how can we vote on something when we have not heard a minute of testimony from a single expert or consulted relevant federal law enforcement agencies, particularly on an issue of this magnitude? i do not believe we should up end decades of settled law without at least studying the issue. i would urge us today to commit to studying the issue before acting without having all the facts in front of us. the other issue of -- while the other issue of parking lots will go before the federal courts. i want to offer a second-degree amendments for the paul amendment number three. i would like to offer a modified version of my second-degree amendment that was circulated this morning. the modification makes clear that the postal service must immediately begin implementing any changes recommended in the reports.

let me say that again. the modification makes clear that the postal service must immediately begin implementing any changes recommended in the reports. this amendment would have a group of experts look at this issue before recommending what, if any changes to current law would be prudent. it recommends the bureau of inspection services, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, and the department of justice submit reports to the house and senate regarding the security changes, if any, that need to be made across the country should the carrying of firearms consistent with state law be allowed on postal properties or inside postal offices. my amendment then requires the postmaster general to submit a report to the committees of jurisdiction in the house and senate for the cost estimates of the security changes and whether

these would necessitate facility closures or relocations. the postmaster general would also be required to make recommendations regarding the feasibility of amending current regulations to address be lawful carrying of firearms on postal properties and how that would impact the safety of postal employees, customers, property and to the u.s. mail. i would not want to take a vote on any amendment without having all the facts, and with senator paul's amendment, we just don't have that much to go on at this time. we need to know the consequences for public safety and the postal service's finances. before proceeding to a vote on the underlying amendment. i would urge support for carper second-degree amendment urging a study on this issue. again, the modification makes clear the postal service must immediately begin implementing any changes recommended in the reports.

>> mr. chairman? one difficulty i have with your second-degree amendment is you are giving the post office authority that congress ought to have when you tell them to begin implementing immediately whatever they find out in their study. we have no assurance anybody in congress will have capability on that committee and have no idea where that study might go. it might be considerably more difficult than the present language. so, with that caveat, i have that difficulty and i appreciate that you put your guns in the trunk of the car when you went to the post office, but i come from a part of the country where most people do not have a trunk. they call it a pickup. [laughter] >> we could not afford a pickup in those days. senator? >> mr. chairman, i appreciate this modification. i appreciate senator paul's amendment, what he is trying to do here.

i would just say this. i am in strong support of the second amendment. i have got more guns than i need and i want some more, ok? at the bottom line, some places where guns are not appropriate. this building would not be appropriate to have a gun in it. i do not think it is appropriate to have a gun in the post office. the parking lot is a different issue, however. in rural america, there are a lot of folks who might be out hunting gophers and they have to go pick up the mail and have the guns setting in the pickup. it's just a matter to have the tools to do their work with. if i had my druthers, and we do not have the opportunity to vote for this, i would vote to allow guns in the parking lot, but not in the post office. >> thank you, senator tester. others? any more comments? if not, i am going to ask the

clerk to call the roll on carper amendment number two as modified. [roll call vote] >> senator levin? senator tester? senator begich? senator baldwin? senator high heidi hightkamp? senator mccain? senator johnson? senator paul?

senator ayotte? senator carper? mr. chairman, on the vote with those present, the yays are 8, the nays are 5. on the vote of those by proxy the yeas are 1 nays are 1. on this vote, the yeas are 9 the nays are 6. the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you. i think we need to do a procedural vote? >> yes. mr. chairman, the amendment we will be voting on is now the primary amendment and i would like to propose a second-degree amendments to the primary amendment and that would be amendment three as modified.

>> suspend just for a moment please. >> i have no idea. [indiscernible]

[inaudible conversations]

[raps gavel] >> come to order please. senator paul, i think i said at the last markup --

as chairman, this is my first opportunity to share the markup of a major bill. this is my 13th or 14th year in the senate, i do not recall every situation when someone offered amendment and a second-degree amendment was offered to become the underlying amendment. the offeror of the original amendment then came back and say i also offer to -- i also offer the third-degree amendment which is really what the original amendment. if that were to be approved, i do not think that would be approved. if you were to invite me to come back and offer the same substitute -- we could be here for the rest of the day. i do not think that is what is intended by the rules. >> in my experience, what

usually happens is it turns out to be a side-by-side rather than a second-degree amendment. usually, they get their vote. >> in this case, i have offered the second-degree. we have had discussion of it. we have had a vote. >> can i make one response? >> yes, please. >> i guess it's a question. this goes along with what senator and z -- this goes along with what senator enzi is saying, is there an attempt by the majority not to vote on this issue? many would feel like they are sidestepping this issue. you would rather vote indirectly on this issue rather than directly? >> there is no question where i

stand on second amendment rights. i have taken a beating on this, but i do it because it is the right thing for alaska. if you want to do the parking lot amendment, let's just say whatever the district court has ruled is what we are going to put in this amendment. i am happy to support you on that now. >> i am happy to support multiple amendments, we should not have a committee where they will vote on -- you will live on amendments you can agree on, not amendments you can agree to. you just voted to strike this language that would protect hunters and gun owners, and not address an issue that is a very serious issue. you can't have it both ways. >> senator paul, i disagree. the way the amendment is drawn it is clear. after the process is implemented

. if you want to get to the parking lot issue i am happy to , do that right now. that would be very simple. that would echo the supreme -- that would echo the circuit court. i had the same problem and alaska. i hear you. if you want to do it, let's do it. let's quit playing parlor games. let's cut to the chase and make sure that my folks in atlanta when they go to the eastchester branch in anchorage and they park with her gun in the car they are not going to get in trouble. that is the issue. let's cut to the chase and do it. that's what gun owners in my state care about. >> senator tester wants to make a comment. before you do, let me just say my inclination is for us to move , on -- every now and then there are debates and other committees and issues, we reach a point where the ranking member says this is something we need to continue to have a discussion on. obviously this issue will be on the floor.

we will revisit this issue. you will have an opportunity to offer an amendment, perhaps crafted somewhat differently. maybe along the lines suggested by senator begich. unless there is an objection the chair is going to rule that the paul amendment as amended by , the second-degree amendment has been approved, and i would like us to move on to take on other amendments. this is not the finish line. this is not the finish line, ok? we have the floor. we have conference. and we have the courts. so, this is an issue that will get a lot of air time before we are done. all right. thank you. with that, we will come back -- go ahead, senator tester. >> real quickly mr. chairman, , being in this position, and the previous position for 15 years now, and i don't know i've ever had anyone come up to me and say, it's really important that i need to carry my gun into a post office.

and montana is a very gun-rich state. on the other side of the coin, there have been debates about guns in parking lots of other places before. let's not kid ourselves. this is about politics. this is about 100% politics. because if i vote against this amendment that rand paul has the commercials are not going to say jon tester voted against guns in post offices. they are going to say jon tester voted against guns in parking lots, which is what the concerns would be. let's not fool anybody here. this is not about good policy. this is about a political election in november and what kinds of ads will be run. and how the record will be distorted in those ads. >> senator mccaskill? >> i want to echo that because at the beginning of this debate it was clear, senator paul said nra will score this. that is a blinking light, nra is going to score this.

