Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to ask a question of my colleague from Rhode Island.

Mr. MERKLEY. So the Supreme Court envisioned this steel wall, this high, impenetrable wall between an independent campaign and the candidate's campaign, and thereby saw fit to unleash unlimited money on one side of the wall while saying the other side has campaign caps, and that made sense together but their fundamental premise was wrong?

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Lincoln High School Constitution team of Portland, OR for winning the ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. The ``We the People'' competition requires high school students to illustrate their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution through a rigorous set of simulated congressional hearings. These amazing students had the drive and commitment to master the U.S. Constitution. Lincoln High students, their teachers, and coaches put in hundreds of hours on weekdays, weeknights, and weekends to reach this point. The team, made up of 36 students and 9 teachers and volunteers, continues to exemplify excellence and is part of a storied history. Lincoln High School has now won the national competition 4 times, the Oregon State championship 16 times, and finished in the top 10 at nationals 9 times in its 25 year history. I wish to again, congratulate the students on the Lincoln High School Constitution team, their teachers, and their supporters on their victory at the ``We the People'' national finals.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, earlier today, just a few minutes ago as I was presiding where the Senator from Minnesota is now sitting, I listened to my colleagues speak on this issue of interest rates on student loans. I was particularly interested in the speech of a colleague who came to the floor and said this bill that is designed to prevent interest rates from doubling is all political show. The concept of it being a political show is difficult for me to get my hands around. Quite frankly, the President didn't set July as the date student loans would double in cost. That date was set by legislation that was passed in the Senate and in the House and sent to the President. It is that date, just 2 months from now, that brings forth the urgency on this issue--Presidential campaign or no Presidential campaign. It is also important to recognize that this is not a debate at this moment about final adoption of a bill. It is about beginning the process of debating the bill. It is a motion to proceed. For those unfamiliar with Senate process, well, this is a motion that says this is an issue that, because of its urgency, should be on the floor now for us to work on, and everybody in this Chamber knows it cannot pass without 60 votes. As the debate unfolds, amendments are debated and hopefully a path is found that will produce the 60 votes necessary to send it on to the House and to the President's desk. So I differ with my colleague, with whom I actually have collaborated on a number of projects. My colleague sees this differently. He sees this issue as one of politics. I see it as one of an urgent need in America for our students to have a chance to go to college with affordable financing, and that affordable financing will expire a few weeks from now. It is incumbent upon this body to take up this issue and provide a pathway to prevent that from happening. I am struck by the voices I am hearing from Oregon. I was doing townhalls in Oregon, and people expressed concern about this to me. I am receiving letters from students about this issue and from other Oregonians. This is really a kitchen-table issue. This is the family sitting around the kitchen table and saying: How are we going to make things work? Is our child going to be able to go to college? Are we going to be able to afford it? We can contribute a little, and hopefully our son or daughter will get some grants, but they will also have to borrow some money. If they have a huge debt load and a high interest rate, will that be feasible for them or will they have to take a year or two off and try to find a job or two in the service economy to save money and then go back, and then what? That is why student loan rates are so important. It is about the opportunity for our sons and daughters to have the course in life in which they are able to pursue their dreams and realize their potential. That is what this debate is about. That is a pretty big deal--certainly a big deal for students in my State of Oregon, for their parents, and for our future economy, which needs to have our children in America well-trained in order to drive the success of our economy. We are facing a Republican filibuster saying: We don't want to talk about this issue. That is what a motion to proceed is. My colleagues have said: No, we don't want to debate it. I disagree with them. Let's hear it through the voices of some of those folks on the front line. Sermin from Multnomah writes: Dear Senator Merkley: Today I am writing about student loan interest rates. I do not want to see these rise, even double, when the legislation expires in July. Please fight to keep these loans at a low interest rate so average Americans can have a chance at an education, a better life, without crippling debt. She continues: I was just accepted in the University of Oregon's graduate program in architecture. I have applied for loans as I do not have the money to pay for this education. My husband and I will have to scrape by when I quit my job to go to school. Once I graduate and find employment, I am confident in my ability to pay back the loans. But raising interest rates would make it difficult to do so quickly, adding $5,000 in interest to my 5-year payback plan. Please stand with middle America, average Americans, and support legislation to extend the low interest rates on student loans. Kalie from Polk County writes: Senator Merkley, I am currently a freshman in college and have taken out a substantial amount of student loans in my own name to make my goal of attaining a college degree attainable. Being 18 and having more than $20,000 in debt is scary, especially with the insecurity of today's economy, but I strongly believe that I am making the necessary investment to not only better my own future, but that of the U.S. society as a whole, as well as generations to come. As it stands right now, a college education is something that, realistically, not everyone can achieve purely from an economic standpoint, and the legislation to raise interest rates on Federal student loans would only make attending college all the more difficult for some. Please do myself, my peers, my future children, and their grandchildren a favor and help keep student loan rates where they are. Help to make college more affordable for all people so more of our citizens can realize their dreams of higher education while