superintendent of arlington national cemetery, and reverend condon. she is the executive director. thank you for telling us about the work of arlington. guest: thank you. >> coming up, the center's mark up the postal service overall. and then later, new hampshire today radio program. and then a look at the arlington national cemetery. >> and extremism in defense of liberty is no by. and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson, but

barry goldwater's ideas galvanized the conservative movement. p is featured this week on "the contenders -- he is featured this week on "the contenders." >> members of the senate homeland security and government affairs committee work on a postal service overhaul. this is a little less than three hours. >> good morning and welcome to

the market. we do not have 6 for the required quorum to begin with the market, but if we could begin with some opening statements. the main agenda today, which is the 21st century postal service act of 2011 -- i have something to put into the record. since i first came to the senate in 1989, it has been an honor for me to serve on this committee as the governmental affairs committee, and now the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. some of the most productive work that i have had the privilege to do has happened in this committee, because, i think, a

couple of things. one is a strong and real and, i would say, a proud tradition of bipartisanship. the second is that the committee has not shrug from the problems and from presenting solutions that are bipartisan and are therefore, more often than not, have gone on to be adopted by both houses. notable among the list as i look back just among the last decade after 9/11, this committee originated the legislation that led to the creation of the department of homeland security. we also raised the bill that was adopted that created the 9/11 commission, which did, as we all know, extraordinary,

independent, nonpartisan investigation of the attack on us in 2001, and enacted comprehensive reform legislation to make sure as much as we could that nothing like that would ever happen again. then the committee adopted that legislation, so in two iterations over four years constituted together the most significant reforms in the national security homeland security apparatus since the end of the second world war. we also have a cyber security bill working its way through. i'm very proud and grateful for the work this committee has done, and in particular, of course, to work with senator collins as closely and productively as we have. today, this committee confront another big problem facing our country.

and i'm very proud that the four of us, the ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees the postal service, senator carta, and senator brown, the ranking member on that subcommittee, are presenting a solution, we believe, to the crisis that the postal service is facing today. it is not small, but it is a mini version of the macro problem that our entire federal garment is facing that will shackle and diminish our future as a country unless we deal with it, and that is being played out

in the super committee. the postal service is an extraordinary american institution, begun, really, right at the beginning of the country in the 18th century. and yet, it is not a relic. it is a great national asset. it is well over a trillion dollars of our national economy that is dependent on the u.s. postal service. but the sad reality is that it has gone into what i fear will be a death spiral unless we do something together to do something to rescue it. this year, the budget of the u.s. postal service will be $65 billion approximately. its expected losses this year are going to be about $10 billion. it is just not going to be able to continue operating in that way and be the postal service

that this country has depended on, including the universal service. a $10 billion deficit -- why has this happened? a lot of reasons. a lot of it may be internal in the organization, and the post by esther has -- the postmaster has asked for the authority to make it more efficient. i think a lot of that is in the bill today. things have changed with the internet and electronic mail. the volume of mail that the post office is asked to carry and deliver has diminished greatly. and in recent years, the post office just like every other economic entity, has been affected by the economic recession that we have been in, and in some sense, are still

fighting our way out of. the status quo is not going to work. therefore, senator collins, senator carter, senator brown and i have worked together very hard and without regard to party lines to see if we could come up with a solution to this problem that would change the postal service so that it cries would -- that it would survive the 21st century in a healthy way and move on to the 22nd century. i think we have a substantial proposal to make to you today that authorizes changes in the postal service beverley will cut costs by reducing the workforce, by reforming some of the benefit plans of the employees of the postal service, and by consolidating services that the

post office offers the american public and business. we explicitly did not do what some people were asking us to do, which is to allow an increase in the price that the postal service charges, a so- increase,xigent suggesting that we override a denial of an increase. the last thing you want to do with a business when it is in trouble is to raise prices, because you will end up having less business than you had before. we think this proposal that we've made will enable the postal service to save billions of dollars. by one credible estimate that i have seen, without any change --

if the postal service just goes along with the status quo by the year 2020, it will be spending $85 billion a year. if this bill is enacted and the powers we give the postmaster to were cooperatively with his employees are enacted, this estimate says the postal service will be spending $65 billion a year, which is a $20 billion savings and will allow it to go on into the future. there are parts of the proposal that are controversial, frankly, from both perspectives. some people think parts of it are too tough and some think it is not tough enough. we think what we are presenting to our colleagues on this committee is a bipartisan solution to a big, national problem that can pass both houses of congress and be signed

by the president. of course to say the obvious, it is not perfect. there are a lot of amendments that have been filed with the committee, some of which can help and some of which we think it will not. we look forward to the debate. i know our staffs have passed your staffs to see if we can have the option of reconvening at to 30 p.m. this afternoon if we cannot finish this morning -- at 2:30 p.m. this afternoon if we cannot finish this morning. we will go in the order of seniority until we have finished. with that, it is my pleasure to call on senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by thanking all of our members. every single member of this

committee has expressed an interest in the postal service's financial crisis. many of you have put together suggestions, have offered amendments, and i think it is a tribute to this committee that out -- that all of our members have been so engaged on this very important issue. but i do particularly want to commend the leadership. we have worked for iran is to put the postal service back on its footing. this bill gives the postal

service would it needs to modernize and thrive. and i want to point out an unassailable fact, and that is, the postal service literally will not survive without fundamental legislative and administrative reforms. the postmaster general has been very clear on this. he has told us that a year from now, the postal service will be unable to meet its payroll. those dedicated postal workers will not be able to be paid, and that means that the mail will not be delivered. in fiscal year 2010, the postal service losses were $8.5 billion. in fiscal year 2009, they were $3.8 billion. in fiscal year 2008, they were

$2.8 billion. as you can see, we are going in the wrong direction, and if nothing changes, the projected losses for this fiscal year are $10 billion. again, that means this crisis would result in the postal service been unable to meet its payroll. -- being unable to meet its payroll. jobs are at stake. i think when many people think of the postal service, they think of their local post office. they have great affection toward their local postal -- post office. if they are in business, they may be aware of the local postal facilities. but the fact is, the postal service is the linchpin of a $1 -- of a $1.1 trillion mail related industry that employs

approximately 8 million americans, as diverse as catalogs, paper and printing and the list goes on. in our bill, we are directing the postal service to make painful choices to reduce its cuts, and not simply cut services and raise prices, which would only add to its death spiral. the solution to the postal services and financial crisis is not easy, but it must involve tackling significant expenses in ways that do not drive away customers and further depress its volume. is postal service's mission to provide the american public with a universal and affordable service. but its operating costs have increased and its volume and

revenue have plummeted. we need to allow the postal service more flexibility and give it more tools to remain solvent. no one, least of all the four sponsors of this bill, none of us is happy with every provision in this bill. it is a compromise, and that is the nature of a compromise. but nevertheless, it does not avoid the difficult issues. it tackles the very tough issues in a responsible way. let me just comment on some of those issues. 80% of the postal service's crossed our workforce related. that means that painful though it is, you cannot solve the postal service's problems

without giving the tools that are necessary to confront some of the work force problems. and those are difficult ones, because all of us have the depth of respect for our postal employees. but the fact is that our work force is too large for the volume that remains. our plan gives the postal service -- gives the postmaster general the authority to offer a compassionate early retirement incentive to encourage tens of thousands of eligible employees to retire. the postmaster general's estimate is that 100,000 workers would take advantage of this program. it would be financed in part by the return of a $7 billion overpayment made by the postal

service to one of the federal retirement programs. this is a refund that everyone who has looked at this issue agrees is warranted. we had gao do the final call on this and gao has substantiated that there is, in fact, an overpayment to the program. we have not included a provision that was in the earlier drops to refund $55 billion from the csrs retirement program because gao determined that was not, in fact, an overpayment. there is lots of disagreement over that, but we dropped that. and we are only refunding the $7 billion overpayment that all parties from independent actuaries to the administration, the gao, the inspector general

have been verified as being a true overpayment. the buyout program will help to right-size the work force, which again, is driving 80% of the postal service's costs. the bill also includes long- overdue reforms to the compensation programs. these, too, will save hundreds of millions of dollars and help put more individuals back on the path to work. unfortunately, the current program has become an alternative retirement program for too many workers. the postal service, which is responsible for some 60% of the claims in the federal employee'' compensation program, now has 2000 employees aged 70 and

older receiving workers' comp. two of them are now age 99. those individuals are never coming back to work. it does not make sense for them to be on a worker's comp program, which is intended to be a safety net program temporarily for workers who are injured and then returning to work. and that is why the obama administration has proposed sweeping changes in the worker'' comp program. our bill reflects the changes advocated by the help -- the obama administration, by the gao, in numerous reports by the idea of the department of labor, which administers -- by the i.g.

of the department of labor, which administers the program. if we have also included a two- year prohibition on moving to 5 day delivery. our belief that the postal service is to squeeze out all the costs in the system before doing this dramatic reduction from six days to five days of delivery -- that reduction could come about only if gao certifies that the savings have been made and the prc also ratifies that finding and the savings are still not adequate to return the postal service to solvency. i think this is so important. one company told me that 18% of our seniors receive their prescription drugs through the mail on saturdays.

their news -- there are newspapers that rely on saturday delivery. if we lose those businesses, they will turn to alternative forms of delivery, causing a further decline in the postal volume.'s proble again, we are taking an alternative view that if the cuts included in the bill are not sufficient, then the postal service will reduce the number of days of delivery. but this should be a last resort, not the first option. on another controversy hola -- controversial issue, i'm sure all of you have heard about the closure of small post offices. we will have more discussion on that later. i know a number of members have been working very hard on an

amendment in that area. i will wait to talk more about that later. there are many other provisions in this bill. it is a comprehensive approach, and i believe it will accomplish the goal of putting the postal service back on a sound financial footing. but again, the changes are going to be painful. the decisions are difficult ones. and i thank my colleagues for working so hard to bring us to this point. >> thank you, senator collins, and thank you for your hard work. before i call on senator brown, the rest of the agenda is non- controversial. i would like to move that would consider the following items as a block. they are the five nominations listed on the agenda, and one legislative item, a resolution

commemorating the 50th anniversary of the combined federal campaign. is there any objection? hearing none, the committee will move to unblock those. all in favor? all opposed? the motion passes. without objection, senator carper's remarks relating to that will be in the agenda. senator carper and senator collins have worked very hard, basically, to keep the postal service ambulatory, if i can put it that way. the business environment has changed. that is why i call this instead of postal reform, postal rescue

legislation. i would like to call on senator carper, who continues to be the chair of the subcommittee that oversees the postal service. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for the leadership you have provided and for encouraging us to work the way the senate used to. where democrats and republicans and occasionally an independent set aside differences and work to get results. the american public wants to make sure that we can still work together around here. without that, we continue to model our way through the economy. we provide some certainty. the postal service will be around. it will be around in a different size and different extent and form and fashion at a news to be. -- then in use today.

when alan greenspan was chairman of the fed, he came to testify on deficit reduction. he was talking about health care, if we do not do something about reducing the health care costs, we are doomed. i said to him in the q&a, would be your recommendation on health care? and senator coburn, you may remember this conversation. and he said, and not an expert. this is what i do. i find out what works and i do more of that. that is what he said. and i said, you mean like finding out what does not work and do less of that? >> and he saiand he said yes. a good example of this is the auto industry. they added more employees and

their structure was out of bounds. all of that has changed. we have actually seen this moving. an industry that people thought was dying has come back. and many people have thought that the post office is a relic of a bygone era. 7 million jobs are still related to the postal industry and to the need for the postal industry to be viable and do its job in a more cost-effective way. the postal service needs to right-size but it industry. that is what we are trying to do with this legislation. it is down from about $800,000 to about $550,000. we want to bring it down by

about another $100,000 in the next year not by firing people, but by incentivizing people to retire. i am always interested in how we leverage. everybody at this table is. how do we leverage and get more with less? we can do that by making sure that over payments to the retirement system can be used in part to incentivize people to retire. 80% of the postal costs are people. this will help them get their head count down to where it needs to be. they have 33,000 post offices. that is more than we need. it is hard to defend that we have a post office at somewhere in america were there is no place else. but there is a way to make sure the community gets the service

that they need. it may not be with a full-time post master, but with someone in and out of the post office several times of day. smart results for less money. the other two 0.1 to make, a lot of the health care -- the other two statements i want to make, a lot of the health care costs are a problem here. when employees to contribute to health care costs, they are really paying price. -- paying twice. we've come up with a medigap plans to cover some of the differences. maybe they can come up with a stand-alone entity to set of their own deal like the auto workers have done.

senator collins has pushed curbside delivery. we are working to it slowly and will not mandate it for everybody, but where it does work it may save some money. and moving from six days to five days, if we do not realize the kind of cost savings that are needed and two years now we go from six days to five days, i would urge them to continue to negotiate with the labor unions. the last thing i want to say, it is not enough -- ought i like to say when facing the budget deficit problems in this country, it is not enough to cut or just raise taxes or revenues. you have got to grow the economy. the postal service has got to find ways to grow their business. they have to be even more entrepreneurial.

in this legislation, we allow the postal service to do what ups and fedex do. there are a lot of other entrepreneurial ideas out there. and one of them is virtual mailboxes. and when they do those things, we cannot get in the way. you know the ad campaign and says, "we can do it. you can help"? we need to do that. we have all tried to abide by the golden rule. how would we want to be treated if we were the customer, the business customer? how would we want to be treated as residential customers?

how would we want to be triggered if we worked for the postal service? how would we want to be treated if we are the taxpayer? we try to keep those things in mind and those things remain in this bill. can things be better? sure, but the idea as this bill moves through the floor that we have not just kicked the can down the road. the we have actually given them the tools to fix this problem. >> thank you, senator. thanks for all of the work you did. senator brown as the dynamism and creativity of used to this fearsome foursome. >> thank you. i will be brief because there's not much more to say. but failure is not an option.

what we want to do is keep the post office by a ball, treat the employes with the respect they deserve, and not only reduce the workforce, but help them to continue to be employed. if we do nothing, it will close in a very short timeframe. all of the ancillary jobs that go along with it -- i went along with the issue, like the senator collins and carper and you. i was very pleased with the give-and-take. we each focused on one particular issue. other forward to what we came up with. >> let's go forward with this consideration of time and use it

as our base as we debate the bill today. this is offered on behalf of the four bus. and -- above us. several technical changes, but i believe it has been given to staff. the deputy postmaster general was good enough to be here. if we ask him specifically to be here because maybe there would be some discussion of fact questions that have come up that he will be able to answer that, perhaps, even our extraordinarily smart and hard- working staffs might not. i want everybody to know that if you have questions as this goes on -- as i indicated earlier -- as this goes on, and as i indicated earlier, we will go in seniority.

>> [inaudible] >> there you go. every now and then i think you are a rookie. [laughter] senator brown substitutes. all in favor? those opposed? it is adopted. senator levin, do you want to begin? you always have the opportunity to defer if you want. >> i would like to begin with an amendment. >> ok. >> i think it is amendment no. 3. it has to do with the transparency of contracts between the postal service and the people with whom they deal. is that the right number, 3?