you will be in big trouble if you do not do what nra says. with all due respect if we want to vote on the parking lot amendment, let's vote on the parking lot amendment and quit obfuscating this with some made up demand everybody has to carry their gun in their post office. >> we will get a chance to vote on the parking lot amendment when the bill comes to the floor, and i hope we will get a good vote, and it will come to the floor. >> i want to add one comment. most of the amendments we will have on this bill are about parochial politics, whether it is parochial representing the printers or not closing down a service center or limiting closure of post offices. they are parochial events and political events, too, because the point i would make, this bill is about expanding revenues and cutting costs to the post office.

i think we ought to get back to working on the substance of the postal bill. >> just quick. to me the way to get past this impasse is a vote on both amendments. but on the ability to carry a gun on the parking lot as well as in a post office. but vote on both of them. that would be the way to do it. for the chair to say we will get this vote on the floor, and has not been the history since i have been in the senate. we have not been able to vote on amendments on the floor. it is part of the dysfunction of this place. we have committee hearing, and i am happy to move on, but i could not just remain silent. we are not getting votes on amendments. just vote. >> mr. chairman, i want to echo in support of senator johnson's comments. i would love to vote on an amendment that just deals with parking lots.

i raised that issue the last time, i raised the colorado court case as an example of what a judge has already decided, albeit not for the rest of the country. it seems to me that we ought to vote on both of those amendments and move on. >> i cannot guarantee 100%, but i will bet my paycheck that we will be able to vote on that sooner rather than later in the full senate. and i will work hard to make sure we have that opportunity. let's move on. senator begich -- >> i want to make it clear that if senator paul's amendment is offered, i know there is a process here, we could object to the ruling of the chair and move forward. if we object to the ruling and there is senator paul's amendment, i will make it very clear that we are going to have a simple amendment to echo the issues i hear from alaskans, gun owners every single day. that is on the issue of the parking lots.

that is what the presentation was a week ago by senator paul as the issue. that is what we should hone in on. that was the court case he talked about, and the court case is very clear. i want to make this very clear because i think that is your point, that we should offer it and i recognize you want to move on, but in some ways, why don't you just deal with this here and offer his amendment -- we will draft up something very quickly. i can't imagine that if your amendment goes forward, if it does not go forward, then an additional amendment and then we will get this issue resolved. >> let me say in response, i think we had a good discussion here. i know not everybody is happy with where we are. i think the best way for us to get happy is to continue this conversation. i want us to pass this bill, i want to be able to bring this bill to the floor.

i want us to be able to continue this conversation. there's a clear compromise here that can be offered on the floor. it could be bipartisan, does not have to be paul's, and there's a good chance it would the adopted. it would address the underlying concern here, take politics out, and address what is a real concern. i can see how the shotgun in the trunk or the pickup is an issue. let's just move on, ok? and i promise, i pledge to work with senator coburn, senator paul and others on the democratic side to get this resolved. >> mr. chairman, please. in all due respect, i am going to object to your ruling. and the reason for it is this is an issue we should just resolve and i recognize that the debate on the floor will be the floor. but i think i want to make it very simple in the sense of how to deal with this.

it just seems why don't just do eal with this once and for all? i think if senator paul was thinking about this, we could have a compromise right here to do what we both wanted to and be done. >> mr. chairman? >> senator pryor. >> the problem from my standpoint with continuing this is that senator paul offered an amendment, legitimate, you offered a second-degree, legitimate. we voted on it. your second-degree past. and i do not know procedurally how you get back on to that now without, like you said before, we can be here all day and keep voting and voting and voting over and over and over.

my sense in looking at the parliamentary posture here in the committee at this point, at least for now we ought to close this issue down, go on to other amendments, and maybe if there is a way procedurally to bring it back up, but we are spinning our wheels here. >> if i was chairing this committee i would rule against senator paul as well. under the parliamentary move. otherwise we will never have a process that we can operate committees on. i stand with the chairman in saying that this is not an eligible amendment because it is actually a third-degree amendment. we do not allow third-degree amendments in the senate. even though some of us might want to because we lost privileges on the floor. i would just back up the chairman that i would rule exactly the same way, that it violates parliamentary procedure and that he cannot have it. i think we move on. >> senator begich, i would urge

you to -- i would urge you to withdraw your objection and let us move forward and actually vote on the paul amendment as amended, as substituted, and i promise you we will come back and revisit this issue sooner rather than later on the floor and you will have every opportunity along with every , democrat and republican on this committee, to craft that proposal, and i think it will have a good chance of getting it done. we will have the opportunity to get the input from law enforcement agencies and others that we have not been able to receive. so i would urge you not to object and let us move forward. >> i would also say if you object to the ruling of the chair and you are successful this committee will never operate effectively again because you will have allowed a precedent in the committee for

third-degree amendment, which is a disaster, which means it never ends, which means we can never move product through the committee. >> senator tester. >> mr. chairman, i understand what the ranking member is saying, but the fact is we will determine whether those happen later on down the line. this is an important enough issue, more important than the parochial interests you talked about. we are talking about the constitution. and i think that brings us to a higher level, and i support senator begich in his objection. i quite frankly think we should take a vote on these two issues, as senator johnson has said, get it behind us. we could be done by now if we just move on it. >> mr. chairman, again, and i recognize that some people might think we will be here all day on all kinds of amendments, but my view is this is part of the

committee process. sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not, and we have a tug of war. i would move to waive the rules for the purposes of two amendments. one would be the rand paul commitment, one would be the begich amendment, specifically on the parking lot issue which will be drawn here quickly. inanimate form. -- an amendment form. [inaudible conversations] >> the senior democrat on this committee is not me. it is senator levin. from time to time i look to him

for advice and i just asked him for his advice, and i will ask them to share his advice with us. >> mr. chairman, first of all we cannot break the rules, we cannot override the rules that way. i believe -- or else we are going to have an endless overriding of the rules. that means there are no rules. that may sound familiar to some of you. that is what i believe. and so senator coburn is correct now. on the other hand, we can if we wish by unanimous consent to have two amendments be in order, let them be drafted, and see if we can come up with a unanimous consent agreement to proceed at the end of the markup so there is time to adults -- -- time to adopt, not adopt, but to write these two amendments. i would suggest that chair with

hold a vote on adopting the substitute until the end of the markup and during that time let's have these two amendments prepared and see if we cannot get a unanimous consent agreement to vote on them, because that is within the rules, by unanimous consent we can proceed. i would be very careful and just overriding the chair. i think it opens up a lawless committee procedure. >> all right. i think that is good advice, and why don't we -- i want to thank senator coburn for his comments and his wisdom and helping us do this point. why don't we set aside the vote on paul as amended by my substitute, and why don't we use the remainder of this markup to see what we can do in terms of finding something we can all agree on, most of us agree on, and with that having been said let me -- do we need unanimous consent? >> at least agree to vote on, i

mean not necessarily agree on the substance, that would be agreed by unanimous consent hopefully to vote on one or two amendments on this subject. but save that for the end, so we have an hour or whatever to draft those two amendments. >> i turn to whoever is advising us on these matters, staff, but in terms to what i need to be doing at this time. do i need to make unanimous consent to set this aside? or do we need to just move on to the next amendment? say something, please. >> the latter. >> just set it aside and move on. >> i will set it aside and move on to the next amendment. i am not sure who that might be, it could be you. >> i would like to offer a

