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 be

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

dr. coburn and i have worked with our staffs and i want to say a big thank you to them. for getting us to this point in time. we have used that 80-20 rule to move through some difficult patches and use the role of one of your partners when you are taking turns leading the health education committee. we are willing to compromise on policy. the principle is most important to us. when we pass legislation we work out a compromise with the house and senate to the president. that we could look one another and the american people in the eye and say we fixed this problem. we have not kicked the can down the road. we have fixed this problem to to bee postal service

dr. coburn we are in agreement on. heitkamp number one mccain number six paul number one and custard number one. i'm not aware of any objection to these amendments being considered en bloc. with that in mind i would ask for a voice vote. all in favor say aye. opposed, nay. the ayes habit. with that in mind i think we are ready. >> mr. chairman i have been amendment. >> i understand the chairman and ranking member of posted and i would like to continue to work on that with you. amendment number one addresses a problem where mid-management level employees within the u.s. postal service do not possess the right to appeal adverse personnel actions to the u.s. merit system detection board and 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 some concerns and had maybe an objection but my understanding is that would like to call in mr. stroman but my understanding is they now think is going to be in minimal cost if any at all and they are not o

dr. coburn. that was august 1.n we proposed our substitute a week or so ago, we moved way off of that proposal. what we basically moved to was a proposal that said 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 exigent 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 in the driver's seat, i am not even sure if the prc was in the car. when we had a markup, in the 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

dr. coburn -- dr. coburn from oklahoma, senator from oklahoma. i'm talking about horror stories within the veterans facilities. i say to my colleagues, you know, the mistake here is that we're not on the floor debating the reform of the v.a. and then debating any expansion. but the fact is we look at editorial after editorial, people who have some contact with the v.a., and they're saying the last thing you should do is expand service, the last thing you should do is use gimmicks to pay for it, the last thing you should do is saddle our kids with not only the debt for it but the responsibility to uphold a promise that might be impossible. let me speak a little further on what some of the things dr. coburn hit on. this is about hospital delays and veterans dying in v. facilities. came down earlier and i might add right now that this is the stack of the inspector general of the v.a. for one year -- one year -- worth of investigations on v.a. facilities where they made specific recommendations of changes that had to be made. this dealt with the deat

dr. coburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i would comment to the senator from wisconsin -- i appreciate your efforts on this. there is a lot of back-and-forth between our status. there was a lot of discussion the whole week. for two weeks. didn't respondwe and weren't working in good faith. we were. point, this piece of information you got from the post office, the assumption was cpi plus one forever. which is why you see a difference. it is not a real difference because they ran the numbers. one continuing through 2023. the third point i would like to make is if you look at any of these numbers anywhere, and you -- the positive cash flow is only coming out for the years that are the least accurate. whether you take my or your numbers, the fact is that at the lowest possible revenues for the post office, it is still a guess. most of the money comes after 2018. is,third point i would make i think the post office in my assessment in looking at the numbers by projected mail volume , is way too optimistic. we are lo

dr. coburn is not here. he's in our thoughts and prayers. want to thank you, want to thank our witnesses, and looking forward to the testimony. when it comes to this issue, the questions i'm going to be looking to have answered is, first and foremost, since i've been here, been looking into this issue, we're really declaring federal disaster declarations much more frequent basis now. is that because we really have, you know, a higher instance of the types of disasters that require that? or are we just too quick to declare those disasters? i'm afraid that if we have an overreliance on the federal government help, is that restraining the mitigation? the new word i'm hearing resilience in terms of, you know, how we prepare -- are we being pennywise and pound foolish by not spending the money up front to mitigate, and again, is it overreliance on federal help when these disasters hit, everybody's expecting the federal government to come in and pay for things, as opposed to actually mitigating these risks ahead of time. and so from my standpoint

