nothing in this title may be construed to limit the relevant factors that the arbitration board may take into consideration in rendering a decision. i don't think they want -- >> senator begich, my understanding of your amendment is that you're not striking our language, but you're adding yours. >> correct. >> and i think we're getting where -- i just want as much clarification because here's what -- if i'm postmaster general, here's what i'll say in arbitration. the senate, the house said this is the only relevant issues. >> says nothing in the title. >> he adds the word relevant right there. >> i'd be happy to give time to the folks that drafted -- i just want to make sure we're creating some record here which is important, but i don't want to -- >> could i ask you senator begich a question.

would that be adequate for you if the word relevant were put in front of the word factors? >> i agree with what you said here's three and then 39 covers a lot of area which doesn't bother me, but i want to keep this show moving. >> yeah. i think senator collins might like -- >> yeah, yeah. that's fine. >> pardon? >> you want more time. >> could we do that? >> yeah. i'm fine with that. >> come back this afternoon. maybe we can work it out by then. if not, we'll see where we are. okay, thanks. it was an important discussion. i think it did clarify intention and that'll be important. we now go -- senator pryor, i'm sorry but i've got to go to senator paul.ay. i'm not sorry to go to you, senator paul. i'm just sorry that -- >> i'll try to be succinct and to move it along. this is amendment number one. this would provide for flexibility in mail box usage.

this would grant the individual who owns the house and owns the mail box what you would think would go along with the ownership of private property, the decision to decide how to use your mail box. and i would recommend we support this amendment. it's amendment number 1, and it would allow you to use your mail -- post box as you see fit. if you bought it and paid for it, you can do with it what you wish. >> so, senator paul, say a little more about what your intention is here. what are you up to? >> to repeal -- >> i guess it goes back to the magna carta in 1218. we could start there. >> try to jump quickly to -- >> i think it was article 57 of the magna carta which guaranteed that free men will not be deprived of their property without just and due process.

and that's what i'm asking for here, that your mail box -- i think it's always been an anomaly in the concept of private property that you own all the rest of your house but you don't own your mail box. this just reasserts the ownership of the mailbox for the individual and says that the decide how to use their own mailbox. >> so am i correct in saying that one result of the passage of this amendment would be that alternative delivery services could use the mailbox? >> yeah. and it's funny, back in the old days, back in the '70s, people thought that would destroy the post office because you would get first class mail which was such a great thing to have. but doesn't seem like first class mail is that profitable anymore. i doubt fedex or u.p.s. would deliver it for 47 cents to tell you the truth. so i don't know that it changes anything other than it would solidify and codify the idea that private property is private

property and that the individual has the right to exercise how >> here's part of the problem that i see with this. you're viewing it from the point of private property, but i think the effect of the passage of this amendment would be to further hurt, maybe cripple, the finances of the post office because one result would be that private operations which in some sense are trying to supplant the postal service could basically cherry pick the most lucrative routes and services and deprive the postal service which is bound by this constitutional legal statutory requirement of

universal delivery no matter where you live and make it harder for the postal service to survive financially. probably also lead to an increase in rates paid by citizens to mail through the postal service. >> but there still would be laws in place on first class mail. i don't think this changes the laws, but i want it to be in the record that you are opposing article 57 of the magna carta. >> but i'm standing by the article of the constitution of united states that established the post office. >> the interesting thing to the post office is and distributing the mail is part of the constitution but it didn't say anything in the constitution about your mailbox didn't belong to you and you couldn't decide who can come on your property and put things in your mailbox. so i think it is -- it does go against the grain and the history of the development and usage of private property. and i think it illustrates this

point. that's why i brought it forward, to have some discussion and let people divide the house and decide where you stand. >> hear, hear. is there further discussion? >> mr. chairman, i agree with your concerns. i think what would happen, particularly in urban areas, is that the alternative carriers would cream, skim, do all the less expensive routes and the rural areas would be left to the postal service that inevitably would cause a decline in volume and it would inevitably cause an increase in rates. so i don't think this is a good idea and i hope we will oppose the amendment. >> and i think that might have been true in the '70s and '80s when anybody thought they could make money doing this. i don't think anybody thinks they can anymore, you know, and it's probably impossible to make money, you know, at 47 cents.

