this voice is that going to be a unified voice. it is that going to speak necessarily and a clear, coherent manner but it is still important the voice can maneuver and to have it heard as a part of the process of participation and healing that needs to take place in a terms of building a new institution that are needed for a stronger, more legitimate

capacity yet. thank you, panelists. you've done what i've asked you in terms of throwing things out about what we need to be focused on here is the next six months cover two years, medium-term. you've given us a lot to think about. i am going to knit up now to the audience for brief questions and comments. i went to get first an opportunity to ambassador about where south sudan needs to go. make sure when you speak that your microphone is on. there is a button and when you write that, turn it off so they don't mix up the audio here. thank you. >> thank you very much, joe.

and i would like to turn to the african factor for organizing these wonderful discussion about south sudan. i have a few comments to make. one on the causes of the conflict is ended number of courses have been put forward. i don't disagree with all, but i disagree with one. the political estate was limited to some of the leaders. i think of the access following the comprehensive peace

agreement have had very high access. the government of southern sudan, including all the political parties and its governance in south sudan. many others to date who feel they have been excluded for their political space has been induced very much in charge of running the show. implementation of the agreement, organization of the election and the referendum. overseeing economic development. so by and large, i would tend to

think that it is not fair to assume that space was reduced for those. yet unfortunately, the results of the violence has led to a lot of cost and materials for the people of south sudan. it is unfortunate. we are determined to find and input and this is what is calm through the conclusion of the ceasefire. we think the way forward now is an inclusive dialogue. that inclusive dialogue did not

end after the violence. authorities have been in dialogue with other groups, many of whom recall that s. plm d.c. was an operation for a very long time after the former minister of foreign affairs contested against the president and decided to get into exile and not come in for the collaboration of independence. but whatever recently to final solution and agree for everybody

the governor of south sudan today has deterred the authority of affairs from a very small, political party. south sudan democratic forum. many are the political force in the country coming in without representation are presented to the government. recently, detroit leaders let the reconciliation process with one of the strongest yow yow and they have reached an agreement. so the desire will include and

has been very well expressed. we want to continue with that through the upcoming dialogue by invading political leaders, including david gao yeah, by invading the leaders, women's groups, youth and all the stakeholders to participate. this has been clearly stated a number of times. so that is one way forward. we hope that would be creating conditions of confidence

building and cooperation amongst the south sudanese people to have the stability and readiness for the next phase of lessons. we hope i'm think that the only method to create open space and democratic processes if given content is through lessons. whether we need to raise for making offenses so as to determine the divide based on faith appropriation, to ask for now because if we do that, we

are going to delay the lesson and some of the people competing for the top positions and safe delivery liberate method. so it is going to be a global aid. we will not want to delay the elections. we want to go ahead in the same conditions we have today and hopefully when things change for the better, in the near future, we hope we can review what ever would be that assembly and may be hold census away the assembly and fresh elections. yet, i agree with most of the

analysis that is not written today as the national institution. it does represent all the members of our society. but it was not built on bad faith. it was built correctly to push that forward and get to stability, have elections without interruption. so very, very few. many people are cognizant of the needs now whether they are leaders for civil society

members that need to review the composition of the splm m.d. are simple position. we are grateful for what they do. our friends who have calm from the region, who did not calm on their own, who have been cooperating for a very long time with them and to fight against in the southern insertion of south sudan. it is not going to complicate anybody or anything in mandated by the african union to be in south sudan.

so they request was in belief for other institutions. i think it would be better to cooperate with south sudan by having the direct talk with authorities. and should the need for the presence have come to an end, and then definitely excessive and will continue. yes, there is need for accountability as part of whatever is going to be agreed. we need to include accountability. by accountability i am not particular about one group. whoever has committed the crime against an individual, against a community might be taken.

i know they are our seven offices who have been identified , who use excessive power again some civilian and the results would be publicized very soon. the constituent review is an absolute necessity. it has been underway. sometimes by the internal quibbles, but it is a necessary way forward and there are some

in the ways of making permanent constitution. but the carrier review process should be carried forward to the end. power-sharing during the transitional period is a possibility. it depends how we work it out. this is not the first time we are correlated. we have quarreled again to sit down to talk to each other. and so, i believe that the

current violence is going to create an opportunity for as to greeting organizations, policies. i reason for so sudan and finding our space within the community, but not if they protect. thank you. >> okay, thank you, ambassador khoc. thank you for being here again and for your candor and responding to these observations and comments and your observation about the sbl a need for reform and greater inclusiveness. you highlight many of the same themes that were brought out on the panel for the need for politicos raise and inclusiveness, political inclusiveness make by the government to involve other parties. you talk about the need for more

accountability and mechanisms for power-sharing and realizing that where you are at now isn't enough for where you hope to go. we appreciate that. i think that is very much consistent with what we were hoping to do with this discussion today and lay out some of these issues and the priorities you've given us and now what do we need to do to make these the reality of moving forward here in the interim medium-term jury. so, i now will open up to the general audience and just in terms of timing, since we've gone a little bit late, we are going to take this to 11:15 and give folks a chance to get a few more questions than an facilitator more of an exchange. we are going to start way back

over here. please speak into a microphone, identify yourself and keep your comments or questions brief. >> thank you very much. idea back in the south sudan. i am the youngest. i am so much pleased to be here. i am also part of the negotiation. also one of the survivors as ted for 20 minutes. add the militia and my brother was killed and his wife. after all, i am not eat out because i am a leader of this nation. i will be ready to forgive and forget what happened to notice that the building of the nation

of this country. i will be very specific and now goes directly to the point. first of all, i'll talk about the root cause of the problem. number one, south sudan i have a big problem. we are still a tribe. i did or did not do much, including myself, and our government system in the public services is done on bases. you find one institution being dominated by one tribe by the gatekeeper up to the minister and sometimes you find people's eating in their own language. when you come to the decision you have to get into the system because using their own language.

so tribalism is one thing killing today. we also have a system of the government and there is no transparent to you. and the parliament, we have allotted difficulties. one thing that almost led because of the way attack in the part of that, i used to be vocal about correction and also some of the acquainted numbers by the president where they are not for the position. even our mission we have 80 ambassadors. our army is set up on a tribal bases. if you go to the army or, they are from one tribe, artillery.

