The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“21ST CENTURY POSTAL SERVICE ACT MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S2354-S2357 on April 17, 2012.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
21ST CENTURY POSTAL SERVICE ACT MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, is on his way to the floor to make a statement. Pending that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Racial Profiling
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues of a hearing that took place this morning before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin has been a leader in this body on making sure we have a committee that focuses on the issues of human rights. Today's hearing on racial profiling, ending racial profiling in America, was the first hearing we have had in Congress on racial profiling since the attack on our country on September 11. I congratulate Senator Durbin for holding this hearing. I thought the hearing was very informative as to a problem we have in America on the use of racial profiling.
I know the Nation has been focused on the tragedy that took place in Sanford, FL, in which 17-year-old Travon Martin was killed, a clearly avoidable death, by Mr. Zimmerman. We first and foremost want to make sure justice prevails in this case. I know there is a case pending in Florida. We are all going to be watching that very carefully. There is a Federal investigation underway by the Department of Justice to look into circumstances concerning Travon Martin's death, to see what role race played in regard to that tragedy, not only as it related to Travon Martin's death but also as to the investigation that ensued.
A few weeks ago, I spoke about this issue at the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore. That is a group that is interested in urban family life. We came together shortly after Travon Martin's tragic death to talk about what had happened.
I was very much moved by so many people who came forward at that meeting and explained how they had been victims of racial profiling. A young woman talked about the time she went to a basketball game with her father and her father was pulled over and stopped by police for no apparent reason other than the color of his skin and how that impacted this girl, seeing her father held, unable to go to the basketball game. These types of victimization occur too frequently in our community, where people are picked out solely because of their race, their religion, their ethnic background.
We have a problem in this country, and we need to do something about that. The question that needs to be answered in regard to Travon Martin is was he initially pursued because of the color of his skin. Would Mr. Zimmerman have done the same if it was a White child rather than an African American?
In October of 2011, I introduced S. 1670, the End Racial Profiling Act. I am proud to have many colleagues as cosponsors, including Senator Blumenthal, Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, Senator Gillibrand, Senator John Kerry, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Levin, Senator Menendez, Senator Mikulski, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Mark Udall. I thank my cosponsors for joining me in this legislation.
This legislation would make it clear that racial profiling will not be allowed in this country. Racial profiling is un-American. It is against the values of our Nation. It is contrary to the 14th amendment of the Constitution, which provides for equal protection under the law. It is counterproductive, and it doesn't keep us safe. We are using valuable police resources in a way that is wasting those resources. It is sloppy police work if you try to identify a problem by race rather than looking for good police work to identify the real perpetrator of a crime. It also creates a mistrust in the community they are trying to protect, a community that they need to help and to cooperate with as far as keeping the community safe. For all of those reasons, racial profiling should have no place in modern law enforcement. We need a national law.
I was impressed that in the hearing today there was general consensus that we have a problem in this country, that there is a problem of law enforcement using racial profiling, which should not be done. The bill, S. 1670, would prohibit the use of racial profiling. By making a decision based upon race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, basically what you are doing is subjecting an individual to a spontaneous investigation. That should have no place. What we are talking about is someone being stopped for a routine traffic stop, subjected to a search, interrogated, or investigated based on that person's race or the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following an initial investigative proceeding are determined because of race. That should have no place in America.
My legislation would apply to all levels of government, not just Federal but State and local law enforcement. It requires mandatory training. And here is an issue on which I think we should all agree. Perhaps the tragedy that happened with Trayvon Martin would not have happened if Mr. Zimmerman had been trained on the issues of what is good police work and what is not good police work and how racial profiling needs to be eliminated. We feel very strongly about the need for mandatory training.
The legislation requires data collection by local and State law enforcement. State and local law enforcement must maintain adequate policies and procedures designated to eliminate profiling, and they must eliminate any existing practices that present or encourage racial profiling.
The Department of Justice has granted authority to make grants to promote best practices, so one jurisdiction can learn from another as to what the best practices are in order to make sure that this practice is not being used and that we are doing everything possible to keep communities safe by good police work, not by sloppy police work.
I wish to point out that the overwhelming majority of people who are in law enforcement do it the right way. We have dedicated men and women who work every day to keep us safe--our first responders. We owe them a debt of gratitude, we owe them our support, and we cannot say enough complimentary things about what they do every day by putting their lives on the line to keep us safe. So for the sake of what is right for America and for the sake of the overwhelming majority of the people who are professionals in law enforcement, we need to make it clear that racial profiling has no role in American law enforcement.
I am proud of the many groups that are supporting this legislation, including the NAACP, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference of Civil and Human Rights, and numerous other organizations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the list of organizations that are supporting the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CARDIN. Let me conclude by quoting our former colleague Senator Kennedy, who said that civil rights is the great unfinished business of America. Let's continue to fight to make sure we have equal justice under the law for all Americans. That is what the legislation I have introduced will do. The End Racial Profiling Act will continue us on that journey to provide equal justice in the law to all Americans.