but i think the interesting thing is right now even though we do have the pro scription on the mailbox, i get letters from fed ex thrown on the doorsteps. they ring the doorbell and they're gone whether i'm there or not. it is an envelope. it's not the same size as a first class envelope and costs more. interestingly, i don't think either one of them will compete at 47 cents. i think they might compete at three or four-day deliveries, and they'll put it on your stoop. so really this is more about the philosophy of private property than changes. i'm not sure it would change anything. i don't think anybody really wants to get into the first class mail. i don't think it's profitable. >> no further debate. would you like a roll call? >> yes, please. >> the clerk will call the roll. fine. i was going to perjoratively say that the question on this vote is whether you want to stand by our own constitution or some foreign document in the magna carta. >> which, by the way, discriminates against women. i was listening very, very

carefully. >> with apologies. >> some might argue the constitution somehow derived from the magna carta. >> okay. to me, more seriously, the amendment raises the risk of financial risks at this very perilous financial time for the post office. i thank you, though, senator paul. clerk will call the roll. >> senator levin? >> no. >> senator akaka? >> no. no by proxy. >> senator carper? >> no. >> senator pryor? >> yes. >> senator landrieu? >> no instructions.. no instructions. >> senator mccaskill? >> i'm going to say no

instructions. maybe we'll pass until we get clarity about the proxies. i don't want to cast a vote for a colleague without them being here. >> senator tester? >> senator tester? we're going to pass again. senator tester has a proxy. a no vote. >> senator begich? >> no. >> senator collins? >> no. >> senator coburn? >> aye by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no by proxy. >> senator mccain? aye by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> aye by proxy. >> senator portman. >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> aye. >> senator moran? >> aye. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are two, the nays are six. >> can i ask the clerk to go back to the senators we passed.

>> senator landrieu. >> yes by proxy. >> senator mccaskill. >> no by proxy. >> and senator brown has just appeared so rather than his voting by proxy -- >> senator brown? okay. mr. chairman, on the vote of those present the ayes are two, the nays are seven. on the vote by proxy the ayes are four, the nays are four. on this vote, the ayes are six, the nays are ten and the amendment is notgr >> all right. i thank the clerk. thank you senator paul. senator pryor? >> i think that senator landrieu wanted to be noted that she based her vote on the napoleonic code. listen, this amendment should be

noncontroversial. i think we haven't passed an amendment yet so maybe this will be the first one. >> we passed one. >> we passed one? >> noncontroversial. >> there we go. i would like to, at the appropriate time, ask that senator mccaskill and senator landrieu be is added as co-sponsors. my amendment is very straight forward. >> which one of yours is this? number one? i'm sorry, number one? >> amendment number two. >> number two. okay. >> amendment number two. and what it says is that whenever the postal regulatory commission makes recommendations through their advisory process that the postal service would say how they are implementing the recommendations or, if they're not, why they're not implementing those recommendations. and i think this has been an issue over the years that the

prc will make recommendations but oftentimes it seems the postal service just ignores them. so this is more transparency, more accountability. and i don't think we need a roll call vote. >> senator pryor, did you call this a straight forward amendment? >> i did. >> i agree. i support the amendment. further discussion? >> mr. chairman, the only comment i have is it's not only appropriate, but it also be appropriate for the pc to be giving some answers to the postal service at times as well. i don't have enough time to go through the history of that and try to amend your amendment. but it's true for the postal service which needs to be true for the postal rate commission too in terms of their responding to things that they don't implement when the postal service makes decisions. so i just make that as a comment and support your amendment. ifnot, all in favor say aye.

>> aye. >> the ayes visit. the amendment is adopted. senator moran? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i have just one amendment. it deals with rural post offices. the reality i suppose is that there are some post offices who have outlived their usefulness, their viability. but the reality is, others have not. and i have yet to see the criteria by which the postal service reaches a conclusion as to which ones remain viable, and which ones do not. the postal service earlier this year announced the potential closing of 3700 post offices. 134, for example, are in the state of kansas. so it's a significant number, but probably not compared to many other members of the senate.