those who are turning an asset rather from one tribe. these are the root cause of the problem. we will not be trying to tell the truth because when we tell the truth is when we will come out with a real solution to the problem. i was in cuba under 15 minutes started and that is going to happen. it was something complicated, and may be for the president to kill uncle to election without them. idea back i have been in my house -- >> server, if you could wrap up your point. >> we have also a weak system from the judicial system is very weak. they abuse the power of the

president. it would remove the government government -- [inaudible] we are now not a country. [inaudible] there is no government system. the only way we have been ensuring. on the institution of the nation. if we can meet for one year or two years, go for less. that would be the only way. if we keep putting people together because now about 17,000 people died. [inaudible] the militia men --

[inaudible] said this is a good way will forgive and would love to tell the community that the only way this for a president to step aside and our president to come in. the bill for two years, three years for the president. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we appreciate your personal sharing. and i appreciate you moving us forward, thinking about was passed to have been here in this medium-term future. to the extent possible, that to avoid focusing on what is happening in the past and is the time we have too look where things need to go and focus on some of the priorities. we will go here. >> hi, i am alan rat --

[inaudible] how do you get to the people if you go to the markets come the usaid materials from the european union saw for sale. how'd you get the aid to the people right now? >> thank you very much for the clarity. >> i am interested in the palace that. >> or minus two you are. >> lorin blanchard with the research service. interested on the volesky god and remediation going forward. ambassador bruce can imagine how critical the end to the process be far and timeliness in pressure they were very instrumental. going forward on an inclusive dialogue, the role they play in the cpa talks that was inclusive rather than inclusive process. i guess there's some questions about the will of uganda and its

military operations in south sudan right now on behalf of the south sudan government, here is obviously a sitting head of state and head of state of the administration. ethiopia, uganda, these are one-party states. so in the interest of expanding the dialogue yawned the splm, are they necessarily the most superb riptide is to lead the effort going forward? >> okay, thank you. if you could remember to turn off your microphone when you're done. we will take one more question. ambassador bellamy, please. >> hi, mark l. at may, former director of the advocacy center. my question is sort of parallel to warrants. this is really a question for any or all of the panelists. how great is the risk in your

view that if we go through a protected process of trying to implement a cease-fire and separate the parties and so forth that the mediators, the region and the international community will decide that's as far as we can go. you know, there's the very necessary state building agenda to get off the church or three toward state failure. as far as we can go is to get back to the status quo. and as that arrest? if so, what do we need to do to mitigate it? >> okay, thank you. so we've got a number of questions on the table. under the pen all a chance to respond in which dimension. if you have anything to add, that is fine. ambassador bruce, would you like to be the past. >> let me start reflate and i

believe kate with her experience cancer more directly the question of how you get aid to the people. one of the key things is getting beat to those who are the most vulnerable, those that are internally displaced. many of them are in imus can set this point. the world food program is taking the lead on tried to move food and nonfood items to support them. that is just one component of a. to answer the question about said six mediation going forward, i wrote out of the said six communicate and what it made clear to the mediators says they need to engage in a comprehensive inclusive process. so i guess, many egad members have systems, that is not what they're trying to impose on south sudan. they recognize that sudan is to

have in order to achieve stability has to have a broader base consultation. approach on this is to collect ideas and input from south sudanese society in order to try to develop a framework to propose to the south sudanese themselves moving forward on the political dialogue to address the underlying causes of this conflict. in terms of irate going to stability, while work is going on to get monitoring and verification mechanism up and running and working effectively in egad states in the international community will need to back up the reporting of the mechanism to put pressure. there is already the process there will be a meeting called for the 10th of february to bring the parties back together

for the inclusive political talks we will address the party structures going forward. third many other ideas that were out there as well that may be pursued from reconciliation to security sector reform to economic issues. so clearly there is a broad international backing for the egad mediation to continue to pursue this effort and heads of state has committed their commitment to sticking with this. >> okay. on the humanitarian eight, the logistical challenges aside for the negotiations of excess aside, i think what is happening

already the way they are responding and the narrative of how the country got here are all too reminiscent of the period between 1991 and 2005 when ols was active. and i think it relates to the ambassador's question as well that perhaps the negotiation of aid and access to aid we must be very, very watchful of it so that it does not become another war front between the parties, so it doesn't become so intrinsically linked to conflict because that is how you get the conflict to be protect it would aid itself becomes a link to conflict. already we see that the

government and the opposition might entrance themselves in their own world and their access to aid and it will once again lead south sudanese leaders off the front their responsibility to wear affair of their people because the community would be feeding the people so they can go on fighting their own war. i think we have to be extremely careful about how it can be played into the conflict. and if ols is what we are the key not all over again, tragically i think we are looking at very protract their situation sudan. >> i would just echo the comments. i can't speak for curt u.s. government assisted search and i haven't been in south sudan sent

the crisis broke out to see firsthand, but i have to say i find watching from a distance. the united states the discussion on delivery of humanitarian assist and send problems. nevermind the logistical challenges, but the questions at the parties, the government and the opposition in terms of interference and to have humanitarian commodities is deeply disturbing. i too feel that going back to the operation lifeline sudan type scenario, which was an overall negotiated access mechanism where each side got to turn on and off access to the areas they controlled and determine when and how the vulnerable population could be reached with the disastrous. i think if i were sitting in a seat at usaid, would have a difficult conversation about how that was going to play out and what the role of the government

is. this is a different situation that was before. the government is responsible for his people. the fact we have over 3.5 from 3.7 million in need of emergency food assistance between now and the next rainy season would not map you can see posted here and to this side, a vast amount of the countryside will be inaccessible. you will not appeal to reach a population with any kind of assisted. to be stolen or distributed or otherwise. so china said the. i hear over and over again the sp l.a. is a professional army. and they come in now from two ministers are a poor professional army, they would not be theft of humanitarian commodities. so it's a very serious question and that is one that has to be addressed front on because they cannot be the logic. nevermind going back to the status quo of december 14. we are going all the way back to

well before the peace agreement was even conceived of as a process in terms of negotiation and back to the 90s in terms of how humanitarian aid operated in south sudan. i think it is very, very disturbing. it's a troubling situation and what we should work with the government as partners in getting through the internet. in the referendum and independent shouldn't be over delivering humanitarian assistance for certain. i'd also just maybe offer a comment to lawrence question about the egad mediation going forward and clues to process. i think it is vital from the outset that the talks be set up not just as the two opposing side and a handful of delegates representing them and then represented as sort of perched around them as they are paid

sway positions, that there be direct linkages and consultations for starters in the south sudan. that inform how the mediators trying to talk process going forward. most critically the government of south sudan must accept that there needs to be a political transition and that it has to be broader than the government and determining how to record i'll with is the splm and those in opposition for me. certainly the detainees under much discussion and attention are part of that dialogue, but by no means sufficient for an inclusive process going forward and it really needs to be set up fundamentally different than the cpa negotiations, which get us to this point.

