a chance to come see you and also more importantly to work with you to make sure that our relationship with china remains strong for many decades to come. thank you for being such a great colleague and friend. i yield the floor. >> coming up next on c-span2, members of the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee consider legislation that would address the u.s. postal service deficit. and a discussion on energy policy with members of the house energy and commerce committee. ..

amendment number four. it deals with requirements for pilot disposal. and let me say first, dr. coburn, anything you would like to say? okay. bob, if you are ready. >> there is an effort here to see if they can expose excess property. i have had questions as to why it is in the bill, but that is

where the majority is and maybe even more. i want to make sure local governments are notified of proposed disposal property inside a local government's jurisdiction. so this amendment, which i understand has been accepted, will require local governments be notified of any properties in the jurisdiction which are made part of the expedited pilot program. >> let me make a couple comments. i think this is a good amendment and i am pleased dr. coburn and i have been able to come to an amendment. the pilot program was established under real proper legislation and it is incorporated into the this proposal the direct of the surplus properties will be

disposed of into the program and any agency looking to dispose of any property needs to work with the local government. therefore, this amendment insures a duty that is already taking place through the current disposal property will be done during the pilot program. and i believe this proposal is fair and insures tat state and local governments are notified during the expedited disposal program. dr. coburn? >> i support this. >> any comments on this amendment? >> can you remind me the savings, i think it is $15 potential -- the value of it for the record? >> we don't know the value. but we know we are spending $2 billion a year maintaining empty buildings.

>> and hopefully one of the list they should put on here because the house no longer does the page building and they should figure out what to do with. >> thank you for your support. you have been very support of the property legislation. i in favor of 11 amendment number four to our substitute, say i. the i's win. appear issue came up late in the game with respect to alaska and it is important to him and the state and i recognize you.

>> i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting to bring this amendment up. the filing deadline passed but in the last ten days the pole surface increase rate on packages increased over 50% and they used a process called market dominant and the post master general acknowledged there was unintended consequences this was a national system to make sure if there was competition you would have a rate structure. the postal service is dominant in rural alaska. so we are asking for a study whether the standard post package can be market dominant rather than competitive in the rural areas. the post office is acknowledging this consequence and we want to give them the chance to study

it. i mind ask for unanimous consent. >> any objection? all right. the amendment is in order. i think the deputy post master general is here and i might ask him to come to the table to talk about the amendment. any further comments you would like to make in explaining the comments? >> no, i would be anxious for the post office to respond. i understand the process they did, but in alaska there are market-dominant forces and i have heard from hundreds, if not more, from alaskans all across the area and it would be great to hear their comment on the record. >> sure. deputy post master general welcome. >> we understand in alaska the

affect of the price increases could potentially have a disproportionate impact because of the lack of roads, for example, in alaska. it is something we are happy to look at and work with you on. i think the amendment makes sense so we are more than happy to accept that. >> i take from that the post office is committed to solving this problem? >> yes. >> thank you for that clarification. 80% of the communities have no road access and the post office is how they get their goods and food and supplies. thank you for your cooperation. >> any further conversation on this? all in favor say i. opposed say nay? the i's have it.

>> the amendment i offered that was accepted was 11 number four as modified. >> without objection. okay. i think we will go to the republican side and senator paul you are right now the only republican with an amendment so you are recognized at this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. last week when we brought this up -- >> and just for clarification is this amendment number one? >> this is amendment number three. last week there were questions whether or not this amendment which would allow the bringing of guns on post offices property

and whether this would apply to malls and federal buildings. we have added that to and now it is distributed and i believe it is in red for the changes. the changes are two and three and in the third section we say nothing is contruded the right of the private property owners. we would like to have a vote >> i am going to ask you to go back and repeat slowly what you just said. i want to make sure i understand you. >> we have making it explicit if there are private regulations or private restrictive things that don't allow guns in a mall those are in place and this doesn't

supersede the private carry of gun. >> there are post offices in malls and convenience stores >> this is any contract. it says the rights of private property owners. so any contract that is restrictive of ownership or use of a post office in those elections isn't superseding. this ruling supersedes the post office's rules on guns but not private or any federal, state or local laws on guns. >> could you take a moment and bring us up to speed on the federal court ruling.

i believe a district court judge in colorado was asked to consider an instance involving a posting customer who had the right to kercarry that weapon i the parking lot of the post office. what is the issue there? can you clarify and how is the judge addressing that? >> i think there is the issue both of parking lots versus inside the post office and i think they are attempting to address in parking lots. but rather the courts made the decision we should say what the will of the people is through the representatives.

help me with this if you will, senator paul. did the district court judge's ruling in this case -- did it set a standard or policy beyond that particular county or just that post office? >> i am not an attorney so -- >> neither am i. >> i would say my understanding is district court rulings are not universal or set standards for the county. supreme court does so you will see appellate courts make decisions and they don't apply. if you want to make a standard for the country you ought to do it and rather the court ruled one way or the other that doesn't prevent us from making a decision and weighing in on this. i am concerned there are people that can come afoul of the law

for just going hunting and picking up their mail on the way home. >> you want to recognize the deputy post master general and comments he might have. >> i understand an individual in a court case won the court case because he had a gun in his pickup truck and the law says you cannot do that. in the picture of my mind is the hometown post office. you pull in and walk in and get your mail and you violate the law if your hunting rifle is in your car. the court sided with the individual, not the post office. and the most office is appealing that ruling now. my hope is this will go all the way to the supreme court because i think it violates the second amendment. either way, the fact is senator paul is making the point that

what we have seen in precidents is the trend to allow responsible people to act responsible in their state and all senator paul is asking were the right to expand the right of responsible gun holders so they don't have change everything when they walk in to get their mail. all the post office has to say is if you are following the laws of the state in terms of second amendment rights you are not in violation. this isn't as hard of an amendment as everybody things it is. we have done this before and in areas and it hasn't been harmful it has been beneficial. >> let me ask you if you are

familiar with the court case we are talking about here? i am going to ask you if you are just to comment on the status of it and the postal service's position and your views on the underlying amendment that senator paul is offering >> i think to the legal status of the case i would defer to our legal council who is here. tom marshal is postal service's general council. >> thanks, ron and mr. chairman. the case you are referring to is a district court case from colorado. in the case the plaintiff was challenge the postal regulations that bans the carrying of guns

on all postal property. he islys licensed to carry a firearm. the district court determined our regulation wasn't unconstitutional in so far it prohibited bringing the guns inside the property. but the judge said in the parking lot in this post office that regarding only this plaintiff that we violated the second amendment. we are appealing the right and he is appealing the right of carrying guns in the post office is constitutional. >> thanks for that clarification. can you give us the perspectives of the post office on this. >> our postal inspectors who are