simultaneously building a better country for future generations. Doesn't that sum it up? ``Help to make college more affordable for all people so more citizens can realize their dreams while simultaneously building a better country.'' I think she got right to the heart of it. Caroline in Benton County writes: I am an oncology nurse, presently working on my Master's degree in nursing. Like many others, I have student debt. If we are to have an educated workforce, we must ensure that the high cost of education doesn't leave students in financial ruin. Indeed, the fear of financial ruin from heavy debt burdens and high interest rates is a significant factor that is dissuading people from pursuing higher education. Cynthia from Columbia County writes: If we expect to compete in a global marketplace, our children must have affordable access to education. I have two kids in college, and the debts we are incurring are already topping $50,000; is it right that only rich people can send their children to college? What kind of a country is it where we can spend billions on ``independent security contractors'' in Iraq or Afghanistan, but not on our own children's education? She concludes: Please support a plan to keep student loan interest rates from doubling this July. I want to dwell on the point she made for a moment. We spent $120 billion in Afghanistan last year on misguided nation building while we let nation building at home suffer, both in terms of investment in our infrastructure and investment in education. So Cynthia wonders what is wrong that we are failing our children when we have billions to spend on a misguided war overseas. Alana writes: I am working to pay off student loans now, which is hard enough. Now my family's trying to send my youngest sister to college and is finding it hard to afford, and we are upper middle class. If we can barely afford an education now, how will anybody be able to do so if the interest rates go up? Please support the plan to stop this. This is a critical investment in the success of our middle class. I think these folks from Oregon--Sermin, Kalie, Caroline, Cynthia, and Alana--have hit the critical points here. They may not know the finer points of Senate procedure, but the fact that a good portion of this Chamber is voting to block having a debate and consideration of this bill because the bill doesn't start in exactly the form they want it passed at the end is pretty difficult to explain. I say to my colleagues, if they don't like the bill as it is, why not bring your amendment? The bill still cannot pass in the end without a supermajority, so why not bring forth your amendment--collaborate with others and bring an amendment forward. There is a fundamental disagreement in the beginning on how we pay for this extension. It would not surprise anyone that I would say let's end this war in Afghanistan. Let's pay a third cutting down our deficit, a third on infrastructure, and a third on education, including keeping student loans affordable. But that is not the plan we are debating today. I would be glad to propose that plan if colleagues would like to join me to create a supermajority. I would do so after we are on the bill. You introduce a bill, you debate and amend it, and you have a final vote. You cannot get it done without a supermajority in the end. The bill as introduced says we are going to close a loophole that is a tax entitlement for the very well off. I have heard many colleagues across the aisle talk about entitlements for the poor. I point out they should be equally concerned about wasteful entitlements for the best off--in fact, more concerned. One is a fundamental safety net for those who are struggling in an economy where there are few jobs. The other is a big bonus for the best off at the very top of society. Doesn't it strike my colleagues that the safety net is better than the big bonus for the best off? Well, my colleagues across the aisle have said: No, no, no, we want the bill to start with our payment plan, which is to strip health care prevention from children and parents. I guess they weren't raised with the same story I was raised with, which is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is simply better to inoculate children than to hospitalize children with whooping cough. It is better to prevent measles than to have children suffer with measles and be damaged by measles. It is better to manage diabetes than it is to amputate feet and provide guide dogs because folks have gone blind from diabetes. Prevention is better than cure. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I disagree with the plan to strip prevention as a strategy when we have options. Let's take that money from nation building in Afghanistan, let's take the money from bonus breaks for the best off in society, those tax loophole entitlements--let's do that because those do not rip a big hole in the safety net for Americans. I come from a working family. My father was a millwright and a mechanic. They weren't sure how I would be able to go to college. They were determined that I would go. They raised me to believe in gaining the education necessary to have opportunities in life. But they didn't have the money. Despite the fact that I worked a job in college, that wasn't enough money. I got substantial grants, and that wasn't enough money. I had to take out loans, and I had to pay back those loans. The interest rates matter. I say to my colleagues: End your filibuster. Come here as Senators, present your amendments, debate this bill, and if you don't like the bill in the end, vote against it. But do not block this debate on an issue of fundamental importance to the success of our children. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William Carol, a detailee in the Senate HELP Committee Majority Education Office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of debate on S. 2343, the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike of 2012.