-- i would like to reflect what we covered on the bald dwin-mccaskill amendment. we had a debate at the last markup on the baldwin-mccaskill amendment, which struck section 301 of the bill relating to rates and the governments of further rate setting process. as i recall, when we set the issue aside, there were some pretty good exchanges, something that is now referred to as they carper audible was presented. i prefer things in writing. we made an agreement to set it

aside, put something together in writing, have a back-and-forth and maybe come to a consensus. as that -- as the committee suspended its consideration of this bill, i immediately put together compromise language based on some of the input i heard during the debate. i sent it that night to majority and minority staff of this committee, trying to incorporate if not the exact sentiments, the spirit of the debate we have. i was disappointed we did not receive any written response to that until 8:30 p.m. last night. i also wanted to make a couple comments for the record.

i will take a little direction from the chairman. there'll are a couple of issues related to scoring that were set on the record last week that ended up being inaccurate pus.h -- that ended up being inaccurate. rather than calling up employees and questioning their assumptions, i would like to be able to submit for the record some concerns, including the fact that my understanding is that the ten-year outlook spreadsheets that were distributed last week at our markup included about a $4 billion drop in revenue due to a predicted recession, that

should have been something we had a chance to look at. when i put together a proposal that is a compromise from the original baldwin-mccaskill amendment, we asked the postal service for a review of the ten-year outlook. we received one on -- what is the date? we received one earlier this week. we have also -- we received one on the 4th at 11:00 a.m. we have one that has been distributed today. it refers to my amendment. there is a $4 billion difference between what the postal service sent to my office in response to

my request for scoring on the compromise amendment. we just discovered that, that is very distressing to me in terms of getting our numbers straight. let's get back to the merits. mr. chairman and mr. ranking member, if you want further documentary record to underscore these concerns, i would be happy to do that. i do not want to take the committee's time, i do have a modification i would like to offer. in the spirit of getting to a greater compromise. why offered the amendment last week, i talked about two issues -- the rates and the governance. the rates are important to my state because we have a list 200,000 jobs in my state that relate to timber, paper making, printing, and mailing. we have about 12,000 postal

workers. the health of the postal service is intertwined with the help of my state's economy. the rates the certainty, the volatility matters in terms of my state's economy. governance is important, part of the postal service operates as a monopoly. i believe that the substitute amendment that was put before us last week puts that monopoly in charge of setting its own rates. we just do not do that. we have to protect ratepayers and consumers. i used the analogy last week of the electrical utility. you would never let them set their own electrical rates. you have state public utility

commissions or public service commissions that take testimony, gather input from all the stakeholders affected. and then make a decision. to either approve a submission or reject it or modify it. we have got to keep that in place for at least that part of the post office that is a monopoly. that is what the amendment that i introduced last week will publish. -- last week would accomplish. i would like to modify what was the baldwin-mccaskill amendment, i believe that has been distributed in writing. on rates, it would allow the exigent price increase to remain in effect for one full year. after that, the remaining exigency amount would be recouped by moving to a cpi plus one.

the cpi plus one would remain in effect until a new system was implemented. it would maintain the scheduled rewrite of the great process in 2017 which could lead to future rate increases. but that would be part of a transparent process that involves the postal service' customers. the prc projects that my amendment would bring in 3 billion more in total revenue to the postal service. versus -- the carper audible. this actually is a real, true compromise. because of what you are trying to do to enable the post office to become profitable. on governance, under current

law, which might append it would maintain, the regulatory commission whatiould establish a new racism and 2017. there is likely to be an amendment thoo this. my understanding of that second-degree amendment is that it would make the 4.3% exigency rate permanent, putting the postal service in a position where there is no incentive to initiate rate review. i think this gets us back into a very difficult situation for those who we might consider captive customers of the postal monopoly. prc would be powerless in that

instance, there would be no recourse. before i get in too deeply to speaking against second-degree amendment, let me make formal my offering of the modification as i have described it and urge support. >> senator baldwin i am going to offer a substitute on that to your amendment. >> a substitute or a second-degree? >> a second-degree. i have been here for a well, i have not seen anyone more tenacious and dogged on an issue . and more thoughtful than you have been. and i commend you for your tenacity and persistence. i would call up at this time our

second-degree amendment and talk about it. i want us to go back in time a bit. i want to go back to august 1 of last year, there is we introduced the underlying bill dr. coburn and i. we worked for eight months to get to that point. what we propose on rates was this -- we said that the postal service would be free to raise rates to the extent that they thought it was appropriate. if there were products that were under water that the postal service could raise rates to recover their costs. dr. coburn suggested with a fair amount of reasoned that if they raise rates too much, the

mailers would stop using the postal service. there would be a self-correcting period of time. it was really a free-market approach. for me, it has some appeal and a lot of appeal for dr. coburn. that was august 1. when we propose our substitute a week or so ago, we moved way off of that proposal. we basically moved to a proposal that said the accident rate case -- the exigent rate case agree to a couple months ago by the prc would be the new baseline going forward. and that, beginning in 2015 that the cpi cap would go to cpi plus one. an accident rate case -- an e

xigent rate case starting in 2015 cpi plus one would go into effect for the foreseeable future. unless an agreement along the line on a new rate structure. we gave the prc a very minimal role in terms of deciding what that new rate structure would look like. that was our proposal. we moved off of a pure market system to one where the exigent rate case was the new baseline and cpi plus one would follow going forward in 2015. we put the postal service and the drivers seat, i am not even sure if the prc was in the car.

in a conversation in a markup since that time, it was suggested that we back off of cpi plus one and go back to cpi which is where we have been since 2006. and find a right to give -- and find a way to give prc a role. starting in 2017, the prc would propose a new rate structure and begin a dialogue with the postal service on that new rate structure. unlike our substitute amendment, we did not give the postal service veto rights to just kill it. they would have to come to some kind of agreement. the prc has the opportunity to propose the rate structure, the postal service would have -- and i correct? >> no, under the second-degree amendment the postal service

would initiate the review. and hopefully work with the postal regulatory commission and posing something. the revelatory commission would be able to veto -- >> let me be clear. 2017, postal service proposes a rate structure, passes it to the prc they can say yeah or nay. if they say yeahay, we stay at cpi. that is where we are now. exigent rate is the baseline going forward, 2015 would be a move to cpi. not cpi plus one. if there is not an agreement between prc and the postal service on a new rate structure in 2017, cpi stays in place. why do we like that? dr. coburn and i have asked the

postal service to provide tenure financial statements to tell us what net income is likely to be operating income is likely to be, cash on hand, debt situation going forward. if everybody here -- look through your papers. everyone should have a two= -pager. the first page has yellow at the bottom. top says "u.s. postal service 10-year outlook." this is the exigent rateprice increase. the exigent price increase

becomes the baseline and cpi begins in 2015 and going for. not cpi plus one, but going forward. if there is some kind of agreement between the postal service and the prc on a new rate structure fine. if not, we stay at cpi. in the bottom right-hand corner of this spreadsheet the most important number to me, and i think to dr. coburn, is net cash balance at the end of 2023 of $7 billion. that sounds like a lot of money but that is out of $750 billion over a ten-year period. less than 1%.