>> that is correct. >> i'm very much supportive of these provisions. let me first thank my -- extend my thanks to you, the formal -- the four horsemen. [laughter] one of the provisions of the bill has to do with transparency, to make sure we know what the postal service is doing. are was interested in what their contracts were with the folks that they deliver mail for, and that they transport mail for, and that is, fed ex and ups. and i thought i would take a look at those contracts and i was told that i cannot look at the contracts. only one person in congress under those contracts is allowed to look at the contracts. they are redacted.

and it reads that the only person who can get it is the chairman of the house subcommittee with oversight responsibility. >> there is a story here. >> i know there is. >> we do not know it, but there is a story. >> [laughter] that is what i want to find out. that is not just offensive to the senate, but to congressional oversight, and i think is offensive to the taxpayers of the united states. i just want to find out what the deal is. senator coburn mention that we should be delivering mail to the last mile for the american public, and we do. in many places, we do deliver the mail the last mile for them. and that is fine. apparently, they transport most of the mail that goes by mail -- by air now.

it is not traditional airlines, which i kind of assume from boyhood is what is being done, but it is not. it is being done by fedex and ups, and that is fine. i just want to see the contract. what i did with the approval of the chair and the ranking member is notify folks that i would issue a subpoena and we checked with my wonderful ranking member on the investigation committee, senator coburn, just to let him know you would be issuing a subpoena to get hold of the contracts. at that point, i was told, ok, you can see the contract. what this amendment does, very simply is to provide that bill -- ups will not enter into a contract unless the committee gets oversight. >> senator levin, as we all

know, is a hard-working and persistent member of the senate and he follows trails that sometimes lead to surprising places, and this one did. >> [inaudible] >> [laughter] is there further discussion? i really, i thank you for pursuing this. if there is no further discussion, all in favor? all those opposed? it is adopted. senator coburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to make a couple of comments and then allow senator came to take the position at the mike. you all worked very hard on this and there are some very good things in here, but i remember five years ago. >> that tom, is your microphone on? >> it is on, just not close

enough. i remember five years ago. we were going to fix it. and the one thing we did not do in that bill is give the post office the flexibility to run as a business. we are making the same mistake again. we are telling them what they cannot -- can and cannot do. there are a lot of positives in this bill. and hopefully they will improve as we move through the amendment process. but i will predict to you that the bill as written now is not going to fix the post office. we will have this back again, and we do not have the luxury of not fixing at this time. i co-sponsored senator mccain's bill not because it is the best solution, but because i think it is better than the one that has been negotiated. i do not like appreciation for what you have come up with as a

compromise. i think there is a lot of great stuff in it. but if you want to get the post office out of business, you have to let them do what they know they have to do. you want to get them out of trouble, you have to let them go to a five day week. the of the thing you will recognize is that people will adjust to five-day delivery. there will not be medicines missed on saturday because they will come in on friday. the question is, do we want to wait five years and allow them to continue to lose money, maybe less, until they finally get to the point where we say, you can run this as a business and it meets the products that you have out there and the demand out there. this is a slow death. we have an opportunity to fix

things, to give them the power to do what they need to do. i just think we are not going far enough. that is my worry. i know my view is the minority. i understand that, but i will predict to you are probably will not be here when we are doing this again -- i probably will not be here when we are doing this again, but he will be doing it again. -- you will be doing it again. that means there is a lot of unpleasant as for us to not allow the post office to close a facility, no matter what amount of heat we take for that. we are saying, you are not capable of making these decisions. we are saying that we would rather not have the political heat.

you have to go to five-day delivery quickly. and you need to give them the capability to control their costs. if you do that, and give them other ways to increase their revenue, they will solve the problem, and we will not micromanage. >> senator, do you want to respond? >> i want to very quickly respond to one point that my friend and colleague made. since he was critical of the 2006 act, which senator carper and i were the lead sponsors of come out in 2005, the gao put the post office on its high-risk list. as a result of the bill that became law that we ought third in 2006, the gao took the -- that we offered in 2006, the

gao took the post office off its high-risk list. and immediately following, the postal service did do better as a result of those reforms. and for the first time, we started tackling the huge, unfunded liabilities of the postal service, which had never been tackled before. are we back in a worse situation now? absolutely, and there are a lot of reasons for that. but the fact is, the gao thought our law was sufficient to remove the postal service from the high-risk list. >> my point was not to be critical. there is no question a lot of positive things came out of that, but it did not fix the problem because we did not go far enough. and you are doing the exact same thing again. if you want the postal service to survive, give them the

ability to make the decisions they need to make to survive. let them go to a five-day delivery and let them have the flexibility to open and close facilities that they know need to be opened or closed. anything short of that does not mean it will not help. it will help. but it will get right back here. if we want them to be able to compete in the market, give them the tools to do so, and the management and authority to succeed. and that does not mean that they do not have a great relationship with their contracts, and it does not mean that they can't skimp on things. but we are keeping them from making the critical decisions that they need to in order to survive. >> the postal reform of 2006, which was actually a substantial accomplishment, but something

else happened. e-mail took off and the postal service has seen a volume of mail drop 22% in the last three years. most of that is due to the activity of the e-mail. some of it is as a result of the bad economy. i think postal reform would have achieved more if it was not for the changes in the environment. i think we are giving a lot more authority to the post office -- the postmaster then in the -- a van in the earlier bill, and i think he will use it. senator mccain? >> i have to say, it was predicted that the male and other forms -- that e-mail and

other forms of communication would be on the rise. it did not surprise some of us. the problem is, we are seeing an industry that was incredibly important for americans to be able to communicate with one another for a couple of centuries that now is being taken over by technology the same way that the horse and buggy business was taken over by the automobile, the same way the bridal business went out of business. we are seeing technology and communications that no longer require the use of the postal service. the only way the postal service is going to survive is to adjust to the times and be able to make the decisions that every other industry in america had to make as we go to this new technology and information technology that has changed america. it has given rise to dramatically new industries, such as google and facebook and

all of the other things. these things were major factors in the arab spring. to somehow place into law prohibitions for this industry to make the necessary moves to survive, and even thrive -- because there is certainly a role for the postal service in the 21st century, but it is not the old world. when you say they cannot go to five days a week and you cannot close facilities, you are preventing them from keeping up with the 21st century. i appreciate the 2006 reforms that were made, but the predictions of the time -- and i will be glad to get you the congressional record -- were that we would never need to address this issue again. well, here we are.

i am trying to help the postal service. i am trying to help them make the decisions that every major industry in america is making today to adjust to the new information age. and when you put into law that they cannot make those decisions, is there anybody that believes they would not save money by going to a five-day work week? can't they decide whether that is best for the few short of the postal service? or do we in -- for the future of the postal service? or do we, in our wisdom, say, no, you have to continue delivering mail on saturday? what is $3 tax to most americans, is a fairly sizeable sum -- what is $3 billion tax to most americans, that is a fairly sizeable -- what is $3 billion?

to most americans, that is a fairly sizeable sum. the postal service has to, as i say, adopt to changing to the times. again, to make my point, the average household 10 years ago received by pieces of mail a day. it now gets four pieces of mail today and by 2020, three pieces of mail per day. total mail volume is down from 46 billion pieces since its peak in 2006. first-class mail volume will be 50% off its feet by the year 2020. the mail volume is declining because of the permanent shift to e commerce. let the postal service recognize

that and make the necessary adjustments. that is what the president of the united states wants to do. as usual, i am on the side of the president of the united states. [laughter] half the postal service is involved in the delivery and 80% of the costs are for pay and benefits. again, the u.s. estimate is $30 billion over 10 years. the gao, an organization that we use with incredible regularity and frequency and has more, frankly, credibility than any other organ as ossian in washington today -- organization in washington today said in a report, moving to a five-day workweek would increase efficiency and better align its delivery operations which

reduced mail volumes. i would point out that the postal service's plan has a number of steps designed to extend service as much as possible, key post offices open on saturday, and deliver to post offices in volume on saturday, and deliver express mail each week. i go to town hall meetings all the time and not one town hall meeting where i have been has been a priority to keep saturday mail delivery. it has been about the fact that we continue to tax and spend and borrow. taxpayers in america are on the hook for the postal service, as we all know, in a variety of ways. i hope my colleagues would vote to read these to give the postal service the flexibility to do what is necessary to get back on the path to fiscal stability in

very difficult circumstances, and in light of a rapidly changing technology. by the way, i just got one of these new phones. >> i know cindy, and i think she would like to get a note from you, a handwritten note. [laughter] >> thank you, pal. could i ask for consideration of amendment no. 5, which is five- day mail delivery. >> yes, you may. let me respond briefly. to clarify, senator mccain, this would authorize -- >> mr. chairman, could i interrupt? is it possible for me to speak

out of order? we are doing markup on the transportation bill and i need to go vote. >> go right ahead. >> let me remind my friends what i said earlier. , thethe auto industry com postal service is a neighbor is similar situation. they need to be able to right- size. while we share their goals, the way that we get there is different. i understand that from the legislation it would allow for of labor contract negotiations. it also sets up a blacklist for closing post office locations. we have been strong supporters over the years, but we

do not need a brac-like structured to figure out how to close post offices and other stores. we do not need them to decide they do not need a 50 dawson dollar post -- $50,000 post office. here is what we need to do. we need to come up with savings, of roughly $20 billion a year, for the postal service. if you have not figured out the tools here, the flexibility we provide, if you have not gotten there within two years, you can go from six days to five days. that is it. i think that is a pretty smart approach.

as i said earlier, it gives labor and management the opportunity to see if they can do what those in the auto industry did, and that is, negotiate a deferred wage structure not just to maintain business in this country -- negotiate a different wage structure and not just to maintain business in this country, but to grow it. it is a huge thing, and i'm still getting my arms and my head are rounded as well. but i think when you get your head around it and i'll let -- and let the postal service do what they need to do, i think you will feel a lot better about this. >> the senator carper, come back soon. very briefly i will post senator mccain's amendment, amendment no. 5. i must say that personally before we begin these

negotiations, we should go to the five-day delivery right away. after some discussion, i found there were a some disadvantage to that five-day delivery. from what i understand, we are going to five-day delivery after two years, unless the postal service can reach the level of savings without it that is their role. i'm doubtful that they can do that without going to five-day delivery. to me, this is easing into something that we will probably have to do in the end. it is a reasonable compromise. is there any further discussion? >> well, let me just say that is there any argument that we could save $3 billion a year? is there any argument that the president believes this is the way to go? is there any argument that the postal service believes this is the way to go?

so, let's kick the can down the road for a couple of years. >> senator collins. >> the regulatory commission did an in-depth review of this issue and challenge the postal service's $3 billion estimate. they found the savings were much less than the postal service had anticipated, and they also found that doing away with six-day delivery would have a disproportionate impact on rural americans who do not have access to broadband services. in fact, there is a counter analysis from the regulator, from the postal regulatory commission. they also warned that it would cause a decrease in volume for the postal service, as the advertisers, newspapers, and

other companies sought other means of delivering their notices on saturday. >> further debate, senator john syndex >> let me chime in here. -- senator johnson? >> lumley time in here. the postal service is already competing with the process. we need to make sure that we have excellent management in the post office, people that know how to compete in the private sector. and we need to give those managers the ultimate flexibility. if we try to micromanage from congress, i do not think that is going to work. as i read this amendment, it says that it will allow the postal service to choose. that is the kind of flexibility we need to give those managers in recognizing the fact of we are down from over 200 billion

pieces of mail per year to 167 billion. we are designed to handle 300 billion pieces of mail and we are at half that level right now. we have to give them the flexibility to right-size their organizations to they can compete with the private sector. we should give them the flexibility to allow them to compete with the private sector affectively. >> i guess i just have a question, a broad question. maybe this evolves around the discussion today. i do not have a clear understanding of the role of the postal service. it the arguments that senator coburn and senator mccain and senator johnson make, if people came to be in the private sector and i was talking about what senator carper was talking about with general motors and ford, it is not my job to

decide about their ability to compete. that is for the private sector to decide and government ought not to get involved. but my question is this -- is there something different about the postal service? is this not a function of the government to deliver the mail? and is there not some role for congress to play in determining what the basic standard should be? or is this just a private-sector issue that we turn it over to the postal service and let them decide? i know my answer to that when i'm dealing with the private sector, but this is a bit of a hybrid for may. decisions were made that the private -- that the post office was supposed to be self- sufficient, and if that is the case, then i guess they make the

decisions. but is there something unique about the postal service that says we do determine a role senate. >> it is an important statement. >> it is established in the constitution >> there was an attempt at an earlier reform to make it caused by public and create a certain independence. but its interaction with both the federal government as being part of the federal employees,

etc., is deep. it is just a fact. the mill has undercut the volume. -- email has undercut the volume. but there people who depend on the mail. even though the volume has been going down, our population has been going up and the post office has to deliver to more and more people. maybe somebody wants to change this, but we have given it by law and derived from the constitution a very unique responsibility, which is universal service. that is a big responsibility. it has been deemed over our history to be very important. we will deliver the mail to you, the post office will deliver the mail to you wherever you are in the country whether or not it is

profitable, whether or not it makes sense. if you have a certain sense of uncertainty about it, it is just because it is certainly not a private corporation. it is not totally a public function, but it is more public than private. like the rest of our government, we're trying to get it back into fiscal governments. otherwise, it will go under. -- fiscal governance. otherwise, it will go under. >> so we allow them go back to five-day delivery -- if that does not gwork, then we will go to something else. i'm trying to figure out what the rose for the congress. >> i think that we all are. it is a very important principle

that the post over -- the postal service will provide mail to anyone in this country where ever they live and we're trying to do it in the most cost- effective way we possibly can. >> am i allowed to respond? >> will you yield? >> the reason why the post office is in difficulty today is because of competition from the private sector. they are why they are experiencing these massive deficits. they want to continue to be able to serve. they know that there has to be savings and efficiencies enacted because of the overwhelming deficits that they are running. by the way, less and less real

mail is being delivered and more and more junk mail is being delivered by the post office. more and more people are using these devices rather than sitting down and writing a letter. so the postal service itself has said that they can be more efficient, they can get on a path towards less and less cost to the taxpayers of america if they go to a five-day delivery. i am sure there are people who believe that it was the obligation of the government to bail out the horse and buggy industry when automobiles were invented. we are in a year of changing technology. if you think that it is the government's responsibility to stick with mass communication

and you think that is the obligation of government -- i do not. i do not think the taxpayers should be on the hook between -- for $1.1 billion annual because we will stick with six-day postal service delivery. as you said, it is a question over what you believe the role of government is in our society. if you think it is to maintain six-day delivery no matter what, no matter what decline in mail delivery goes on, whether it is necessary, fine. that is obvious how you will vote. >> we are at the fundamentals here and it is important discussion. the question now is on the mccain amendment no. 5. >> senator 11.

>> no. >> know. >> senator carver. >> know by proxy. >> senator pryor. >> no. >> senator mccaskill. >> senator collins. >> no. >> senator brown. >> senator mccain. >> aye. >> senator paul. >> yes. >> senator marin. >> no. >> senator lieberman. >> no. >> on the vote of those present, the yaes are five and the nays are twelve.

>> to strike title three regarding fica reform. let me tell you why i am offering this. fica reform should not be done in postal reform. most employees affected by this are not postal employees and the savings expected from the exchange will have very little effect on the postal service's deficit. fica has not been reforming close to 40 years. we need to look at comprehensive reform to make sure we get it right and we could include

adequate measures to reduce waste and fraud. there are complex issues related to the appropriate benefit levels that deserve more analysis before we cut benefits. in a hearing held in july, the witnesses raised serious concerns with reducing fica benefits, particularly at retirement age. employees may not be able to say for a deduction in income because of social security and other savings plan. a group of members in the house education which has jurisdiction on fica and the house, they are reviewing retirement age benefits to determine fair

benefit amounts. include a review in state workers' comp program, which could prompt changes to the federal program. if we act prematurely, we may fixed benefit levels too low, harming, disabling employees and even too high. we must make sure not to make arbitrary cuts to benefits that could harm employees disabled by ailments sustained in serving their country. elderly disabled employees, if we pass this section as part of postal reform, it also will

create jurisdictional problems in the house where all of a sudden the government reform is part of postal governance. it will also benefit from the input of house education and workforce committee staff who have been focusing on this issue. these are reasons why i am asking that the strike it. mr. chairman, i offer the amendment no. 1. >> thank you. interestingly, the administration through the the thent of labor felt

amendment was moving so well. employees for workers' compensation, this particular provision for this legislation relates to all federal employees, not just to employees of the postal service. this is numerically justified because -- this is one of the ways in which the postal service is cause i separation because the independent and a -- this is one of the ways in which the postal service is q uasi-independent. it happens to be responsible for 40% of the caseload.

senator collins will note for the record that we feel that the program now needs tightening. it is more generous than we can afford. i think we have done it in a way that does not fall below the standard of those workers compensation programs in america, including most states. and we will save some money. thank you for your leadership on this one. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to point out that their reason that this is a government-wide reform is that the director >> of the obama administration -- the direct request of the obama administration, the largest number of works when comp claims are made here. the obama administration argues that they do not want to

treat postal workers differently from other federal employees. so that is the rationale for why it applies across the board. we have needed workers' comp reform in the federal system for many years. that has been documented by countless ig reports. there is a gao investigation going on right now. each time you take a fraudulent case off of the roles, it saves between $300 dollars -- $300,000 and $500,000.

there are real inequities between postal workers and other federal workers who have lived their whole lives and then retire and get a lesser benefit than someone who stays on workers' comp, past retirement age, and is able to get a higher benefit that is tax-free. that is why the vast majority of states do not allow this. i would note to my colleagues and friends from hawaii that the percentage of 66 and two-thirds that we're proposing in the law is identical to percentage that is paid for benefits in hawaii and 39 other states. so these are not draconian changes. many of them, nine of the sub changes, are identical to what

was proposed by the obama administration. since then no there was a letter that was circulated this morning as an example of a person whom the senator was concerned about, would be somehow treated unfairly, under the provisions of our bill, the prison guard case that you circulate, this person would be grandfathered and would see no reductions in benefits whatsoever. so we worked very hard to come up with a fair approach. this involves substantial money. the postal service would strongly support this changes. it pays out more than $1 billion each year for workers' comp claims. we need better programs to rehabilitate people and get them

back to work. that should be our goal, to help people be out for the shortest possible time and to help them get the recovery and the rehabilitation that they need so that they can return to work. that is what our bill does. i think it is important that we enacted so i propose the amendment. >> what with the savings be of the $1 billion a year? >> the estimate is that it would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars across the board. i am sorry, hundreds of millions of dollars. i cannot believe i said hundreds of thousands. [laughter] no wonder you looked at me like that.

each person that you can return , the long-term savings are between $300,000 and $500,000. >> who is grandfathered? >> we would grandfather totally people who are currently on the rolls who are totally disabled and have what is called a permanent total disability. so there would be no change. >> what percentage currently of people on the roles could be grandfathered? >> about a quarter of the people on the rolls. i also wanted to know that president obama's proposal, which of which we have inc.,

the omb says it will save $500 million in 10 years. >> $500 million over 10 years. >> that was the obama administration's estimate for across-the-board savings. >> we actually believe that this proposal will save more than that. although, it has not been fun nationally -- it has not been financially estimated. we're giving something to the super committee as it works in striking a balance. >> keep in mind that the postal employees are proportionally represented in that pool. that is why there are more savings that would accrue to

the postal service. >> further debate? senator carpenter, would you like to respond? >> in the case of reductions at retirement age, i find that 30 states do not have any reduction at retirement age. but there are complex issues related to the appropriate benefit level that should be analyzed before we act. while there was discussion of workmen's comp during the day in 2006, since that time, this committee has not considered a single bill on workers' compensation reform, nor have there been any hearings on workmen's compensation until the

hearing that was held this july where i was the only member that participated. there are three different reports pending that would help changes to fica. they're looking at the precise questions regarding benefit levels. it is time to work with you and with the committee and were gone workmen's compensation reform. but we cannot hold all the survival of the postal service

hostage on workmen's compensation changes. the benefit levels too low for disabled members and we should be cautious not to make arbitrary cuts that could hurt those who are permanently disabled in the service of this country. >> just three quick points. the inspector general of the department of labor has reviewed this program every single year since 2002. it has said that these reforms,

that reforming the system is needed. second, the reason that states do not have a retirement problem for what to do when a person reaches retirement age is that the vast majority stay and limit the number of weeks that they can receive workmen's comp. it is very rare for someone to reach retirement age. there is a weekly limit that we do not have been the federal system and we're not proposing one. finally, the treatment for people over retirement age for renew people who are coming into the system when they reach retirement age in this bill is identical to the proposal of president obama. so this is not just a republican idea. it is the president's proposal.