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to address the motion to proceed we are currently debating. Essentially, this is a motion to proceed to a bill that would sustain the 3.4-percent interest rate on Stafford student loans. Earlier, we had a vote to attempt to conclude the debate over whether we should get to the bill. That has to have a supermajority of 60 under the rules of the Senate and we didn't have that supermajority. My colleagues across the aisle voted against debating whether to sustain the 3.4 percent on student loans or, to put it differently, they voted to block this effort and preserve the 6.8 percent as the rate we will go to shortly if we don't address this legislation. I certainly think students at every institution in Oregon would be appalled the Senate isn't willing to hold a debate over the doubling of the cost of student loans. This has a tremendously powerful impact on the affordability of education across America. We are at a point in the history of the world where our nations are interconnected. We have a global knowledge economy. The nations that prepare their children well not only will have the best future for those individual children, but they will have the best economy down the road. What is the impact of doubling the cost of student loans? Certainly, for many students it means they will not complete their education. They are facing diminished job prospects, they are facing expensive tuition, and there are only so many part-time jobs they can take while still attempting to complete their coursework. At some point they will say the burden is too heavy--the debt burden is too heavy--the hurdles are too high. Then we all lose. Our children will lose the opportunity to fulfill their potential to pursue their dreams and our economy loses because we are not the best prepared around the world. Indeed, today, across America we are becoming the first generation of parents whose children are getting less education than we got. I would like to see that debated on the floor of the Senate. I would like to hear a Senator stand and say they are proud of the fact that America is failing its children. I would like to hear that defended because I certainly have a different view. I have a view that in terms of the opportunity for our children and the success of our economy, we have to address the issue of the affordability of college tuition. The folks who can capture this issue the best are students themselves, so I have come to the floor to read a letter from one of the students in my home State who is making the case that we should debate this issue, that we should address affordable college. Here is what he has to say: Senator Jeff Merkley, my name is Mario Parker-Milligan. I'm the student body president at Lane Community College in Eugene, Oregon. My job as president gives me many opportunities to discuss issues that students find important to them and often I find myself lobbying or advocating for issues that don't directly affect me. Today that is different. Today, I find myself seeing a federal and statewide disinvestment in higher education institutions across the nation and dramatically here in Oregon. At the same time, more and more students are needing need-based aid while it too is being diminished. Students are graduating from college but our debt loads are increasing and we are finding fewer jobs upon graduation. With all of these other barriers--low federal and state investment pricing students out of tuition, low financial aid leads to high student debt, and few jobs upon graduation--the prospect of having Stafford Loans' interest rates doubling is a haunting thought. Students are continuing to pay more and get less for our education. Today, the average student is graduating with twenty-five thousand dollars of loan debt. I have over eighteen thousand dollars of loan debt today. An interest rate of six point eight percent on top of thousands of dollars we owe in this economy doesn't seem smart either. I am not close to being done with my education and am fearful to continue to take out loans when I think of how long it will take to pay it back. Students rely heavily on student loans in order to complete college in a timely manner, otherwise many of us are forced to work 2 3 jobs while attempting to go to college full time, which usually results in prolonged stays and more debt. As a member of the board of directors for both the Oregon Student Association (OSA) and the United States Student Association (USSA), both associations working to break down barriers to higher education, I hear stories of students that are having to choose whether or not they put food on the table or keep lights on at home. Affordability is a leading barrier to a quality education and raising interest rates will only continue to price students out of an education. Please vote to maintain the Stafford Loan interest rates at 3.4%. Don't Double Our Debt. Sincerely, Mario Parker- Milligan--of Eugene, OR. I think Mario does voice the concerns of hundreds of thousands of students across America who are working hard to complete their coursework to pursue their dream--to gain the skills to provide both a purpose in life, a life mission, if you will, and a stable financial foundation. The prospect of coming out of college with debts that come close to a mortgage on a home is indeed daunting. I must say, I view this through the lens of my own experience as a child of a working family. My father was a millwright and then a mechanic, and no one in my family had ever gone to college. I was the first, and the prospect of debt was a consideration that worried my family with this unfamiliar course that I was undertaking. I feel very fortunate that in the end the combination of work-study, affordable loans, and scholarship meant that I graduated from my undergraduate education without the heavy debt burden--a very modest burden--not the very heavy burden students are bearing today. That indeed gave me the range of options to pursue in life that I might not have had if I had to immediately find a job that would help me pay back those very high loans that students are facing. And those are the students who complete their education. So many more will find that they only make it partway through because the debt becomes too high. So I am disturbed--very disturbed--that the Senate body, once known as the world's greatest deliberative body, voted today not to debate this issue, not to take it up. My colleagues may be voicing their concern about the specific aspects of the bill. I would say to them that they should come to the floor and offer amendments and we should debate those amendments. But let's not fail the students of America. I believe the majority leader has reserved the right for reconsideration, and that in a matter of a few days we might well have another vote on this topic. I would ask my colleagues to reconsider, to end their filibuster aimed at preventing us from keeping the 3.4-percent interest on Stafford loans--that they would reconsider and say, yes, there is a responsibility to debate this issue. It shouldn't just be on Stafford loans in that we also certainly have a big challenge maintaining Pell grants and keeping those grants competitive with the rising tuition. We should debate other strategies about how to make our investment in higher education more efficient. Maybe all those debates don't have to happen on this bill; maybe this bill should be restricted to Stafford loans. But for this body to reject the notion of debating an issue central to the success of our university students, the success of our children, and the success of our economy is just wrong. Let's change that vote. Let's get on to this bill in due course in a short amount of time. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue that goes to the very heart of our rural communities: our rural post offices. I am speaking while negotiations are going on regarding the Postal Service reform bill that has many dimensions to it, attempting to put the Postal Service on stable financial grounds. But I want to focus on this particular aspect: that today we must modify the bill that is before us so we do not end up destroying our rural post offices that are at the heart of the communities they serve. It was a few months ago that I was in eastern Oregon and received a message that the Postmaster General had put on the list for closure 41 rural community post offices--and that was just in my State of Oregon. In the next couple days, I dropped by several of those rural community post offices. In two cases they were open. I talked to the postmaster, I talked to citizens who were nearby, and I quickly got feedback on the destruction that would happen in that rural community if we do not address this issue in this bill. Specifically, there will be a huge impact on the small businesses that use the post offices to receive orders and to ship orders on a daily basis. Those businesses will not be able to function if they have to drive 30, 40, 50, 60 miles roundtrip each day to pick up orders and to ship products--a huge waste of time, often on dangerous, winding, narrow roads; a huge additional cost, a huge distraction from the work they do on their farms or on their ranches. In short, this will shut down a lot of small businesses or those small businesses will have to move. They will move to larger towns. When they move, the retail dollars move, and it will not be long before that small store at the heart of that town shuts down. In addition, I heard from seniors who receive their medicines through the mail. In some cases, they are controlled medicines for which they have to sign. They have to be there in person. They cannot simply receive them through a mailbox, if you will. Certainly, often our seniors are not always in the shape where they can drive daily to see if a medicine they are waiting for has arrived--that they would have to go 40, 50, 60 miles roundtrip to check and see if their medicines came in. Those folks will start thinking: Well, maybe I can't live in this rural community anymore. Maybe I need to move to a larger town that has a post office. Part of the irony of the bill we have before us is often on the Senate floor we are talking about spending government resources for economic development. Well, if you go to a small town and ask people what is the most essential component for the success of their small town, their small businesses, they are going to tell you the rural post office; that without that they are pretty much out of business. So how is it we spend so much time talking about jobs and economic development and small business as the factory of job creation, and yet we have a bill before us that basically cuts the heart out of the small town economy? I originally come from a very small town, the small town of Myrtle Creek. When I was a small child--born there--the Dairy Queen at the heart of town was the place we occasionally went as a family. That Dairy Queen is still there, and I still often drive through Myrtle Creek just to go by and have a hamburger as I am going north and south through Oregon. Now, Myrtle Creek does not happen to be on the list of the 41 towns where the post offices would be shut down. But visit my hometown and one would get a real sense of the damage that would occur if the post office were shut down. So I bring a very kind of personal sense that this battle matters. I wanted to share some of the feedback I have had from a couple towns. I wish to start with the town of Tiller in Douglas County. Tiller is not that far away. Myrtle Creek is in Douglas County; Roseburg is in Douglas County where I started grade school; Tiller is in Douglas County. This is the post office in Tiller. It is 16 miles from the next nearest post office. Imagine that a person lives 10 miles from Tiller and then they have to drive another 16 miles to get to the next nearest town. Now we are talking about 50 miles round trip. That is an hour or more out of their day, and that is a lot of cost in gas. That might be $10 a day in gas right there, and that is a huge factor for many of our families. I am going to share with everyone some passages from a letter from Diana Farris, a former postmaster in Tiller. She writes: Tiller is one such community where, in many ways, time stands still and new technology is beyond their grasp. In Tiller, cellular phone service is unavailable, DSL and cable internet service are unavailable, satellite service is overpriced with the majority of residents in the area unable to afford it and there is no Wi-Fi access. She continues: Dial up internet is available (when the poorly maintained telephone system is operational) at top speeds of approximately 24 26k, so slow that many websites, including USPS, time out before you can access the needed information. Diana Farris, former postmaster, then says: The unemployment rate has risen to 13 percent in Douglas County, and the lowest gas price in Tiller in the last few months has been $3.95 per gallon. For communities like this, the local Post Office remains the only option. Many folks in the Senate may think in terms of big cities they represent that have many options, that have FedEx, that have all forms of electronic communications. They have all kinds of alternatives. But those alternatives, as Diana points out, are not options they have in a small town. Indeed, one of my colleagues said: I do not understand why you are so concerned because FedEx can deliver the medicines. If one has been to a small town, they would find out that FedEx uses the post office system to complete the last mile of their deliveries. So, no, FedEx does not provide an answer for our veterans, for our seniors, for others who need medicines or other products being delivered through the mail. Because of that difficult drive from Tiller to the next post office, because of the time, because of the distance, the closing of the Tiller Post Office would have a devastating impact on the small businesses that rely on the U.S. Postal Service. Here is a letter from Alexandra Petrowski, who owns a small business. It is called Singing Falls Mohair. She owns the business with her husband, lives in Tiller, and she writes: We utilize the services of the U.S. Post Office extensively. I would estimate that between 3 and 5 packages go out from our home to destinations all over the world on a daily basis. We sell our products on EBay and the business is flourishing. Our growing market is worldwide using the U.S. mail system every day of the week excluding Sundays. In the EBay marketplace, timely mailing is an integral part of good customer service. As it is, the Tiller post office is 7 miles from our mountain ranch. A closure of the Tiller Post Office would require