this assumes no recession for 10 years, we are concerned about that. what the postmaster has done, at our urging, to recognize that 10 years is a long time with no recession, and to tamp down revenues on the out years. they have reduced their forecast expectations. by $1 billion in 2021 and 2022. we will still probably have a recession, but we have urge the postal service to be conservative, the adjustments they have made does that. the most important thing for us to accomplish with what we do here today is, we passed out a bill or the financial -- the postal service will be

financially viable. the numbers here would suggest that is likely to be the case. unfortunately, we do not have the ability to take what senator baldwin has laid out in her most recent proposal and actually run use those revenue assumptions. and be able to price out what kind of net cash or deposition the postal service would be in at the end of 2023. they were able to take an earlier proposal from senator baldwin where we had the exigent rate case in place for 2014 only, and then cpi plus one beginning in 2015. based on that proposal, the net

debt position for the postal service, this is the sheet that has green turquoise on the bottom half. that proposal led them to a debt position somewhere between $3.4 billion and $4.5 billion. that is concerning to me and should be concerning to all of us. let me yield to dr. coburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i comment to the senator of wisconsin, i appreciate your efforts on this. there was a lot of back-and-forth between our staffs. you are accurate that you did not get writing, there was a lot of discussions for two weeks on this issue. it is not that we did not respond and were not working in good faith, we were. this piece of information from the post office, the assumption

and it was cpi plus one forever. which is why you see a difference. it is not a real difference because they ran the numbers. cpi plus one for continuing through 2023. the third point i would like to make. if you look at any of these numbers anywhere and you look at the net debt, the positive cash flows only come in the out years. whether you take my numbers are your numbers, the fact is, at the lowest possible revenues for the post office, it is still a guess. most of the money comes after 2018 to help the post office. i think the post office, and my assessment in looking at the numbers of projected mail

volume by class of mail, is way too optimistic. we are looking at these numbers thinking they will grow at least 6% a year. they are looking at numbers that standard mail will only climb 4% over the next 10 years. i think that both of those premises are highly unlikely. i think we are way too positive right now on the revenue. in terms of our projection. that is their projection, i will take it. i would also say, they did not have a recession in there. they had a conservative based on some of these revenue mixes. they do not really believe their positive projections on growth which is how people plan on ten-year projected budgets. they try to make them as

conservative as possible. i don't think it is as conservative as it should be. three accountants are on this side of the table we have a little bit of experience at budgeting and pro forma balance sheets and income statements. i would go back and say one other thing. i have no doubt everybody on this committee wants the post office to survive. the statements we have heard is that the american taxpayers are paying the bills of the post office, ludicrous. they have paid $15 billion so far in bills. they are at their max. we have to come to a compromise that is fair as we can make it to those paying the price for postage. and fair to the postal employees. and fair to the american public. i have learned some things on

service standards from you senator tester. there are some real problems and i will get to the bottom of that. whether we pass this now or as we moved to conference, we will take care of some of those are the standards that are not delivered in rural areas. you have a legitimate complaint and we have to look at it. we have started, our whole goal from starting this thing was the same thing everyone wants, to make the postal service viable. we have moved a tremendous amount from a true competitive bill that would really make the postal service respond to competitive prices and efficiencies and give them the freedom to do that to a much more constricted position that will put the post office at much higher risk if any of our numbers are wrong. which means, even what senator

carper and i have proposed in the second-degree amendment i still think it is real shaky whether we will have accomplished what we intend to. the final thing, the numbers proposed in your amendment actually force a price decrease next year for the post office. we go down in terms of prices because we are taking away the exigent after one year, we are taking away the cpi in there. then we start at a much lower baseline. if you look at the numbers, it is a $12 billion swing from what senator carper and i have proposed to a -- from 7.2 to minus 4.6 or 4.5. the business has a net cash flow of less than 1% based on very

positive, opportunistic revenue numbers under that proposal. we are to the point that if we do not accept what we have proposed, we will not have solved the problem. we will not have solved the problem. my hope is that we can come to an agreement knowing that this is all going to change as we go to the floor and to conference. but knowing that we have moved to a significant position to where we have really limited the ability of the post office to increase rates. which i disagree with fundamentally. we have limited their ability to cut costs, which i fundamentally disagree, as a principle. but we are still above water we hope.

i hope we can compromise on that, otherwise we have not fix anything. we have not solved the problem. mr. chairman, i fully support your second amendment. we have worked hard to get to this compromise and i hope it will be seen as a compromise that meets halfway the concerns of the senator from wisconsin. i would also say, i want to thank senator johnson for working up the numbers and actually making a positive contribution to protect both the mailers and solve the problem. i am not saying you are not trying to do that. we want as much volume as we can get through the post office. there is a relationship between price increases and increased william -- there is a relationship between price increases and decreased volume. i do not think either of the senators from wisconsin know what that should be. in working with mailers and the

postal service, they can come to an agreement that gives the best revenue and still saves the post office. >> mr. chairman. >> senator baldwin? >> a couple comments. i do not want to belabor i think members are concluding where their votes are on this. on the issue of governance, i do have a question i would like to pose to the general counsel for the prc. >> please. >> think you -- >> mr. corcoran? your role is? >> imd acting general counsel for the postal regulatory commission. >> i want to thank you, you

responded to an inquiry from senator levin after our last markup. he was kind enough to share that with our entire committee. i appreciate that. i wanted to know whether the postal military commission has a position on the new carpe r-coburn second-degree amendment we have been discussing concerning governance? >> yes we had a brief opportunity to consider it. the commission, we did not have time to prepare something in writing. >> how many folks are on the commission today? >> three. >> are there any vacancies? >> two. the postal regulatory commission has a history and expertise in soliciting comments from the

community and developing a system of remaking. the language provides a role for the regulator, but places the development within the control of the regulated entity. the process may be better managed as a joint process among the postal service, stakeholders, and the commission or the regulator balances competing interests in development of a new remaking system. -- of a new remakingatemaking system. >> i urge my fellow committee members to reject the second-degree amendment and that on the compromise alternative. we have had members talk about how far we have come since the original bill, i would not be able to support the underlying bill if the second-degree amendment were to pass. because of the original concerns that brought me to offer my

amendment and first place, to strike section 301. the volatility i see forthcoming and rates that will affect so many in the wisconsin economy concerns me greatly. but transparent governing process, when we are dealing with the u.s. postal service that has such a sizable monopoly is crucial, in my mind, and i place heavyweight on what i just heard from -- comments from the postal regulatory commission on how they would see their role being depleted significantly moving forward. just a couple of additional comments. i have to say our reliance on the spreadsheets is very troubling when you find a $4

billion discrepancy, when you find assumptions -- $4 billion of padding here and there. they are deficits. after 2017, a lot of changes are happening and we are guessing after 2017. it is just very frustrating for you to take spreadsheet and .2 2014 -- i'm sorry 2023 and be able to suggest that is the impact of some of the amendments they are talking about right now. they really are guesses. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the carper-coburn second-degree amendment to the modified baldwin amendment. to pass -- or adopt the baldwin

amendment and carry on with the marco. >> senator johnson seeking recognition. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i certainly share and represent the same interests as senator baldwin does so i obviously take a different respect of this. i would like to respond to a couple of comments and reinforce a couple of points. this is not my solution. i think the best thing for the post office is to be set free and to make sure it remains an entity long-term is to go through a we organization of the -- bankruptcy code. that is the way to have the private sector provide the best chance of the postal service to survive long-term. what we're doing is resolving through a political process and we see how messy it is and really how much of that long-term survival is being put at risk. let me put my business had on.

