accounts are off-budget, that we have this anomalous result. It doesn't make sense.

Let me give my colleagues another example. The CBO acknowledges that our reforms of the Federal Workers' Compensation Program would save $1.2 billion, but CBO doesn't count this reduction as a savings because of the way the Department of Labor charges agencies for participation in the workers' compensation program. Again, that doesn't make any sense, when the CBO itself acknowledges that these are real reforms that are going to save $1.2 billion. Yet we only get credit for $200 million of the reforms.

There is another issue. The CBO does not account for what would happen if the Postal Service allows service to continue to deteriorate because the CBO doesn't recognize the reality that all the big mailers and small mailers tell us, which is that revenue will be driven out of the system if the service

cuts associated with plant closures and wholesale closures of post offices are allowed to proceed. The bottom line is that were it not for 50-percent discounts being applied over and over to the savings we achieve for 5-day delivery, retiree health care, the pension refund, on the basis of these strange behavioral assumptions and reflecting the odd combination of off-budget and on-budget accounts being brought together in a unified budget, the bill would have scored approximately $24.6 billion more in off-budget savings, making the bill a net saver of $14.8 billion.

This is so frustrating because it is so complex, but I think if our colleagues look at the example of the FERS overpayment, it becomes very clear because there are no taxpayer dollars involved. Yet it is scored as a cost to the Treasury of $5.5 billion. How can a refund of an overpayment that involves no tax dollars end up being scored as a cost to the Treasury of $5.5 billion? That is how illogical and quirky this estimate is, and it is because of the unique status of the Postal Service and how its various accounts are reflected in the budget.

In addition to my absolute conviction that this score is very misleading, let me make another point. If we do not proceed with this bill--if this budget point of order brings down this bill--the Postal Service will not survive as we know it. Again, we are not providing a taxpayer subsidy in this bill. In fact, I would argue we are preventing a taxpayer bailout in this bill because later this year, if the Postal Service cannot meet its payroll and thus is unable to deliver mail, I think the pressure for the taxpayer bailout will increase substantially, and I do not want to see us return to the pre-1971 era, where the taxpayers were on the hook for the Postal Service. Our bill would avoid that outcome.

Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I too wish to commend the Senator from Virginia for offering this amendment in conjunction with the Senator from Maryland. I wrote to OPM in July of last year about this very issue. I was very concerned about reports in my own State and from the Washington Post about the tremendous backlog at OPM in processing the retirement applications of Federal and postal workers, and this is just wrong.

As the Senator's statement shows, it has caused some real hardship to individuals. So I was pleased the chairman and I could work with the Senator to modify his amendment so it would be germane to this bill. I look forward, at the appropriate time, to working with the chairman to accept the amendment.