>> president obama is getting a lot of bipartisan support this morning. [laughter] >> it is very heartening. >> the department of labor has an admitted that the changes to benefit amounts in their proposal is somewhat arbitrary. round numbers based on rough calculations. oddly, the basis to determine what elderly disabled people will have to live on for the rest of their lives. as i mentioned, gao has a bipartisan request pending to look at retirement age to determine benefit amounts. this is in response to the administration's proposal. it is not clear that there's contains responsible changes to benefits. we simply do not have the

information we need to decide the fair benefit levels. i think what we're doing is premature and offer this amendment. >> thank you. would you like a roll call vote on this? >> yes. >> the clerk will call the roll on the amendment no. 1. >> senator a cauc akaka. >> yes. >> senator lender. >> no instruction. >> senator tester. >> yes. >> senator collins. >> no. >> senator coburn. >> know by proxy. >> senator mccain.

>> know by proxy. >> senator johnson. >> jo. >> senator paul. >> no. >> senator marin. no. >> senator maryanlieberman. >> no. -- on this vote, the yeas are 5 and the nays are 11 and the amendment does not pass. >> thank you. i think you'll go to senator johnson and then mccaskill then paul. they all have amendments pending. senator johnston, your up next. >> i would like to offer johnson

amendment no. 1 and only. like my colleague from kansas, i am new to this process. as i studied the issue, this is an eye-popping chart that gao should study back in 2010. when you total live up to the year 2020, it ends up being $250 billion. it is a quasi-governmental agency, but we will be on the hook for those. my amendment recognizes my concern about the $6.9 billion referred to as an overpayment. i think the overpayment is primarily the result of the recalculation based on actuarial functions, which can change. when you take at -- when you

take a look at an overpayment in a pension fund, i like that there is a question there, particularly with growing concerns like the u.s. postal service light it does not. you want to make sure that those retirement systems are properly funded and have a little bit of a surplus. the fact that we're trying to -- other than the fact that we're trying to spend the surplus. my amendment would allow the postal service to offer up to 1- year service for individuals in the civil service retirement system and, of the two years for encouraging retirement. i understand the rationale to use retirement to reduce the workforce. but we're spending a retirement surplus, which would be a good buffer. i think we passed out a sheet. we went to the office of personnel management to receive

what kinds of cases could potentially result in. the range is eye-popping. according to this sheet, it could be as low -- as low was a $6,000 benefit and as high as two hundred $80,000 benefit to an individual. i just do not think that, in the time that we are running $1 trillion deficits and the postal service is looking at a 10-year annual deficit that we should be offering something that is unprecedented. office of personnel management has stated that this is an unprecedented payout to individuals and it could unfortunately act as an incentive to a future areas where we are trying to reduce the government work force to handle it the exact same way. that is why i offer my amendment and i would urge people to support it. >> thank you. i appreciate the amendment.

obviously, one of the major responsibilities that the postal service has now is, by necessity, to reduce the level of employment. 80% of the cost is personnel. it is much higher than fedex and ups. but this is a different kind of institution and it has the requirement of universal service. it does need more personnel. in fact, the network that it has to deliver to the so-called mile" is a benefit so great that others purchase of the services of the u.s. postal service for the delivery of that last mile. unions have actually cooperated

with some significant reductions in workforce. but we need more. there have been some suggestions that we should legislate to override existing contracts, collective bargaining agreements, to allow in voluntary departures from the postal service. but we thought that that was not a fair thing to do. working with the postmaster general, we create this system of incentives, basically a bonus to retire of not more than $25,000 and not at the request of the postmaster to add "either/or" for those eligible for retirement and savings will be enormous.

as you say, it does mean that it should be spent. the estimates are that this program to cut the workforce of the postal service by an additional 100,000 employees will probably consume about a third, maybe less, a third of the money of the refund from the first pension system. there will still be two-thirds of that as a cushion. cost-effective over the long run was to except the suggestion -- was to accept the suggestion of encouraging people to retire and the savings will be much greater than what they cost. i appreciate your point.

they are thoughtful and i respectfully vote for the reasons i have stated. >> as the chairman of the new sheet -- the other negotiators, it was a far more generous proposal that was originally proposed to us. that is why we kept it at one year, service credit for the c srs program and two years for the first program. keep in mind that the postmaster general will determine what is offered within the confines of a set of money. the postmaster general has told us that he believes that it will

be approximately $1.7 billion that would be used for the buyout program to reduce the total workforce by almost 20%. he is talking about 100,000 to 110,000 employees. i felt giving him this limited flexibility makes sense because we have essentially a tap on the program as a whole. i will also note that crs ran the numbers and had a different result then you have come up with. i know you're sort of opm and take a worst-case scenario, but one that could happen. i hope before we go to the floor that we can try to reconcile why crs comes up with a different number than opm does. >> thank you, senator kaulitz.

>> i am sorry. one other point. -- senator collins. >> i am sorry. one other point. >> go ahead. >> in some cases, the credit would not exceed the monetary pet, which is capped at $25,000. >> is that something we can work towards, a $25,000 total compensation cap? i think you were referring to the cash payout versus the service payout, which could be quite higher, correct? >> yes. >> let me just stojump in here. the bonus payments that might be offered and the credit service, neither of those should be more than $25,000? you can only have one.

employees have to decide whether they will get the cash payment or the credit services. we can make it clear that you cannot take both their either one cannot exceed $25,000. >> that is not the information i have. i would feel better that it was capped at $25,000 whichever way you do it. >> senator johnson, i think we should continue to work on this. we did limit -- you are right, we limited the service credit to one year of credit if you're in the c.s. irs -- the csrs system. we will continue to work on it because there was a general understanding that this was an either/or and that the net financial effect would be the same. that is the limit of $25,000.

if not, you should be open about that and make a judgment that it is worth it or it is not. it will leave it to you if you want to go forward with a vote in any case. but i think you raise a good point. >> if you're willing to work with me before it comes upon the floor, that is fine. we can vote on it and just work toward making sure there is a cap. >> if for some reason we do not reach an agreement, then you are free to introduce an amendment on 4. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> -- an amendment on the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would like to ask a couple of questions. i have two amendments.

first, on amendment no. 2, the issue of comparable compensation, i want a little discussion from whoever on how to arbored great a deal on the wage issues -- to arbitrate a deal on the wage issues. the issue for me and i can only speak as a former mayor who negotiated contracts and someone who was on the other side, a legislator, who does not work for city bankers. i have been on both sides. here's what can happen with a large organization like this.

the demonstrators take studies that are developed on a mass scale which have a sizable amount of small businesses which they then tried to compare to something of this magnitude, which is very problematic. or they take industries of non- like industries and compare them. help me understand what the product -- the thought process is behind it. what is the thinking behind it? when i was on the management and, we made sure that we compared like to like. we did not include small businesses because they are just not the same kind of compensation packages that you can prepare when you're going to an arbitration. does my question make sense? >> know, next question. [laughter]

>> in that -- no, next question. >> [laughter] >> in that case, i have amendment no. 2. >> the folks from labor may say that we think the patient be comparable to pay for fire, for police, for first responders, maybe for the construction industry. folks on the management side can agree or they can say, well, not really. maybe think -- maybe we think is to be more like on the retail side. there may be an argument as to whether or not the work is comparable. at the end of the day, they changed sides given the output

from both camps. i presume that there is some kind of case history. of course they have that sort of thing. maybe they have some case history that builds up over time. but that is the way that i am told that it works. >> part of my conversation is that i want to be on the record. i could probably dispense with both of these potentially. >> go ahead. >> i want to make sure that we're clear that the process you laydown will develop over time and we have to be very careful when we are in the process that management does not pick -- again, i was an assembly member who dealt with a mayor who picked small businesses that paid no benefits and said that this is with the private sector pays, which is totally

irresponsible in building pay packages. that is what i see in the building of this and i want to put that on the record. amendment no. 1, this is much trouble with this one. it is very broad the way it is written in the current bill. but me read you something and then get a response from both. in the municipal law that we drafted -- there is to ways to do this. you leave it kind of broad and hope that there recognize these other things. this is how we did it in the city and had long term success. there will have power to determine all adequate fax, the facts.s -- adequate back it to the drafters of this, do you

see that as a piece of how you see this broader discussion of how an arbitrator reviewed items in determining the outcome of wages and benefits? >> go ahead. >> can i ask you what you were reading from? >> what i read was what we did in the municipal code in our labor law. when it went to arbitration, the big debate was what is included and what is not included. what we want to be -- what we want to do is being somewhat prescriptive. the with the bill as written, it is kind of broad so an arbitrator can select. are these the kinds of things you envision, not limited to, that the arbitrator would utilize in the determination of wage and benefits.

if that is the thought process behind the language, i want to make sure that that is on record. if it does not, then it is problematic. these are the kinds of things that we now have i have negotiated in my time nine different union contracts. we were to avert -- we worked over 20 union contracts over a 20-year spread. i want to know what are the benefits behind the language. >> if we go back 41 years when your predecessor was involved, one of the reasons that the postal service was created is

that the pagwage benefits was na good thing. the wages were lousy and the benefits for a lousy. people called in sick and it was not a good situation. we decided to move from the old system to a postal service, which was designed in professionalizing it and paying people decent wages. there is a line that says we cannot go back prior to 1970. looking at the language before us in the bill today on arbitration says that -- we are looking and another two hundred billion dollars if we do not that the arbitrator has to consider the position of the

postal service. we are talking about the compatability. both sides have the opportunity and then the arbitrator decides on a case-by-case basis. title 39 is pretty broad and lays out how the postal service will operate all kinds of different ways. it basically says that not only is the financial condition of the post of party -- of the postal service is part and parcel, but the benefits situation is on the table. looking at turning -- a title 39, broad as it is, it is a lot.

>> if i can just quickly respond, it is a good question. the language in our proposal, we went over a fair amount. of it is thating i it broadens the authority of the arbitrer on a wider array of factors that are relevant to arbitration. and then we site 3. the final condition of the postal service, pay comparable it, and everything in title 39 of the u.s. code which relates to the personal service -- to the postal service. it is different from your amendment. five understand what you're getting at. your amendment says that nothing in the settlement construe the factors in rendering a decision. to me, that's as they can go

beyond relevant factors. so the wording of our proposal is "in rendering a decision, the arbitration board shall consider such relevant factors as" and then it mentions the three. it is not limited to those three. it tells you the difference between the language and the substitute before the committee and your amendment is the word "relevant," that factors have to be relevant to the arbitration. >> let me give you a scenario to make sure, again. let's assume they are at a point where they are in a hard position financially, worse than today. a contract goes through negotiations and the arbitrator

says they deserve these pay adjustments upward. and you -- and yet the post office may not have the full resources. does your language say that that takes precedent over the other component, which is the compensation. do you follow me? like today, if an arbiter look at it and said that is the predominant decision on the financial condition versus the compensation of the employee, now you have a significant conflict. it if -- if it is driven by this, i can tell you what will happen. i have seen it. people will drive this number in order to win over a year. i want to make sure there is some equity in recognizing the forces of management to manage,

not just to put on the backs of employees. do you follow where i am going? >> -understanding is that those three items that we site, those relevant factors, are not exclusive. >> they are not limiting. >> they are not -- all relevant factors. one does not preempt the other. we mentioned financial condition of the postal service as one because we want to make clear we believe that that is something that the arbitration board should consider. the postmaster has said to was that, in his understanding, the arbitrator is already considering the fiscal condition of the postal service in their arbitrations -- not that it is a good thing to stated, but i tend to think that to be more important than the other two examples given. that is a personal expression of what my intentions are.

>> the original bill that i had introduced only had financial status of the postal service. to address concerns that you and some of the postal employees unions raised, we made clear the comparability was also a standard. that is important because of their work arbitrators' decisions on both sides of that issue. so now that that is in law, it is clear. rper wantednator car pe to make it more clear with any of the issues in total 39 also considered. where i started out, this is far, far broader.

it represents a considerable compromise. because it clarify is conflicting findings in previous arbitration, i think it does accomplish some of the goals that you have outlined. >> mr. chairman. >> yes, senator 11. >> i think what he is driving at and can be clarified by putting into this language what you, mr. chairman, just said, that it is not limited to these relevant .actors no apparen any relevant factor can be considered. the arbitration board shall consider any relevant factor, including these three. i think that is what you said. i think that would address his point. and from what senator collins

said, i am not quite as sure about making this statement. >> senator levin, read it again. >> i apologize. >> yes, this is technical stuff. in rendering a decision under this paragraph, this is the way the current wording of the bill is "the arbitration board shall consider such relevant factors the senatort i think senato said and with the chairman said is intended is that "shall consider any relevant factor," including those three. back to the debate over "including." >> are there any other relevant

factors that the chairman said beyond these three? if so, they ought to be considered. >> i do not think of any. the reference to all of title 39 leaves it quite broad. the reason why we put the word "relevant" in is so that in normal arbitrator would not go too far afield. >> another way to cure it is if the senator would be willing to put the word "relevant" in front of the word "factors" in his amendment so that it will not be construed to mean the relevant factors of arbitration will be taken into consideration to render a decision. >> my understanding of your amendment is that you are not striking our language, but you are adding yours. >> i want as much clarification

because here is what i will say if i am postmaster general, in arbitration. the senate and the house said the these are the only relevant issues. >> he has the word "relevant" rick they are. >> i would like to give time to the folks you're drafted -- >> can i ask your question? would that be adequate for you, if the word "relevant" would be put in front? >> i agree with what you said. here are three and then 39 covers a lot of area, which does not bother me. but i want to keep this show moving. >> i think senator kaulitz mike -- >> yes, yes.