for a model that is basically bankrupt. industries in wisconsin, they are relying on the business model that is not particularly stable -- and this is where i appreciate the work of the chair and the ranking member -- to try to make this entity survive so we provide some stability so we take at least that risk out of the business model. if this bill fails, who knows what will happen to the postal service? i don't know what size the mounting losses will be. that is something i want to reinforce, something dr. coburn said as well. the american taxpayer not pay for the post office, but $15 billion worth of debt came out of the american taxpayer's hide and as losses mount in the future, where's is that money going to come from?

the unfunded liability is tacked on 15 billion dollars, if the post office ultimately fails who will pick up the tab? the american taxpayer is surely on the hook. it is very strange in business by and large, unless you are in a commodity type of business where you have real volatility of your cost structure to rescind price interest. it just does not happen. yet that is what we are talking about here. let's say if we statutorily rescind the price increase, what will it do to the post office? what would be the rationale for resending that? has the cost decreased? i don't think so. i don't see a reason in a normal business model price increase being rescinded in any manner. i would agree looking up projections is pretty dicey. but you have to look at it and

you have to do something projecting forward. the way i would manage this business decision, i also look at history. one of the things i tried to do in the intervening weeks until last hearing is try to get some sense of what is the history of price increases, not only the post office but its competitors. ups. and fedex. i have -- and it is very difficult because we have announced price increases, but i have gotten the schedule here. i don't know if we should enter this in the record, but i think it is relevant. i want to take a little time to go through this. but if you add up from 2009 six years, announced price increases for ups and fedex, the ground service, it totals 30.4%. if you take a look at the price increases of the postal system on carrier route -- 16.8, 14.4%. i think in a business setting

you have to benchmark what is your pricing structure versus your competitors. i just want to ask, as long as i had the assistant postmaster general here, is that relatively accurate? do you price increases like that far behind both ups and fedex? >> i will refer to our chief financial officer. >> the quick -- answer, senator is yes, they have. >> medical is the problem. also the equation what we should be doing pricewise. my standpoint, i think congress is going to be a pretty bad evaluator of the prices will be. i cannot imagine trying to run a business where one of the riskiest decisions i have to make is price increase or decrease and not having the flexibility to make that based on economic conditions and business conditions on a day-to-day basis. yet we are taking that power and flexibility away from the postal service.

it will not end well. from my standpoint again i would rather give you guys the greatest flexibility. i think you are reasonably intelligent, understanding you don't want to lose a big chunk of your business. you want to maintain that. i do not believe you will overprice that and price yourself totally out of business. last one, because it has been made repeatedly, that the post office is a monopoly. if the post office was a true monopoly you would be making all kinds of money. your service would really stink and your prices would be incredibly high. the fact is, you are not a true monopoly, which is why you are suffering these kinds of losses so you need these kind of flexibility. again, this would not be my solution to the problem but i really do commend senator carper and coburn for their effort in trying to craft some kind of compromise that just might survive to provide postal reform that gives the post office at least the possibility of surviving, because if we don't

do this, i think we put at risk the postal service integrator risk those businesses in wisconsin that rely on you. so i think providing the security and stability trumped certainly my idea of how these things should be resolved and support what senator coburn has done. >> thank you for what you just said here. thank you very much for what you offer to us two weeks ago. it was very important that when of time to thank you for reiterating. senator levin, and i think we will try to wrap it up on this amendment. i asked our staff and asked what does it mean in terms of the prices of mailing a catalog. it allows of an increase of $.38 to $.40 for catalogs magazines $.20 to the nine cents and nonprofit mail, $.10 to $.11. these are not huge increases. senator pryor question mark >> i

will try to be quick. i know time is of the essence. i do want to ask mr. corcoran a question or two since we have them here. first, are you familiar with the language in the baldwin second-degree as well as the carper second-degree? >> to some extent, senator pryor. >> the question i want to ask you is pretty specific and that is, what is the difference in the two proposals as those differences relate to the prc? how do the promote -- proposed amendment street the prc and how do they treat them differently? >> as i understand the baldwin second amendment, if you will, that preserve the current governance and under senator carper and coburn's second-degree it has no

pre-implementation review of postal service market dominant rates and it would, for the review in 2017, the postal service would come in with a proposal and the choice of the commission to have a hearing on it and get comments -- effect on stakeholders would be to approve it without modification or rejected. so it is, as i understand it, and either-or decision. >> different from the status quo today? >> yes, the status quo today would have the commission undertake the review with input from affected stakeholders including the postal service. a proceeding in the commission and would issue an order or decision whether the existing system would be revised or a new

system that would be implemented. >> i would like to respond to that because i think that is an important point that you brought up. we obviously don't have enough revenue at the postal service. and we have the postal rate decision susceptible to the lobbying of those who use the system which is totally accurate. but when you look at the numbers, one of the reasons the post office is in trouble, even with all the posts -- cost-cutting they have done is rate increases have not kept up what the costs associated of doing what they are asked to do. when you see the competitors at almost twice as much in terms of rate increases so they can maintain profitability and put capital back in their business, we have not allowed that through the prc. i would also remind, the people at the prc are not required to have a significant business management or other background

which limits their ability to see things from a postal management perspective. it means they are not doing a good job, not paying attention or not working. we handicap the post office. all you have to do is run the numbers at the postal service even with the volume declined comment had the same increases fedex and ups had had some we would not be sitting here doing this today. >> mr. chairman? >> before senator levin speaks, again, keep in mind, senator pryor, last august -- really no participation. there was a lot of blowback. we modified that so within the manager's amendment we did provide a date for it -- prc. not to the extent they have under current law but divided a significant change. we provided a further significant change with the

second-degree amendment that is before us that would say -- 2015 cpi goes in effect, and forward and in 2017 if there is negotiation between the postal service and the prc on changing the rate structure, the postal service can propose whatever they want. nothing happens unless the prc agrees. if the prc does not agree we stay at cpi. that is pretty simple but -- simple. a positive $7 billion cash position, even assuming we can't -- the revenues 8, 9, 10 years out. uppity postmaster general, did you want to,? and i want to recognize senator levin. >> i just want to reiterate the point you made at the end of your statement and that is, we had every incentive to work with the prc and industry because of we didn't we would be at cpi.

so the incentives in the amendment really force us to work really closely with the prc, to try to come up with an agreement as to an acceptable rate structure. >> senator levin? >> chairman, first, i want to thank senator baldwin. i happen to think it is a fair approach and it involves the prc in a very significant way because the power to say no is the power to shape. and as far as i am concerned you are not precluded having any pre--- what is your word pre-implementation review that you want. it does not say you may not do it it just -- if you want to elicit from stakeholders and the other interesting what you are not precluded. but you have the final right to say no to a proposal. that would not be there but for senator baldwin. so, i am not going to vote for her amendment. i do want to say we are at a place i think is a fair place because a for effort in the same

thing is true on the rate, by the way. i don't see any realistic way the exigent rate would be repealed in any event. i don't have -- know if i've ever seen a government rate that has been reduced. the need is there, it is clear, it will continue to be there. i think we ought to use that in the baseline. i think it is a fair approach. but i would ask unanimous consent that the very helpful letter from the regulatory commission been a part of the record. >> as we prepare to vote on the coburn-carper substitute to the baldwin amendment i'll ask you to keep in mind -- and this is for democrats and republicans but especially for our democrats am i have been concerned and you have been inserted about the post office closings. we tried to be attentive to those concerns.