Exhibit 1
Group Endorsements of End Racial Profiling Act
National Organizations
A. Philip Randolph Institute; African American Ministers in Action; American Civil Liberties Union; American Humanist Association; American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; American Probation and Parole Association; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Asian American Justice Center; Asian Law Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance; Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Blacks in Law Enforcement in America; Break the Cycle; Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law; Campaign for Community Change; Campaign for Youth Justice; Center for National Security Studies; Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School; Council on American-Islamic Relations; Council on Illicit Drugs of the National Association for Public Health Policy.
Disciples Justice Action Network; Drug Policy Alliance; Equal Justice Society; Fair Immigration Reform Movement; Fellowship of Reconciliation; Human Rights Watch; Indo-American Center; Institute Justice Team, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Japanese American Citizens League; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League of United Latin American Citizens; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; Muslim Advocates; Muslim Legal Fund of America; Muslim Public Affairs Council; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd.
National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.; National Alliance for Medication Assisted Recovery; National Alliance of Faith and Justice; National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association; National Asian Pacific American Bar Association; National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; National Association of Social Workers; National Black Justice Coalition; National Black Law Students Association; National Black Police Association; National Congress of American Indians; National Council of La Raza; National Education Association; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund; National Korean American Service and Education Consortium; National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health; National Lawyers Guild Drug Policy Committee; National Legal Aid and Defender Association; National Organization of Black Women in Law Enforcement; National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault; National Urban League Policy Institute.
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; 9to5, National Association of Working Women; North American South Asian Bar Association; Open Society Policy Center; Organization of Chinese Americans; Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace Movement; Prison Policy Initiative; Rights Working Group; Sentencing Project; Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Sikh Coalition; SOJOURNERS; South Asian Americans Leading Together; South Asian Network; South Asian Resource Action Center; StoptheDrugWar.org; The Real Cost of Prisons Project; Treatment Communities of America; U.S. Human Rights Network; Union for Reform Judaism; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; UNITED SIKHS; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual.
State and Local Organizations
A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing)
(California); Adhikaar (New York); Advocare, Inc. (Ohio); Arab American Action Network (Illinois); Arab-American Family Support Center (New York); CASA de Maryland (Maryland); Casa Esperanza (New Jersey); CAUSA--Oregon's Immigrant Rights Organization (Oregon); Center for NuLeadership on Urban Solutions (New York); Counselors Helping (South) Asians/Indians, Inc. (Maryland); Desis Rising Up and Moving (New York); Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii (Hawaii); Drug Policy Forum of Texas (Texas); Florida Immigrant Coalition
(Florida); Healing Communities Prison Ministry and Reentry Project (Pennsylvania); Korean American Resource and Cultural Center (Illinois); Korean Resource Center (California); Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (California); Legal Voice (Washington).
Maryland CURE--Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (Maryland); National Alliance for Medication Assisted Recovery, Delaware Chapter (Delaware); 9to5 Atlanta Working Women (Georgia); 9to5 Bay Area (California); 9to5 Colorado
(Colorado); 9to5 Los Angeles (California); 9to5 Milwaukee
(Wisconsin); Perspectives, Inc. (Minnesota); Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste; Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United (Oregon); Public Justice Center
(Maryland); Rights for All People (Colorado); Safe Streets Arts Foundation (Washington, DC); Sahara of South Florida, Inc. (Florida); Satrang (California); Sneha, Inc.
(Connecticut); South Asian Bar Association of Northern California (California); St. Leonard's Ministries (Illinois).
Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the issue we are debating right now is an issue of enormous consequence for the American people, for our economy, for rural America, and for the hundreds of thousands of workers in the U.S. Postal Service. I thank Senators Lieberman, Carper, Collins, and Brown for the important work they have done in moving this legislation forward.
Let me begin by saying the debate we are having is not whether the Postal Service in the digital age should change. Everybody agrees the Postal Service should change. The question is what kind of change do we want, what kind of change is good for the American economy, and what kind of change is good for our country.
Last year--I think about 9 or 10 months ago--the Postmaster General gave us his view of change. There was concern about some of the financial problems facing the Post Office. He came up with a proposal that would do the following: What he said is we should close more than 3,600 mostly rural post offices. In my State, I think the number of rural post offices is about 15. All over this country post offices, in so many ways, serve a function beyond delivering mail or selling stamps. In many ways, post offices become the center of a small town. The Postmaster General's proposal was to shut down more than 3,600 mostly rural post offices.
Furthermore, he wanted to shut down about half of the mail processing facilities in America--somewhere around 250 of them--and when we do that, by definition we slow overnight delivery standards for first class mail. So at a moment when the Postal Service is being challenged by e-mail in the digital age--instantaneous communication--he was proposing to slow down mail delivery.
He also proposed to end Saturday mail service and reduce the postal workforce in the midst of a horrendous recession by some 220,000 workers, going from 550,000 down to about 330,000.
I find it a bit ironic that a couple of months ago we had a great debate here--and I think bipartisan support--to make sure veterans get the jobs they need. Many of the people who work in the Postal Service are, in fact, veterans. They are doing a good job. When we downsize the Postal Service, as the Postmaster General proposed, by 220,000 workers, we are downsizing many of our veterans.