>> you want more time. >> can we do that? >> yes, come back this afternoon. we can handle it by then. if not, we will see where we are. it is an important discussion provide i think it will clarify intention and that would be important. i am sorry, but i have to go to senator paul. [laughter] i am not sorry to go to you, senator paul. [laughter] >> thank you, and move it along. this is a man and no. 1 and this would provide flexibility in mailbox usage. this will grant the individual who owns the house and mailbox that would go with the decision of the owner of the property on how to use the mail box. it will allow you to use your mail box as you see fit.

if you bought it and paid for it, you can do with it what you wish. >> say a little bit more about what your intention is here. [laughter] >> what are you up to? >> i guess it goes back to magna card and 1218 and we will start there. [laughter] i think it was article 57 of the that anyone would not be deprived of their property without just then due process. i think the anomaly of the conflict of the concept that you own your property but you do not owner mailbox. >> am i correct in saying that

one result of the passage of this amendment would be that alternative delivery service can use the mail box? >> back in the old days, back in the 1970's, people would destroy the post office because you would have first class mail as such a great thing to have. it does not seem that first class mail is all the possible. it would solidify and codify the idea that private property is private property and that the individual has the right to exercise the decisions on how to use private property. >> here is part of a problem that i see with this. you are reviewing it from the point of view of property, but the effect of the passage of this amendment would be to

further hurt, may be crippled the finances of the post office. one result would be that private operations, which in some sense are trying to supplant the postal service, could basically a cherry pick the most lucrative routes and services and a private postal service, which as you said earlier, is bound by the constitutional, legal, statutory requirement of universal delivery, no matter where you live, and make it harder for the post office -- the postal service to survive financially. it also leads to an -- and also lead to an increase in rates paid by citizens in the mail paid by the soap -- the

postal service. >> i do not think this changes the laws, but i do want into the record that you are opposing article 57 of the magna carta. [laughter] >> i'm not sure the united states constitution would establish this. >> it is interesting that the mail was part of the constitution, but it did not say in the constitution that your mailbox did not belong to you and you could not decide who could put things in your mailbox. it does go against the grain of the usage of private property. it illustrates the point and that is why i brought it forward. let people buy the house and decide where you stand. >> is their discussion? >> mr. chairman, i agree with your concerns. i think what would happen, particularly in urban areas, is

that alternative carriers would do all of these less-expensive routes and the rural areas would be left to the postal service. that inevitably would do -- would cause a decline in volume and inevitably would cause an increase in rates. i do not think this is a good idea. i hope we will oppose the amendment. >> i think that might have been true in the 1970's and 1980's when anybody thought they could make money doing this. i do not think anybody thinks they can anymore. it is probably impossible to make money at 47 cents. but even though we have the prescription at the mailbox, i get fedex thrown on my doorstep they bring the doorbell and they are gone, whether i am there are not. i do not think any one of them will compete at 47 cents. they might compete at a three

day or four day deliveries. this is more about the philosophy of private property then it is about -- i do not think it would change anything. i do not think anyone wants to get into first-class mail delivery. i do not think it is probable. >> would you like a couple called? -- i do not think it is profitable. >> would you like a roll call? >> yes. >> i would pejoratively say the argument here is whether you live like to stand by our own constitution, or some other document. [laughter] >> which by the way, discriminates against women. [laughter] >> the some might argue that the constitution would somehow derived -- [laughter] >> toomey, more seriously, this amendment raises the financial risk at a perilous time financially for the post office.

the clerk will call the world. >> senator levin. >> no. >> senator a kupka. >> no. >> senator carper. >> no. >> the senator dreier. >> know. -- no. >> ok, no instruction. >> senator mccaskill. to say nong instruction. maybe will pass until we have clarity about the proxy's. i do not want to answer for a colleague without them being here. >> the senator webb tester. >> we are going to pass again. the senator has a no vote.

>> centre baggage. >> no. >> senator collins. >> no. >> senator coburn. >> know by proxy. >> senator brown. >> know by proxy. >> senator mccain. >> i by proxy. the -- i, by proxy. -- aye, by proxy. >> senator maryann. >> aye. >> senator lieberman. >> no. >> ask the court -- the clerk to go back to the senators we ask? senator mccaskill is no by proxy. >> and senator brown just appeared, so rather than his voting by proxy -- >> no.

>> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are two, the nays are 7. on a vote of by proxy, the gays are four, -- the yeas are four and the nays are four. >> senator pryor. >> i think senator landrieu wanted it did -- it to be noted napoleonicoted by cod code. [laughter] maybe we have not passed one yet. maybe mine will be non- controversial deal. i would like to ask the senator mccaskill be added as a co- sponsor.

>> this is which one? >> amendment no. 2. >> ok, amendment no. 2. >> what is says is whenever the postal regulatory commission makes recommendations through their advisory process that the postal service would have to respond in writing and say how they are implementing the recommendations, or if they are not, why they are not implementing those recommendations. i think this is high -- this has been an issue over the years that the prc will make recommendations, but oftentimes, the postal service just ignores them. this is more transparency and accountability. i do not think we need a roll- call vote. >> did you put this as a straightforward amendment? >> i did. >> i support this. >> thank you.

>> further discussion? >> it would also be appropriate for the prc to be giving answers to the postal service at times as well. i do not have enough time to go through the history of that and try to amend your amendment, but it is true for the postal service. what is accurately set forth need to be true for the postal rate commission and the things that they are responding to when they do not think the postal service makes decisions. i will just make that a comment and support your amendment. >> thank you, senator levin. for the discussion? if not, all in favor? those opposed? the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. senator mariann. -- moran. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i have one amendment and it deals with rural post offices. the reality, i suppose, is there are some post offices that have

outlived their usefulness, their viability. but the reality is that others have not. i have yet to see the criteria by which the postal service reaches a conclusion as to which which ones remain viable and which ones do not. the postal service announced this year but the potential closing of 3700 post offices. 134 are in a state of kansas. a significant number, but probably not in ordinate compared to other numbers in the senate. we have attended, staff of mine, have attended 90 of those closing mean-spirited i cannot think of an instance in which any member of the community -- of those closings. i cannot think of an incident in which any member of the committee goes to those meetings and comes to it -- comes away with an idea of a plan in place as to why their post office was

chosen, or as to anything the community can do about it. it seems to me we have the postal service going to the motions of conducting these meetings and explain to a community that their post offices on the list, for whatever reasons that representative explains. and almost without exception, whate is no answer as to wh someone can do about there is no answer. this amendment creates a set of criteria that the postal service must use in conjunction with the postal rate commission. it sets out the criteria that the postal service should content -- consider as the basic services. and perhaps, it goes to the question i was reading earlier

-- is there not some standard by which we would expect the postal service to provide to americans across the country, perhaps in a number of days, but in this case communities, rural versus suburban, what the standard should we have four basic minimum service? at this -- and this speaks to those national retail standards and take into account those four things in my geography, proximity of the postal service to customers, and the maximum amount of time and customer should be expected to travel, the population factors, density, age, demographics, requirements to serve rural areas such as alaska or hawaii that may have needed regard to transportation. and to make sure that the postal

service looks at available retail areas that are in the areas served by the postal service, again, in the nature of the community. many constituents of mine will attend one of these meetings and come away wondering why our town was chosen and not a town down the road. 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 to then appeal that decision based upon the criteria to the postal rate commission. in addition, 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 therefore fewer hours and during the workday -- vera for fewer hours during the workday.

the concept that is out there for co-locating with a local school or restaurant or a grocery store, in order, again, to save costs. and finally, this amendment -- that is the nature of the amendment and i would indicate the effective date of this amendment is upon enactment. and the language of the amendment, and therefore the language if adopted would say it applies to post office is currently under consideration. they would become subject to the criteria we have now created. in my view, it is a pretty straightforward -- created transparent process, determine what levels of service are to be expected, determine what a post office in a community meet those standards, give the community a chance to disagree, and have a

more independent agency determine whether or not the postal service has followed that procedure. >> thank you, senator, for all of your work on this amendment. senator brown. >> in response to the self- proclaimed new guy, thank you for your thoughtful amendment. it is something that we wrestled with for many hours to try to get a good compromise because it is not the first time we have heard it. i think it has affected every senator in congress in their states. obviously, i think you have more than most. it is certainly something i agree with. i think a bipartisan members of the commission agreed and ask it would be taken up. do you need a role call? >> i would ask for one. >> i want to thank you for the work you did on this. i think is a good amendment and i'm going to support it.

the postal service has a lot of post offices, more probably than it can afford now. one of the numbers i have seen about the postal service that startles me is that it has more retail outlets, if you can put it that way, then starbucks, wal-mart, and mcdonald's combined. we have got to close some post offices. i have been through this a few times in connecticut, and here again, this is not a typical business. there was one case in a small town years and years ago where the postal service here in washington tried to close the post office and on a shirt -- a sheer numbers basis, they were right. but that little post office was not only important to the businesses and the people in town, but there was also a sense that it had become a community

center. people would go down and pick up the mail, they would chat. it is very difficult to close post offices, but it is necessary to do that now. and i want to stay for the record -- senator mccain said something earlier, which is that this bill will stop the closing of post offices by the postal service's, and it will not. including with your amendment, it creates what i would say are some of plummet -- are some thoughtful due process for closing the post offices. and i think it would be good instead of closing a post office to consider reducing the number of hours or services, or providing services through a

rural carrier. i think this is a very balanced amendment. theoesn't, in the end, stop postmaster from doing what it thinks is necessary to keep the post office is going, but it creates some reasonable due process before post offices are closed. i support the amendment and thank you for the amendment. >> first, let me commend the senator for his work on this amendment and what he has tried to do. i have one question, and that is if you referenced the appeal to the regular tour commission. where is that? >> i'm sorry. senator paul was visiting with me about the magna carta. [laughter] >> i do not want to miss the recommendation because i think this is a very important piece of work and i think you are on track to reaching an important point. where is the reference to the

appeal to the prc? what page or line is that on? >> answer forthcoming. >> ok. >> i believe that has to do with the service stanozol -- service standards. >> the staff is kind enough to tell me that anytime the service standard is violated if there is a peak -- an appeal to the post of regulatory service. >> it is already in law? >> correct. >> secondly, that would be that any post office that is proposed to close after these standards are adopted could make an appeal on the basis but the standards ever adopted by this piece were

violated. >> that is true, and it is affected -- effective upon its enactment. but it also includes those post office is currently being considered by the post office today. >> it includes them, but is not limited to them. >> it is not. >> the words "market dominant products" on page 3, i'm not sure what that means. if their market competitive products, would that not be good enough? >> if i may, that is a term of art within the arcane post a world. the products are defined in different categories. for example, products where the postal service is the only provider of, such as first class

mail, is one category. products where there are packages competing with ups and sex are another category. those are terms that -- and fed ex. are another category. those are terms that actually mean something. >> changes that affect the universality of the service, in essence. in other words, is that with the term is intended to mean? -- is that what the term is intended to mean? services other than market dominance, they do not have to do service standards other than that? >> this is one where we want to call an expert witness. it is a good question. and maybe the deputy postmaster or somebody from his team would like to respond. would you like senator levin to repeat the question? >> know, i've got it.

-- no, i've got it. >[unintelligible] it goes back to the service. that is all. >> and market domenick products are? >> those not covered by first class mail. [unintelligible] >> i would just like to commend senator moran. thank you for the leadership you have taken. you have shown us this is the way it is supposed to work. we know this is supposed to stem the bleeding and we know they have more post offices, and we also know they can provide good service to folks in these

communities. we could have somebody there to sell stamps several times a day. we can have rural letter carriers. we have had some say if you have a rural letter carrier, just be there when you want to buy stamps. that is not very convenient. but how about where they take a lunch break? or maybe a convenience store down the road, or a drug store. i visited a drugstore in the chicago area, walgreen's as a matter of fact, and they have a post office. this is a new generation of pharmacy. there are a lot of alternatives. the question should not be -- the goal should not be how we closed a post offices, but you do -- but to provide good

service and cost effectively. >> i have had wonderful conversations with both the son of -- senator collins and senator carper as well as my other colleagues. would it be appropriate for me to ask the postmaster general or the postal service to confirm i understand in that they are not going to rush out and closed post offices while this legislation is pending? they're going to let this take effect? >> you are not here under subpoena -- [laughter] but do you want to answer? >> the postmaster general has agreed [unintelligible] >> senator moran, we did

specifically raise that issue with the postmaster general when we raise the issue that you thoughtfully brought forward. >> thank you. and to conclude, and to shorten the day, i will withdraw my request for roll-call. but i do want to point out one more fact. as we try to find savings within the postal service, at least with the postal rate commission, you can close 10,000 of the smallest post offices in the country and effectuate savings equal to seven tenths of 1% of the revenue of the post office. while it is important to find every nickel and dime, there really is a much bigger picture here that we do not -- that we need to make sure we do not lose sight of. as a member that represent a pretty rural state, i want to make certain that rural america is not the target for savings

exclusively. we want to share our burden and responsibility with others. but seven tenths of 1% is the expected savings in closing 10,000 post offices. this amendment, in my view, as the chairman indicated, is a reasonable opportunity for us to demonstrate the need of post offices across the nation. >> i am reluctant to do this, but an amendment to this important that has good bipartisan support, i think is important to have a message of a strong will call to the pet -- to the postal service that we do not want them to be closing post offices during this. >> do you want to look at my list? [laughter] >> i will not ask for a roll- call vote. >> we have at least four republicans voting for it. i think is bipartisan.

>> i will not ask for one, but others have that right. >> i will not ask for one if you prefer not to have one. >> i have no preference, as the junior member. >> i asked for a roll-call vote. >> the clerk will call the world. >> senator levin. . aye. akaka. senator a >> no. roll] clerk calls worl

mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 9, the nays are zero. of those by proxy -- the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you. senator carper mentioned the word of lunch break earlier and it has stuck with me. we want to keep it going. you have other amendments? >> i have no other amendments, mr. chairman. >> ok, thank you. senator levin, i believe, has passed, and we will go to senator akaka for an amendment.

>> of like to offer akaka 5. it is an amendment on medicare. i would like to come back to workers' compensation oanother time, but not now. now i would like to turn to health care. >> ok. the crux my amendment is to strike the provisions -- >> my memo is to strike the provisions requiring workers to enroll in medicare parts "a" and "b" if they are eligible and replacing their current plan with a not yet negotiated plan. i understand the post office estimates it will save $15 billion from these provisions, but as far as i know, they have

not provided anything to support that particular claim. opm, which is much more extensive health care experience, does not believe this will save. believes it will incur further cross. additionally, this will shift costs to the medicare program, which has serious financial challenges already. for this reason, mr. chairman, the finance committee staff supports this amendment. the provisions in this bill could also create jurisdictional

problems. i am also concerned that the current provisions could incur a cost on retirees. we are requiring postal retirees to pay more than $1,100 per year in medicare part b premiums with no guarantee of how much that will be offset in savings by the new medigap plans. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike the provisions requiring postal retirees to enrolled in medicare parts "a" and "b" if they are eligible. >> thanks, senator. respectfully, i will oppose a man and no. 5 -- amendment no. 5.

this does allow the postal service to take steps regarding the cost of the post will have your service, not only as private employers, but even the most public entities that i know of, for example, state governments, have taken steps to reduce the cost of health care for their employees. the sections that senator akaka's amendment would strike direct them to require medicare eligible retirees to enroll in medicare parts a"a and "b" and also to develop parts in the medicare plan for postal retirees and their dependents. this is an amendment that we can argue how much it will save.

it will save a significant amount of money for the postal service, which is critically needed now. if alter the benefit package of the postal employees and retirees, but we still think it maintains a level of health care coverage that we think is still quite favorable to those in the public and private sector. we also have a provision in here that says if the expected savings are not realized, the new program would end. and we discussed that with the postmaster and he is confident that they would achieve the savings, that he is willing to be put under the requirement. for those reasons, this is an important part of the legislation and what the

legislation states would be dramatically undercut if senator adopted.mendment is >> i just want to emphasize your last point. the postal service estimates that this provision would reduce its costs by $15 billion. as senator akaka has pointed out, opm says it is uncertain that is the case. that is why we included specific language in the substitute amendment that would allow opm and the postal service to scrap the program if they agreed that it would not save the postal service money. there is a safeguard, if you will, that has been built into the language. begitch?or berdyc

>> has there been an assessment of what this will cost of folks? my assumption is that if one saves, one pays. >> folks are paying into medicare now. in some ways, they are paying twice. they are paying into medicare when they are active employees, and if they do not enroll in medicare part "b" or "d"they are not getting the benefit of the payroll deductions of the years made by employees and the postal service and they are, instead, getting the federal plan. in a way, they are paying twice. >> right, but i guess my question is, when you now require them to take the benefit -- they are not taking

it now. it is actually a bonus to medicare. i am taking a different hat on for a second. it is like free crash -- free cash flow for medicare without having to pay out. have the medicare folks responded in any way on the impact that this would have or not have? i do not know the answer to this question. >> i do not believe the committee has had any response. you are asking whether there has been any response from medicare of ministers -- medicare ers.nister wors we are saying that this quasi-- public entity, medicare, to have the right but others do, which

is to take advantage of the medicare program. but in this case, i think the priority has to be to rescue the postal service, even though it at some cost to medicare. >> thank you. >> senator akaka? >> let me add that the office of personnel management has stated that its health care actuaries do not believe the postal service will save money on this. opm runs one of the largest health-care entities in the country with about $40 billion in total cost. i have not seen the postal service analysis for how they believe this will save money for them. estimatest opm's cost more than i do the postal service.

>> ok, further discussion? senator akaka, would you like a roll call? >> yes. >> the clerk will call the roll on amendment no. 5. >> the senator levin. >> aye, by proxy. >> senator akaka >> aye. >> the center prior -- senator pryor. senator landrieu. begitch.baggag senator collins. said mr. cockburn. >> aye, by proxy. >> senator brown. >> no.