responsible for the safety and security of all postal facilities strongly believe that the current policy should remain in affect. they are concerned about encouraging any additional security measure. they are concerned about the safety of our employees. they believe that given the 32,000 facilities it will cost them additional resources to go through and make sure they are all safe and secure. the administrative burdens will make it difficult on them. the third factor as you know is there has been history of violence with regard to postal facilities and i think for the safety and security of the employees we believe our current

policy should remain in effect. >> mr. chairman, may i make a comment? >> yes, please. >> i think this is illustrating why we need this amendment. the post office is obviously opposed to allowing guns in their parking lot and facilities and they are appealing it. it is an open question and the people should way in on it through the representatives. i think also it might be noted that the history of violence at post offices hasn't been from citizens coming into the post office but by the employees. >> what i would like to do is offer -- any further discussion? >> i had one other point. as far as the amendment, it is sported by the nra, the gun right association and the gun

owners of america. all three groups will oppose an attempt to strike the language or preplace it with a study will be opposed by all three -- replace -- and this will be seen as a vote, rather it is to replace, rather or not you support law-abiding citizens right to carry a gun in a parking lot. this is a big deal in rural america where we have people going hunting and might show up in a parking lot. i am not willing to let it wait. i am not going to let someone from kentucky go to jail or be fined for accidently showing up at the post office with a rifle in their car or truck. i hope everyone sees this and a replacement effort is seen as a

vote against law-abiding systems. >> is there department of justice represented here? they have issues with this amendment many being construction. are they represented here today? i know the postal service's has been made clear. but we ought to understand the opinion of the judge was that the parking lot is one thing. but inside a federal building is another thing. a former in that case being unconstitutional for a gun to be restricted but in the latter case it is constitutional. this amendment doesn't make any such distinction. for us to adopt this rather than leaving it for the floor and getting the justice department opinion on this would be a

mistake. >> the post office is appealing even allowing them in the parking lot. so not even in your car in the post office parking lot. we are talking about that. we are saying it the post office is appealing and don't want it inside. >> we are not voting on the parking lot. the postal service appealed on the parking lot, but this amendment isn't limited to the parking lot. the other side, the citizen, is appealing the decision of the court that inside federal buildings that this is constitutional and this amendment would reverse that. and i think we should hear from the justice department and shouldn't make a decision on

this before it goes to the floor if we have time, which i would assume we will. i think we ought to leave this to the floor and not adopt this at this time. >> anyone else? >> i will call up a second degree amendment that i will be offering in response to senator paul's amendment. when i was a kid in virginia, my dad took me hunting and my grandfather as well in west virginia. but, they would take us hunting and i remember any number of times going in the morning or in the day and we would put the shotguns in the trunk of the car. and we would stop at places like a convenience store or difference places and get something to eat or maybe something else we needed to buy. and when i first heard about the

parking lot amendment, or the court case in colorado, i thought about those experiences with my dad and thought about well, what if he had stopped at a post office on the way home from spending the days hunting. and i thought i am that case is being heard in the courts. and it has been, i think there is a narrow interpretation and now it is going to be heard by the circuit court of appeals. i agree the amendment offered by senator paul goes well beyond the parking lot. and i would like to not get ahead of the court and let the circuit court of appeals hear the case and have the input from the department of justice and those that think the district

court judge did the right thing. i have spent a number of years of my life trying to improve the posting service and make sure they are not only to be able to survive and be relevant but be robust. in addition to managing expenses they have to manage 32-33,000 post offices throughout the country and that is insuring the safety of the employees. we focus on the caliber of service they officer, i think all of us would agree insuring

the safety of the employees is a top priority. senator paul's amendment would allow the carry of weapons on federal property so long as the individual is abiding by state law. the postal office is saying the current regulation preserves and promotes public safety. and it is in the best interest of his customers and employees. my view is this: how can we vote on something when we have not heard a minute of testimony from a single expert or consolted law enforcement agencies on this matter. i don't think we should uproot

decades of law without studying the issue. i would urge you to commit studying the issue without having all of the facts in front of us. the other issue of parking lots goes before the federal courts. so at this point, i want to offer a second degree amendment to paul's amendment number three. this is modified version of my second degree amendment that was circula circulated this morning. the modfiction makes clear that the postal office must implement changes made in the reported. a group of experts would like at the issue before recommending what, if any, changes to the law is prudent. it requires that the postal

office, and other departments submit a report to the post master general and the committees of the jurisdiction in the house and senate, if any, need to be made should the carrying of firearms be allowed on postal properties. then the post master general submit as report for the house and senate with the cost estimates on the security changings and whether they will cause closures or relocations. and they would need to make recommendations to address the lawful carrying of firearms and how it would impact employees, customers, property and the u.s. mail. i would not want to take a vote

on any amendment without having all of the facts. with senator paul's amendment we don't have much to go on. we need to know the consequences. i mind urge my colleagues to support the amendment requiring the study on this issue. the modification we made makes clear the postal service must implement changes made in the report. >> senator chairman -- >> one difficulty i have with your second degree amendment is you are giving the post office authority that congress ought to have when you tell them to begin implement immediately whatever they find out in their study. we have no idea where that study

might go. it might go more difficulty than the present language. i appreciate that when you went to the post office you put your guns in the trunk of the car, but i come from a part of the country where post people don't have trunk, we have a pickup. >> we don't afford a pickup in those days >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the modification, but i appreciate senator paul's amendment and what he is trying to do here. i would just say this: i think i am a strong supporter of second amendment and i have more guns than i need and want more. but the bottom line is there are some places where guns are not appropriate and this building is not appropriate to have a gun in. if there is issues with the post office i don't think if is appropriate to have a gun.

the parking lot is a different issue because in rural america there might be folks hunting gophers and going to pick up the mail and have the guns in their pick up. if i had my brothers and we don't have the opportunity to vote for this, but i would vote to allow guns in the parking lot. but not in the post office. >> thank you. others, please. i am going to ask the clerk to call the role on amendment number two as modified. the clerk? >> senator levin? >> i. >> senator guard? >> i.

[inaudible name] >> senator tester. >> senator baldwin? >> senator coburn? >> no. >> senator mccain? >> no. >> senator johnson? >> no. >> senator fortman? [inaudible response] >> senator parker? >> i. >> on the vote of those presents

the yays are eight and the nays are five. on the by proxy it is one and one. the yays are nine and the nays are six. thank you for your vote. the next thing is a vote on paul and is there any comment? >> mr. chairman, the amendment that we will be voting on it is now the primary amendment and this is amendment three as modified.