dr. coburn is not here. he's in our thoughts and prayers.want to thank you, want to thank our witnesses, and looking forward to the testimony. when it comes to this issue, the questions i'm going to be looking to have answered is, first and foremost, since i've been here, been looking into this issue, we're really declaring federal disaster declarations much more frequent basis now. is that because we really have, you know, a higher instance of the types of disasters that require that? or are we just too quick to declare those disasters? i'm afraid that if we have an overreliance on the federal government help, is that restraining the mitigation? the new word i'm hearing resilience in terms of, you know, how we prepare -- are we being pennywise and pound foolish by not spending the money up front to mitigate, and again, is it overreliance on federal help when these disasters hit, everybody's expecting the federal government to come in and pay for things, as opposed to actually mitigating these risks ahead of time. and so from my standpoint c

dr. coburn's bill. we have other members of the doctors' caucus and the doctors' caucus in the senate is smaller but we -- we're here to help. we want to help. we truly want to bring down the cost of health care and maintain that quality that we're so proud of. and it can be done. it can indeed be done. let me talk a little bit about the economy in regard to current law, obamacare, the patient protection and affordability act osmba macare has forced employers to cut hours and as a result part time employment has gone through the roof. it has already forced many businessings -- businesses to choose between on the one hand hiring new workers or providing health coverage. mr. speaker they just can't do both. obama, president obama always says health costs are rising at the lowest rates ever. well that should not -- that's not because -- that's not because of his bill, that's because the economy is dragging. his bill has not helped the health care industry. the costs are lower because people are not seeking

dr. coburn -- voted against the flood insurance corrections bill that passed the senate not very long ago just earlier this month. late last month. and i go back in time to 1990 i was a house member on the banking committee and believe it or not i think with a guy named tom ridge, who was the raking republican on the subcommittee that i chaired then and one of our focuses of the national flood insurance program because we were concerned that the program was under water and all these years later, well, it still. and the kind of changes we're seeing in weather it's getting to be more under water. and we adopted some changes to the legislation, in the last year or two, the -- and the costs as they come to bear on people who live in areas that are prone to flooding, are in some cases very steep, there's concerns about the flood mapping and so forth, that people were not in areas where they used to have flooding, now they do. and so the question is, what do we do, if anything, in response to those conditions, those changing conditions? and to try to be humane but also to realize that it's a lo

dr. coburn is not here. i want to thank her witnesses and looking forward to the testimony.when it comes to this issue the questions i will be looking to have answered his first and foremost since i have been here looking at this issue we are really declaring federal disaster declarations much more frequently now. is that because we really have a higher instance of the types of disasters that require that or are we just too quick to declare those disasters? i am afraid that if we have an over reliance on the federal government help is that restraining the mitigation and a new word i hear resilience in terms of how we prepare. are we being penny-wise and pound-foolish by not spending the money upfront to mitigate and again again isn't over reliance on federal help in these disasters hit everyone expects the government to commit them pay for things as opposed to action mitigating these risks ahead of time. from my standpoint coming from the private sector i understand it private insurance market really provides strong discipline in terms of mitigating risk whether it's risk in

dr. coburn, how much i appreciate the way they your purchase. we have basically made the blood of the we will fix this problem. obviously we cannot do it by ourselves. we take a big step forward here today. for everyone who has been a part of it, i hope you have a good bipartisan vote on final passage your staff, our staff, everybody else that has been a part of this, thank you. democratic and republican. very grateful for the good work that has been done, the postal service, pst, others from the the key stakeholders, those representing the employees, we are grateful for the input. a good conversation. i always like to say that two keys, communication and compromise, democracy, communication, compromise. we have had pretty good communication. compromise and good collaboration. i hope we get a good bipartisan vote. with that the clerk will call laurel. >> senator. >> final passage. but by proxy. [roll call] says to. [roll call] [roll call] the motion is agreed to. >> i think that is a wrap. thank you, everybody. >> hold it. all did. hold it. as u