and thanks to dr. coburn's willingness to compromise we, i think, made good changes and we are prepared to make some others as soon as senator -- can get recognize and we have her amendment. concerned about the closings of the uprising -- processing centers without tying the hands of the post office is unduly and trying in a number of other ways to help the postal service to basically rein in their costs. it can't just be cut, cut, cut. the postal service has taken huge amounts of money out of this system in terms of headcount, in terms of restructuring the post office, in terms of reducing by almost half the number of male processing centers. they cut the heck out of their costs. there's got to be some revenues here, there's got to be some revenues. what i propose is a fair approach that provides uncertainty, predictability. a two cent increase in the price of catalogs, one cent increase

in magazines, one cent increase in terms of nonprofit mail those are not huge, unfair increases, part of the -- rate case that we would make the new baseline. i don't think that is an unfair burden to place on the mailers. but that having been said, i think we are ready to go to the votes on the coburn-carper second-degree amendment, please. >> senator pryor, senator levin, senator landrieu -- >> senator landrieu is no by proxy. senator mccaskill is aye by proxy. >> senator tester, senator begich, senator baldwin

senator coburn, senator mccain -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator johnson -- senator i ayotte -- >> aye by proxy. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are six andnays are for. but by proxy -- the motion is agreed to. >> i want to thank my colleagues for their vote. this is not the finish line. there will be plenty of time for us to talk. i want to commend senator

baldwin for his tenacity. i would ask, if we could, i don't want to run out of time and run out of members. if we can go to senator high camp who has amendment and i think we have a couple of others. good point. now that we amended the baldwin amendment, the second-degree amendment voting on baldwin as amended. all in favor say i, opposing any. requesting a roll call vote. if not, the ayes have it. and the amendment is modified as agreed to. thank you all. senatorhighcamp, thank you for your patience. >> i call up heitkamp number three. i want to respond to senator coburn who suggest that some of this is related to parochial interests.

obviously we have service centers and north dakota, a world post office and north dakota but we have a growing population in north the code and i can tell you stories about the post office. including my favorite one when i -- that a herd of my last trip back, the local lady who delivers mail for years under contract, everybody knew her and she knew everyone, always check in on the elderly she lost her contract on a cost-saving measure and they hired a company out of california who hired ex-cons and through the mail in the ditch. that is the way i look at the post office these days, through the eyes of my constituents who let me tell you, you might think that is an isolated story but i could go one for at least 20 hours telling you about the post office. but my interest in doing this and doing this amendment is

trying to have some accountability for what is going on as they make decisions whether it is service centers whether it is going forward. i know it looks like a fair amount of increase in bureaucracy, but from my standpoint, we cannot just sit idly by without some accountability to the post office and how the post office is being managed. i might suggest we would not be here if we had quality management at the post office. and so, i am not going to go through this in any detail unless somebody wants me to. i understand senator levin has been able to get accommodation on extension on a six-day delivery which, incidentally, if i can just comment, the one thing the post office does that nobody else does is six day delivery, i don't know the -- why we will want to take away that when a van as they have in the marketplace. i sent him a board and i look at

what i am doing it -- that when nobody else is doing and how i can leverage that opportunities i feel really strongly about six day delivery as an opportunity for the post office. not as an economic earned on the post office. -- economic burden on the post office. i will not put a target date here. i understand senator levin has been able to secure a commitment. but i moved this amendment because what it does for me is it provides accountability it provides responsiveness to the consuming public and the people who expect their mail to be delivered on a timely basis, and people expect their mail carrier to be responsible and show up. just one point about the service centers -- that is a critical part of the livery of the mail. you know how i know? because when the service center does not process our mail and it doesn't get delivered to the dickinson post office until 2:00 in the afternoon i've got

postal carriers who are delivering mail at 11:00 at night on icy streets. we cannot just say let's fix the post office without looking at some of the problems we have today. i want accountability. that is what this amendment does. >> thanks for your hard work on this. very hard work on this. you on your staff. he already worked with dr. coburn and his folks -- >> mr. chairman -- i'm sorry. >> let me yield -- go ahead senator paul, i have a couple of points. >> i would like to offer a second-degree amendment to the heitkamp amendment. it will address the carrying of guns in parking lot and in the post office and it will be amended and different from previous amendment and the date of the enactment of the amendment would take effect one day after the enactment of this

act and i will like to present it to the chairman for a vote on the second-degree amendment. >> can i just ask the gentleman just to withhold your amendment for a few minutes? that has been an effort to try to craft amendment on this subject -- >> as long as we have unanimous consent might amendment will be voted on. i don't care whether it is compared with in the amendment. this is my last chance to know that i will have a vote right now. i will relinquish it among his weekly on unanimous consent we will have a vote might amendment -- on my amendment. >> can i just see the amendment? >> it is very similar to what has been presented other than enactment date change. >> suspend for a moment.

>> ok. let's resume this conversation. we talked a little bit with dr. coburn and others, but again, i will ask you if you will, to withdraw the second-degree amendment to heitkamp so we can debated and voted up and down and i would ask unanimous consent that once we have done that, that we have the

opportunity to consider two amendments -- one offered by senator paul which could be the amendment withdrawn or the original and another amendment that deals with the parking lot issue. and we have a chance to debate both of those. i think you won a vote -- >> as long as the unanimous consent we are considering is two straight up-and-down vote on my in and in and another amendment but not a second-degree to cancel out and sidestep the issue. as long as the agreement is we will actually vote up and down on my language of mine and it will not be a substitute -- we are agreeing basically not to second-degree my amendment. i would be happy to agreed not to second-degree other amendments. >> and that is what we agreed to. i need unanimous consent. is there objection? hearing none. would you just withdraw your -- >> yes, i will withdraw my second-degree amendment. >> senator heitkamp back to you. >> mr. chair, i would offer two amendments here.

one is the estimate, i think some of the chair and the ranking member is -- and i've got to get the right language in front of me -- is that under the approach of 140 billion pieces for four straight quarters in a row, that the estimate -- >> page 21 of the amended, correct? >> i am not sure what page. >> yes, 21. >> under the documents given to us, that would under this estimate be reached in the fourth quarter of fy18. and i would say, in order to give a little certainty here that we say in no event, leaving that trigger in there, so the trigger would remain just the way it is in the language. but to have a little greater certainty and protection here

for the confidence, that the language would be added "no earlier than the fourth quarter of fy17." in other words, there would be just "in any event no earlier than." the best estimate is it will not be reached until a year after that. and i am not trying to suggest it be put in long the estimate exactly. that would be the last quarter of fy18, but it seems to me it would produce some greater confidence in this process for those of us who strongly support the six-day delivery than in any event it is no earlier than one year before that estimate which would be the fourth quarter of fy17, so i would offer that as a second-degree amendment and i think based on discussions i hope that would be accepted. >> dr. coburn?