an approximately 45 mile round trip journey that would severely impact our modest profit margin. She concludes: We have been engaged in this business for 30+ years. We are seniors and rely extensively on our cottage industry to sustain our ranch operation. Would closing Tiller's post office mean effectively an end to the home business? Then she answers her own question. The answer at this point in time is that it would seriously jeopardize our business. So here there is a family living on a ranch quite a ways outside Tiller, but Tiller is the closest place. They would have to drive into Tiller, then drive this additional 16 miles to the next post office, would have to do this on a daily basis to ship products. They are fortunate to have Internet and have been able to advertise and have the world see their products and advertise them through eBay, but they get customer ratings on eBay. If you have ever been on eBay, you will see that people who have these small businesses establish online reputations because they are judged by each of their customers. They are rated by each of their customers. We feel pretty comfortable ordering from someone who, say, has shipped 500 orders and has a 5-star rating and not that comfortable ordering from someone who has a 3-star rating and customer after customer has said: The product does not come in a timely manner or it is not packaged well, it is not shipped well. So this model, small businesses completely depend on the U.S. Postal Service serving that small community. Let me turn to Malheur County, a different part of the State, and the town of Juntura. I will get a picture of the Juntura Post Office before us. We will see it is quite a simple looking structure, a manufactured building, not very expensive to build, certainly not very expensive to have it open a couple hours a day. So we are talking about microscopic costs in the context of postal reform that have a monumental impact on the success of our small communities--low cost, high impact. Is that not the type of deal we argue for every day: government efficiency, low cost, high impact. This little, simple modular building, a few wooden steps going up to the door, may not look like much, but it is a shipping hub and a communications hub that makes the economy work in Juntura, OR. I have a report from a Juntura resident named Laura Williams. She went into a comprehensive analysis of the impact of this very modest building. She wrote up a 42-page report. It examines every aspect of how this very inexpensive investment--the returns it has for the community. I thought I would read to all of you a little bit from that report. She writes that the residents of Juntura: Will either have to drive to Drewsey, to the west, to mail packages, buy money orders and complete a variety of other transactions--or they'll have to drive east to Harper, 34 miles away, a route that winds through a river canyon dangerously choked with deer during the winter months. That is the end of that first part of the passage. When I looked at her report, she actually compiled numbers of the number of collisions per week with deer on this road as one drives from Juntura to Drewsey. I was astounded by the high rate. It was a rate of several collisions a week. I remember when I was a kid, a small child, and we would be driving the rural roads in Douglas County and my parents would say: We have to watch for deer. If you have a deer come through your windshield, you can be pretty much toast if you are traveling at any substantial speed. If you are on a motorcycle and you go around a curve and you hit a deer, the deer is going to do a lot of damage. So it may not sound like something folks who come from cities would understand, but driving roundtrip--in this case to Harper, 34 miles away--70 miles roundtrip through a road that is dangerous, in dangerous weather conditions, dangerous because of deer and certainly an enormous waste of time and fuel, doesn't make any sense. She continues, and this is an analysis of Laura Williams from Juntura: In essence, Juntura is between a rock and a hard place. She then analyzes that 25 percent of Juntura's post office users are seniors who would be particularly impacted by these changes, as they rely heavily on the Postal Service to receive medication and may have more difficulty driving long distances in hazardous conditions. She has one word in bold on the front page which sums up her analysis of the impact of closing this humble post office, ``disastrous.'' It would be disastrous for seniors, for veterans, and for small businesses. It is disastrous for the sense of the community that uses this as a place to connect with each other. Two weeks ago when we were on the State work period, I visited Fort Klamath, which is also on the list to be closed. When I came, they wanted to share their stories, and I want to share several of those with you now. The first comment is from Jeanette and Bob Evans. Bob is a veteran, and he receives medication through the mail that often needs to be scanned and signed for. They would have to take a 30-mile trip to pick up the medication if Fort Klamath post office was closed. They will feel the impact in that manner, and then they might make that trip and find out the medicine hasn't arrived yet. So they may have to make multiple trips. They have a rental business that must follow State law requiring many documents be sent via first-class U.S. mail in order to verify the date of notification. Again, closure of the Fort Klamath Post Office will force them to take more 30-mile trips to Chiloquin to process this mail correctly. So there are a couple hundred families in this community. It is a beautiful area and has a lot of residences rented out in the summer. Those folks who rent need to have timely service or they are not going to come to town. This point was made. Once the summer renters arrive, which drives the economy of the town, those renters want to be able to mail their letters, and they want to be able to receive their packages. So that post office--I don't have a picture of the Fort Klamath Post Office here, but closing that post office would take away not only from the business of renting out summer residences but from the number of folks who believe they want to go there and spend their vacation. Heidi McLean is the proprietor of the Aspen Inn in Fort Klamath, which operates seasonally. Heidi uses the post office daily to send out information packages to everybody interested in staying with them during the season. Once they get word of somebody being interested, they send out the details. They have to be received on a timely basis or the customer will say they got information from somewhere else and that is where they are going to go for their summer vacation. Then Heidi will have lost that business. Heidi said they could get by with fewer days or partial days, but they feel very strongly they need