dr. coburn and others, and what i think i will ask you, if you will, withdraw the second-degree ,mendment so we can debate it voted up or 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 that we see redrawn or the original, and then another amendment that deals with the parking lot issue. and we would have a chance to both debate today -- to debate both. >> as long as the amendment we are considering our to up or votes, as long as the agreement is we will vote up or down on my language and there will not be a substitute, and we are agree not to second-degree my amendment, and i will be happy not to second-degree the other men. >> i need unanimous consent. is there objection? there is none. >> i will and greet -- i will withdraw my opinion. we showed you some of that hearing earlier. we will show you the the hearing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and on c-span3 that house foreign affairs entity hearing, looking for al qaeda militants in iraq. the sochi olymp

dr. coburn, the junior senator from oklahoma, who came to the floor and had questions about the bill.his assertions, but he has a right to dispute what was in the bill, and he wanted to offer amendments to the bill. we agreed he should be able to offer amendments to the bill. but the republicans, i guess, are in turmoil internally and didn't want him to be able to offer any amendments that they might have to vote for or vote against. so they figured a way to do it, just kill the bill. i hope all the veterans groups have witnessed this contortion the republicans have done to defeat this bill, because it will be defeated. that was their aim from the very beginning. like our support for veterans, the senate iran sanctions policy has historically been solidly bipartisan. the idea of obtaining a nuclear weapon for iran is unthinkable. the democrats and republicans have always worked together on this policy. iran should not have nuclear capability. we all agree on that, mr. president. i hope so, at least. i know on this side of the aisle we do. but it seems republicans are trying to erase t

dr. coburn has been a great help . in addition, the postal service must continue to manage some 33,000 post offices throughout the country and that includes trying to ensure the safety of its employees, its customers, its property and the u.s. mail at each of these 33,000 facilities. and while our committee has focused on the financial health and the caliber of service that the postal service offers i think all of us would agree ensuring the physical safety of the postal employees, its customers and the mail should be also be a top priority. senator paul has offered this amendment to essentially allow the carrying of firearms on postal property so long as the individual is abiding by state laws. the postal service maintains that the current regulation firearms on postal property except for official purposes preserves and promotes public safety and in the best interest of its customers and employees. my view is this. how could we vote on something when we haven't heard a minute of testimony from a single expert or consu

dr. coburn is not here. he's in our thoughts and prayers. want to thank you, want to thank our witnesses, and looking forward to the testimony. when it comes to this issue, the questions i'm going to be looking to have answered is, first and foremost, since i've been here, been looking into this issue, we're really declaring federal disaster declarations much more frequent basis now. is that because we really have, you know, a higher instance of the types of disasters that require that? or are we just too quick to declare those disasters? i'm afraid that if we have an overreliance on the federal government help, is that restraining the mitigation? the new word i'm hearing resilience in terms of, you know, how we prepare -- are we being pennywise and pound foolish by not spending the money up front to mitigate, and again, is it overreliance on federal help when these disasters hit, everybody's expecting the federal government to come in and pay for things, as opposed to actually mitigating these risks ahead of time. and so from my standpoint

dr. tom cobun, and man coburn, y released a tentative of what it might look like. there's got to be a resolution of this. because policies are being canceled. the costs for people with coverage are going up and it is hurting the economy. it is turning full-time work into part-time work. at some point -- i don' i don'tw what iwhen it is -- we're goingo have to confront this reality and deal with it mured to -- in order to protect ou constituentf people we're here to represent. so an alternative to what the president's command and control over one-sifnlg our economy, under obamacare the government gets to choose. under our alternative, you get to choose. i want to highlight just a few more of the findingsing of th fe findings of the congressional budget office report. for the next ten years america's debt is going to be in a sustainable place. i am frayed what the president i am afraid the president is falling in a trap here because we're living in a surreal time when interest rates are so low because of what the federal reserve is doing that, yes, the interest we ha