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] >> thanks, sir. >> senator paul, i think i said it there last markup this is my first opportunity to chair a markup of a major bill. and it is my situation where someone was offering an amendment and the second degree was offered to the amendment to

become the underlying amendment and the second degree was offered and the original amendment asked for the opportunity to really offer third degree amendment which is the original amendment. i don't think that would be approved. it would invite me to come back and offer it again. the same substitute and we could be here for the rest of the day and i don't think that is what it is intened by the rules >> again, in my experience, it earns out to be a side by side rather than a second degree amendment and they get their vote. >> we have offered the second degree. we have i think a good discussion of it. and we had a vote >> can i make a spo folks becaus

in the past. let's write the amendment right now if you want to do the parking lot. let's say whatever the district court ruled that is the law we will put in this amendment. >> i am happy to vote on multiple amendments. but we ask not have a committee where we only vote on certain amendments.

you are trying to set up a scenario you will vote on an amendment you will agree to, and that is fine, but you will not vote on an amendment you will not agree with. you just voted to strike this language that would protect hunters and gun owners. >> i disagree, senator paul. it makes it clear that and i have the same problem in rural alaska. if we want to do it, let's do it. let's quit playing the game and cut to the chase. and make sure my folks in alaska when they go to east chester

branch in anchorage they are not going to get arrested for parking with their gun in the car. >> senator tester want to make a comment. before you do, let's say my i inkling is to us to move on. every now and again we reach a point where the chair of the ranking member says this is something we have the opportunity to continue to have a discussion on and move to the floor. this issue is going to be on the floor and we will revisit this and you will have the opportunity to offer your amendment and maybe along the lines as suggested. but unless there is objection the chair is going to rule that the paul amendment has been aproved and i would like for us to move on and take other

amendments. this accept the finish line. we have the floor, conference and we have the courts. this is an issue that is going to get a lot of airtime before we are done. >> i have been in this position and the previous position and i don't know if i have had anyone come up to me and saying it is important i amable to bring my gun into the post office. this is about politics.

if i vote against this, they will say i am against guns in parking lots and not in post office parking lots >> i want to ecoh that. senator paul says nra is going to score this and you are in big trouble if you don't do what the nra says. if we want to vote on the parking lot amendment let's vote on. >> i have a hunch we will get to vote on the parking lot amendment when the bill is on

the floor and we will have a chance to revisit. >> i want to add one comment. most of the amendments we will have on this bill are about politics. whether it is representing the printers or not closing down a service center. or limiting the closure of post offices and political events. and the point i would make, this is about expanding revenue and cutting cost to the post office. i think we have to get back to working on the substance of the postal bill. >> senator johnson, last word. >> just quick -- to me the way to get past this is to vote on both amendments. vote on the ability to have it in the post office and in the

parking lot and then on just the parking lot. saying we will get it on the floor hasn't been the history. that is part of the dysfunction of this place. i am happy to move on but i could not sit back and remain silent. we're not getting to vote on amendments. >> mr. chairman, i want to echo senator johnson's point and i would love to vote on just the parking lot. a judge has already decided. it seems to me we ought to vote on both amendments and move on >> i bet my paycheck we will have the opportunity to vote on that sooner than later in the full senate and i will make hard

to make sure we have the opportunity. let's move on. >> mr. chairman, i want to make sure it is clear that if senator paul's amendment is offered and i think we could object to the ruling of the chair, have a vote and move forward. if we object to the ruling and there is senator paul's amendment i will make it clear we will have a simple amendment to eco the issues i hear from the alaska gun owners and that is the parking lot. you mentioned both about that was the court case you talked about and that is very clear. i want to make this very clear because i think that is your point: we should offer -- and i recognize you want to move on but in some ways deal with this.

offer his amendment, we will draft up something, if your amendment passes, whatever, if it doesn't we have a second amendment and we will get a part of this resolved. >> i think we had a good discussion here. i know not everybody is happy with where we are. i think the best way for us to get happy is to continue the conversation. i want us to pass this bill and bring it to the floor and there is a clear compromise that can be offered and address the underlying concern and address what i think is a concern. i can see how the shotgun in the

truck is an issue. all right. having said that -- >> mr. chairman, in all due respect, i will object to your rule and the reason is this is an issue we ask just resolve. i recognize that the debate on the floor will be the floor but i think i want to make it simple in the sense of how to deal with this. but it just seems like why not deal with this once and for all. i think if senator paul is thinking about this, we could have a compromise that could do what we both want to do and be done. >> mr. chairman?

>> senator pryor. >> the problem with continuing this from my standpoint is that senator paul offered an amendment, it was legit. your second degree we voted on passed. and i don't know proceduhow you back on to that we can be here all day and voting over and over. my sense is in looking at the parliamentary posture in the community. we are spinning our wheels here. >> if i was chairing the

committee i would rule against paul, too. i stand with the chairman in saying this isn't an eligible because it is a third degree amendment and we don't allow those in the senate. even though some of us might want to because we lost privileges on the floor. so this violated parliament procedure and he can not have and we move on. -- cannot -- >> senator, i would urge you to withdraw your objection and let us move forward and vote on the parliament as substituted and we will visit this issue sooner rather than later on the floor.

and you will have every opportunity with every democrat to craft that proposal. i think we will have a good chance of getting it done and doing something start and get the input from law enforce agencies and others. i would urge you not to object and let us move forward. >> i would always say if you object to the ruling of the chair and you are successful, this committee will never operate affectively again because you will allowed president in the community for a third degree amendment which is a disaster for us. >> mr. chairman, i understand what the ranking member is but we will determine if those happen down the line. this is an important enough

issue. more important than the interest we talked about, we are talking about the constitution. and i think that brings us to a higher level. and i support the senator in his objection and quite frankly i think we should vote on these as senator johnson, get it behind us and we could be done if we just move on it. >> mr. chairman, again, and i recognize that some people might think we will be here all day on amendments. but my view is this is part of the committee process. sometimes we agree. sometimes we don't. and we have a tug of war. the rand paul amendment and the amendment specifically on the parking lot issue which will be drawn in eminent form quickly.