we have attended, staff of mine have attended 90 of those closing meetings. i can't think of an instance in which any member of the community goes to the committee meeting and comes away believing that the postal service has a plan in place for why their post office was chosen, or that there is anything that a member of the community can do about it. and so it seems to me we have the postal service going through the motions of conducting these community meetings, explaining that their post office is on the list for whatever reasons that individual who is representing the postal service explains. and when folks suggest what do we do to see that our post office isn't closed, almost without exception, there is no answer other than to call your congressman and your senator. the amendment that i propose, and i would indicate that it is

co-sponsors by senators tester, collins, begich, pryor and i understand landrieu, it state asset of criteria that the postal commission must use in conjunction with the commission. and it sets out the criteria that the postal service should consider for in a sense, the basic services. perhaps it goes to the question i was raising earlier. is there not some standard by which we would expect the post office to provide service to americans across the country. perhaps number of days, but in this case, communities. rural versus urban. suburban. what standard would we expect to have a minimal or basic level of service? so this requires the postal service to develop those national retail service standards and to take into account four things. geography, population factors,

the products commitment to customers and the what maximum amount of time a customer should be expected to travel. population factors, density, age, demographics. the requirements to serve rural areas such as alaska or hawaii that maysptation. and to make certain that the postal service looks at available retail services in the area that were served by the post service. again, the nature of the community. many people, many constituents of mine will attend one of these meetings and come away wondering why was our town chosen and not the town down the road. so this sets a criteria for which we have some level of ability to determine why us and not somebody else. but more importantly, it creates the opportunity for the community then to appeal that decision, based upon the

criteria to the postal rate commission. in addition to that, this amendment requires the postal service to look at other options, such as shortening the length of hours for the local post office. for example, having a postmaster there for fewer hours during the workday. the opportunity, again for that community or village post office, that concept that is out there of co-locating with a local school or restaurant or grocery store. in order, again, to save costs. and finally, the amendment that's the nature of the amendment. i would indicate that the effective date of this amendment is upon enactment and the language of the legislation and the language of the amendment, and therefore the language of the legislation of my amendment is adopted, would say it applies to the post offices currently under consideration. they would become subject to the criteria we have now created.

and so in my view, it's a pretty straight forward to create a transparent process to determine what levels of service are to be expected. what's the criteria for determining whether a post office in a community meets those standards, give the community the chance to indicate they disagree with the conclusion, and have the postal rate commission, a more independent agency, body determine whether or not the postal service has followed that procedure. >> thanks, senator moran. thanks for all you're work on this amendment with the bipartisan group of colleagues. senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to the new guy, first of all, thank you for your thoughtful amendment. it's something we wredood compr. it's not the first time we heard it. i think it's affected everybody. and every senator an st.gressman in their states.ink

it's certainly something i agree with. and i think the bipartisan members of the commission agree with it. i ask it be taken up. do you need a role call? >> i would ask for one. >> senator moran, i want to thank you for the work you did on this. i'm going to support this amendment. the postal service has a lot of post offices. and one of the numbers i have seen about the post office is that it has more retail outlets if we can put it that way than starbucks, walmart, and mcdonald's combined. so we have to close some post offices. i've been through this a few times in connecticut. here again, this is where it's not a typical business. because there was one case where

in a mall town years and years ago where the postal service tried to close the post office. and probably on a sheer numbers basis, they were right. but that little post office not only was important to the small businesses and the people in town, and really you can't - al had become like a community center. people would come down and pick up the mail and chat. we can't afford that really now, but it's very difficult to closa to do that now. and i do want to state for the record. senator mccain said something earlier, which is that this bill will stop the closing of post offices by the postal service. it will not. and it doesn't do that. including with your amendment, it creates, what i would call, some thoughtful and reasonable due process before the postal service can close post offices,

including everything you have listed. and i think it's not bad requiring the postal service to consider instead of closing a post office, reducing the number of operating hours. or procuring a contract providing retail services in the community served by the post office. or providing services through a rural carrier. so i think this is a very it doesn't, in the end, stop the postmaster from doing what he thinks is necessary to keep the post office going. but it creates some reasonable due process before post offices are closed. and i suppth >> roll call? >> further debate? >> i want to commend senator moran for his work on this amendment. and for what he's trying to do. i just had one question. that has to do with your reference to the appeal to the postal regulatory commission.

where is that? >> i'm sorry. senator paul was visiting with me about the magna carta. you t commendation, because i think it's really an important piece of work. i think you're right on track of reaching an important point. but two questions. one is where is the reference to the appeal to the prc? what page or line is that on? >> answer forthcoming. >> i believe that that has to do with the service standard. >> the staff is kind enough to tell me that any time a service standard is violated there is an appeal to the postal rate commission. so it's broader. >> it's not in your amendment. it already exists in law? >> correct.