>> i think the two imperatives than in the violent and delivering humanitarian assistance have her threat to shape the playing field. a lot of thought has gone and how to transition from hostilities to political talks about in passivity and creating mechanisms on the grounds by the community. the same kind of thinking needs to go into the aid effort. getting aid to the people in people to the aid. recognizing ols, the longest emergency air lift operation in the history of the united nations is not really the model you are going forward to avoid the risk of setting it permanent unstable environment. we need to look at both of those to avoid this risk that what we are going to do is create a polarized south sudan and entrench it further. i think just a simple question as i pointed out before my presentation is setting up the

eight architecture gives permission to go, who is your counterpart and who is going to help you disturbing fast food and handed to the village is venice tough establishing a political system, establishing an aid hatred of network. that is hard to breathe. if we recognize the conflict, it can be ultimately unwinnable if it's asymmetric. the opposition side areas ungovernable as opposed to governing them. this aid will perpetuate that in the absence of any real political solution or transition. >> okay, let's take another round of questions and comments. we'll go here first. , you, terry. >> richard lowe then from the naval war college in sudan studies association. i really appreciate the optimistic view that has been

presented the past ability as a title. i think is your struggling to get the glass half all, when in fact there really is at least more than half-empty. it seems like the main agenda should be management of crisis and conflict. i am inclined to look at that when i see the map that says unity state next to iba and it's the most contested in the least unified plays. when i look at the call for release of detainees and the simultaneous lee a call for accountability aren't easily reconciled. and i think that the discussion would be enhanced today when we would talk about david yow yow, judge laura, the new railway between bob and hsieh, the question of the whole

neighborhood and a pretty horrible condition. when a special envoy for training the first cohort to go to juba, everyone was very a nice take on the pathway forward. and i said just slow down a little bit. you have to look at what is going to be the situation in status and after independence. other people are going to be the same people. the neighbors would be the same neighborhood. that sudan will not go to the north pole and some other place. it will still have neighbors who see a arc, which is a complete and total wreck today. it is not a model for democracy, not to mention human rights. the last time i was in juba was having a correction that turn out exactly perfectly and cartoons is dylan a complete wreck. that is the situation.

to my comment is perhaps we need to recalibrate instead of pathway to stability and somehow see in future. but we need to make an agenda, which is far more realistic management of crisis and conflict because that's what's going to be on the agenda. thank you. >> thank you very much. please, right here. >> minus lesley warner. i'm a political military analyst focusing on africa. my question is regards to the pdf to plan the two south sudan. of course it came at the invitation of the government is vested income which is a subornation is their prerogative. i'm interested from the u.s. government standpoint, and the usc a conflict of interest between uganda at as a egad mediator and there could koeppel is a partisan combat within the current conflict and from across the panel i'd be interested in

is on whether there should be pressure to try and get the pdf to restrict their mission in south sudan to focusing on civilian protection to much for my personal standpoint that could be a useful use of pdf efforts in south sudan. thanks. >> okay, thank you. the gentleman in the blue sweater they are. >> 10 impact. men in the summer liquor from the center for international private enterprise, core and cities for the national endowment for democracy. it's a three-part question. what about this specific opportunities for the citizens private sector as opposed to the large government private sector are government owned economy? what are the opportunities for the citizens private sector in the transition process? what changes need to occur so the voice of the citizens private sector is both representative and strong and somewhat building off the last

two questions, timing. can the private sector dimension to be included now are their reasons for it to be hauled off quiet >> okay, thank you. very relevant for the panelists. finally, we'll finish this job on the backside of different road here. >> thank you so much. i work for the project during research on south sudan. my question should focus on the reconciliation process that is now one of the topics being discussed here. my question would go directly to ambassador khoc. but read the engage in reconciliation and just then how are they working intermixture the process will be inclusive of all stakeholders?

>> okay. let me turn it over to the panel. let me slip in a question that i have. several of the panelists emphasized the division between the elites and ordinary citizens have been of key tension and ongoing problem. any of the panelists talk about how to fekete resolved here in the short term? how do you start to, resolving that issue? >> let's go in same order. ambassador booth, please. >> let me take the last question first. the u.s. had to support in numerous community peacebuilding and conflict through as part is inside sudan. a lot of the conflicts that occurred in the wander triangle and along the border areas

breakers migrations and these were areas where we had duties to try to keep the community youth talking to each other and at peace and we were also supportive of the national peace and reconciliation in the commissions after by the archbishop. so we are involved prior to this conflict and tried to help souse udinese address issues of reconciliation and conflict avoidance. in terms of the private enterprise and private enterprise was one of the many crude but only have talked to egad meteors that they should consult to get in put into how do you structure a comprehensive approach to this conflict, to the resolution of this conflict. what are the issues that need to be addressed? one of the key things we should

be at key interest to the private sector and i would hope the south sudanese private sector would raise this in the the question of transparent. you have a system where the economy has not in a paragon of transparency and i think that tends to restrict what the private sector has been able to do. in terms of the updf deployment, they were invited in by the government of south sudan. they initially went in to protect critical infrastructure in the area of juba, foreign nationals, particularly ugandan nationals and they then took an additional role and actually did begin to participate in the conflict fighting alongside the

spla. the agreement is very clear that with the signing of that agreement, there should be a progressive withdrawal of all foreign forces and that point has been made explicitly to uganda by myself and others. it was held on the 31st. a world that they they are playing now is one of trying to maintain stability come particularly in the area around juba, but it's also important that the forces began a progressive withdrawal from the country. in terms of the release of detainees not be compatible as accountability, i'm not quite sure i get that point. the detainees were arrested at the very beginning of this conflict, could not have been

participated in any of the atrocities that occurred while they were in detention spirits are not quite sure at that point. when you're talking about accountability for past corruption, but is certainly an issue that would need to be addressed. but that is something down the road. the road to dtv by senior members of the splm complains diversity of voices into the discussion of how the splm is going to reform itself and also how the governance discussions will go forward. he raised a litany of the regional world and investigated terribly troubled region. there are many, many crises active if not going below the surface in abuja. but it's important for the regional organization igad has come together and try to address in particular this crisis and it