[inaudible conversation] >> a senior democrat on the committee is not be. it is senator levin and from time to time i look for time to advice and i leaned over to ask him for his thoughts and i am going to ask him to share those with us. >> mr. chairman, first of all, we cannot break the rules. we cannot override the rules that way, i believe, or else we will have an endles overriding of the rules and that means there are no rules -- endless -- that may sound familiar to some

of you, but that is what i believe. so senator coburn is correct now. on the other hand, we can, if we wish, by unanimous consent to have two amendments be in order, be drafted and see if we can come up with a unanimous consent agreement at the time of the markup, so there is time to write the amendments. i would suggest the chair withhold a vote on adopting the substitute until the end of the markup and during that time let's have these two amendments prepared and see if we can get a unanimo unanimous consent we can agree. i think it opens up a lawless committee procedure by

overruling the chair. >> i think that is good advice. and thanks senator coburn for his comments and his wisdom to help us through this. let's set aside the vote on paul as amendment b. and let's see what we can do with the remainder of time of the markup and so if we can find something we all, or most of us, agree on. >> these two agree to vote on. not the substance, but agree to hopefully vote on one or two amendments on this subject. >> do i need to make unanimous

consent to move this aside or move on to the next amendment? >> we will move on to the next amendment. i am not who that might be but it could be you. >> i am take you up on the offer of it being me. i mind like to reflect on what we covered in terms of my baldwin amendment at the last markup and where we are before i offer to modify that amendment and talk about the content of that modification. we had a robust debate at the last markup on the bill that

struck it relating to rate and governance over the rate setting process. as i recall, there were pretty good exchanges over something that is referred to as the carer audible that was present and maybe i prefer things in writing so we made an agreement we would set it aside and put together something in writing and have a back and forth and some to a con

and i put together what i heard during the debate and sent to to the minority and majority staff the committee trying to incorporate, if not the exact sentiments of the spirit of the debate we had, and i have to say i was disappointed we didn't receive any written response to that until 8:30 p.m. last night. it was disappointing. i want to take a few comments for the record. ...

at our markup included a 4 billion-dollar drop due to a predicted recession. i don't think the committee was really informed of that and it should've been something that we should have gotten a chance to look at. in addition when i put together a proposal as a compromise from the original mccaskill amendment we ask for some service for the 10 year outlook can be received one of, what's the date?

we received one earlier this week and we have also received one on the fourth at 11:00 a.m.. at least that is the date on the spreadsheet. then we have one today at our desks and i want to just tell you it refers to my amendment. there's a 4 billion-dollar difference between what the postal service sent to my office in response to my request for scoring on the compromise amendment and we just discovered that when we got to hand out so that is very constructed to me in terms of getting our numbers straight. so, but let's get back to the merits and by the way mr. ranking member if you want me to put in further documentary record to underscore these concerns i would be happy to do that. but i don't want to take the

committee's time right now because i do have a modification that i would like to offer. in the spirit of getting to a greater compromise. when i offered the amendment last week i talked about two issues, the rates and the governance. their rates are important particularly to my state because we have 2000 jobs in my state printing paper making and mailing and we have about 12,000 postal workers within the state. the state and the health of the post office is intertwined with the economy. and i know that's true for other members. the rate certainty in the bollen bollen -- volatility all matter. governance is also very important to me. because part of the united

states postal service operates as a monopoly. and i believe that the substitute amendment that was put before us last week puts that monopoly really in charge of setting its own rates. and we just don't do that. we have to protect ratepayers. we have to protect consumers. i used the analogy last week of the an electrical utility. we never let them set their own electrical rates. you have state public utility commissions or public service commissions that take testimony, gather input from all the stakeholders that are affected and then make a decision. to either approve the submission or reject it or modify it. we have got to keep that in place for at least that part of the post office that is a monopoly. so that is what the amendment i

introduced last week would accomplish. i would like to modify what was the old one mccaskill amendment and i believe that modification has been distributed in writing. what it would do one rates is it would allow the exigent price increase to remain in effect for one full year. after that time, the remaining exigency amount would be recouped by moving to a cpi plus one. the cpi plus one would remain in effect until a new rate system is implemented. it would also maintain the scheduled rewrite of the rate process and 2017, which could lead to future rate increases. only they would be part of what would be a transparent process that involves the postal service customers in the discussion.

the prc projects that my amendment would ring and 3 billion more in total revenue to the postal service verses some of the, well if i might say the carper audible so i think this actually is a real true compromise because of that and because of what you are trying to do to enable the post office to remain or to become profitable. on governance, under current law which my amendment would maintain the postal regulatory commission would establish a new rate system in 2017. i understand there is likely to be a second-degree amendment to my modification. without unduly complicating the debate right now i would say my understanding of that substitute

or second-degree amendment is that it would make a four-point three exigency rate permanent, put it into the baseline and put the postal service in a position where there is really no incentive to initiate rate review. and i think that this gets us back into a very difficult situation for those who we might consider captive customers of the postal monopoly. prc would be powerless in that instance to -- there would basically be no recourse and so before i get in into deeply to speaking against second-degree amendment let me just make formal my offering of the modification as i have described it and urge support of that modification.

>> senator baldwin i am going to offer a substitute on behalf of myself and dr. coburn. before i do that -- >> substitute or second-degree? >> second degree but before he do that i want to say this. i have been here for a while and i have not seen anyone so tenacious and dogged on an issue and really quite thoughtful on an issue as you have been and i commend you for your tenacity and persistence. i would call at this time is second to the amendment and then i would like to talk about it. i want to go back in time a bit. and i want to go back to august 1 of last year. that was the day we introduced the underlying bill, dr. coburn

and i did. we wait -- worked for eight months to get to that point and what we propose with this. basically we said that the postal service would be free to arrange rates to the extent that they thought it was appropriate. if there were products that were underwater the postal service could raise rates in order to cover their costs. dr. coburn suggested and i think with a fair amount of reasoned that if the postal service raises rates too much the mailers would stop by the postal service and there would be a self-correcting period of time. that was what we proposed. it was really a free-market approach. and it had some appeal and it had a lot of appeal for dr. coburn and that was what we suggested. that was august 1. when we propose to our substitute a week or so ago to

the amendment we moved way off of that proposal and what we basically moved to us a proposal that said that the exigent rate case agreed to a couple of months ago by the prc, the rate case would be the new baseline going forward. and that beginning in 2015 that the cpi cap would go to cpi plus one so we have an exigent rate case of baseline with cpi plus one starting in 2015. was a the 2015 or 2016? >> 2015. >> starting in 2015 the cpi plus one would go into effect in for the foreseeable future unless there was some agreement along the line on a new rate structure. we gave the prc a very minimal