>> the senator mccain. >> aye, by proxy. >> senator johnson. >> aye, by proxy. >> of senator moran. >> no. >> senator lieberman. >> no. >> is it possible there is a little mischief going on? >> i sense there may be. >> on this vote, the yeas are 11 and the nays are 6 and the amendment is agreed to. the crux of cake, thank you. senator -- >> ok, thank you.

senator akaka, congratulations. senator pryor, would you like to bring up one of yours? ok, you are done. retiring undefeated. [laughter] will break for lunch. the >> i want to thank the committee for passing -- senator mccain talks about when he has publicly if people did not talk about the post office. if you are in a small town in montana and you have a public meeting the about the post office, -- i'm sorry, if you have a public meeting, the post office is the first to come up. it is an issue that people have talked to me about in extension because the post of this closure will close a lot of communities and better it's never healthy for work -- for rural america --

that is never healthy for rural america. the amendment i want to take up now deals with executive compensation. i want to thank the undefeated senator pryor and senator mccaskill for joining me in offering this amendment. it treats the postmaster general the same as it treats a member of congress, $174,000 a year. the 2006 reform bill had talked about the day and allow the postal board of governors to set the salary of the postmaster general as the vice-president. as a result, the postmaster general could earn $276,840 per year. this will take back to $174,000. to let you know, that could save

about $200,000. you could keep open post offices in five places in montana. as we look for everybody to make sacrifices, i think it is entirely appropriate that the administrators of the postal service also make their sacrifices. with that, i would urge my colleagues to support it. >> is there further debate? >> earlier in our debate we were talking about making sure the -- that we allow the postal service to do what it needs to do, really, sort of get out of the way. that we should let them proceed, whether it is closing a

processing centers or post offices or going from six-day to five-day service. our role should be to step out of the way. this amendment runs, i think, in contravention to that. the postal service is the second-largest business in america, i believe. they have over half a million employees. they have over 33,000 retail outlets. there are over 500 mail processing centers. they service every home, every business in america six days a week. there is a reason why ups and fedex pay their co's $1 million a year or more per year. they do it because they want to be able to attract the best talent they can find to run

those big operations. the postal service makes those big corporations look small by comparison. we need excellent people. we need some of the best talent at the postal service leading the organization to get out of the wilderness and bring it back to be successful in the 21st century. and to say to people who are working hard to turn the postal service around, for your efforts we are going to lower your pay in some cases by $100,000, or $75, or $50,000, i do not know how that attracts the best talent. i just do not see it. my grandma used to say to me something about penny wise and pound foolish. this is penny wise and pound foolish. we may feel good about saving a

couple hundred thousand dollars, but we are talking about losing executives i could help the postal service save billions of dollars by implementing the law that we are providing. i would urge us to defeat this amendment. i was prepared to offer a second-degree amendment. i think we should just defeat it outright. >> if the goal here is to make the u.s. ps and -- into -- to make the u.s. postal service into the ups oard fed ex., then we should just privatize it and get done with it. change the constitution and make sure we do not have any obligation. if any of us are sitting around the table because of the money we make, we are not sitting here for the right reason. the postal service is a public service, unless you want to take the u.s. off of the front of the postal service. and to say we cannot find good people to run the postal service

because of salary, maybe that is the exact reason we need to pass this amendment. it also has some implications on our side, too, because if we cannot find anyone to leave the postal service out of the woods, how the hell are going to get our deficit out of the woods? this is the most money i have ever made in my life, $170,000. it does not compare to $800,000, but it is a lot of dough. if you cannot hire someone good enough for $174,000, you will not find someone good enough for $800,000. there's no reason why on guard screener why the administrator should not sacrifice, too. it is the wrong message sent by this committee. >> mr. chairman, could i suggest, since i believe your plan is to come back to 30 p.m.,

that maybe we could try to work on -- back at 2:30 p.m., that maybe we could try to work on this amendment. i am sympathetic to both of the arguments you are trying to make. this is a huge enterprise. but on the other hand, i am troubled that bonuses are being given at a time when the postal service is losing billions of dollars a year. and i also wonder if maybe we could cut down the number of people who could be paid at the level of the vice president. this is one of the largest enterprises in the united states. i find i have sympathy with both of your points and i wonder if we could try to work, since we are going to break, to try to come to a meeting of the mines. >> i think that is a constructive idea. i would like to see that to the

extent that we are paying money to the secretary and the cabinet, that it be tied to results. better financial performance. i am not averse to doing that. when i see companies, big companies, who pay millions of dollars to co's who lead their companies down the drain, i am not interested in doing that. we are not talking about paying millions of dollars to leave the postal service, despite the fact that it is the second-largest entity in -- company in america, i think maybe we can work something out. maybe we ought to try to do that over lunch. >> mr. chairman, that would be my same point. i would like to see fair compensation. the part that bothers me is the bonus compartment.

-- component. a lot of us signed a letter on the fannie mae and freddie mac bonuses. the thing i would caution is in metric that we have reasonable and good and solid metrics, not what they did over at fannie mae and freddie mac. they did a major to see what they could achieve without much work and they got a million- dollar bonuses. we want to attract good people to public service, but at the same time, the bonus component is what bothered me. exactly where you were going, susan, which this is where i am bothered. i would be happy to take a break. >> the problem is going to be that my schedule this afternoon is packed. but jamie wise, my right hand, will work with your staff. >> and you will vote by proxy and you will have to sign off on any agreement that we make. i hope that we can come to some

agreement. i understand what senator tester is trying to say, but i do not want to cut -- taking the onus off is one thing. it just seems to me that he is running a very big -- taking the bonus off is one thing. it just seems to me that he is running a very big operation. the prodding of a bonus is one thing. i think we should come back and -- the depriving of a bonus is one thing. i think we should come back and discuss this. i think we will be able to finish this afternoon. amendment wass put forward with sincerity. it passed with some surprising votes. it also opposes something that

not only the four of us has supported, but also that the obama administration has supported. the bipartisanship here was short lived. it diminishes savings here by a very substantial amount. i hope we can come back and reconsider it at some point, if not here, then on the floor. we did a lot of good work. we have good debate. we should have a good lunch and reconvene at 2:30 p.m. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> senators returned after lunch and approved the bill addressing the postal service. a similar bill has been approved by the house reform committee. coming up in a few moments, part of the new hampshire today radio program focusing on presidential politics. in a half-hour, our series on the military looks at arlington national suder -- cemetery. then we will look again at a markup of the national postal service. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow here on c- span. the senate finance committee holds a hearing on unemployment assistance at 10:00 a.m. eastern. members will look at what successful state programs have done, then they look up the national level. then at noon eastern, federal

reserve chairman ben bernanke holds a meeting at fort bliss, texas. >> every weekend on american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. this weekend, a group of lawyers, judges, and historians retried mary sarratt on charges she was involved in president lincoln's assassination. and from lectures in history, boston university professor thomas weylandt on cold war policy. for schedules in your in box, click the c-span alert button. >> part of the new hampshire today real problem -- today

radio program. it included segments with newt gingrich and the new jersey governor chris christie. this portion from wttl fm in new hampshire is a half hour. >> good afternoon, good afternoon and welcome new hampshire. good afternoon, good afternoon. welcome, new hampshire. "new hampshire today" jack heath here at wptl. we're having a special three-hour afternoon program now until six. it's a gorgeous new hampshire afternoon out there, 65 degrees, a second day. you know that snow of october has melted for the most part and the golf courses are open. coming up today, we're going to be joined by several of the presidential candidates on the gop side of things. we're also simulcasting live on c-span3. go to c-span.org and click 3 or channel 249 on many of your

cables. c-span may replay the program. carl cameron coming up shortly, but we're on the eve of the two-month mark to the first in the nation presidential primary. first actual primary votes will be cast a week after the iowa caucus. joining me now is one of the candidates preparing for the debate tonight in michigan, newt gingrich, a regular on the program here in new hampshire. he's back in new hampshire. good afternoon, thank you very much for joining us on "new hampshire today." >> listen, glad to be talking with you, and, of course, i'm going to be at the granite state patriots debate thursday night, and then friday with veterans at country cooking circle restaurant and we're going to be opening our new newt 2012 head quarters in manchester, so looking very much to being back in new hampshire. >> got all those towns and

cities correctly pronounced, as i'm not surprised. i also know you're a c-span junky, so delighted to be on c-span as well this afternoon. tonight's debate in michigan, there's a lot of, i call it, the scandalous week of college sports with penn state and the herman cain allegations. i know you and mr. cain have developed a pretty good rapport, he's been complimentary on a lot of policy issues. do you think the issue of herman cain will come up tonight, not saying by you, but do you think it will be an issue? >> i hope it does not come up, because i frankly would like us to stay focussed on the whole concept of policy and how we create jobs and what are we trying to accomplish. i think there's a more positive use or our time and the country's time. herman is going to have to work

out what happens with him and the various accusations, but i don't think that's something the rest of the candidates need to get involved in. >> iran, things seem to be getting tense. israel, you know, reportedly test fired jerico missiles recently, russia has warned against their nuclear capability. if israel was to take a preemptive strike against iran, what should the united states' policy or position be? >> i think the united states' position should be recognize those acting in their own self defense, that the israeli memory of the holocaust has moved the country towards a sense of fear and that two nuclear weapons would be the equivalent of a second holocaust. if you were the prime minister of israel, you'd be praying every day whether you had to take preemptive action over iran, because you could not be the person who presided over the

entire destruction of your entire country. >> mr. speaker, do you think the penn story will be asked? is this something that stays clear of a presidential debate? >> i don't know, this kind of abuse is wrong. it is a criminal violation. it needs to be reported. i don't know any of the details that i've seen on television, so i'm not in a position to comment on them, except to say the people who look like they are going to be going to jail for libel, not libel, if they committed perjury are faced with that as a reality. i'm not sure what you say beyond that. it's a tragedy and it's a tragedy for everybody involved. >> what's your view of president obama now as the republican race is intensifying and candidates are feeling the heat, the national media focusing probably more on your race, and there's even a feeling that you've risen

in some of these polls in new hampshire. who knows, newt gingrich, john mccain the night of the presidential primary was ahead by 19 points so who knows, mr. speaker, but let me ask you this. has president obama benefitted by the focus on the republicans? we've talked about his jobs bill essentially being dead, do you sense -- how's this president handling what's going on in italy today, stock market, dow jones industrial average down almost 400, how's mr. obama fairing? >> the nightmare for this president is a world spinning out of control, and because he is a genuine radical and because that's his background, he doesn't have any of the right tools, he doesn't have any of the right understanding to try to do the things we need to get the country back in good shape. the result is you have all these politicians, it's appropriate to meet with the europeans, because they are the same kind of people, out of touch with

reali reality, trying to solve problems without solving them, and they think if you hold two more press conferences and three more speeches, that's the solution, it's bologna. president obama is genuinely radical and he's incompetent, and the combination of radical and incompetent is enormously dangerous for the country, whether on the issue of iran or the issue of jobs or the issue of dealing with the deficit or negotiating with congress. i look back at the work bill clinton and i did together. it's amazing even though he is a liberal democrat and i was a conservative republican, we could get together as mature adults, we reformed welfare, we cut taxes, we brought unemployment down to 4.2%, then i watched president obama and it's sad. you don't want the president of the united states to fail, even if you're a partisan and don't agree with him, when the

president of the united states fails, it hurts everybody. >> speaking of former president bill clinton, he just released a book talking about a bunch of action points that he thinks would trigger a lot of jobs. you talk about the things the congress could be doing right now on some pieces of legislation to trigger jobs. can you just touch upon if you've heard about the president's book about what specific things you think we could do now to get jobs going? >> let me give you one that's easy and one that's hard. the hard one, repeal the dodd frank bill immediately, it's a disastrous bill, killing small banks, driving down the price of housing. it's the major reason the country is a mess. repeal it. it's a 2,300-page bill that does to financial services what obamacare does to health. second, the easy one, and i don't understand why the house republicans don't do this. there's a bill made by senator

webb and senator warner, both democrats from virginia, that would allow virginia to develop oil and gas offshore. it would increase the number of american jobs, it would increase the amount of american energy, and it would increase royalties to the federal government to reduce the deficit. the republicans ought to pass the bill, send it to the senate as a bipartisan act. i don't think harry reid can bottle it up. it's a bill written by two of his democratic senators, and if the senate sends it to the president, i don't see how in this economy the president can veto it. that could be an example of a specific small building block towards prosperity that could be totally bipartisan and that would set the stage to then look for similar building blocks. >> let you go, mr. speaker, earlier on in the polling cycle, a lot of people are ready to write off your candidacy, seems now the gingrich campaign is gaining steam, can you win this nomination? >> sure. this is wide open. anybody can potentially win it right now, because i think the

voters are very, very worried and looking for real leadership and trying to understand what should be done next. okay? i look forward to seeing you in new hampshire. >> good luck tonight in the debate. >> thanks. >> newt gingrich live from michigan, where the republican field is set to debate in a few hours, and he'll be back in new hampshire tomorrow, as you know, newt gingrich has been a fairly regular visitor to new hampshire. interestingly enough, herman cain's campaign, nothing to do with the allegations he's on defense about, doesn't seem to be that existent here in new hampshire. we have not seen much of hermann cain in terms of staff, he was on the program with me out of atlanta, georgia, but not much cain campaign presence here. we'll have to see in the days to come. tomorrow is two movant months away from the new hampshire

primary. we'll open the phone lines now. we foeskt on the primary today. 866-823-1077. we'll take your calls. let me tell you what's coming up on "new hampshire today" as well. carl cameron, formerly of wuatv is one of the senior political reporters for fox news, and carl is on the trail of these candidates. he'll be joining us shortly. also coming up, governor christie joining us here. he's in new hampshire for mitt romney, who, of course, is prepping for the debate out in michigan, so mitt romney sending a pretty heavy-hitting surrogate in governor christie joining us in a few moments on "new hampshire today." mike denahee will be joining us as well, and dave card out of washington, d.c. will be joining

us for our packed 4:00 hour. we'll be hearing from governor huntsman and see if his campaign could benefit from any loss in the cain momentum nationally or who are in new hampshire. governor huntsman joining us at 4:00, then in the 4:00 hour, ron paul will be on with us. ron paul will be joining us and, of course, he's been a regular on the program. get his take on iran. i imagine it will be dramatically different of newt gingrich in terms of supporting israel, but that's my guess. we'll hear from ron paul in a few moments. also coming up, secretary of state bill gardner on why new hampshire's first in the nation on the primary calendar. might be interesting for our c-span viewers to know why new hampshire is first, and we'll hear from secretary of state bill gardner. go out to the listener line as j-dog fields the call here and see what's going on out there as

we wait for carl cameron from fox news. 866-823-1077, our number, and interesting what newt gingrich just said, if you just missed him a few moments ago live from michigan, newt gingrich calling president obama a radical, radical liberal. that was actually only part of the slam, really, a very -- pretty -- not a friendly depiction of the president. today it seems like he even turned up the heat more. i guess we're going to go to florida, and i guess that's florida offline -- maybe watching c-span. michelle, good afternoon, you're on new hampshire today. >> i am watching c-span. i have a question i would like you to ask governor christie when he comes on, why governor romney cannot call in himself. i understand he's prepping for the debate, but so is newt

gingrich, and he did call in and made his views, solutions known, and i would like to hear from governor romney himself, not his surrogate, christie, if that's at all possible you could ask that question. >> okay, whereabouts in florida are you calling from? >> tampa, florida. >> appreciate it. i assume the weather's nice down there. governor christie is a big wig, i enjoy having him on, but when governor romney is on next, i'll ask the question. >> it just seems that there's -- i haven't heard from governor romney lately on anything, really. >> of course, he's probably happy last week the spotlight was off him, but i hear you, michelle, appreciate it, thank you. take care in tampa. out to bedford, new hampshire, jim, how are you, good afternoon? >> jack, how are you today? >> good, sir. >> like your last caller, ask guests you have today or maybe

you can give me your opinion, the candidates this time don't seem to be spending too much money right now. i don't know about you, but i remember my mailbox being full this time of year within the last few cycles and last few primaries, and i'm curious when some of these campaigns start to think about ratcheting up a notch here and not relying just on the debates and trying to get some of their messages out. i saw a rick perry ad on last night and a little ron paul, but are they all relying on just the debates, and will that change? >> hold on, stay on the line with us. it's a very good question, because governor perry, for example, his campaign just started advertising on this show and on this station, but there's always a line. there's always a line when kind of the onslaught of the paid advertising starts. this race, one reason why we're doing a special today, delighted c-span is joining us, we're on the eve of two months until the new hampshire primary. that's not a long way to go. you know, jim, why they've

waited and held their powder, if you will, money's that honey in politics, i don't know. it seems very late. last time around it was a wide open presidential election on the democratic side and republican side, but our next guest of fox news -- carl, you on? >> hey, man, how are you? >> carl, good. jim, can you hear carl? >> absolutely. >> jim, ask the question to carl cameron, i think he'd be the best guy in the country to answer this. >> honored to speak to you, carl. welcome back to new hampshire here. the question is, going back to '96 and '92 or the primaries in the past, it really was a primary fought through direct mail and tv and radio, but this cycle they just really seem to be relying on the earned media in the debates and not really getting their own message out with paid media. i was wondering how you think it's affecting the cycle. >> well, it's definitely affecting the cycle.