has put a lot of its differences aside to do that. and uganda is not actually part of the radiation, said that members of igad, but they do not have immediate repair. it is ethiopia, kenya and to dan who provides the mediators to actually work with the south suit these parties and uganda has purposely stayed away from the talks itself. >> i agree with richard about this, as the ambassador said, about all these problems in the region. but the source of optimism is the pastor of south sudan. people have disagreed. people have thought, but they have always found ways to dispatch them up if they cannot resolve them entirely. i think it is patching up these

problems that we don't want to continue, but these are brought forward with an eye to have a more conciliar story future. the issue of political detainees of course is a complex one. on one hand, if you're charging and now a corruption company could find another method people within the government that you can charge for corruption. but the issue of accountability does not really cannot put the request to release them. if you cannot charge them come you have to release them because that is what the law says that the law says sudan in the international law. you can't hold people indefinitely without charge. that should be the main focus, rather than the more -- the question of whether they were involved in a war or not. the pressure should be based on

the illegality of their detention without charge. i would actually get the government appropriated more than the denial of food. on the issue of the private sector, referring to what jason was describing of the economy of the government and economy of the people, there is a place where they meet because the private sector does not have a long history of access to capital and to dan. so it is still going to be the same government economy that is going to feed into private sector. the only problem is how you are going to get the private sector to have access to the government economy. the way to do it is to think very carefully about how to use the revenue from the sources, particularly oil. so far, oil revenue has been used for government and that

means the economy would remain entirely government economy. and so, the best way to go forward i think would be to find ways to invest the majority that oil money and capital projects, in electricity generation, wrote building, which will employ up to 1.5 to 2 million souse udinese as opposed to the oil industry, which opposed the soviet eight to 10,000 people. so if you stop using oil money for the current cost and invested in projects that would then employ a lot of people in those people have taxpayers in the tax money will be now used to run the government, that is how you see the private sector into it because all the projects will be contracted to local businesses. and i think it will also solve the dilemma jason was talking about. how can you prevent -- how can you take away money from all these civil servants?

you will not be taking the money away. it will be another way of redistributing the money to a larger population in just 700,000 officials that are employed. you will distribute the oil money for employer event of a larger number of people in the projects. thank you. >> eggs. i guess i would just like to offer that i don't think having hope is a naïve thing for south sudan. i think it is vitally important to be able to see a vision for a way out and to recognize the lessons that the world has to offer and how cycles of violence can come to an end and what has been key common factors in the situation. i hope that is what we've been able to do here today, recognizing that south sudan is in fact still in a very serious state of crisis that the fighting has not stopped yet. but it is not doomed to stay

here. in fact, there is every reason to believe that it can end this current conflict in the division and they can move to a more open and inclusive society and polity. so i think it is imperative for us to focus on the conditions that will be conducive to that reality and i think one of those is for closing the military option that both sides must still feel is on the table since the cease-fire conversation has not stopped the fighting and every day there were reports of more military to be coming from various parts of south sudan. i think in that regard to have been the updf deployed in the country is deeply unhelpful to the situation. if the government needs assistance with security of key infrastructure and other assets, surely there are more neutral sources for that assisted to be found from and ones ones that

don't have the same conflicts of interest and polarizing effect that the ugandan military deaths among the south sudan population. i do believe that in fact having the updf withdraw what helped to spur the positions for peace and stability. ensuring that arms flows their staff to south sudan, to all sides is another way of ensuring that the military option doesn't persist and we can move onto the political dialogue that needs to take place. i think that in that regard, joe, your question on how we address a divide between the elites and the rest of the country, clearly we've all emphasize civil society and nonstate voice is an institution at some level that will be up to the elite to determine if they are going to invite a genuinely welcome those voices in that

participation or if it is going to be a harder struggle, and more challenging one, even perhaps one of personal peril for those voices should be raised and to be heard. we hope that it will be a collaborative process going forward that this will be a wake-up call for all parts of south sudan, not just those in government, but other political leadership, community leadership for everyone to recognize that there must be changes in how the deep underlying issues that transcend an pointed out are addressed so the country can move forward. >> thank you here just to say, we're focused on stability again and again and again and that is the story of the interim period, the failure of any democratic change in military that wasn't there. i don't think the issue is

prioritizing stability and the wishful hope of a new future. the critical point here is we have neglect to the transformation. we focus on stability and neglected the transformation of the transformative aspects, especially during the cpa. things that changed land, professional army, make it a multiparty system. they were put aside when it came to stability again and again, kind of a recognition that we have to look at it as something different. how do come back to this point that the transition is not the 20 year plan focusing on those conditions in which these events can be genuinely transformed. that in many ways is about stability, freedom to speak, freedom to dissociate, able to talk. a stability allows people to engage inclusively, safely and political rivals in the political system that is not militarized. good question on the economy in

terms of what transcendent and bastian into the development of the state, but also understanding the land law, the discussion around the land, which should ideally secure and recognize customary arrays on the land but those held by communities and therefore that structure is enforced. the private investor from outside over that resource, giving access in the same country resource. the state is in benefits and taxes. look at the land regime in a way that promotes people private partnerships, not state public private partnerships is the way to go. others say there is a regional importance to south sudan that hasn't been discussed, but it's an interesting conversation looking at the swamp or the

flood planes because they provide importantly in the reason climate stability, carbon sank, biodiversity. if this is a massive resource companies to be protect you, developed responsibly than the risk of paying for the peace or the recovery or development were the work that continues. if there's an interest in the region of protect in this very resource so it doesn't get sold, developed, farmed companies should be the responsibility internationally and say let's hold this because it's not a great place for you climate instability given the amount we spend on famine and food dates and things like that. >> okay, thank you very much to all the panelists. i am afraid we've come to the end of our time here. i know there's other questions still out here. sorry wasn't able to get to everybody. before we break, i do want you to thank my colleagues who went

into hosting this event today. i appreciate all of your work. i would like to begin thank our panelists, first of all, for taking time out of some very busy schedules and for giving us your thoughtful assessments about where things need to go and what the priorities might be. this is a very fluid time. and there's so many different things going on. none of you sugarcoated what is happening. at the same time, he's helped us in what is an on going conversation about where we need to get to if we are going to achieve stability, which is a longer-term undertaking. so i want you to join me and thanking our panelists for what was really an interesting discussion today.