role in terms of actually deciding what that new rate structure would look like. but that was our proposal. that was her proposal so we moved off of a pure market system to one where the exigent rate case with a new baseline starting in 2015 going forward in cpi plus one would follow in 2015 going forward unless there is an agreement honored new rate structure. we really put the postal service in the drivers seat. i don't even know if the prc is in the car but certainly the postal service was in the drivers seat. when we had a markup more recently in the conversation since that point in time it was urged that we consider backing off the of cpi plus one and go back to cpi which is where we have been since 2006. and we would find a way to make the prc a relevant role, an appropriate role and here is what we came up with. the idea would he that starting in 2017 the prc would propose a

new rate structure and begin a dialogue with the postal service on that new rate structure. unlike their earlier substitute amendment we didn't give the postal service veto rights. they couldn't just kill it but basically the two would have to agree and they'd have to come to some kind agreement. the postal service would decide what that rate would be. am i correct? >> no mr. chairman. under -- under the second-degree mimic the postal service would initiate the review and hopefully work with the postal regulatory commission and proposing something that ultimately the regulatory commission with the able to veto >> thank you for that traded let me just be clear. 2017 rolls around and the postal service proposes what he rate structure should look like

passes it off to the prc in the prc has the opportunity to say yea or nay and that they say nay base stay by the cpi. that is where we are now. exigent rate cases the baseline going forward. in 2015 we would move to cpi, not cpi plus one but cpi and if there is a nonagreement between the prc in the postal service on a new rate structure and 2017 or some other year then cpi stays in place. now why do we like back? why do we like back? dr. coburn and i have asked the postal service to run any number of ten-year outlooks, 10 year financial statements to tell us what net income is likely to be what operating income is likely to be and the debt situation for the postal service going forward is likely to be. if everybody here should have

and i ask you to look through your paper if you will. everybody should have a two pager. the first page has a lot of yellow at the bottom. if you would just find that. a two pager with a lot of yellow at the bottom and the top of it says u.s. postal service tenure outlook february 2014 carper coburn amendment. and again to reiterate this is the exigent price increase in 2014, the exigent price increase becomes the baseline in 2014 going forward in cpi price increase began in 2015 going forward. not cpi plus one but going forward. as i said earlier if there is some kind of an agreement between the postal service and the prc on a new rate structure fine and if not we stay at cpi. if you will look all the way in the bottom right hand corner all

the way on the bottom right hand corner of the spreadsheet. the most important number to me and i think to dr. coburn is a net cash balance at the end of 2023 of $7 billion. $7 billion. that some black a lot of money but that is out of $750 billion in revenue revenue over tenure period of time less than 10% of the revenue they are likely to receive. this spreadsheet assumes no recession, no recession for 10 years and we are concerned about that. we all ought to be concerned about that. but what the postmaster for the postal service has done as dr. coburn knows from his urging and mind to be conservative in the last at least recognize recognize 10 years is a a long time with no recession.

they have reduced in 2023 by $2 billion the revenue forecast or expectation and reduce by $1 million each in 2021 and 2022. that doesn't mean -- we will still probably have a recession over the next 10 years but it we ever urge the postal service to be conservative with respect to their revenues and i think the adjustments made in tamping down does that. for me the most important thing for us to accomplish with what we do here today is we pass out of bill with the financial service and the postal service will be financially viable to the best of our estimation. the numbers here suggest that is likely to be the case. unfortunately we don't have the ability to take what senator baldwin has laid out here today in her most recent proposal and to actually run, use those

assumptions, those revenue assumptions if i understand them correctly and actually be able to price out what kind of net cash or net position the postal service would be. at the end of 2023. they were able to take an earlier proposal from senator baldwin where we had the exigent rate case and place in 2014 only for that one year and then cpi plus one price increase began in 2015 going forward. and based on that proposal, that early proposal the deposition for the postal service uses the sheet could have a lot of turquoise on it on the bottom half. but that proposal led them to somewhere between 3.4 and maybe 4.5 billion dollars. that is concerning to me and it should be concerning to all of us.

now let me yield back to dr. coburn. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all, i would comment comments to the senator from wisconsin. i appreciate your efforts on this. there was a lot of back-and-forth between our staff if you are accurate that you didn't get in writing but there were a lot of discussions all week, actually for two weeks on this issue so it's not that we didn't respond and weren't working in good faith. we were. the second and this piece of information that you got from the post office the assumption that it was cpi plus one forevea difference. it's not a real difference because they ran the numbers at cpi plus one for continuing through 2023. the third i would like to make is if you look at any of these numbers anywhere and you look at

the net debt, the positive cash flows are only coming in the out-years where they are the least accurate. so whether you take mine or your numbers the fact is that at the lowest possible revenues for the post office it's still a guess because most of the money comes after 2018 to help the post office. the third point i would make is i think the post office in my assessment in looking at the numbers by projected mail volume by classes of mail is way too optimistic. remember we are looking at these numbers thinking they are going to grow at least 6% a year. and they are looking at these numbers were standard mail will only climb over 6%. i think both of those premises

are highly unlikely so i think we are way too positive right now on the revenue. in terms of our projection but that is a projection so i am going to also say they didn't have a recession in there. what they had was a conservative blocking of some of the revenue based on these revenue mixes because they don't really believe their positive projections on growth which is how people plan on 10 year projected budgets. they try to make it is conservatives as possible. i don't think they make it as conservative as possible but there are three accountants sitting on the side of the table and we have a little bit of experience at budgeting and pro forma talent sheets and income statements. i would go back and say one other thing. i have no doubt everybody on

this committee wants the post office to survive. the statement that we have heard is that the american taxpayer aren't paying any of the bills of the post office is just ludicrous. they have paid $15 billion so far in the bills. they are at their max. what we have to do is come to a compromise that is fair as we can make it to those that are paying the price for postage and fair to the postal employees and fair to the american public. i have learned some things on service standards from you senator tester and i know there are some real problems out there and i'm going to get to the bottom of it and help us get to the bottom of that whether we pass this now as we move to conference. we are going to take care of some of the service standards that are promised that are delivered in the rural areas so i think you have a legitimate complaint there and we have to look at it but our whole goal

when we started this thing was the same thing everybody here wants, is to make the postal service liable. we have moved a tremendous amount for a major competitive bill that would really make the post office respond to competitive prices, respond to efficiencies and give them the freedom to do that to a much more constricted now position that will put the post office at much higher risk if any of our numbers are wrong. which means even if what senator carper and i have proposed in this second degree amendment, i still think it's real shaky whether we will have accomplished what we intend to. the final thing i would put is the numbers proposed in your amendment actually force a price decrease next year for the post office. so we go down in terms of the