there's a bunch of reasons for it, some are tactical and political specific to this race, others are more 30,000 feet. one thing the campaigns are aggressively using social media, facebook and the like, that's something rick perry really pioneered in texas when he abandoned direct mail and radio and most tv ads almost entirely to use social media, so there are alternatives people are using that aren't as expensive. second, debates have become gasoline. they can show up at the station and get all the attention from the passing cars by using the debate stage. that's worked well for candidates who have less money. the last thing is, the frontrunner, mitt romney, has stayed out of iowa, tried to stay off the air and not spend a lot of money. his rivals realize if one of the guys with the deep pockets isn't spending his money, they've got to save theirs too so that when mitt romney and rick perry start

spending, they can try to keep up a little bit with the bigger purses. that's part of why it's happening. the candidates who don't have money used to be knocked out of the race easily. this time around, because of social media and because of the unbelievable number of debates, they've been able to hang in doing it for cheap. >> there you have it, jim. >> thanks so much. that's what makes new hampshire great here, you don't need the big bank accounts to run and have a formidable campaign. thanks, guys, appreciate it. >> carl, delighted to have you here, how are you, sir? >> hey, old boss. sorry i missed the deadline, never did that when i was working for you. >> listen, love your stuff. i don't know where to begin, but tonight's debate, herman cain, is his story engulfing him or is he going to pull through this, your thoughts. >> it's definitely engulfed him. he denies all the charges and at

this point there isn't substantial evidence. against allegations that are verbal and don't appear on paper, and in the case of the to settlements with the national restaurant association were not settled by herman cain but settled by his, at the time, former employer, and he took the responsibility of the settlement. so he's at a real disadvantage defending himself. having said that, this debate is supposed to be the economy, in michigan the unemployment rate is two points higher than the national average, but when you have somebody leading the polls, as cain is. he's in a tie with romney in iowa and nationally, hard to imagine this won't come up. we've heard most of the candidates weigh in, saying these are serious charges, we hope it works out for herman and hope everything's okay, but it hasn't gone away of the we're now well into the second week of this, and there's the specter of

a possible news conference with his accusers standing shoulder-to-shoulder against him, talking about the details we're stuck with allegations that can't be proven and seemingly can't be disproven. it's really, really difficult for any kind of political candidate. everybody knows it in new hampshire. if a candidate is explaining a problem, they are not talking about what they are trying to get elected with, they are defending themselves, and that ultimately is a losing position. >> of course, bill clinton in '92. >> there's a distinction with that. when bill clinton came to new hampshire in october of 1991 in a ten-week campaign that was incredibly short, he was first dised for being a nobody, but he

had been elected there more than four times and had been through problems and overcome them and argued them to a draw or a victory. cain can't say that. >> right. i'm looking at a trend line on a piece of paper here. i look at romney, if you go back to august through today, pretty steady right across the board. you know, i look at rick perry when he entered the race, 23% in some polls, he's just come down, and i'm just curious, cain doing well nationally, if cain is to drop, who does this help? who would some cain droppage help? >> $64,000 question. the first instinct is newt gingrich. now, mr. gingrich has his own history and some would say baggage he would have to, again, overcome. if he were to rise in the polls and contend for the top spot, he'd face questions about his marriages and past decisions

he's made. the other potential beneficiary remains rick perry. he is the conservative governor of texas. he has more money than everybody except romney, has the name recognition and political style and, frankly, cowboy boots to kick what needs to get kicked in order to come back. perry's a very, very tough counterpunching attack politician. he hasn't gone on the air with criticism of mitt romney on tv yet. when perry starts the attack ad, the blitz won't stop. it will be a straight on until it's over, win or lose, and when that begins if cain has faded, perry may be able to absorb some of the conservative vote that has been anybody but romney, and yet the settle on a choice. harry could come back and get that, but two months before iowa, two months and a week before new hampshire is not a heck of a lot of time, so time's

running out. that's why this debate tonight has the -- people are saying it's kind of an elimination round for a lot of second and third tier candidates, if they don't have a break-out moment, it may be a leave-behind moment. >> any interest in saying hi to governor christie of new jersey? >> tell you what, governor christie is missed on the campaign trail. everywhere we go. people say the same thing about tim pawlenty. all the candidates that flirted, got out, or never got in, they could be the most popular. >> let's ask the question. you're going on to fox news tonight, here is the governor of new jersey, governor, with carl on the line of fox news, any regrets? any regrets of not running? >> no regrets at all. i've got plenty of great things i need to get done in new jersey. i'm happy to be up here today to help governor romney, and i'm going to continue to help him.

he needs to be the next president of the united states. >> carl, unless you have a question, we'll let you go and speak with the governor. >> pin down governor christie and make sure he gives you a refusal of the vice presidential spot. hey, governor, over here in michigan waiting for the debate. the question is, will you categorically rule out under all circumstances serving your country as a vice president or leave that door open just a fraction? >> i've given my statement i'm running for president. as far as vice president, not in my control, pal. this is going to be the decision of our party's nominee, who i believe will be mitt romney. i'm not going to get into that. >> doesn't sound like he ruled it out. thanks, carl cameron of fox news. >> thank you, thank you very much, guys. >> governor, jack heath here, thanks for joining us on "new hampshire today."

how are you, sir? >> i am sir. >> doing okay? enjoying the granite state? >> happy to be here to help governor romney. >> 65 degrees, only a few months to go before the primary. let me talk a little bit about how you think this race is going, governor. i was saying to carl cameron that mitt romney's path has been so steady and consistent, governor perry when he got in was really leading, now he's dropped pretty dramatically. herman cain has come up, but mitt romney is sort of that steady boat there. is this going to be the way it goes for mitt romney towards the nomination? >> i absolutely believe it is. what governor romney is showing, he's the adult on the stage. he's the guy that's not going to be caught up by the ups and downs that happen in the campaign. he's been through it before. he's got a plan and vision for america, and he is going to be the guy who's going to be the

adult, the grown up on the stage who is going to give the well thought out answers and push forward the good plan. >> and in terms of jobs, governor, what's your reaction to sort of this impasse? i have not seen a time where the ideological left is more cemented in the conservative right, you know the drill, you can almost see this, governor, president obama's going to say the republicans are almost like the 1936 fdr reelection when his numbers aren't great, run against the big banks, corporations, wealthy, anyone with money and say they are not paying enough and blame the republicans for the lack of jobs in the economy. how is this going to work for the president? >> listen, i think let's first say it's the only strategy the president has available to him, because if this race is run, which i think it will be, on barack obama's record, he's a one termer, so all he can do, he

knows the american people are angry, and you see in every poll about the right direction or wrong direction of the country, but people overwhelmingly believe we're on the wrong track and they are angry. president obama is going to try to make folks angry at somebody else, whether it's wall street or corporate america or the congressional republican, he wants them to be angry at anybody but him. i don't think ultimately it works, because i think every election is not about yesterday, it's about tomorrow, and i don't think the president's going to have any credibility selling a plan what he's doing in the next four years, but remember this, he can complain about republicans in the house as much as he wants, but for the first two years he had a huge majority in the house and senate and did nothing with them to create jobs in america. >> governor christie in new jersey joining us. before you go, i know you're here for a few events for mitt romney, who is prepping for the debate in michigan. we did have michelle from

florida ask why other candidates are calling in and why governor christie is calling in on behalf of mr. romney. i think the short answer is you're here and are a big name yourself, but let me ask you this question, if mitt romney is the nominee, you and i know president obama is going to say something like this, and i'd love your response, governor christie. mr. romney, you talk a lot about creating jobs and building an economy, when you were making your hundreds and millions of dollars buying and close factories and companies, how many jobs are you responsible for cutting out of the economy, how many jobs are you responsible for? >> first of all, he would say not as many jobs you're responsible for destroying. a fair look at governor romney's record shows he created a lot of

jobs at bain capital, started a lot of companies. listen, when you're in the business governor romney is in, sometimes it's going to be a success, sometimes it's not, but he was in there battling every day, getting experience, while the president of the united states was being a community organizer. who are you going to trust over the next four years, somebody who's proven already in the first four and doesn't have the first idea how to lead or bring people together in congress or somebody like governor romney who's worked across party lines, stood by his principles and has the private sector experience to show he can create jobs? i'm sure governor romney will answer that question next fall when they are debating on the big stage, is to point out the president's record. this is about the president and governor romney's vision of the future. >> governor christie of new jersey here. good folks there. before we let you go, governor, in new jersey, i know where the new stadium is and know there's

a big game sunday night with the jets and patriots. >> jets are going to win. >> governor christie, thanks for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> we're going to take a break on "new hampshire today." our friends from c-span, we have julio from chicago and a couple other callers lined up. thank you for your patience. give us a few moments, coming to >> see more videos of the candidates as c-span's website for campaign 2012, from recent events to the earliest parts of their campaigns.

here the recent comments from reporters, social media sites, and link to c-span's partners. iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina creek all at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> our series on the military looks at arlington national cemetery after that, senators and look at a bill overhauling the postal service. after that, a radio program that focused on republican presidential politics. on "washington journal," a look at problems in the housing and urban development program. our guest is washington post investigative reporter, debbie cenziper. diane swonk will take your questions about the economy. our series on the military

continues with rare admiral karl schultz. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> in the defense of liberty -- let me remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson, but barry goldwater country ideas and candor cow the night of the conservative movement. he is featured this week on "the contenders." from the goldwater institute in phoenix, why friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> our series on the military continues with the operations of arlington national cemetery.

this is a little less than one hour. see served as the executive deputy project executive secretary of arlington cemetery. quite good morning, how are you? >> also joining us is patrick haleh hand.

he serves as the superintendent. >> good morning. >> if you want to join in, you can do so by calling these numbers. tell us a little bit about the process that took place in arlington where there were bodies and on earth brought. what was going on as far as their categorization and what has changed since then? >> to start with, we started in june of 2010. from the first day that we started, we worked to put in the changes that were necessary to bring arlington to this century.

we have completely changed from paper records to having a completely judges -- digitized cemetery. he has worked on the operational side. >> i would like to add that since our arrival, it was imperative that we put in place a strict change of custody so that when remains arrived at arlington national cemetery, we can attract them throughout the entire process through the completion of burial and the placement of the headstones. >> prior to our arrival, there were issues that came out. the assignment of grave sites

and some remains being placed in an improper grave sites -- we needed to move swiftly to correct those problems. we put in a straight change of custody -- a chain of custody. we worked very diligently to restore the trust and confidence in the american people. arlington is in good hands and other good stewardship going forward. >> walk us briefly through the chain of custody and what happens when a body arrives >> if i could, as superintendent in charge of the operational side of the business, i think that is something he should discuss -- the chain of custody here. >> it is extremely important at these hallowed grounds. chain of custody begins with the

arrival of the casket or cremated remains. there is a six-step process of the day of interment. the cemetery representative will meet with the family, sit down with the next of kin, go over the information on our schedule, verify the information with the funeral director. the remains will be transferred out. the service will be conducted. prior to the service, secretary -- cemetery representatives will look at the schedule and confirm with the family. we paint a section and grave site on a concrete great liner on the inside. we verify those numbers and verify what is on the schedule. at the conclusion of the service, they detached a non biodegradable casket tag with a

section and great number and a date of death. additionally, the secretary represent -- the cemetery represented will make sure the information is accurate on the temporary marker. he or she will also check the information on the headstone. there is a beginning and end to this process. the grave site layout maps, the assignment of the gravesite is checked by a supervisor at the beginning and at the end of the day. a supervisor will go back and make sure all precise are properly identified. >> talk a little bit about your role in this process. >> my role is i am in charge of the administration of both arlington and the chairman's polian the district. my job is to make sure that we

have the right equipment, the right people, the right training, and the right resources to do this day to day authorization -- day-to-day operation. >> and what has changed as far as resources? >> in terms of resources, we have increased the number of employees at arlington by 50%. we have changed and brought in state of the art equipment for the work force to do their job. we have trained at the work force to not only operate that equipment, but to do the missions they are directed to do here at arlington. we have also put in standards and procedures necessary to administer every resource here at the cemetery. >> as of today, is everybody

properly categorized at arlington? >> what we are currently doing it is we have an accountability task force put into place to do exactly that. we have a report to congress on december 22 of this year for that accounting. we are about 86% through with the process of looking at each and every record. >> our guest will enjoy us until 10:00. there is a lot of background noise. speak as loudly as can so they can hear you. the numbers are on your screen. we've set aside a special line for veterans this morning. bossier city, louisiana is up first. go ahead. >> thank you for your service. i would like eight little answer for this, please, if you can. i can remember years back you

would always see crosses all round at arlington. crosses everywhere along the fallen comrades. i do not ever see that anymore. has there been a movement to remove crosses from the fallen graves? are you aware of this? i used to see crosses all the time of our brave men and women. >> i am not aware of arlington ever using crosses at this national cemetery. i am aware of american cemeteries overseas, such as normandy, where they do use the white marble crosses the caller is speaking of. i do not believe there has ever been a history of crosses being at arlington national cemetery. >> our next call is from falls church, virginia.

the morning. >> i am from the u.s. marine corps. in 2001, i was trying to find out who would be the contact to some similar issues. i have other solutions that could boost the operations that would help the club once find the locations easier. who would be the point of contact to bring the idea i suggest? >> i will take that one. one of the efforts we are doing in the cemetery is to truly divots up -- digitize the cemetery. we are working on a smart phone application where you can

literally locate your loved one who is buried in the cemetery and have direction to get there. we are a few months away from that. we are already well aware of addressing your concerns. >> how many soldiers are there? either one of you? >> i would like to answer that. currently as of june we have to lead to 59,978 grave sites. -- 259,978 grave sites. there could be more than one person. clacks a lady in montana. democrats line. >> but what is arlington going to look like in 50 years?

are you ever going to run out of room? >> i will take that one. right now the projections currently for running out of space at arlington is 2024. in ground burial, 2025. however, we have expansion projects we are working on that will extend the life of the cemetery well beyond 2015. one of the jobs is to extend the life of the cemetery as much as possible. we are looking at each and every design and all of the available space here on the hallowed grounds of arlington. >> as far as upkeep, how many visitors are there at the site and what does that do -- what does that do for the notion of a peak -- upkeep there? >> we are probably the second

most visited site in the washington, d.c. area. we estimate over 4 million visitors a year. there is nothing more important than up keeping these hallowed grounds where our veterans and our loved ones are barry. the more visitors we get to share the history of arlington, the more we welcome each and every day. >> from texas, the independent line. >> cents that cemetery, was taken from robert e. lee after the civil war, i was wondering if they ever compensated his people when they took it? >> i would like to respond to the caller. i believe his immediate next of kin did take the issue to court.

they were compensated financially during the american civil war. he turned around and build the property back to the united states government as a national burial ground. >> baltimore md., john on the independent line. >> thank you for taking my call. i am a retired army noncommissioned officer. i do not have a private burial plot. would i qualify when my time comes to be buried at arlington or is there certain criteria that has to be met? >> if there is eligibility criteria. you are eligible if you are retired and have served honorably. if you are currently receiving retirement pay, you are eligible

for burial at arlington national cemetery and i am people for your service. >> how many calls you get like that per week? >> we average over to wonder calls per day. they are not always about eligibility. we work with the families. we assist the families. they need to provide documentation. they need a copy of a dd-14. we will look at any military documentation prior to that. we have a duty and obligation to assist families to determine eligibility. >> one of the issues that came up about customer service, people were asking questions and getting responses. what changes have been made? >> one of the major changes we have implemented is we now have a consolidated call center.

we can track every phone call comes into the cemetery. we now, for the first time, can tell you that we average 43 of those callers are family members calling in. our focus from the beginning has been to focus on our veterans and their loved ones who are the ultimate customers here at arlington national cemetery. >> about $45.80 million for the 2012 budget. six of the 24 acres. 250,000 service members and dependents are buried in arlington. 27-30 funeral services a day. tell us a little bit about that. >> one of the things we have had is there is no cost that is too high to honor our veterans and their families.

we have had the support of both the department of defense and congress to provide the resources necessary to up keep arlington national cemetery. >> if i may add, from a customer service standpoint, we now operate six days a week. arlington is the only national cemetery. this is a result of the work force. family members who do not require military honors at to be determined dependents, if they want to be entered on a saturday, the intent is to provide better customer service and create some flexibility with the monday through friday scheduling. >>

what percentage of reserve component soldiers do you have in the cemetery? has there been no budget cuts or congressional actions that have adversely affected the cemetery at all in no way shape or form? think you. >> the caller has two questions. one is how many national guard components are buried in arlington. i do not want to give you any information i am not sure of, but if you are in a reserve component, if you do retire or sustained an injury while on active duty with a reserve

component and you die as a result of those injuries, which you will not be eligible for interment in the cemetery. we have tremendous oversight based on what happened in the past here. as for budget, we have to justify what we go to congress and ask for. if we do our homework, i am congress will cross the t's and dot the i's. >> how many people on staff total there? >> currently we have 143 civilians on board at arlington. we also have that supplemented by 200 contractors who provide the services -- mainly landscaping services, etc.