[applause] for those of you with questions coming in my pillow talk to some of our panelists. i know abbasid or boost these two broad to another engagement. please feel free to follow up afterwards. thank you again. [inaudible conversations] ..

in nairobi and what happened during the boston marathon. those are the things we have to continue to work on to make sure we are working as seamlessly as possible not only on the national side but also the federal, state, local. i think that is an important aspect to work on integration.

post offices or one of the key issues in the markup on the postal reform act held by the homeland security governmental affairs committee. introduced by the committee chair carper and ranking member senator tom coburn they worked together to get the u.s. postal service out of the red. currently it is running a 5 billion-dollar deficit. >> thank you all for joining us today.

we didn't take it the right route but i think what we want to do is finish up today and i want to thank everyone for the good work we have used taking on this challenge. it's not an easy legislation. i like to work on a bipartisan basis on the committee and doctor coburn i want to give a big thank you for getting us to this point in time. you have used the 8020 rule and also your partners you are taking turns on the committee

and compromise on the policy principle and i think that we were willing to compromise on policy but not principle. principle is the most important thing to us and at the end of the day we work out a compromise to send it to the president that we can look to one another and say we can fix this problem. we haven't kicked the can down the road. it's not just to hang on the two people relevant and vibrant in the years going forward to provide the kind of services to the business and others. i think the senator said he would be willing to lead us off today. one of his amendment deals with

amendment number four and before i do that with me just say is there anything you would like to add a? call if you are ready. >> there has been an effort to see if there can be an expeditious excess property. i have had questions but nonetheless that seems to be where the majority is and i just want to make sure that where the pilot program is utilized that the government notified any proposed disposal of property inside of a local government jurisdiction so this has been accepted by the ranking member

and would require both of the governance would be notified of any property in their jurisdiction which are made part of the expedited disposal pilot program. >> this is a good amendment and i've been able to come to an agreement as you said under the pilot fund established in the legislation. the director of the surplus property to be disposed on the project. looking to dispose of the property with the local government and for example to work with the city to rezone the future use and it's already taken place through the current disposal process to be done in the pilot funding and other

legislation for a number of years into the local governments are notified of the disposal process. anything on this amendment, amendment number four? >> i know one if you hav of youe number is a 15 million-dollar surplus, just for the record. >> we don't really know what the value is that we are spending in excess of $2 billion a year maintaining empty buildings right now. >> hopefully for my own discussion because the house no longer does the page program that they should figure out what to do. >> very supportive of the property legislation. >> we have all in favor of

amendment number four. opposed? the ayes have it. we will go to the senator since an issue came up late in the game with respect alaska. i know it's important to them and yothing andyou are recognizs consent request. -- just in the last ten days or so we've learne we learn that td with other packages over 50% and they used the process with a change into the end result was

the general acknowledging of unintended consequences because it was a national decision to make sure the competition would have a difficult structure. the postal service is dominant monopoly whether they are market dominance rather than competitive in the rural areas and saving the knowledge of unintended consequences i appreciate the chair into the ranking member. >> i would ask for unanimous consent. >> the conversations i ask him to come to the table to talk with us about the amendment.

any comments that you would like to make in explaining the amendment x. >> i know the process they did i understand it but in alaska there's unintended consequences that they are market dominant forces i have heard for hundreds if not more into it be great to hear your comment on the record. >> senator we understand that in alaska the affect of the price increases could potentially have a disproportionate impact, so it's something that we are happy to look at and work with you on and we think it makes sense. i think the amendment makes sense but we are more than happy to accept the amendment.

>> and the i take from that of e post office is committed in this? >> thank you mr. coburn we really appreciate it and to the chairman and ranking member for the cooperation on that. is there any further conversation on this amendment? hearing none, all in favor? v. ayes appear to have it and do have it. >> i went to clarify that the amendment that i offered and that was accepted was number four as modified. >> i will go to the republican side and you are recognized at this time, please proceed.

>> thank you mr. chairman. last week -- >> for verification is this amendment number one? >> is that currently called number one? this is amendment number three. >> last week there were some questions on whether or not this amendment, which would allow carrying the guns on coastal property whether or not this would apply to th the post offie is in malls or federal buildings. we don't believe the original language of out of that but this is distributed and i believe it is in red for the changes and the changes are two and three and then we say nothing in this section or amendments made by this section shall be construed in the affect the right of

property owners or the application of the federal, state or local law for any federal property that is not a post office or property including a federal courthouse. we think this explains some of the concerns and we would like to have a vote >> repeat for us slowly. i want to make sure i understand. >> we have amended to make it explicit that if there are private regulations that doesn't allow guns in the mall those would still be in place and wouldn't supersede private restrictions on the carrying of guns nor would it supersede any federal -- >> therthere are post offices tt are located in the stores and convenience stores. >> basically any contractor that

is made of it as a restrictive covenants on the ownership or use of a post office in that particular location doesn't supersede the post office's rules on the ban on carrying guns but doesn't supersede any private contractor rules on guns nor does it supersede the federal court ruling is a district court judge in colorado that had been asked to consider an instance involving a postal customer who had the right to carry a weapon in his state leaving his county and it was a question of whether or not you could have that weapon in your

parking lot as i recall the parking lot at the post office. and how is it that the judge is addressing that? >> is the issue of parking lots versus inside the post office and attempting to address in the parking lot that i think that whether the courts have made a decision or not that we should go ahead and say what the role of the people is to that representatives. >> helped me with this if you were to, senator. did it set if you will a policy standard beyond that particular county or post office or just restricted to that post office?

>> i'm not an attorney so -- i would say my understanding of the district court rulings are not universal or set for the country. the supreme court typically does so you will often see appellate court for district court make decisions and they don't go out to the rest of the country so my understanding as a nonlawyer would be if he wanted make a standard for the country you want to do it and whether they were one way or another that doesn't prevent us from making a decision on this and i'm very concerned that there are people who inadvertently can become a foul of the law who simply have concealed carry permit or going hunting and stopped to pick up their mail and i think that we ought to fix this problem >> what i understand is that an individual in a court case when the court case because he had a gun in his pickup truck and the

law says you can't do that. my hometown post office when you pull him you walk back out and violated the law if a hunting rifle is in your car and the court sided with the individual not with the post office and my understanding is the post office is appealing that ruling now. my hope is this will go away to dissipate in court because it violates the second amendment. either way it affected senator paul is making the point as we have seen in the precedence is the trend to allow people to act responsibly in their state and all senator paul is asking is to expand the right of responsible gun owners so they don't have to have a holster or change everything when they walk into get their mail and all the post