prices because we are taking away the exigent after one year and we are also taking away the cpi that is in there and then we start at a much lower baseline. so if you look at the numbers it's a $12 billion swing from what senator carper and i have proposed to, from seven-point to two minus 4.6 or 4.5 bits of 12 indian dollars swing. we are talking about a business that has a net cash flow of less than 1% based on very positive opportunistic revenue numbers under that proposal. so we are to the point that if we don't accept what we have proposed we will not have solved the problem. we will not have solved the problem so my hope is that we

can come to an agreement knowing that this is all going to change as we go to the floor and it will change as we go to conference but knowing that we have moved to a significant position to where we have really limited the ability of the post office to increase their rates which i disagree with fundamentally as a principle, we have really limited their ability to cut costs which i fundamentally disagree as a principle that we are still above water we hope. my hope would be that we could compromise on that. otherwise we have not fixed anything. we have not solved the problem and so mr. chairman i fully support your 2nd amendment. we worked hard to get to this compromise and i hope it will be seen as a compromise that meets halfway up the concerns of the senator from wisconsin. i would also say and i want to

thank senator johnson for his working up the numbers and making a positive contribution to protect both the mailers but also solve the problem. i'm not saying you were not trying to do that but the fact is we want as much volume to go through the post office as we can get and we know there is a relationship between price increases and decreases volume. we understand that in the point is i'm not capable of knowing exactly where that should he. i don't think either of the senators from wisconsin are but i think in working with their mailers and the postal service they can come to an agreement that gives the best revenue this saves the post office and i would hope we would hollande that. >> senator baldwin. thank you dr. coburn. >> i have just a couple of comments and i don't want to belabor because they think members are concluding whether votes are on this. one is on the issue of governance i do have a question

that i would like to pose to the general counsel for the prc. thank you. thank you mr. corcoran. >> i am the acting consul for the regulatory commission. >> thank you and i also want to thank you even though you responded to an inquiry from senator lynn after our last markup and he was kind enough to share that with our entire committee and i appreciate that. i wanted to know whether the postal regulatory commission has a position on the new carper coburn second degree amendment that we have been discussing right now concerning governance?

>> yes, we had a brief opportunity this morning to consider it. >> we is home? >> the commission and we didn't have time to prepare something in writing. >> how many folks are on the commission today? >> three. >> are there any vacancies? >> there are two. the postal regulatory commission has a history and expertise with comments from the community than developing a system of ratemaking. while the amended language provides a role for the regulator in approving the finished product it plays the development of that system within the control of the regulated entity. the process may be better managed as a joint process among the postal service, stakeholders and the commission where the regulator balances competing

interests in the development of the new ratemaking system. >> i thank you. just a couple of additional comments. i certainly would urge my fellow committee members to reject the second degree amendment and vote favorably on the compromise alternative. we have had members talk about how far we have come since the original dell etc.. i would not be able to support the underlying bill if the second degree of a memo or to pass because of the original concerns that brought me to offer my amendment in the first place to strike section 300. the volatility that i see forthcoming integrates that will affect so many in the wisconsin economy concerns me greatly but transparent and ,-com,-com ma a transparent governing process when we are dealing with the

u.s. postal service that has such a sizable monopoly is crucial in my mind and i place heavyweight on what i just hearl regulatory commission on how they would see their role in significantly moving forward. just a couple of additional comments. i have to say that our reliance on these spreadsheets is very troubling to me when we find for billion-dollar discrepancies, when we find assumptions. $4 billion at padding here and there. they are guesses and after 2017 a lot of changes are happening and we are guessing after 2017, and so it's just very frustrating for you to take a

spreadsheet and .22014 or i'm sorry, 2023 and be able to suggest that is the impact of some of the amendments that we are talking about right now. unless you know all the assumptions they really are guesses. with that mr. chairman i yield back. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the carper coburn second degree amendment to the modified baldwin amendment, to adopt the baldwin amendment and carry on with the markup. ..

that is the way it happened in the private sector and probably provides the best chance for the postal service to survive long term. again, we are doing is resolving to political process and seeing how messy that is and really how much that long-term survival is being put at risk. secondly, let me put my business and on. i think it is always risky as a business to a base your business model on the supply to -- let's face it, is basically bankrupt. and so as concerned as i am about the industries in wisconsin, they are relying on a business model that is not particularly stable. we are trying to do year, and i appreciate the work of the chair and the ranking member to try and make this entity survive so that we provide some stability

so that we can take at least at risk out of their business model. right now if this bill fails who knows what will happen to the postal system. don't know what size the mounting losses will be. that is something i want to reinforce. in theory, short, the american taxpayer is not paying for the post office, but $15 billion worth of debt came out of the american taxpayer side. and as losses mounted the future , where is that money going to come from? and the unfunded liabilities tacked on to the $15 billion that the post office or ultimately fails, who will pick up that tab. the american taxpayer is surely on the hook. it is strange and business by and large unless you're in a commodity type of business where you have volatility of your cost structure to assume price increases. and yet that is a we're talking

about. let's say every statutory resend the exigent price increase, what will that do to the post office? what would be the rationale for sending that? has the cost decreased? i don't think so. so i would see no reason that the normal business model that a price increase would be rescinded in an irresponsible manner. i would agree, by the way, that looking at projections, this is pretty dicey. but you have to look at it and do something projecting forward. the way i would manage this business decision, i also look at history. and one of the things i tried to do in the intervening weeks was try and get some sense of what has been the history of price increases between the post office and his competitors. the ups and fedex. i have -- and it is very difficult to get this because we

have announced price increases, but i have done the schedule your. i don't know if we should enter this in the record, but think it is relevant. i want to take time to go through this, but if you add up since 20096 years, the price increases for ups and fedex ground service, it totals 30%. if you take a look at what price increases the postal system is done on carrier routes and presort flounces 168 and 144%. so in a business setting you have to benchmark your pricing structure verses your competitors. i just want to ask as long as i have got the assistant postmaster general europe, is that relatively accurate? at your price increases lagged that far behind the ups and fedex? >> i will defer to our chief financial officer. >> the quick answer, senator, yes, they have. >> that as a problem.