access to a local post office and that a 70-mile roundtrip to Chiloquin to access their mail would be a serious problem for their small business. Currently, several of my colleagues have worked to put together a process in the managers' amendment. They have been working hard. I applaud them for taking a step forward from the basic bill. I appreciate the hard work Senator Carper from Delaware has been doing and the hard work Senator Lieberman from Connecticut has been doing. They have both indicated a willingness to continue working to try to make sure we do not destroy our rural communities by shutting down their post offices. So we are continuing that conversation. We have a group of us who have an amendment now, including Senator McCaskill, who is the lead on it. Many other folks are involved, including Senators Tester, Baucus, and Leahy. I don't have the full list. I thank them all. They understand this basic notion of little money and the huge impact. It is a type of solution we should be driving through this Chamber. Currently, the plan in the managers' amendment is a step forward but not quite far enough. I will explain. It says the post office will design a series of service standards, and they will design a procedure. Essentially, before they close a post office they will have to do an analysis of whether closing the post office meets the retail service standards they have laid out, and after they announce the decision there will be an opportunity for the decision to be appealed. That appeal will go to the PRC, Postal Review Commission. The PRC will evaluate whether they met their own standards, and they will evaluate whether the procedures were followed. If they were not, then the PRC can say to the post office that they must go back and look at this again. It sounds like a system that has some routine to it. But why is that not sufficient to protect our rural post offices? Very simply, the post office management is trying to save money. If they set service standards, those standards will be set in a manner that allows many of our small towns to be shut down--many of our post offices to shut down. It is the same reason they put up a list of 41--let me put up Tiller again. Forty-one of these small town post offices already said--from their internal review, from their sense of responsibility, and from their service standards they want to shut down 41 of these. After a lot of protests, we got a 6-month delay, and I am very thankful for that. The Postmaster General also said: Maybe not 41. For now, we will take 20 of them off the list. And he took one more off. So we are down to about 20 in Oregon. Others could be added back at any time. The post office has already said they want to shut down 41 based on their understanding of their service responsibilities. So a process we put into statute that simply says: Will you be a little more clear about writing your service standards or your procedures is just window dressing. So we need the Senate to say: Here are service standards for delivering medical supplies to our seniors, veterans, and others. Here are standards for the communities that do not have all the electronic communications that big towns have. Here are standards for supporting the small businesses in these communities. We need to set those standards because it is we on the Senate floor who have been elected to fight for the people of America. The post office is trying to balance their budget. That is why they said they think it is OK to shut down these 41. The amendment that Senators McCaskill, Tester, Baucus, Leahy, and a number of others have put forward is completely compatible with the general vision of having an appeal process with the Postal Review Commission. But it gives the Postal Review Commission an actual standard by which to make a decision; otherwise, all the post office has to say is, yes, we considered the issue--and the word ``consider'' is right in the current amendment, the managers' amendment. It is not enough for the post office to say: Yes, we considered the fact that it does affect small businesses, such as the Mohair Company that I described. There has to be a standard of service that we in this body are comfortable with in defending the commerce of the small town and for small businesses. So I appreciate the work Senators Collins, Carper, and Lieberman are doing and that they are engaged in this dialog about defending our small towns. I know they understand the impact that would occur. Maybe it is an impact that hits harder in some States than others. It certainly hits hard in Oregon. I look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors of our amendment, lead by Senator McCaskill, and to working with the floor leaders of the bill because we must not pass through this Chamber a bill that would carve the heart out of the economy and the communications of rural America. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 432 of the Russell Senate Office building to conduct a roundtable entitled ``Perspectives from the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: Creating Jobs and Growing Businesses through Entrepreneurship.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 2 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Asia Pacific: Trade Opportunities for Agriculture and Food Producers from the Great Plains to the Pacific Northwest.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 2 p.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled: ``The Future of Long- Term Care: Saving Money by Service Seniors.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Protecting Commuters: Ensuring Accountability and Oversight in Tolling.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 2:15 p.m., to hold an African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled ``Examining the U.S. Policy Response to Entrenched African Leadership.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a briefing entitled ``Intelligence Update on Iran and Syria.''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2012, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Hearing on the General Services Administration (GSA).''