office has to say is if you're following the law of the state in terms of the second amendment rights then you are not in violation, and so i don't think this is as hard as an amendment as everyone thinks it is. and i don't think that it will create a difficulty. and we have done this before in certain areas and it's not been harmful. it's been beneficial. >> let me just ask are you familiar with the court case we are talking about here and if you have a comment for us are you appealing the judge's ruling on the underlining amendment senator paul has offered as

modified? as the legal status i would refer to the general counsel that is here in a better position to describe the status of the case tom marshall is the postal service general counsel. >> the case you are referring to is out of colorado as you suggested and in that case, the plaintiff was challenging the postal regulation which bans the carrying of guns on coastal property. he was a person licensed to carry the firearm that they determined that the regulation was not unconstitutional insofar as it prohibited bringing guns into a property tha but the jude also determined that with regards to the parking lot in this particular post office that

of the restriction was violating the second amendment. we are appealing that for the tenth circuit as is he appealing the determination by the judge that carrying guns in the post office is constitutional. >> thanks for that clarification. can you just give us the perspective of the postal service on this underlining amendment? they are responsible for the safety and security of our postal facilities strongly. the current policy should remain in effect. with any additional security measures, they are concerned about the safety of our employees. they believe given the 32,000

facilities it is going to cost them additional resources to go through every one of those facilities and make sure that they are safe and secure. these administrative burdens on the postal respect her as from their point of view is going to make it very difficult on them. the first factor as you know there has been some history of violence with regards to the postal facilities, and i think that far that safety and security of our employees, we believe that our current policy should remain in effect. >> mr. chairman may i make a comment? i think this illustrates why we need this amendment. the post office is opposed to allowing guns in the parking lot and they are appealing it so i think that's really it is still in open question and the people

should weigh in on this through the representatives. also it might be noted at the history of the violence and post office it hasn't been from citizens coming into the post office is that by postal employees. >> what i would like to do at this point in time is to offer -- is there any further discussion? >> one other point if you wouldn't mind. as far as the amendment i offered this is supported by the nra come at the national association of gun rights and gun owners of america. all three groups will oppose an attempt to strike this language and any attempt to replace it with a study will be opposed by the national rifle association, gun owners of america, national association of gun rights, and this will be seen as a vote there it is to replace, this will be seen as a vote as to whether or not you support

law-abiding citizens rights to carry a gun and a parking lot. this is a big deal throughout a love of particularly rural america where we have people that do go hunting and might show up in a parking lot. i am not willing to let us wait to go to the supreme court and looks on from kentucky go to jail or be punished or fined for accidentally shooting up in a parking lot without a rifle or shotgun in their truck. so this is a big deal and i hope everybody will see it as such. a replacement effort will be seen as law-abiding gun owners in america. >> the department of justice are they represented here today? i know they have major concerns with this amendment, many of them being issues of construction. are they represented here today? i know the postal service position has been made clear and we need to understand how the opinion of the judge was that

the parking lot is one thing, but in spite of a federal building is another thing. in that case being unconstitutional for a gun to the racetrack did that in the latter case in terms of inside buildings that it is constitutional this amendment doesn't make any such distinctions. i think for us to proceed to adopt this amendment and the bill at this time rather than leaving it on the floor and getting the justice department opinion on this would be a mistake. one other point though is that the post office is appealing even allowing them in the parking lot. so we have the full force of the post office appealing and dating they don't want you to have your shotgun even in your car in the post office parking lot so that is what we are talking about. we are not saying it's okay. we are saying the post office is appealing and they don't want you to have a gun in a parking lot or inside a debate is what

we are voting on. >> we are not voting on the parking lot. both sides appealed in the court opinion. the postal service appealed on the question of the parking lot, but this amendment isn't limited to a parking lot. the other side of the plaintiff in that case, the citizen is appealing the decision in the court of that inside of federal buildings if this kind of restriction is constitutional this amendment would reverse that. and i think we should hear from the justice department formally on this. we shouldn't make a decision before this gets to the floor if we have time, which i assumed we would until we hear from the justice department so you want to leave this to the floor and have some kind of a review on despite interested persons, perhaps a hearing. >> anyone else? i want to call up a second

amendment that i will be offering in response to does senator. when i was a kid growing up in virginia my dad would take me hunting, my grandfather as well. but to take a something i've render any number of times going hunting in the morning are coming back later in the day we put our shotguns in the trunk of our car and we stopped at convenience stores and different places and get something to eat and maybe something else we needed to buy. when i first heard about the parking lot amendment, the court case in colorado i thought about those experiences with my dad and thought about what if we stopped at the post office on the way home from spending the day's hunting? and i thought i am glad that case is being heard in the court

and i think that there is now an interpretation which has been described by senator paul and the postal service and that is going to be heard by the circuit court of appeals. i agree with the senator the amendment offered by senator paul goes well beyond the parking lot and. indicates to have the input among others in the department of justice but they think the district courdistrict court jude right thing. >> i spent a number of years in my life trying to improve the finances of the postal service to make sure they are not just able to survive, but to -- not just to be relevant but also to be robust and meet the needs of communities across the country.

i think just about everybody on this committee. in addition to managing the experiences in the postal service, we must also continue to manage i think some 32,000 post offices throughout the country and that includes ensuring the safety of its employees, its customers, property and each of these 32,000, 33,000 facilities. and while the committee focused on the financial health and the service, the postal service offers i think all of us would agree that ensuring the physical safety of the employees as customers in the mail should also be a top priority. senator paul has offered us an amendment through a century allowed the carrying of firearms on the property so long as the individual is abiding by the state law. the postal service maintains that the current regulation with

possession of firearms on coastal property except for official purposes preserves and promotes coastal -- preserves and promotes public safety is in the best interest of their customers and employees. mind you is how can we vote on something when we have and heard a minute of testimony were a single expert or consultant relevant law-enforcement agencies particularly on an issue of this magnitude? i don't believe that we should settle the law without at least studying the issue so i would urge us today to commit to study the issue without having the facts in front of us while it goes forward before the federal courts. so at this point, i want to offer a second degree amendment, i would like to offer a modified

version of the second degree amendment that was circulated this morning. the modification makes it clear that the postal service must immediately begin in fermenting any changes recommended in the reports. let me say that again. modification makes it clear that the postal service must immediately begin implementing any changes recommended in the report. this amendment would have a group of experts that look at this issue before recommending what if any changes to the current law would be proven. the amendment requires the postal inspection service, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, the department of homeland security and department of justice adding to the postmaster general and committees othecommittees of jun the house and the senate regarding the changes if any that need to be made across the country should the carrying of firearms consistent with the law be allowed on the properties or inside post offices.