>> annapolis, md.. thanks for waiting. >> thank you for taking my phone call. i had three or four questions. the first one is our taxpayer money goes to a great cause out there. someone went out of business on october 31. i am concerned that my family members who really want to come to the cemetery will not be able to come to the cemetery. only the toward mobile was able to come onto the facility. that resource is no longer there. they are not able to walk around the cemetery. what is in the works to get another contractor to address

that mobility issue? >> we will let our guest answer. >> i will answer that. first of all, on behalf of the cemetery, we apologize for the fact that the tour mobile went out of existence. i am clad to announce that we are in the process of getting another contract to reinstate the tour mobile. host: maryland. thank you for waiting. the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my phone

call. i will try to make my questions fast. i have been to the cemetery. my taxpayer money goes to a great cause. they went out of business of october this year. i am concerned that my family members to our elderly who want to come to the cemetery will not be able to come on to the cemetery because most of the tour buses parked outside the facility. only the tour's mobile was able to come onto the facility and the resources no longer there. they are not able to walk around the cemetery. what is in the works to get another contractor to suggest that mobility issue, especially for our seniors who cannot walk around? guest: i will answer that one. first of all, on behalf of the cemetery, we apologize for the fact that the tour mobil went out of existence. i'm glad to announce that we are in the process of getting another contract to reinstate the tour mobile. there is nothing that we are more concerned about than to make sure that our veterans and their loved ones who may not be ambulatory are able to visit the hallowed grounds of arlington national cemetery. host: south carolina. good morning. veterans line. good morning. caller: i am a veteran since 1968-1972. i was arrested at the arlington cemetery outside the cemetery on the walkway. i was selling water. there are no statutes governing be selling of water and fish. the d.a. dismissed it. i sold it on memorial day. i had no problem. then i came back and was handcuffed by the park police. where do you find permits to sell or have a vendorship around the cemetery? guest: you would have to do that through the national park service, because memorial drive is part of the jurisdiction of the national park service. host: behind the we can see the headstones.

what information is on their? -- there? guest: emblems of belief, their name, date of birth comment date of death, rank, service, and some may have a term of endearment by request of the family. host: how often are they cleaned and maintained? guest: we tried to do it on a yearly cycle. we use just soap and water to protect them. we are very successful with the headstones that out in the sunlight. it is very challenging for those underneath the trees. the mold has a tendency to come back. we have to spot treat those. guest: if i could add, you are looking at just one of 70 sections of the 600 credit for a -- 674 acres we have here. just to the numbers. host: are the headstones made

on site? guest: they are not. they are made by a contractor and shipped and installed on the grave site. host: is the contractor within the united states? guest: yes. host: republican line. caller: my husband was buried at arlington seven years ago. the service that they afforded my husband and family was the most magnificent service that i have ever participated in. the caring and the chaplain

that take care of us, and the military people that participated, there was so much honor conveyed to us and respect that our whole family will never forget what everyone at arlington did for us that day. it was a terrible experience but a wonderful experience in that it was so care for. i want to thank you. host: what kind of things went into the service? caller: there was a 21 gun salute and a chairman from the army that presented us with a card. i am sure she does this probably so many times, but she looked me in the eye and it was so personal and the intent was so caring. the chaplain called me at home a few weeks before the service and talk to me about my husband and wanted to make it as personal as he could.

he spent an hour on the phone with me talking about my husband. and the service he performed was just wonderful. another relative of mine he was very high up in the navy had died and had a service there at arlington and his daughter came to me and said that this service was even more meaningful than the higher officer's service. it was just beautiful. it really was. we fought like we were in a cocoon of care. host: thank you. if you could respond or expand to that. guest: i would like to thank the caller and offer my condolences on her loss as she spoke. more than one family member surge in the military. i experience that a lot here. generations of family members who have served this country.

we are very happy that she was pleased. you only get one chance to do it right. we believe there are no do overs. these are memories that last for ever. i am really happy that she was treated with respect and compassion. that is the expectation we have. i like to say that the service and honors that her loved one received were burned. the current that on behalf of service to this nation -- were earned. they earned that on behalf of service to this nation. host: we have set aside a special line for veterans to call in. you can also send us e-mail as well or a tweet. you addressed the land issue. i will ask you to respond to a tweet. is the only burial site in the

united states? guest: it is not. they have a 133 national cemeteries throughout the united states. a number of states have state cemetery is that also have it with their independence. -- with their dependents. host: there are some key site. can you talk about people that come to the tomb of the unknown soldier? what other sites do people visit when they are there'd? guest: i will begin with the tomb of the unknown. the tomb of the unknown is probably the most visited sites that condon spoke up. many come to pay their respects to our fallen. it is very emotional and

striking of a ceremony. the tomb is guarded. it is an army post. the sins and ends -- the sentinels and changing of the guards is every hour. in the summer months is as on the half hour. the soldiers of the old guard do such a fantastic job here. bebel pace that tomb 21 steps as a symbol of a 21 gun salute, the highest honor a citizen can recede. they will hold for 21 seconds and then began to march again for another 21 steps. as i stated, if you have come and witnessed it, you cannot help but believe with a lasting impression. host: you also have a memorial to those from 9/11. guest: we do. at the memorial to 9/11

commemorates all of those who were killed either on the plane or in the pentagon that day. the significance of that memorial is that it literally bases the pentagon. that is one of the visited site here at the cemetery. one of the other most notable site here that the visitors come to is the grave of president john fitzgerald kennedy. when jacqueline kennedy onassis decided to bury president kennedy here at the cemetery and to light the eternal flame, that has become one of the most visited sites. jacqueline kennedy is now buried there along with the president and two of their infant children as well as president kennedy's two brothers. president kennedy is not the only president we have here.

president taft is also buried here along with his wife helen was be ridiculous the first first lady to be interred here -- buried here along with his wife helen he was the first first lady to be entered here. guest: good morning. caller: i am calling just to tell you that cemeteries are very nice. i have been there about three times in in lifetime. that changing of the guard, i mean, that is an awesome thing to see. the upkeep, every time i come here, the upkeep looks very wonderful. whatever they say you are not doing, i think you're doing a fantastic job commandeer. -- job there. guest: when we look at our role and our mission here for the service personnel and our

military families, we treat their family members with respect and compassion. when it comes to maintaining these grounds, we need to maintain these hallowed grounds that in the service and sacrifice of all of those here. that is our mission. everything dries on that whether it is budget issues or questions of eligibility. that is the focal point of our mission. guest: you stated that you visited this lovely cemetery three times. i hope that everyone gets an opportunity in like time to visit an arlington said that they can honor and explore these hallowed grounds that have such a rich history of our nation. host: if anyone was coming because of the veterans day holiday, what kind of activities are going on? guest: the services start at

11:00 in the morning. i would want people to get here much earlier that day so that they get here prior to 10:00. it starts out with a public ceremony at the tomb of the on non followed by a ceremony that is hosted by the veterans affairs. host: massachusetts. a line for veterans. go ahead. caller: i have ancestors who served in the civil war. he is buried at arlington. he has a rather large gravestone, not a white one in the background. his wife is buried there. he passed away in 1911. i want to make a comment on the type of greats as you have there now. thank you. -- gravestones that you have there now. thank you. guest: the government headstones are the upright marble.

there are times where we use marble flagstones on gravesite. the answer you speak of is a private marker. there 17 sections when private markers were alive. the family decided to utilize a private marker that is not a government marker and inscribed the information of the veteran. host: how can a married couple of retired veterans get buried side-by-side? guest: i also answered that. but eligible and military members are entitled to a gravesite. some family members just want to be with their loved ones. they are entitled. when we have arrangements for double interments, but members are eligible, we will ensure they are side by side and each

has their own grave site and had some. host: republican line. good morning. caller: i would like to know if the headstones are made in the united states. guest: they are made in the united states. they are made of granite and marble companies in the united states. host: democrat's line. caller: you are on. i wanted to state that i have been to arlington quite a few times with my sons. my father is a veteran of world war ii. he fought at the battle of the bulge. i respect him and thank him for what he did.

when i went to arlington, my heart just was -- i was so proud but some moves at the same time. i come from the vietnam era. i love going to the wall. you know, the gray wall there. what i wanted to ask was i heard there was a veteran's program. i do not know whether this is part of your area or not that you service or take care of where you can get the bricks with your family members name on it as, you know, a service person in the military serving in the army. is that program going? i heard rumors about it. do you take care of the great

wall their? host: we will leave it there. guest: that is most likely the park service. we are not involved with the vietnam wall. our responsibility is to take care of the grave sites. there are military members who remains have not been recovered. they have been lost at sea are donated to science. we can put a marker in memory. did those of the services that are provided here when it comes to more realization. host: what is the process in terms of time and having someone buried at arlington? guest: as we stated before, we get an average of 43 people calling a day to schedule a service for their loved ones to be buried. weekend at an average of 27-30 services per day. -- weekend got an average of 27-30 services per day.

it all depends on the honors that are rendered. the use of the chapel, and a chaplain. it is conducting only 30 a day. the average wait time depends on the services that the better and and their family desired to have at a time. host: could you give a sense of how long that takes? guest: i can answer that question. we are currently averaging full military honors, based on their wishes and desires, escort units and possible flyovers, the average wait time and the 73-74 days. that is the current time frame. we like to reduce it.

we like to be careful that we do not impact the families by rushing them. we have the matrix. we know the number. we are looking at improvement. we're always be mindful of the processes. guest: as he stated previously, we are now conducting services on saturday for those families who want to just replacement only and not have the honors. that is helping us reduce the weight time to bury a loved one. -- wait time to bury a loved one. caller: i have a question with the process dimensions. houle easy is a free to misplaced the remains? guest: one of the things we

have is a new chain of custody. since we have started in june of 2010, we can say that with the procedures we put in place that it will not happen in the future. guest: just to follow. it is about the wait time for the military to provide the honors of that person. we're looking at reducing that. when it comes to the placement of remains accurately, that is different from the wait time. that is an operation and professionalism issue. we operate that closely. host: there is a story on the front page of the "washington post" of mishandling at dover air force base. what would you say about the

process you see their? would you comment on it? guest: i am very confident that the air force is handling that incident properly and looking into the procedures of that need to be corrected at dover. guest: i will follow on her comments. it is disturbing. there is a concern. to the information is out there. the office of special counsel have investigated and taken corrective action. i am confident they are aware of the problem. they had taken the correct steps to ensure the remains are being properly handled. host: did either you get contacted by officials about this? guest: we have not been contacted. arlington is our primary mission. i read that the united states

air force has that issue under control. guest: what did the things that the air force did is the day immediately did put in new procedure of a call center. that is what we did here. host: south carolina. veterans line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i would like to sincerely thank mrs. condon and mr. hallinan for your efforts. tomorrow is marine corps day. thank you. guest: happy birthday to my fellow marines. host: south carolina. caller: good morning.

i would like to thank each and every one of you that works at arlington as was the other national cemeteries. my brother has recently been in turn at one in pennsylvania. if they did a wonderful job. my first and only visit to arlington occurred just prior to my going into the service. i ended up serving in desert storm. i was taken aback by the amount of -- worth 60 me sometime -- the sacrifice -- words escape me some time, the sacrifice. one thing i did want to say, when i was there, it was a real quick tour they took us into this place. there is not enough time to see all of the sites on this particular tour. is there anything being are

ranged to fully tour the facility in -- arranged to fully tour the facilities so people can fully understand the sacrifice that takes place? guest: 1 in the things we are putting in place is to enhance the visitor experience through not only a new tour mobile but also there are visitors center. we do realize the value of this hallowed ground to not only our veterans but for future generations to learn and explore about arlington and military service and all of those that sacrifice for our nation and our freedoms. host: north carolina. the democrats line. caller: i was -- are there any other well-known sports actors their? -- sports and actives there?

guest: there are many notable americans to have contributed significantly. this goes back to what mrs. condon mentioned. to explore these grounds, i come out here every day. every day i see something i did not realize. i look at a headstone in see the history. i learn a little bit more about my country. the with the veterans day coming up, we will pause here to remember our soldiers and servicemen and women who have fallen. it is a day to honor those who are with us. to show our appreciation and spend time with us. when you come to arlington and you walk on these grounds, it tugs at your heart. you really do know when the price of freedom is. you do know about the service

and sacrifice that rests here. we are mindful of that every day. guest: we have a new website arlingtoncemetery.mill where you can explore the rich history of his is buried here by going online at our new web site. host: is the website searchable? guest: it is. it is arlingtoncemetery.mil host: will digital pictures be available? guest: that is what the future applications we will put in place as well as an application for any of your smart phones where you can literally in digitally okayed or a loved one is buried here in the cemetery. we are a couple months away from that.

you will soon be able to look at your smartphone and locate anyone who is buried here in cemetery. host: south carolina. democrat line. caller: y'all got a beautiful cemetery. i have several family members better in the military, marines, representing all four branches. my question is that i have seen it on tv, the cemeteries in the movies. the headstones play a part. do you still leave them? and do you take them up when the scene is shot? guest: if they use what you described one of the nature headstone. they normally will pan so you will see the actual headstones.

if they do a scene as a grave sites and it is for a movie, that's done would be removed. that would just be a replica of a government headstone. it will not be left out there. guest: we respect the privacy of each and every loved one who is buried here. host: are reservists able to gain access to arlington? guest: they are eligible and they are on a retired list and receiving retirement pay. everyone has access to arlington. to the cemetery belongs to the american people. host: virginia. independent line. caller: i been touring the cemetery since 1959. i they ogle buried there. i used to hear the bridge i haven't and -- i have an uncle buried here. [unintelligible] has the bell been disabled the?

does is still running? guest: i am not aware of any issues or problems. as i wonder these grounds, i've heard them bringing across the fields. guest: i heard them rining yesterday. host: if someone to visit, what would you advise as far as this strategy? guest: one of the first things i would advise them is to put on very comfortable walking shoes. we have 624 acres of the cemetery. every headstone has a story. do not just explore the site said the tourist normally go to. what amongst the 70 sections.

that is where the true history is. host: massachusetts. good morning. veterans line. caller: good morning. i am convinced of your devotion to duty. i appreciate c-span giving the american people a chance to be involved. my question is regarding our territories such as qualm and pr. -- guam and pr? are they allowed to be in turned? guest: if they are eligible and a surge honorably, -- and served honorably, they do come back and are here. host: what did the operating hours?

guest: visitors hours, depending on season, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the wintertime, later in the summertime based on the time of the season. operationally, we have different tours of duty for our staff. host: going back to how we started as far as making sure people are categorized correctly, what goes on from here? guest: as i stated previously, we have completely digitized the operation at arlington. our accounting will carry that forward where we will have a photo of each and every gravesides which will be digitally attached to the records that are buried of the

individuals here. we are also working to expand the cemetery grounds for the future at arlington. host: you talked about having a process. who oversees that? guest: everyone at arlington is responsible. myself, and the deputy, the supervisors, a senior members, that responsibility lies with all of us. she spoke to digitizing the records. we're also going to leverage that technologies that we can operate effectively into the 21st century. people bury people. it is not all about technology. we do wanted to improve to help us track and do a better job of maintaining these grounds.