that should also be brought into the equation in terms of a wish to be doing priceline it will be a pretty bad evaluation of what your price up to be. in the business -- i can't imagine trying to run a business suit where one of the riskiest decisions i have to make it is a price increase our price decrease in not having the flexibility to make that based upon economic conditions and business conditions on a day-to-day basis. we are pretty well taken enough flexibility away from the postal service. it is not going to end well. from my standpoint would rather give you as the greatest flexibility. i think you are reasonably intelligent understanding that you don't want to lose big chunk of your business. you want to maintain that, even if it is a loss leader. i do not believe you're going to overpriced that and price yourself totally a business degree last one because it has been made repeatedly, the post office's monopoly. the post office is a true

monopoly you would make your kinds of money. your services stink. your prices would be incredibly high. the fact is, you are not a true monopoly which is why your suffering these kind of losses. again, this is not my solution to the problem, but i really do commend senator carper and coburn for their hard effort to try and craft some kind of compromise which just might survive to provide some postal reform that gives the post office at least the possibility of surviving. if we don't do this i think we put at risk the postal service and we put at even greater risk those businesses in wisconsin that rely on you. so i think providing the stability and security trump's certainly my idea of how this should be resolved. i am willing to support what dr. coburn and senator carper and done. >> thank you for what you just said. thank you for what you offered to us two weeks ago.

very important at that point in time. i just want to come before i yield to the senator, try to wrap this up on this amendment, but what is the meaning in terms of the price of mailing a catalog? and set the rate case allows the increase from $0.38 to $0.48 per catalog 28 to $0.29 in the increase of nonprofit mail from $0.10 to $0.11. these are not huge increases. all right. >> mr. chairman, i will try to be quick. i know time is of the essence. i want to ask a question to since we have in here. and first, are you familiar with the language in the baldwin second degree as well as the carper second-degree? >> i want test you a pretty specific question.

what is the difference in the two proposals as those differences relate to the prc? >> how did these two amendments, proposed amendments treat the prc and how they treat them differently? >> well, under the -- as i and a stand the baldwin second amendment, if you will, that preserves the kern to governance and under the -- senator carper and coburn second degree it provides to revive it has no pre implementation review of postal service market dominant rates. and it would, for their review and 2017 the postal service would come in with a proposal and the choice for the commission would have a hearing on it and get comments from affected stakeholders to approve

it without modification or reject it. so it is an either or -- as i understand it is an either or decision. >> and that is different from the status quo today. >> the status quo today would have the commission undertake the review with input from affected stakeholders, including the postal service. there would be a proceeding, and the commission then would issue an order for decision whether the existing system would be revised or a new system would be implemented. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> i would like to respond to that. i think that is an important point that she brought out. we obviously do not have enough revenue of the postal service. and we have the postal rate commission that is susceptible to the lobbying of those that use the system which is totally accurate, when you look at the numbers, one of the reasons that

the post office is in trouble even with all the cost-cutting that they have done is the rate increases have not kept up with the cost associated with doing what they're asked to do. and so when you see the competitors with almost twice as much in terms of rate increases so that they can maintain profitability and capital back into the business, we are not allowed that through the prc. and i would also remind, the people of the prc are not required to have a significant business management or other background knee which limits their ability to see things from the postal perspective -- postal management perspective. does not mean that there not doing a good job or paying attention or hard-working. we have handicap the post office run the numbers that the postal service, even with the volume decline. the same increases that either fedex and ups has had and we would not be sitting here doing this today via. >> mr. chairman.

>> really no participation, almost no participation. there was a lot of blow back on that. we modified that. in the amendment we did provide for the prc, not to the extent that -- not to the extent that they have under current law, but provided a significant change. we have provided a further significant change with the second degree amendment that is before us. that would save, the baseline, 2015 cpi goes into effect. in 2017 there is negotiation between the postal service and the prc on changing rates structure. the postal service can propose whenever they want. nothing happens unless the prc greece. the prc is not agree we stay as

cpi. that is it. it is fair, reasonable. the other thing composite of $7 million cash position. even assuming we count on revenues, ten, eight, nine, ten years out. deputy postmaster general, would you, no? a want to recognize senator levin. >> just to reiterate the point that she made at the end of your statement. we have every incentive to work with the prc and the industry because if we didn't we would have to be at cpi. so our -- the incentives in the amendment really force us to work very closely with the prc, which we would do to try to come up with an agreement as to an acceptable rate structure. >> thank you. >> chairman, first of want to thank senator ball when. i happen to think that this is a fair approach and involves the prc in a very significant way because the power to say no is the power to shape.

and it is also the power to, as far as i am concerned, you are not precluded from having any pre implementation review this you want. it does not say that she may not. it simply says that they will do it. if you want to listen for stakeholders or have many other impressive you want, you are not precluded. you have the final right to say no to a proposal. that would not be there but for senator baldwin. so i am not going to vote for a permanent. i do want to say that we arad a place which i think is a fair place because of her effort, and the same thing is true on her rate. i just don't see any realistic way that the accident rate is going to be repealed in any event. i don't think i have ever seen the government rate which has been reduced. i mean, the meat is -- the need is there and clear and will continue to be there. i think we ought to use that in the baseline. it is a fair approach. again, i would ask unanimous

consent that the helpful letter from the regulatory commission to me of february 4th be part of the record. >> without objection. >> are we prepared to vote on the coburn carper substitute to the ball to an amendment? i just ask you to keep in mind. and this is for democrats and republicans, especially for democrats, i am concerned and you're concerned about post offices. we try to be attentive to those concerns, and i think thanks to dr. coburn and his willingness to compromise we have, i think, make changes. we are prepared to make some others as san as senator i can't get recognized. we've tried to be attentive to consumers about the closing of centers without the postal service unduly. we tried in a number of other ways to help the postal service to basically rain in their cost.

cannot just be cut, cut, cut. it cannot be just cut, cut, cut. the postal service has taken huge amounts of money out of the system in terms of that count, post offices and restructuring the post offices, in terms of reducing by almost half the number of mail centers. they have cut the heck out of their costs. there has got to be revenues year. there have to be revenues. what i think we propose is a fair approach to provide some certainty, some stability. and i just went through the catalogs. one is an increase. the increase in profit. those are not huge and unfair increases. it's part of the engine rate case that we would make. i don't think that is -- i don't think that is unrealistic or unfair as a burden to place. but that having been said, i think we're ready to go to the boats on the coburn carper

second-degree amendment. >> senator levin. [roll call]

>> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present the yeas are six and is therefore. on the votes by proxy the yeas are four and nays are one. on this but the a's are ten and nays are five. >> thank you. i wanted thank my colleagues for their vote. this is not the finish line. there will be plenty of time for us to talk further on this. i want to commend senator baldwin. i would ask, if we could, if we could -- i don't want to run out of time and run out of members. if we could go to senator i can't with an amendment, i think we have a number of others. okay. good point. now that we have amended the baldwin second-degree amendment, do we need to vote on baldwin as amended? all in favor say aye.