it requires the postmaster general to submit any reports in the committees of jurisdiction in the house and the senate with cost estimates with implementing the recommended security changes and whether the security changes would necessitate the facility closures or relocation. the postmaster general would also be required to specifically make regulations regarding the feasibility of the current divisions to address the carrying of firearms on personal property is a post offices and how that would impact the safety of the employees, customers, properties and the u.s. mail. i would not want to take a road on any amendment without having the facts. we nee need the comfort of thosr public safety and the postal service finances before proceeding for a vote on the underlying amendment. and i would urge my colleagues to support the second degree

amendment beginning the modification it's clear that postal service must immediately begin implementing any changes recommended in the report. >> one difficulty that i have with your second degree amendment is that you are getting the post office of authority that the congress ought to have when you tell them to begin implementing immediately whatever they find out in their study. we have no assurance anybody from congress is ever going to have any capability on that committee and have no idea where that study might go. it might go considerably more difficult than the present language. as you put your guns in the trunk of the car i come from a part of the country most people don't have a trunk. they call it a pickup. we couldn't afford a pickup.

senator tester. >> i appreciate you offering this modification and i also appreciate senator paul's amendment on what he is trying to do here. i would just say this. i'm a strong supporter in the second amendment. i have more guns than i need but i want some more. but the bottom line is there are some places where they are not appropriate. this building for example that wouldn't be appropriate. and if there's issues with the post office i don't think it would be the appropriate. the parking lot is a different issue however because and will america there are a lot of folks and the senator knows this be of the guns sitting in their pickup and it's just a matter as a tool to do their work with. we don't have the opportunity to vote for this and i would vote to allow guns in a parking lot but not in a post office.

>> any new comments? i'm going to ask the clerk to call the roll on carper amendment number two as it is modified. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] on the boat the yays are eight and the nays are five and by proxy the yays and nays are one. the amendment is agreed to. thank you everyone for your vote. the next thing we need to do is vote on is there any comments?

>> the amendment we will be voting on is the primary amendment and i would like to propose a second degree amendment and this would be amendment number three as modified. senator i think i said it at the last markup this is my first

opportunity to chair a markup on a major bill. it's my 13th and 14th year in the senate. i don't recall a situation where someone is offering an amendment and to become the underlying amendment to second degree was amended and the author mac came back and said i asked for the opportunity to offer a third degree amendment which is the original amendment. if that were to be approved i don't think it would be but it would invite me to come back on the same substitute we could be here for the rest of the day and i don't think that is what is intended by the rules. >> in my experience what usually happens is if it turns out to be

side-by-side rather bang second degree amendment usually they get a vote. >> in this case we have offered a second degree. and i think it is a good discussion on it and we have a vote, and >> can i make one response i guess for just a question and this goes along with what the senator is saying. is there an attempt by the majority not to vote on this issue? the issue is at hand can you carry your gun in the parking lot and into a post office. many felt like they are sidestepping this issue. there is no question where i stand on these issues and the second amendment rights because of some of my votes in the past that i do it because it's the right thing in alaska.

let's write that amendment right now. let's just say that whatever the district court has ruled, that is the wall that we are going to put in this amendment. i'm happy to vote on multiple amendment, but the thing is we shouldn't have a committee where we only get to vote on certain amendments. but you are trying to set up as a an amendment that you could agree to, and that's fine but you're not going to vote on an amendment that you can't agree to. so we are trying to decide what to do you wouldn't have voted how you just did. it would protect hunters and gun owners and not address an issue so you can't have it both ways. >> in the way that amendment as drafted and make that very clear after the process is implemented you want to get to the parking lot is you i am happy to do that right now and that amendment would be very simple and would

echo what i support ruling on. let's quit playing the parlor games for politics let's cut through the chase and make sure folks in alaska when they go to east chester branch in anchorage they are not going to get in trouble. that's the issue. that is what we are caring about right now. my inclination is for us to move. every now and then we reach a point where the ranking member says this is the opportunity to continue to have a discussion. this issue is going to be on the floor and we will visit this issue to offer the amendment.

unless there is an objection in the paula amendment as amended has been proved and i would like for us to move on to the other amendments. this is not the finish line. this is an issue before we have time to get it done. >> senator tester. >> quickly mr. chairman. i've been in this position for 15 years now and i don't know that i've had anybody come up to me and say is that important i get to carry my gun into a post

office? there have been the dates about guns in parking lots and other places before. this is about politics on its about 100% politics, because if i vote against this amendment, the commercials are not going to say he voted against guns in post offices they are going to say they voted against guns in parking lots which is where the concern would be so let's not fool anybody here. this isn't about good policy. this is about a political election in november and how the record will be distorted in those it was very clear senator paul said they are going to score this an and that the bling red light. you're in big trouble if you don't do what the nra says.

so with all due respect, if we want to vote on the parking lot amendment, let's vote on the parking lot amendment" obfuscating this with some made-up demand everyone has to carry their gun and a post office. >> my hope is we will get a good vote on this bill and come to the floor and have a chance to read into this issue. >> most of the event meant we are going to have on the bill are about politics whether it is representing or not closing down on a service center or limiting the closure of post offices they are parochial events and political events got too we ought to get back to working on the substance on the postal bi

bill. hhe gets pastget past this impae on the amendment. boat on both of them because that would be the way to do it. for the chair to say we will get this vote on the floor that hasn't been the history since i have been in the senate we haven't been able to vote on the floor is part of this place so here we have a committee hearing and i'm happy to move on as well but i couldn't remain silent, just vote. >> mr. chairman and i want to echo in support that deals with parking lots and i raised that issue last time and the colorado court case as an example of what

a judge has already decided albeit not for the rest of the country but it seems to me we ought to vote on those amendment and move on. >> and i will make sure we have that opportunity. with moveon. >> i want to make sure that it's clear to the senator that senator paul's amendment is offered and there's a process to object to the ruling of the chair and to move forward. if we object to the ruling they aren't going to make it very clear that i hear from american gun owners every day and that is on the issue of the parking lot and that is what the presentation was a week ago by senator paul as the issue and

that is what we should hone in on. >> the court case is very clear because that is your point that we should offer and i recognize that you want to move on but why not just deal with this here and offer the amendment to draft up something very quickly. i can't imagine if your amendment passes and goes forward and if it doesn't then we have a second amendment or additional amendment and hopefully that will pass and we will get a part of this issue 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 this conversation. i wish to be able to bring this bill to the floor. i wish to be able to continue this conversation and there is a

compromise that can be offered on the floor and it can be bipartisan. it can be democrat and republican and there's a good chance it will be adopted to address the underlying concern to take the politics out of the issue and address what i think is a concern. i can see how the shotgun or the pickup is an issue let's just move on and i promise you i pledge to work with senator coburn and others to get this resolved. >> mr. chairman? in all due respect i'm going to object and the reason is this is an issue that we should just resolve, and i recognize that the debate on the floor will be on the floor, but i think i want to make it very simple in that sensthesense of how to deal wit.