>> secondly, that would be any post office that's proposed for closing after these standards are adopted could make an appeal to the prc on the basis that the standards, which have been adopted is required by this amendment were violated. >> that's true. and it is effective upon its passage. upon enactment. but it also the language of the amendment includes those post offices currently being considered by the postal service today. >> i understand. it includes them. it is not limited to them? >> it is not. >> and then the other question. the words market dominant products on page 3. i'm not sure what that means. if they are market competitive products, would that not be good enough.

>> if i may, that is a term of art within the arcane postal world. the products are defined in different categories. and for example, products where the postal service is the only provider of first class mail is one category. products such as packages where they are competing with ups and fedex are another category. and so those are terms that actually mean something. and that's why they're being used. >> this maintains, then, the universality of the service in essence. >> right. >> is that -- in other words, is that what the term is intended to mean? i mean, what about -- you want service standards for other

things besides market dominant? they don't have to do service standards for anything else other than that? >> i wonder if we want to call the expert witness. it's a fair question. maybe the deputy postmaster or somebody from his team would like to respond to that question do you want to come forward? would you like senator levin to repeat the question? >> no, no. i got it. i think so. the postal service would put out service standards in the product dominant products. this hooks back to the requirement. that's all. >> that's in the bill. >> yes, that's exactly right. >> and market dominant products are -- >> market dominant products are products that there is no other competitor. >> like first class mail? >> on the competitive side, we'd be competing with people in the -- mostly in the package business. >> thanks. >> okay. further discussions? >> i just want to commend senator moran. who i got to work with a little bit on this issue and i've

enjoyed very much. thank you for the leadership you have taken. senator tester, begich and real service is supposed to work. this is an important issue. we know the postal service has to stem the bleeding. we know we have more post offices than we need. but there are also ways to provide good service to folks in these communities. just by making sure we might not have a postmaster in some of the rural post offices, but we can have somebody there to sell stamps. we can have folks doing rural letter carriers. maybe. the alternative would be to have a rural letter carrier. be there when they come to your house and buy your stamps. be there when they come to your house and buy your stamps. that's not very convenient for everybody. how about having in that community like maybe for lunch break, when the letter carrier stops for lunch, they know where he or she will be and they're selling stamps. or maybe the convenience store down the road. or the drug store. it's not a rural situation, but

i visited a drug store in the chicago area, walgreen's as a matter of fact. they have a post office. this is a new generation of pharmacy. so i think there's a lot of alternatives here. and the question is or the goal should not be how do we close post offices. but the goal should be to continue providing good service to people across the country and do it in a cost-effective way. and i think what we have done here is struck a really good balance. and i just want to commend you for that. >> mr. chairman, thank you. you and my colleagues have been very cooperative with me in this regard. this is a significant issue for me. i have had wonderful conversations with both senator collins and senator carper as well as my colleagues who are co-sponsors of this amendment. would it be appropriate to ask the assistant postmaster general or someone from the postal service to confirm my understanding that they are not going to rush out and close post offices while this legislation is pending, that they're going to allow the effect of this amendment and legislation to take effect? >> you're not here under subpoena.

but do you want to answer? >> i would just say that the postmaster general has said he agrees with this vision. so i think it's his intention to at least use this as a guiding post. >> senator m, specifically raise that issue with the postmaster general when we were negotiating the language that you so thoughtfully brought forward. >> thank you. finally, mr. chairman, just to conclude. to shorten the day, he will withdraw my request for role call. i'm happy to have this pass on a voice vote. but i wanted to point out one more fact. as we try to find savings in the postal service, at least according to to the rate commission, you could close 10,000 of the smallest post offices in

effectuate savings equal to of 1% of the revenue of the post office. while it's important to find every nickel and dime, there's a bigger picture that we need to make sure we don't lose sight of. and i don't -- again, as a member of the senate who represents a pretty rural state, it's always -- we want to make certain that rural america is not the target for savings exclusively, that we want to share our burden and our responsibilities with others. but 7/10 of 1% is the expected savings in closing 10,000 post offices. so this amendment in my view is as the chairman indicated a on demonstrate the need for post office and communities across america. i thank senator levin for raising the technical issues. >> mr. chairman, i'm reluctant to do this. but i think it's important that has good bipartisan