opposed say nay. the roll-call vote. if not, then the eyes appear to have it. the eyes to have it. the amendment as modified is agreed to. thank you all. thank you for your patience. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up number three. i don't want to belabor a long discussion here on every detail of this fairly late the amendment, but i want to respond to senator coburn his suggests that some of this is related to parochial in tests. parochial interests. obviously we have service centers in north dakota, rural post offices in north dakota, but we have a growing population , and i could tell you stories about the post office. and, you know, including my favorite one that i hurt my last trip back which is that the local lady who delivers the mail for years under contract to loral carrier, everybody knew work, she knew everyone.

always check in on the elderly, well, she lost her contract and a cost-saving measure. and they hired a company out of california who hired ex cons to through the mail in the ditch. so that -- that is the way i look at the post office these days, through the eyes of my constituents who, let me tell you, you might think that is an isolated story. i could go on for at least 20 hours telling you what the post office. but my interest in doing this and doing this amendment is to try and have some accountability for what is going on as they make decisions know whether it is on service centers, whether it is going forward, and i know it looks like a fair amount of increase in bureaucracy, but from my standpoint we cannot just sit idly by without some accountability to the post office. and how the post office is being managed. i might suggest we would not be your if we had quality

management the post office. and so i am not going to go through this in detail unless somebody wants me to. i understand senator levin has been able to get an accommodation on extension on the six day delivery, which incidentally if i could comment, the one thing the post office does that nobody else does is six day delivery. i don't know why we would want to take away that one advantage that they have in the marketplace. i have run a few businesses in my day. corporate boards. i always look to what i am doing that nobody else is doing and alec and levers that opportunity and so i feel pretty strongly about 60 delivery. as an opportunity for the post office, not as an economic burden on the post office. and so i am not going to put a target date in here, as i understand senator levin has been able to secure a commitment , but i would move this amendment because what it does is provide accountability,

responsiveness to the consuming public and to the people who expect there mail to be delivered on a timely basis that people who expect there mail, mail carrier to be responsible and show up. and just one point about the service centers. that is a critical part of delivery of the mayo. you know i know? because when the service center does not process are male and it does not delivered to the dickenson post office until two in the afternoon, i have got postal carriers who are delivering the mail at 11:00 at night. i see streets. and so we cannot just say let's fix the post office without looking at some of the problems that we have today. i want accountability. that is what this amendment does. >> chairman, thank you for your hard work on this story very hard work on this. you and your staff working with dr. coburn and his folks. we appreciate the input.

i yield. go ahead. i have a couple points. >> and i would like to offer a second-degree amendment. >> the amendment is different from previous amendment. we will take effect one day after the enactment of this act. i would like to presented to the chairman for a vote on the second-degree amendment. >> can i just ask the gentleman to withhold german for a few minutes. there has been an effort to try to craft an amendment on this subject. >> as long as we have unanimous consent that my amendment will be voted on i don't mind when we

do it or whether it is paired with another amendment, but this is my last chance to know the level of a vote right now. so i will relinquish it as long as we agreed by unanimous consent that there will be a vote on my amendment as worded by us. >> can i just see the amendment. does somebody have the amendment? >> it is very similar to what has been presented other than an enactment. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> all right. let's resume this conversation. i would talk a little bit with dr. coburn and others. and i think again i am going to ask you, if you will, to withdraw the second-degree amendment. we can debate it. and i would ask unanimous consent that once we have done that that we have the opportunity to consider two amendments which could be the amendment redrawn. you want to vote. >> as long as the unanimous consent that we are considering is to straight up or down votes on my amendment and other amendments but not a second amendment. as long as the agreement is that

we will actually vote up or down on my language and there will not be a substitute. we are agreeing basically not to second-degree my amendment. if that is a we are agreeing to. >> that is a weird green to. i need unanimous consent. >> we're back to you. >> i think senator levin may have come in. >> i would make offer to amendment. one is that the estimate, i think, of the chair and the ranking member is you have to get the right language in front of me. under the trigger approach of 140 billion pieces for four straight quarters in a row that the estimate which -- >> it would be page 21 of the amendment. >> i am not sure what page.

>> to one. >> but under the documents given to us under this estimate that would be reached in the fourth quarter of the 418. and i would say in order to give a little certainty that we say in no event, leaving that trigger and there, so the trigger would remain just the way that it is in the language, to have a little greater certainty and protection here for the confidence, the language would be added no earlier than the fourth quarter of the force 17. in other words, there be in any event no earlier than. no, the best estimates would not be reached until a year after

that. so i don't see that this -- and then not trying to suggest that we put a lot the estimate exactly. that would be the last quarter of a 418. it seems to me that it would produce a greater competence in this process where those of us destroy support the six day delivery that in any event it is no earlier than one year before that estimate which would be the fourth quarter of the force 17. so i would offer that as a second-degree amendment. i think that based upon discussions i hope this might be excepted. >> that is acceptable to us because soberly we're not going to get to 140 billion pieces of mail. that is all goal, to not get down to that. and so what this does is build them some assurance that this is not going to happen earlier even know if it does it is going to hurt the post office. to move the bill i am willing to give on that.

>> and so am i. senator high camp, you are with us. >> i have been asking for some kind of charity in this amendment for quite a few days. i think this is an excellent addition to the amendment. >> senator, would you like to accept. >> yes. no. that is good. and i want to thank the senator for tenacity in getting some confidence to wear the on the trigger. specific, but it does not give the kind of confidence which this candidate would. i think you're for great efforts. >> senator, and make the statement to you. want to come and have a chance to go through. see what kind of services being provided to see for myself being involved. i'll afford. ability of this month. i want to go in april. april would be justified.

>> mr. chairman, you are assuming april will be different than this month. >> late april. okay. any more discussion on the 11 proposal your? all in favor say aye. >> i. >> opposed. >> the guys have it. it is agreed to. and senator. >> well, i have an amendment. it is my turn. >> i think that we have to -- >> i have one to vote on. >> suggested change. >> go head please. >> i would love to have a chairman come to the upper peninsula after north dakota. still snow in the upper peninsula until alysian. >> i will go to the upper peninsula right after. >> right. >> one week from today. live from florida he's a tiger

fan. that's the bottom line. i would suggest that the high camp languages that after the gao comes up with their report that there be 30 days -- if i read this correctly, that before the postal service could then act. and it just is a little bit -- a little bit of a possibility here that the congress could respond to that decision if this is not at all practical. i would just suggest that it be 60 days. i think the senator would have preferred 90, but as a practical matter would suggest that this be a 60 day to give us some possibility of congressional action. otherwise there is almost no point putting the 30 days in year. >> mr. chairman, i totally