but it seems like why not just deal with this once and for all and i think if senator paul was thinking about this, we could have become from ice to do what we both want to do. and to be done with it. the problem from my standpoint with continuing this is that senator paul offered an amendment and we voted on it and a second degree which is in the substance past. i do not know procedurally how you get back onto that now without like you said before we can be here all day and keep voting and voting and voting. my sense looking at the

parliamentary poster here in the committee at this point at least for now we are to close this issue down and go to other amendments and if there is a way to bring it back up we are sort of spinning our wheels. >> if i was chairing the committee i would rule against senator paul as well otherwise we would never have a process to operate the committees on so i stand with the chairman saying this is not an eligible amendment because it is a third-degree amendment even though he might not want to because we have lost privileges on the floor so i went back up the chairman and i would have ruled the same way that it violates this procedure and it can happen and i think we move moveon.

>> i would urge you to withdraw your other chechen and move forward and vote on the parliamenparliament as amended s instituted. and i promise you we will come back and revisit this issue later on the floor and you'll have every opportunity with every democrat and republican on the committee, every opportunity to craft that proposal and we will have a good chance getting it done and have the opportunity to get to the kind of input from law enforcement so i would urge you enough to object and that is to move forward. >> if you are successful this committee will never operate effectively again because you will have a loud precedent in the committee for the third-degree amendment which is a disaster force which means it

never ends. >> mr. chairman, i understand what the ranking member is saying but we will determine whether those happened later down the line. more important than the parochial interest talked about because we talked about the constitution, and i think that brings us to the higher-level and i support the senator and his objection and quite frankly i think we should take a vote. >> mr. chairman, i recognize again that some people think we are going to be here all day on all kinds of amendments that this is part of the committee

process. sometimes we agree. sometimes we don't. and so i would move to waive the rules for the purpose of two amendments. one would be the rand paul amendment the issue of the issug lot as we drop very quickly he here. >> the senior democrat on the committee is not me it is senator levin and from time to time i looked to him for advice and ask him for his thoughts and

i'm going to ask him to share those with us. >> mr. chairman, first of all we cannot break the rules. we can't just override the rules that way. way. i believe or else we are going to have an endless overriding of the rules and that means there are no rules. that may sound familiar to some of you and it's what i believe. so senator coburn is correct. on the other hand we can if we wish by unanimous consent to have two amendments be in order, let them be drafted and feet if we can come up with a unanimous consent agreement to proceed at the end of the markup so there's time to adopt or to write these two amendments. so i would suggest to the chair to withhold a vote on adopting the substance until the end of the markup and during that time,

the two amendments are prepared to see if we can get a unanimous consent agreement to cause that is within the rules by unanimous consent we can proceed and i would be very careful in just overriding the chair i think it opens up a lawless committee procedure. >> that's good advice. thanks, senator coburn for his comments but as amended by my substitute why don't we use the remainder of the markup to see what we can do in terms of finding out something that we can all agree on that most of us agree on and with that having been said, let me -- do we need unanimous consent? >> not necessarily even agree on the substance that we would

agree by unanimous consent to vote on one or two amendments on the subject. but save that for the end is that we have an hour to draft the two amendments. >> i turned to whoever is advising us on these matters but in terms of what i need to do at this point in time do i need to make unanimous consent to sex as a site or can we just leave it as a pending business? >> we will set it aside and move on to the next amendment. i'm not sure who that might be but it could be you. >> thank you mr. chairman and i will take you up on that. i would like to just reflect on what we covered in terms of the baldwin mccaskill amendment

votebythe before i offer to mody that amendment and talk a little bit about the content of that modification we had a robust debate after the last markup on the baldwin mccaskill amendment which struck section 301 of the bill relating to the rate into the governance over the rate setting process and as i recall when we set the issue aside, there were some pretty good exchanges where something that is now referred to as the carper audible and i think maybe i just prefer things in writing and so we made an agreement that we would set it aside to put something together in writing

and have a back and forth and maybe come to a consensus. so as that p6 as the committee suspended its consideration of the bill i want to say that i immediately put together compromised language based on some of the input that i heard during the debate and dissent actually that night to the majority and minority staff on this committee, again, trying to incorporate if not the exact sentiment of the spirit of the debate that we had and i have to say i was disappointed we didn't receive any sort of a written response until 8:30 p.m. last night. it was disappointing. i also wanted to make a couple comments for the record.

i will take a little direction from the chairman that there were a couple issues related to scoring that were set o said one record last week that i was -- that ended up being an accurate or the assumptions were not fully laid out and rather a ban at this point calling of the united states postal service employees who put those projections together, and questioning about their assumptions i would like to just be able to submit for the record some concerns including the fact that my understanding is tenure outlook spreadsheet that were distributed last week at the markup included about $4 billion drop in revenue due to the predicted recession and i don't think the committee was informed of that and that should have been something that we should

have gotten a chance to look at. in addition, when i put together a proposal that a compromise from the average i'll amendment, we asked the postal service for a preview of that is tenure outlook and we received one earlier this week and we have also received one on the fourth at 11 a.m. was the date on the spreadsheet. and then we have one that's been distributed today at our desks and i want to just tell you this refers to my amendment. there is 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 solve a handout. so that is distressing to me in terms of getting our numbers straight. so, but let's get back to the merits and by the way mr. chairman and ranking member if you want me to put in for their documentary records 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 rate and the government. ththeir rates are particularly important to my state because we have lost 200,000 jobs that relates to timber, paper making and mailing and about 12,000 postal workers within the state. and at the state of the post office, the health of the

post-office is intertwined with my state economy, and i know that is true for other members of the committee. so the rate setting, the certainty, the volatility matter in my state economy. governance is also important to me because it is 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 about monopoly in charge of setting its own rates. and we just don't do that. we have to protect the ratepayers and consumers. i used the analogy last week of an electrical utility. we never let them set up their own electrical rates.