>> of that is acceptable to us because hopefully we will not get to 140 billion pieces of mail. that is our whole goal, to knock it down to that. so what this does is build in assurance this will not happen earlier. if it does, it is going to hurt the post office. but to move the bill, i am willing to give on that. >> and so on my. >> mr. chairman, i have been asking for some kind of surety in this bill amendment, for quite a few days and i think this is an excellent addition to the amendment. >> senator levin d want to accept the victory? >> we are good. >> i would like to thank senator heitkamp for her tenacity -- the specific but does not give the kind of confidence that candidate would so i would like

to thank her for her great effort. >> senator heitkamp, i want to come to north dakota and have a chance to go around your state and actually see what kind of services been provided there and see for myself. i am one of my people who learns by being involved. and i look forward to being able to do that. i don't want to go this month. i might be willing to go in april. april would be just fine. >> mr. chairman, you are assuming april will be different than this month. >> we will shoot for late april. any discussion on the levin proposal here? all right. all in favor, say aye. opposed nay. the ayes have it, agree to. senator tester? >> i have an amendment if it is my turn. >> i think we have to -- >> one were suggested change on the heitkamp.

and, by the way, we will love to have your chairman come to the upper peninsula after north dakota. there is still snow in the upper peninsula until at least june. >> i will go to the upper peninsula right after we been to -- one week from today, pitchers and catchers report, lakeland, florida. >> happily nobody else knows what we are talking about. he is a tigers fan, the bottom line. mr. chairman, i would suggest, the heitkamp language is that after the gal comes up with their report, that there be 30 days, if i read this correct before the postal service could then act. just a little bit of possibility here that congress could respond to that decision.

this is not at all practical. i would suggest 60 days. frankly i would prefer 90. i think senator heitkamp would too. but i suggest 60 days to get some possibility of congressional action. otherwise there's almost no point of putting the 30 days in here. >> mr. chairman, i totally agree. i would go for 90 but whatever we can resolve here. >> i'm willing to accept 60. are you ok with that? thank you very much. let's make this unanimous consent. is there objection to this? no we have to go back to the amendment. heitkamp amended. >> can i thank our chairman and dr. coburn? really, very appreciated. >> thanks for your very constructive comments. now we move to final passage to

heitkamp as amendment. all in favor, saying aye. opposed, say nay. the ayes do have it, amendment as incorporated. do you have an amendment? amendment number four. >> it goes to the issue ranking member coburn talked about as far as delivery in rual areas. just over a year ago the postal service used to use third-party to assist. delivery in the rural areas. organized under alternative means of transportation contracts. in june 2012 the postal service unilaterally implemented a pilot program in the northern plains, north dakota, i did go, montana south dakota, that reduces that contract is an intern reduces mail delivery standards in the northern plains states below standards and other parts of the country. there are all sorts of stories out there. senator heitkamp gay person

acting give you one quick one and i can give you a bunch -- senator heitkamp gave heres. a rancher, a fair shot away from helena, overnight delivery, did not get their for 9 days. the reason is they had to truck it not air service, and we have been here before so i would encourage adoption of this amendment. >> let me just say that -- and we will let somebody like dr. coburn comment on this he mentioned that this was something he could support. i can't supported at this time, either. i would ask you to consider -- i would ask you to consider withdrawing this amendment at this time. give us a chance to work with you and we will be happy to try

and do that. >> i appreciate that, but quite frankly, it is a pretty simple issue. pretty clear cut, either you is or you ain't. if it goes down, it goes down i can live with it. if it passes i hope it does, i can live with it even better. >> with that in mind, any other comment on this amendment? >> let me get my ranking member back. >> if he is opposed, we really don't need to hear from him. [laughter] >> if you go to north dakota the senator can introduce you to those ex-cons who are delivering our mail.

>> dr. coburn, i offered senator tester the opportunity, i asked him if he would consider withdrawing the amendment and get a chance to work with them. i think he makes some good points. he said he would rather just go ahead and vote up or down and he can live with either outcome. even if it goes down -- i think it will -- >> we want positive vibes on this. it is pretty straightforward. about using third-party providers to deliver mail in a big state like montana where the service is pretty important. i think it is important in all areas where the pilot project has happened, but it is what it is. the story that i told, dr. coburn is a rancher sent overnight delivery and they got there eight days later and it is not acceptable and frankly people will look for alternative means. it only has to happen once a when i happen again because they would not use the post office.

as i said, i prefer it to pass. >> are there any other states where the same service was canceled? >> the states i listed -- the pilot program in the northern plains montana nebraska, north dakota and south dakota. >> it covers all of the states that -- >> that's right. >> a quick call of role. >> senator levin -- >> aye. quick senator pryor? >> proxy am aaye. >> senator landrieu? >>aye by proxy. >> senator mccaskill? >>aye by proxy. >> senator tester, senator begich senator baldwin --

>> aye by proxy. >> senator heitkamp, senator coburn senator mccain -- >> no by proxy. >> senator johnson, senator portman -- >> senator portman passes. >> senator paul, senator -- senator ayotte, senator carper -- >> i vote no. >> on the vote of those present

,yeas are 4 nays 4 proxy --on this vote, the motion is agreed to. >> ok. >> did we win that? >> it sure sounds like it. >> i want to thank the chair. [laughter] >> i don't know what the order is. i've got another amendment if you need one. i'm going to ask you to hold that -- >> i'm going to is futile that, if you will, and we are in position to consider two amendments. senator paul's amendment side-by-side if you will, on the same subject. senator paul, would you like to go first? >> this amendment i think has

been debated very well and i will not go long but it is supported by the nra gun owners of america as well as the national association of gun rights. i think what we don't want people to be called up in overtly trying to obey the law and all of a sudden going to jail for something they never intended to do wrong and perfectly legal by their state law. many states have concealed carry and a lot of people have concealed carry and do carry a weapon with them for self-defense as well as other reasons. i would say that this is important and we not be trapped into limiting it just a parking lot because there could be a lot of in between. whereas sidewalk, one foot on the sidewalk, one foot in the door. there are a lot of in between. i see nothing unique to the post office that makes me believe there would be more violent somehow committed at a post office than anywhere else. the only violence we can point to unfortunately came from some mental illness with. workers at one point of time. it actually has been a while since that, but there really has

not been a rash of violence by individual citizens and they hope people will support my amendment. >> we are going to get an up or down vote on your amendment. i think it might be helpful for us to hear -- i think senator begich will offer an amendment after we have a chance to vote on your amendment. can you give us a flavor? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i recognize senator paul's a broader issues and i think what we have been trying to do is get to this issue. i know in my state, a very rural state, we have folks pulling up to the post office, probably a gun of a car and storing a gun. we have open concealed weapons -- in other words, you don't need a permit, you can carry a gun on you and we have people who end up in parking lots going to the post office to pick up their mail, because, for example, in some of our communities there is no home

delivery, there is the post office. that is where you go in many of our rural community so you parking go in. you may not realize that even though you stored your gun in a parking lot, which is where the post office has lost its court case at least at one level, and i think they should not appeal it. they are doing it but i do not think they should appeal this issue. but this solves the problem once and for all. that is what my amendment does. and i will patiently wait as the process unfolds. >> let's return to senator paul's amendment. we will vote and i will recognize senator begich. anybody want to ask questions of senator paul and his amendment? with that, why don't we just call the roll on senator paul's amendment, please. >> senator levin, senator pryor senator landrieu --

>> no by proxy. >> senator mccaskill? >> no by proxy. >> senator tester, senator begich senator baldwin -- >> senator baldwin is no by proxy. >> senator heitkamp, senator coburn, senator mccain -- >> aye by proxy. quick senator johnson, senator portman -- >> pass. >> senator paul senator enzi senator ayotte, senator carper.

mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are three and in nays are six and by proxy, the yeas are three and the nays are three, on this vote the yeas are six and the nays are nine and the motion is not agreed to. >> let's move to thebegich amendment. >> mr. chairman, i don't know the amendment number but i would just say the begich amendment, i would just say number four. this is highly focused on issues that i know i hear a lot about and that is making sure that people are not breaking the law by just parking in the lot as they go in to get their mail and we have the problem all the last. again, -- the court case, resolve that problem and i encourage a yes vote. >> i have a quick question of senator begich. >> does this amendment say that this is permissible where it is

consistent with state law? >> state and local law. >> thank you. >> any further discussion? >> on the begich amendment we will call it number for this time. will the clerk all the role? can you confirm question mark >> begich 4. >> senator levin senator pryor senator landrieu -- >> senator landrieu is ayes by proxy. >> senator the castle, senator tester senatorbegich, senator baldwin, senator heitkamp senator coburn, senator mccain, senator johnson, senator portman -- >> pass.