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Effective Strategies for Accelerated Learning'' on April 18, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut. I appreciate him addressing this issue and I look forward to working with him. I understand efforts were made to identify issues the Postal Service must consider before closing a post office. But the key is not simply to have them consider an issue but to have a standard by which it can be evaluated whether that standard has been met. That is the critical distinction, which then allows the review commission, which the Senators have appropriately included in the bill, to have a standard; simply: Did the Postal Service consider this? They will say, yes, they did consider it. But did it have a substantial impact in damaging the local economy? Now there is a standard for the review commission. I look forward to working with the Senator and thank him so much. And I thank Senator Collins and Senator Carper, who have been working to help address this issue as well.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to address an issue that goes to the very heart of our rural communities--our post offices. First, let's set the context. Our Postal Service is facing a challenging and difficult situation, no doubt. Americans' habits with first-class mail have changed, and there is greater competition for packages with groups such as FedEx and UPS. But perhaps the biggest wound to the post office's bottom line is one that Congress imposed: a $5.5 billion yearly financing of health care costs 75 years into the future. That is health care costs not just for folks who aren't yet employed with the post office but for future employees who have not yet been born. So, yes, the post office system must restructure, and it should start with Congress reversing the $5.5 billion yearly requirement for advanced yearly health care payments. Let's go to the other end of the spectrum, which absolutely does not make sense, and that is to close our rural post offices. In a rural town, the post office is the only place where nearby residents can send and receive mail. But it is more than that: It is a shipping center for the small businesses of the communities. It is the pharmacy for seniors and others who need medicines through the mail. It is the community center where folks gather and exchange information. In short, it is the very heart of our rural communities. Let's start by examining the critical role of rural post offices on small businesses. Virtually every small town is home to a host of small businesses that take orders through the mail and ship their products through the mail. What would happen to the efficiency of a small business if it had to drive an additional 50 miles per day in order to pick up orders and mail products? Well, quite obviously, it would destroy their efficiency, and they would think about shutting down or they would think about moving. What would happen to the profit margin of a small business if they had to spend three or four times more on gas--very expensive gas, as we all know? Obviously, it would do a lot of damage to their bottom line and, again, they would think about shutting down or moving. What would the impact be to that small community of the small businesses shutting down and moving? Well, it would do enormous damage. I think no one would dispute that. So we need to be clear that when we are talking about shutting down rural post offices that are many miles from the next possible opportunity to receive orders and ship products, we are talking about destroying the economic heart of our small towns. It is economic havoc, and it is unacceptable. Here is the irony. Folks come to the floor of the Senate and talk about economic development. They talk about creating jobs. They talk about how small businesses are the job factory. And they are right on every single point. So if there were no post office in a small community, the very first thing we would do for economic development is to create one so the small businesses can pick up their orders and ship their products. So how is it possible we are considering a bill that is going to shut down these rural post offices that are so essential to small businesses across rural America? Another powerful role of rural post offices is to deliver critical medicine to America's seniors. What happens if seniors cannot receive their medicines through the mail? One of my colleagues glibly said: Well, of course, they get it from FedEx. Well, I beg to differ because FedEx uses the postal system to deliver medicines the last mile and to deliver packages the last mile. So, no; they simply can't get their medicines through FedEx. Now they are driving roundtrip 50 miles, sometimes on impassable roads, in order to get critical medicines? Well, they will start thinking about moving. Then there is the fact that these post offices are the places where citizens gather, where they exchange information, where they find out what is going on. Indeed, sometimes even the last small store has closed in these communities of 200 or 300 families, so then it is the post office that is the heart of communication. So if we take away the small business, we take away the seniors, we take away the communication hub, and we do enormous damage. Why is that bill being considered with this clause on the floor of the Senate? We must change that. That is why a number of us are putting forward an amendment to say, no; this is absolutely wrong--wrong on economic development, wrong on service to our senior citizens, and wrong in understanding the cultural heart of our rural communities. I am going to focus on some comments from two communities in Oregon-- two that are on the list of 41 post offices the Postmaster General said were slated for possible consideration for closing. This is a picture of the Tiller Post Office. It is 16 miles from the next nearest post office. Now, imagine being 5 miles from Tiller or 10 miles from Tiller and another 16 miles from the next post office. Now we are talking about 40 to 50 miles roundtrip every single day to pick up orders, ship products, and get medicines. It doesn't make sense. Here is a letter from Diana Farris, a former postmaster in Tiller. She writes: Tiller is one such community, where in many ways, time stands still and new technology is beyond their grasp. In Tiller, cellular phone service is unavailable. DSL and cable internet service are unavailable, satellite service is overpriced with the majority of residents unable to afford it and there is no Wi-Fi access in the area. Diana continues: Dial up Internet is available (when the poorly maintained telephone service is operational) at top speeds of approximately 24 to 26k, so slow that many websites, including USPS-- That is the U.S. Postal Service-- time out before you can access needed info. She continues: The unemployment rate has risen to 13 percent in Douglas County-- That happens to be the county where I was born in rural southern Oregon-- and the lowest gas price in Tiller in the last few months has been $3.95 per gallon. For communities like this, the local Post Office remains the only option. That is the end of her letter. In Tiller, the nearest post office, if Tiller were to close, is 16 miles away. It would mean, a roundtrip, a full hour's drive through winding mountain roads, and that is assuming the best weather and road conditions. Because of that difficult drive, closing the Tiller Post Office would have a devastating impact on small businesses that rely on the Postal Service to ship their goods. Here is a letter from Alexandra Petrowski who owns a small business with her husband in Tiller