host: the louisiana. we are just about to go to an event. go ahead. caller: if i can for second everyone's opinion that this is a great, awesome, a very stimulating discussion. it is a worthy institution. the question i have is are there any reports, a history of -- are there any instances where the paranormal or supranatural or what can be considered just downright out of the ordinary? have there been any instances of that? guest: not that i am aware of. i've no personal experience of that. i am not aware of it. i am sure walking around here at night with the leaves falling and the various sounds, one can literally wonder about

such things. host: our guests are patrick hallinan, the superintendent of arlington national cemetery, and reverend condon. she is the executive director. thank you for telling us about the work of arlington. guest: thank you. >> coming up, centers mark of a bill overhauling the postal service. -- centers mark up a bill overhauling the postal service. in less than three hours, part of the "new hampshire today" radio program. then we will be air our series on the military in a segment looking at arlington national cemetery. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on c-span. the senate finance committee holds a hearing on unemployment

assistance at an o'clock a.m. eastern. they will look at what successful state programs have done. then they will look at the national level. ben bernanke discusses financial literacy at the town hall meeting in texas. >> this weekend, on afterwards, the reactionary mind author and columnist discuss the history of conservatism. condoleezza rice recounts her years in the bush administration. and from back to work, bill clinton's thoughts on the state of the american economy. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a bill which refunds the retirement system and allows six day delivery to continue. this is less than three hours. >> good >> good morning and welcome to the market. we do not have 6 for the required quorum to begin with the market, but if we could begin with some opening statements. opening statements. the main agenda today, which is the 21st century postal service act of 2011 -- i have something

to put into the record. since i first came to the senate in 1989, it has been an honor for me to serve on this committee as the governmental affairs committee, and now the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. some of the most productive work that i have had the privilege to do has happened in this committee, because, i think, a couple of things. one is a strong and real and, i would say, a proud tradition of bipartisanship. the second is that the committee has not shrug from the problems and from presenting solutions that are bipartisan and are

therefore, more often than not, have gone on to be adopted by both houses. notable among the list as i look back just among the last decade after 9/11, this committee originated the legislaon that led to the creation of the department of homeland security. we also raised the bill that was adopted that created the 9/11 commission, which did, as we all know, extraordinary, independent, nonpartisan investigation of the attack on us in 2001, and enacted comprehensive reform legislation to make sure as much as we could that nothing like that would ever happen again. then the committee adopted that legislation, so in two

iterations over four years constituted together the most significant reforms in the national security homeland security apparatus since the end of the second world war. we also have a cyber security bill working its way through. i'm very proud and grateful for the work this committee has done, and in particular, of course, to work with senator collins as closely and producvely as we have. today, this committee confront another big problem facing our country. and i'm very proud that the four of us, the ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees the postal service, senator carta, and senator brown, the ranking member on that subcommittee, are presenting a solution, we

believe, to the crisis that the postal service is facing today. it is not small, but it is a mini version of the macro problem that our entire that will shackle and diminish our future as a country unless we deal with it, and that is being played out in the super committee. the postal service is an extraordinary american institution, begun, really, right at the beginning of the country in the 18th century. and yet, it is not a relic. it is a great national aet. it is well over a trillion

dollars of our national economy that is dependent on the u.s. postal service. but the sad reality is that it has gone into what i fear will be a death spiral unless we do something together to do something to rescue it. this year, the budget of the u.s. postal service will be $65 billion aroximately. its expected losses this year are going to be about $10 billion. it is just not going to be able to continue operating in that way and be the postal service that this country has depended on, including the universal service. a $10 billion deficit -- why has this happened? a lot of reasons. a lot of it may be internal in

the organization, and the post by esther has -- the postmaster has asked for the authority to make it more efficnt. i think a lot of that is in the bill today. things havehanged with the internet and electronic mail. the volume of mail that the post office is asked to carry and deliver hasiminished greatly. and in recent years, the post office just like every other economic entity, has been affected by the economic recession that we have been in, and in some sense, are still fighting our way out of. the status quo is not going to work. therefore, senator collins, setor carter, senator brown and i have worked together very hard and without regard to party lines to see if we could come up with a solution to this problem

that would change the postal service so that it cries would -- that it would survive the 21st century in a healthy way and move on to the2nd century. i think we have a substantial proposalo make to you today that authorizes changes in th postal service beverley will cut costs by reducing the workforce, by reforming some of the benefit plans of the employees of the postal service, and by consolidating services that the post office offers the american public and business. we explicitly did not do what some people were asking us to do, which is to allow an increase in the price that the postal service charges, a so- increase,xigent

suggesting that we override a denial of an increase. the last thing you want to do with a business when it is in trouble is to raise prices, because you will end up having less business than you had before. we think this proposal that we've made will enable the postal service to saveillions of dollars. by one credible estimate that i have seen, without any change -- if the postal service just goes along with the status quo by the year 2020, it will be spending $85 billion a year. if this bill is enacted and the powers we give the postmaster to were cooperatively with his employees are enacted, this

estimate says the postal service will be spending $65 billion a year, which is a $20 billion savings and will allow it to go on into the future. there are parts of the proposal that are controversial, frankly, from both perspectives. some people think parts of it are too tough and some think it is not tough enough. we think what we are presenting to our colleagues on this committee is a bipartisan solution to a big, national problem that can pass both houses of congress and be signed by the president. of course to say the obvious, it is not perfect. there are a lot of amendments that have been filed with the committee, some of which can help and some of which we think it will not. we look forward to the debate.

i know our staffs have passed your staffs to see if we can have the option of reconvening at to 30 p.m. this afternoon if we cannot finish this morning -- at 2:30 p.m. this afternoon if we cannot finish this morning. we will go in the order of seniority until we have finished. th that, it is my pleasure to call on senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by thanking all of our members. every single member of this committee has expressed an interest in the postal service's financial crisis. many of you have put together suggestions, have offered amendments, and i think it is a tribute to this committee that

out -- that all of our members have been so engaged on this very important issue. but i do particularly want to commend the leadership. we have worked for iran is to put the postal service back on its footing. this bill gives the postal service would it needs to modernize and thrive. and i want to point out an unassailable fact, and that is, the postal service literally will not survive without fundamental legislative and administrative reforms.

the postmaster general has been ry clear on this. he has told us that a year from now, the postal service will be unable to meet its payroll. those dedicated postal workers will not be able to be paid, and that means that the mail will not be delivered. in fiscal year 2010, the postal service losses were $8.5 billion. in fiscal year 2009, they were $3.8 billion. in fiscal year 2008, they were $2.8 billion. as you can see, we are going in the wrong direction, and if nothing changes, the projected losses for this fisc year are $10 billion. again, that means this crisis would result in the postal

service been unable to meet its payroll. -- being unable to meet its payroll. jobs are at stake. i think when many peoe think of the postal service, they think of their local post office. they have great affection toward their local postal -- post office. ifhey are in business, they may be aware of the local postal facilities. but the fact is, the postal service is the linchpin of a $1 -- of a $1.1 trillion mail related iustry that employs approximately 8 million americans, as diverse as catalogs, paper and printing and the list goes on. in our bill, we are directing the postal service to make painful choices to reduce its

cuts, and not simply cut services and raise prices, which would only add to its death spiral. the solution to the postal services and financial crisis is not easy, but it must involve tackling significant expenses in ways that do not drive away customers and further depress its volume. is postal service's mission to provide the american public with a universal and affordable service. but its operating costs he increased and its volume and revenue have plummeted. we need to allow the postal service more flexibility and give it more tools to remain solvent. no one, least of all the four sponsors of this bill, none of us is happy with every provision

in this bill. it is a compromise, and that is the nature of a compromise. but nevertheless, it does not avoid the difficult issues. it tackles the very tough issues in a responsible way. let me just comment on some of those issues. 80% of the stal service's crossed our workforce related. that means that painful though it is, you cannot solve the postal service's problems without giving the tools that are necessary to confront some of the work force problems. and those are difficult ones, because all of us have the depth of respect for our postal employees. but the fact is that our work

force is too large for the volume that remains. our plan gives the postal service -- gives the postmaster general the authority to offer a compassionate early retirement incentive to encourage tens of thousands of eligible employees to retire. the postmaster general's estimate is that 100,000 workers would take advantage of this program. it would be financed in part by the return of a $7 billion overpaymenade by the postal service to one of the federal retirement programs. this is a refund that everyone who has looked at this issue agrees is warranted. we had gao do the final calon this and gao has substantiated

that there is, in fact, an overpayment to the program. we have not included a provision that was in the earlier drops to refund $55 billion from the csrs retirement program because gao determined that was not, in fact, an overpayment. there is lots of disagreement over that, but we dropped that. and we are only refunding the $7 billion overpayment that all parties from independent actuaries to the administration, the gao, the inspector general have been verified as being a true overpayment. the buyout program will help to right-size the work force, which again, is driving 80% of the postal service's costs.

the bill also includes long- overdue reforms to the compsation programs. these, too, will save hundreds of millions of dollars and help put more individuals back on the path to work. unfortunately, the current program has become an alternative retirement program for too many workers. the postal service, which is responsible for some 60% of the claims in the federal employee'' compensation program, now has 2000 employees aged 70 and oldereceiving workers' comp. two of them are now age 99. those individuals are never coming back to work. it does not make sense for them to be on a worker's comp

program, which is intended to be a safety net program temporarily for workers who are injured and then returning to work. and that is why the obama administration has proposed sweeping changes in the worker'' comp program. our bill reflects the changes advocated by the help -- the obama administration, by the gao, in numerous reports by the idea of the department of labor, which administers -- by the i.g. of the department of labor, which administers the program. if we have also included a two- year prohibition on moving to 5 day delivery. our belief that the postal service is to squeeze out all

the costs in the system before doing this dramatic reduction from six days to five days of delivery -- that reduction could come about only if gao certifies that the savings have en made and the prc also ratifies that finding and the savings are still not adequate to return the postal service to solvency. i think this is so important. one company told me that 18% of our seniors receive their prescription drugs through the mail on saturdays. their news -- there are newspapers that rely on saturday delivery. if we lose those businesses, they will turn to alternative forms of delivery, causing a further decline in the postal volume.'s proble

again, we are taking an alternative view that if the cuts included in the bill are notufficient, then the postal service will reduce the number of days of delivery. but this should be a last resort, not the first option. on another controversy hola -- controversial issue, i'm sure all of you have heard about the closure of small post offices. we will have more discussion on that later. i know a number of members have been working very hard on an amendment in that area. i will wait to talk more about that later. there are many other provisions in this bill. it is a comprehensive approach, and i believe it will accomplish the goal of putting the postal

service back on a sound financial footing. but again, the changes are going to be painful. the decisions are difficult ones. and i thank my colleagues for workg so hard to bring us to this point. >> thank you, senator collins, and thank you for your hard work. before i call on senator brown, the rest of the agenda is non- controversial. i woullike to move that would consider the following items as a block. they are the five nominations listed on the agenda, and one legislative item, a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of the combined federal campaign. is there any objection? hearing none, thcommittee will move to unblock those. all in favor?

all opposed? the motion passes. thout objecti, senator carper's remarks relating to that will be in the agenda. senator carper and senator collins have worked very hard, basically, to keep the postal service ambulatory, if i can put it that way. the business environment has changed. that is why i call this instead of postal reform, postal rescue legislation. i uld like to call on senator carper, who continues to be the chair of the subcommittee that oversees the postal service. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for the leadership you have provided and for encouraging us to work the way the senate used to.

where democrats and republicans and occasionally an independent set aside differences and work to get results. the american public wants to make sure that we can still work togeer around here. without that, we continue to model our way through the economy. we provide some certainty. the postal service will be around. it will be around ia different size and different extent and form and fashion at a news to be. -- then in use today. whenlan greenspan was chairman of the fed, he came to testify on dicit reduction. he was talking about health care, if we do not do something about reducing the health care costs, we are doomed. i said to him in the q&a, would be your recommendation on health

care? and senator coburn, you may remember this conversation. and he said, and not an expert. this is what i do. i nd out what works and i do more of that. that is what he said. and i said, you mean like finding out what does not work and do less of that? >> and he saiand he said yes. a good example of this is the auto industry. they added more employees and their structure was out of bounds. all of that has changed. we have actually seen this moving. an industry that people thought was dying has come back.

and many people have thought that the post office is a relic of a bygone era. 7 million jobs are still related to the postal industry and to the need for the postal industry to be viable and do its job in a more cost-effective way. the post service needs to right-size but it industry. that is what we are trying to do with this legislation. it is down from about $800,000 to about $550,000. we want to bring it down by about another $100,000 in the next year not by firing people, but by incentivizing people to retire. i am always interested in how we leverage. everybody at this table is. how do we leverage and get more

with less? we can do that by making sure that over payments to the retirement system cane used in part to incentivize people to retire. 80% of the postal costs are people. this will help them get their head count down to where it needs to be. they have 33,000 post offices. that is more than we need. it is hard to defend that we have a post office at somewhere in america were there is no place else. but there is a way to make sure the community gets the service that they need. it may not be with a full-time post master, but with someone in and out of the post office several times of day. smart results for less money. the other two 0.1 to make, a lot of the health care -- the other

two statements i want to make, a lot of the health care costs are a problem here. when employees to contribute to health care costs, they are really paying price. -- paying twice. we've come up with a medigap plans to cover some of the differences. maybe they can come up with a stand-alone entity to set of their own deal like the auto workers have done. senator collins has pushed curbside delivery. we are working to it slowly and will not mandate it for everybody, but where it does work it may save some money. and moving from six days to five days, if we do not reali the

kind of cost savings that are needed and two years now we go from six days to five days, i would urge them to continue to negotiate with the labor unions. the last thing i want to say, it is not enough -- ought i like to say when facing the budget deficit problems in this country, it is not enough to cut or just raise taxes or revenues. you have got to grow the economy. the postal service has got to find ways to grow their business. they have to be even more entrepreneurial. in this legislation, we allow the postal service to do what ups and fedex do. there are a lot of other

entrepreneurial ideas out there. and one of them is virtual mailboxes. an when they do those things, we cannot get in the way. you know the ad campaign an says, "we can do it. you can help"? we need to do that. we have all tried to abide by the golden rule. how would we want to be treated if we were the customer, the business customer? how would we want to be treated as residential customers? how would we want to be triggered if we worked for the postal service? how would we want to be treated if we are the taxpayer? we try to keep those things in mind and those things remain in this bill. can things be better?

sure, but the idea as this bill moves through the floor that we have not just kicked the can down the road. the we have actually given them the tools to fix this problem. >> thank you, senator. thanks for all of the work you did. senator bwn as the dynamism and creativity of used to this fearsome foursome. >> thank you. i will be brief because there's not much more to say. but failure is not an option. what we want to do is keep the post office by a ball, treat the employes with the respect they deserve, and not only reduce the workforce, but help them to continue to be employed. if we do nothing, it will close in a very short timeframe.

all of the ancillary jobs that go along wit it -- i went along with the issue, like the senator collins and carper and you. i was very pleased with the give-and-take. we each focused on one particular issue. other forward to what we came up with. >> let's go forward with this consideration of time and use it as our base as we debate the bill today. this is offered on behalf of the four bus. and -- above us. several technical changes, but i believe it has been given to staff.

the deputy postmaster general was good enough to be here. if we ask him specifically to be here because maybe there would be some discussion of fact questions that have come up that he will be able to answer that, perhaps, even our extraordinarily smart and hard- working staffs might not. i want everybody to know that if you have questions as this goes on -- as i indicated earlier -- as this goes on, and as i indicated earlier, we will go in seniority. >> [inaudible] >> there you go. every now and then i think you are a rookie. [laughter] senator brown substitutes.

all in favor? those opposed? it is adopted. senator levin, do you want to begin? you always have the opportunity to defer if you want. >> i would like to begin with an amendment. >> ok. >> i think it is amendment no. 3. it has to do with the transparency of contracts between the postal service and the people with whom they deal. is that the right number, 3? >> that is correct. >> i'm very much supportive of these provisions. let me first thank my -- exte my thanks to you, the formal -- the four horsemen. [laughter]

one of the provisions of the bill has to do with transparency, to make sure we know what the postal service is doing. are was interested in what their contracts were with the folks that they deliver mail for, and that they transport mail for, and that is, fed ex and ups. and i thought i would take a look at those contracts and i was told that i cannot look at the contracts. only one person in congress under those contracts is allowed to look at the contracts. they are redacted. and it reads that the only person who can get it is the chairman of the house subcommittee with oversight responsibility. >> there is a story here. >> i know there is.

>> we do not know it, but there is a story. >> [laughter] that is what i want to find out. that is not just offensive to the senate, but to congressional overght, and i think is offensive to the taxpayers of the united states. i just want to find out what the deal is. senator coburn mention that we should be delivering mail to the last mil for the american public, and we do. in many places, we do deliver the mail the last mile for them. and that is fine. apparently, they transport most of the mail that goes by mail -- by air now. it is not traditional airlines, which i kind of assume from boyhood is what is being done, but it is not. it is being done by fedex and ups, and that is fine. i just want to see the contract. what i did with the approval of the chair and the ranking member

is notify folks that i would issue a subpoena and we checked with my wonderful ranking member on the investigation committee, senator coburn, just to let him know you would be issng a subpoena to get hold of the contracts. at that point, i was told, ok, you can see the contract. what this amendment does, very simply is to provide that bill -- ups will not enter into a contract unless the committee gets oversight. >> senator levin, as we all know, is a hard-working and persistent member of the senate and he follows trails that sometimes lead to surprising places, and thione did. >> [inaudible] >> [laughter] is there further discussion?

i really, i thank you for pursuing this. if there is no further discussion, all in favor? all those opposed? it is adopted. senator coburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to make a couple of comments and then allow senator came to take the position at the mike. you all worked very hard on this and there are some very good things in here, but i remember five years ago. >> that tom, is youricrophone on? >> it is on, just not close enough. i remember five years ago. we were going to fix it. and the one thing we did not do in that bill is give the post in that bill is give the post office the flexibility to