>> senator paul, senator and enzi - >> aye by proxy. >> senator ayotte, senator carper. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are 11 and the nays are zero, on the vote by proxy, the yeas are for the nays are zero and on this vote the nays are 15 and the yeas are zero and the motion is agreed to. >> thank you very much. really, thank you all. other amendments? ok. i understand we have nine members radio. we can go to final passage. we have a handful of momentum and -- amendments that i think we are agreement to. heitkamp number one, mccain

number six, paul number one and tester number one. i do not know of any objections to any of these amendments being inserted on a block. i would ask for a voice vote of all four and block. all in favor say ayes. the ayes have it. with that in mind -- >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> senator pryor. pryor number 1 -- i do have pryor 2 -- number one address a problem where approximately 7500 mid-level management employees within the postal service do not possess the right to appeal adverse percent no actions to the u.s. merit systems protection board. we have had discussions with the postal service on this.

i know mr. stroman is here right now. i think at one point they expressed concerns and had some objection, but my understanding is they now think it will just be minimal cost of any at all and they are not opposed to the amendment. >> we have no objections. >> we talked about this a little bit a week ago when we had this. i think without their objection it becomes fairly noncontroversial. >> any other comment? with no more discussion, all of favor say aye. the ayes do have it. any other amendment? oh no -- >> last one for me. >> tester. tester number 3, second

provision. this is a little different. this is proactive as far as federal workers comp. the one last week took everybody in. this takes effect for folks hired upon passage of bill basically. so i think it makes it's still not perfect. but it makes it a little less bad. it would make the cuts prospectively so they would only apply to federal workers after the date of enactment. was not applied to the ones before. there would be less of a savings. but remember, still about 60% of the claims are within the post office anyway. >> senator tester thanks for your amendment. i cannot supported at this time. i appreciate you offering but i cannot supported at this time. dr. coburn? >> i cannot supported as well.

this is a second bite of the apple. and i understand that. i understand your position. what i would tell you is we are probably going to resolve this when we have to meet with george miller and the house in terms of conference if we ever get this through the floor. but i would say this. you said it the opposite way. 40% of all fica is postal. >> i said at the right way, 60% -- >> but the point is, this is a significant problem in our real old all to be putting these people back to work, because they are going to earn a whole lot more working than the other way. i am adamantly opposed to this at this point and trying to keep what we've got in here because we know we will get less as we go forward and we really need reform. >> ranking member coburn and if we -- coburn, if we get it fixed i will buy you a pop. >> they better be grape. >> the clerk will call the roll.

>> senator levin, senator pryor senator landrieu -- >> senator landrieu votes aye by proxy. >> senator mccaskill senator tester senator begich, senator baldwin, senator heitkamp senator coburn, senator mccain -- >> no by proxy. >> senator johnson, senator portman, senator paul senator enzi senator ayotte, senator carper. >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the voted

those present, the yeas are five and the nays are five a month on the yeas are 2 and the nays are three on this vote the yeas are seven and the nays are 8 and the motion is not agreed to. >> and the other amendments? >> one last thing i just want to say. i will vote for final passage to move it out of the committee and onto the floor and the reason is because of your hard work and the work of senator coburn. total respect for you guys. you guys have spent so much time on this, worked so hard. i still have problems with the bill and we still need to work on it. hopefully we will get it to the floor and have an amendment process there. but i just want to say, thank you both for your hard work and all your time on this. >> thank you for working on this. quick senator mccaskill? >> ditto. >> senator begich. >> tube of view, the chair, and

the ranking member, thank you for allowing me on the fly to do a few things. and i do have some other issues that we will deal you -- deal with hopefully as the process go forward. i still have concerns on large issues but i want to thank you two for your work and how long it is taking you to bring it together. thank you very much. i will work on my other issues as we move forward. i have some, just like other members. >> any other comments? quick senator ayotte. >> i do want to thank the chairman and ranking member and their his work -- more work that needs to be done but both of you recognizing that the status quo is unacceptable for everyone. for the post office -- whether you work for the post office the taxpayers, everyone. i want to thank you for really working together on this. >> let me say, first of all, thank you to each of you for those comments. i want to say -- saved to dr. coburn how much i appreciate the

way you approached this. you and basically made a blood oath that we were going to fix this problem. obviously we can't do it by ourselves but i think we take a big step forward today. for everyone a part of getting us to this point, i hope we have a good bipartisan vote on final passage. tom, to your staff, to our staff and everybody else who has been a part of this, thank you, and to the staffs of each of our members, democrat and republican, thank you for the great work. the postal service p.r.c., the key stakeholders that happened to be representing the employees, the mailing community, we are grateful for the input and the good conversation. i would like to say that the two keys to a long marriage is communication and compromise and to a vibrant democracy, the medication and compromise and i would add a third collaboration. we had a fairmont of communication, good deal of compromise and collaboration. the clerk will call the appropriate >> senator levin

senator pryor senator landrieu -- senator landrieu -- >> aye by proxy. >> senator mccaskill , senator tester -- >> just hold. ok. all right, let's go back to senator landrieu on final passage. no by proxy. >> senator mccaskill, senator tester, senator begich, senator baldwin -- >> no by proxy. >> senator heitkamp senator coburn senator mccain --

>> aye by proxy. >> senator johnson, senator portman, -- >> no by proxy. >> senator paul -- >> no by proxy. >> senator enzi, senator ayotte, senator carper. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the yeas are nine and the nays are one and vote by proxy and for the record only, the yeas are 2 and the nays are for and on this vote the yeas are nine and the nays are one and the motion is agreed to. >> i think it is a wrap. thank you, everybody. >> hold it, hold it, hold it. >> i have to read this back. i asked unanimous consent -- by mutual agreement permitted to

make technical changes to the measure we reported out today and i want to thank our colleagues in the ranking member for working with us to put the postal service on the path of a more sound future. without objection. all right, that's it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> coming up on c-span "washington journal" is next with your phone calls. later, live coverage of homeland security secretary jeh johnson's "the center. and president obama will sign the farm on a trip to michigan. in about an hour, we will discuss the olympics with an

athletic director. also, american enterprise institute russian studies direct there. and former new york city will lease commissioner raymond kelly. ♪ >> here are some of the numbers surrounding the sochi olympics. 43 to 55 billion in estimated initial costs. 40,000 security personnel will be in place. 6000 athletes and team members. there are 98 evidence. 85 countries will be represented. the optics will last 17 days. this morning, "washington journal is devoted to the old the games. -- the olympic games.