called Singing Falls Mohair. She writes: We utilize the services of the U.S. Post Office extensively. I would estimate that between 3 and 5 packages go out from our home to destinations all over the world on a daily basis. We sell our products on Ebay and the business is flourishing! Our growing market is worldwide using the U.S. mail system every day of the week excluding Sundays. In the Ebay marketplace, timely mailing is an integral part of good customer service. As it is, the Tiller Post Office is seven miles from our rural mountain ranch. A closure of the Tiller Post Office would require a 45-mile round trip journey that would severely impact our modest profit margin. Alexandra concludes: We have been engaged in this business for 30+ years. We are seniors and rely extensively on our cottage industry to sustain our ranch operation. Would closing Tiller's Post Office mean effectively an end to our business? The answer at this point in time is that it would seriously jeopardize our business. Now let's turn to Malheur County and the town of Juntura. This is a picture of Juntura Post Office, approximately 19 miles, or 20 miles if we round it off, to the nearest additional post office. I have a report from a citizen of Juntura named Laura Williams. She details the negative impacts that closing Juntura Post Office would have on the community. Her report is 42 pages long, an incredibly researched and detailed study of the impact that closing this modest modular post office would have on the rural community of Juntura. Let me read a little bit from her report. She writes: Juntura residents will either have to drive to Drewsey, to the west, to mail packages, buy money orders and complete a variety of other transactions, or they'll have to drive east to Harper, 34 miles away, a route that winds through a river canyon dangerously choked with deer during the winter months. In essence, Juntura is between a rock and a hard place. She notes in her letter that 25 percent of Juntura's post office users are seniors who would be particularly impacted by these changes as they rely heavily on the Postal Service to receive medication and may have difficulty driving the long distances required in the particularly hazardous winter months. There is just one word in bold on the front page of her report, and it sums up the closure of the Juntura Post Office. The word is ``disastrous.'' That is how she sums up her 42-page report. The impact would be disastrous on this town of Juntura, this modest structure open a couple of hours a day, serving the citizens, providing the money orders, providing the stamps, providing the ability to receive orders and to send packages. Every part and role it plays she has detailed. These are just a few stories from rural post offices across America, but these comments are far from being isolated. I think we would find very similar comments from every single small town where these towns of modest size depend on these post offices for critical services. I have heard these comments all across Oregon. Two weeks ago I visited Fort Klamath, which is also on the closure list. Residents converged once word went out that I was at the post office. People started arriving, cars started arriving, people started sharing their stories, and I would like to share a couple of them. I want to start with Jeanette and Bob Evans. Bob is a veteran who receives medication through the mail that often needs to be scanned and signed for. They would need to take a 30-mile trip to pick up medications if Fort Klamath Post Office closes. Jeanette and Bob pointed out that they have a rental business that must follow State law requiring many documents be sent via first-class mail verifying the date of notification. Again, closure would force them to take 30-mile trips to Chiloquin to process this mail correctly. Fort Klamath is a seasonal community, and the post office is the only place during the winter months where the people gather and meet each other. Without the post office, friends and neighbors will be traveling snowy, icy roads to get mail 15 miles away. Heidi McLean comes to the Fort Klamath Post Office. She shared these comments. She is a proprietor of the Aspen Inn in Fort Klamath that operates seasonally. She uses the post office daily as they send out packages to everyone interested in staying with them during the season. They could get by with fewer days or partial days, but they feel very strongly they need access to a local post office. A 30-mile roundtrip to Chiloquin would be a serious problem for their small business. That is why, in partnership with a number of my colleagues, I am offering an amendment to this bill that would create a 2-year moratorium on the closure of rural post offices and would ensure that future closures meet certain conditions. Under those conditions, no rural post office could be closed unless seniors and persons with disabilities will receive the same or substantially similar service, including access to prescription medicine through the mail; businesses in the community will not suffer economic loss, and the economic loss to the community resulting from the closure will not exceed the savings the Postal Service obtains by closing the rural post office--and that, by the way, goes to a key point which is, it is much more efficient in terms of the economy to have a common mail service in the heart of a small town than to ask hundreds of families to drive 50 or more miles daily to obtain their mail. That makes no sense. It is an enormous waste of citizens' time, an enormous cost in gasoline, in both cases devastating and economically idiotic. Let any Member come to the floor and defend shutting down a rural post office, requiring hundreds of families to drive 50 miles every day to get their mail, when for a couple hours a day you could have a post office open, and they can access it and support their small businesses, support their access to medicines. Let's be clear: This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is about critical infrastructure for our small towns. I thank Senator Lee, who has worked on this issue in brainstorming with me, Senator McCaskill, Senator Tester, Senator Baucus, and others, who are all working on this issue. I agree that we do need to reform the Postal Service for the 21st century. Conditions have changed, and we need to start by reversing the $5.5 billion advance payment for folks yet unborn for health care payments. But we must not carve the heart out of our rural communities. So for the citizens of Tiller, for the citizens of Juntura, for the citizens of Fort Klamath, and for the citizens of small towns across our Nation who depend on these rural post offices, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment I and others are offering. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Sarah Smurthwaite, have floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.