Many of my colleagues in the Senate and the House and I are strongly opposed to what the Postmaster General brought forth and we have been working with him and his staff to improve this plan. Frankly, I think we are making some progress. Obviously, the key danger of what the Postmaster General has proposed is that if we slow down mail delivery standards, what ends up happening is that individuals and businesses will be rethinking whether they want to use the Postal Service and whether they want to go elsewhere. So what we could very well begin is what we call a death spiral: slow down mail delivery service, businesses stop using the Postal Service, less revenue comes in, more cuts are made, more delays, more slowdowns. We think that is a bad idea.
Again, I believe, and I think everybody in this Senate believes, we need a new business model for the Postal Service in the digital age. Some of us believe we can bring forth a new business model which does not necessitate hundreds of thousands of job losses and cuts, cuts, and cuts.
Among other things, I wish to point out that a recently disclosed study by Opinion Research Corporation, commissioned by the Postal Service itself, found the Postal Service would lose nearly $2 billion by eliminating overnight delivery standards. Let me repeat: A study commissioned by the Postal Service found that ending overnight delivery standards and shutting down half of the mail processing plants in America would cost the Postal Service nearly $2 billion. The answer is a lot to do with what I said: If we slow down service, fewer and fewer people are going to be using the Postal Service.
For the last several months I have been working with several dozen of my colleagues in the Senate to oppose those cuts. I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper for their support, as well as Senator Collins and Senator Brown. We have been working with them, and what we basically did is come up with a good bill that is much better than the Postmaster General had originally proposed, and we think we can do better. In fact, we have been working, and I think it is fair to say we have made some significant improvements which have been incorporated in the substitute amendment that is before us. Let me begin by touching on some of the improvements that I think we have brought about.
The managers' amendment brings more protection for rural post offices. I come from a rural State. I know how important rural post offices are, and the managers' amendment provides more protection for these rural post offices.
No. 1: The substitute amendment would prevent the Postal Service from closing any post offices until it has established a set of service standards that would guarantee all postal customers regular and effective access to retail postal services nationwide on a reasonable basis. The Postal Service is required to establish the standards within 6 months. The service standards would be required to take into account certain factors. In other words, what we are talking about here is that before a rural post office can be shut down, certain standards are going to have to be addressed. They are:
A, a consideration of the reasonable maximum time a postal customer should expect to travel to access a postal retail location. In other words, if we shut down a post office and somebody has to go 20 miles and spend money on gasoline, and an enormous amount of time, it doesn't make sense to shut down that rural post office;
B, furthermore, we want to look at the age and disability status of individuals in the area. If there are elderly people, if there are a large number of disabled people and we shut down that postal service, those folks are going to be, for all intents and purposes, isolated. Don't shut down that postal service;
C, there would be a requirement that the Postal Service serve remote areas and communities which have transportation challenges. If I live in a community and I don't have a car, how do I get to a post office that is 5 miles away?
D, the effects of inclement weather or other natural conditions that might impede access to postal services. In other words, if people live in a climate where they have a whole lot of snow, how are they going to get to another post office?
I see the majority leader standing. Does the leader wish to address the Senate?
Mr. REID. I have some procedural matters to do, if the Senator from Vermont wishes to finish his statement.
Mr. SANDERS. I will be another 5 or 10 minutes. I will yield to the majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I finish my procedural matters, the Senator from Vermont be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be yielded back and the motion to proceed to S. 1789 be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I now ask unanimous consent that the only amendments in order to S. 1789 or the Lieberman-Collins substitute amendment No. 2000 be those that are relevant to the bill or the substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Egypt currently gets $2 billion from our country from the U.S. taxpayer. My question is, should we be sending $2 billion a year to Egypt when they seek to continue to prosecute American citizens.
Recently, President Obama's administration freed up that money and said Egypt is pursuing democratic aims, so we freed up the $2 billion. How did Egypt respond to this? Egypt basically thumbed their nose at us. Egypt said we are now issuing international warrants to get American citizens, extradite them, take them back to Egypt for a political show trial. So we give money to a country that insults us.
I think this should end. I think this deserves 15 minutes of Senate time to discuss whether America has money to be sending to Egypt when we have 12 million people unemployed in this country, and whether we have needs here at home that need to be met before we send $2 billion to Egypt which turns around and insults us by prosecuting American citizens.
I respectfully object and seek a vote on this amendment that would end their aid if they do not end the prosecution of American citizens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we speak, there are 8 million Americans who are dependent on the Post Office. These are people who have jobs as a result of the Postal Service. We need to do a postal reform bill. Doing nothing is not an option.
I ask unanimous consent that we set up a procedure to allow the Senate to consider amendments relevant to the postal reform bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, the Post Office is losing $4 billion a year, and I sympathize. But at the same time we are losing $4 billion, we are sending $2 billion to Egypt. We have problems in our country and we don't have the money to send to Egypt, so I would say it is relevant. It is relevant whether, when we have limited resources, we send $2 billion to Egypt, or whether we try to fix the problems we have at home. I would say bring some of that money home and that might help us fix the Post Office.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
Mr. PAUL. I continue my objection.
____________________
