in a changing economy but also appreciates the work that already has been done in trying to find a way to move forward in the most effective manner a result i have worked through the language in the substitute amendment before us and recommend a few changes which i think may help to make this more palatable for numbers of our colleagues do it i was struck by the language of the authority which may be in place and in fact may need to be in place in order for there to be some kind of real impetus for the existing management to deal with the issue but i also believe that there needs to be an appropriate window in order to do this my amendment would first allow the creation of a control board in accordance with the language in the bill but it would create it in such a way that they would only be triggered according to the provision that they are years during which they will serve in an advisory capacity to the existing management as they continued to try to find a way to resolve the issues that we are dealing with the second is appreciating that contract i think it very important that as we move forward we appreciate the long history and the importance of the collective bargaining process we have heard many comments about it existing collective bargaining agreements this will enable labor and management to move forward in a fashion to which each is accustomed and in a way in which we are accustomed to fairly try to resolve the issues in addition and i know there is going to be even further clarification we remove sections g and i the effect of both of those is to remove those elements which deal with changes to the potential impacts on seniority in the event there is a need to terminate some employees retirement the mechanisms are in place lastly it looks at this ten dollars billion temporary line of credit i think we all appreciate that it creates an opportunity for capital but to the extent that this has been discussed and identif some kind of a bailout we continue to protect the taxpayers with the recognition that the line of credit is currently secured it is secured with property that is owned by the post office there is a recognition that as dollars billion the real estate that secures it be sold or otherwise utilized in a manner to make the taxpayers whole i think what it ultimately will do mister chairman is remove a fair amount of  the very legitimate concerns that somehow in our effort to get to a resolution on this we were abrogating the historic relationship that exists between management and labor we allow the management and the labor collectively the capacity to make the tough decisions that will allow us to create a vibrant and vital united states postal service moving forward thank you mister  and it sounds like some good stuff in here it sounds like some suff that i could agree with i have been trying to read it while i have been sitting here and listening to you at the same time that will be the extent of my comments put this together in language was really we were negotiating this internally to try to find ways in which we can protect this process going forward in a way which i think would appeal to allowing both sides of the aisle to find the capacity to really deal with the ultimate issue which is for us all collectively to find a solution mister cummings and as i have listened to what you had to say and i read what i could read sitting here it sounds like you are moving toward trying to bring some kind direction i just want to make sure that we have that chance to dialogue a little bit further time in which the authority can be advisory that is an important period of interaction where hopefully innovation can take hold rather than just the proscriptive measures of the bill and that is where my question goes my understanding is that fourteen on delivery point modernization it actually comes into force if you look at line seventeen it says the authority shall during the first control period take such measures as may be necessary then it goes on to  e how the delivery points modernization effects will come into place where you are going to  eliminate door to door delivery for a good portion of the postal services customers i want to make certain that this amendment delays the effects of that four or two year period even though line seventeen says first control period and i want to thank the chairman because when this bill first was presented the ending door to door delivery service under this provision was mandated even separate from the authority i appreciate the chairman moving it into the authority so that we can have the professional team that does that i requested that and i appreciate your having done it this amendment though i want to support it and i believe with the confirmation from staff this delays for a two year additional period the what effectively the staff writers have done for mister meehan is to choose to redefine the first period which allows that two year delay so that was the reason there were two ways to would be there but that they are confident that this does exactly what you want it is two years for the board to be assembled there is no delay in that process of selection which we think is good to have them the author and i talked earlier is like a sword of damocles it is look we are here we are ready we will give you advice but we are not going to do anything for two years and if you have made the direction that we know you want to make then quite frankly it never really comes into effect and this is something that mister meehan lobbied us very hard for is the people that got you in trouble give them a chance to turn it around because a lot of us probably should have done more you and i were here in two thousand and six we pass think mister meehans amendment will do as you are describing it is to give a period of review where perhaps additional options can even be evaluated to where this one might not be necessary although it certainly is one that i think  is set out very well as its cost savings perhaps others could be pursued in the interim that could avoid this so mister meehan i support your amendment thank you mister chairman for your efforts on this i will be presenting an amendment later that goes to that issue appreciate mister meehans efforts to strengthen the bill with his amendment and working in conjunction with him to ensure that the language we have in the bill is truly achieving what we are after here to summarize  my secondary amendment if in renegotiating a labor contract and rifs are able to occur that it will be where seniority does count so as is meehan will make the final call we find that in fact it appears to do exactly what mister meehan had lobbied for and asked to have written it makes it clear that we do not want to interfere with ordinary collective bargaining in any well defined the real objective here is to allow the real work to take place that enables the leadership in concert with the workers to manage the place in a way that gets it to a financially secure circumstances but doesnt turn around the mechanisms that they would have normally for dealing with the situation which we might all face which is that there is going to have to be some there may be some reductions in force what i wanted to see was that the issue was we are trying to find a way to get to the problem and we dont change traditional ago the postal service sat down with the american postal workers union and supposedly in good faith they negotiated an agreement going forward for the next four years and here we are the ink is not even dry no that agreement and the postal workers to their credit took some tough concessions in that agreement they took some tough tough concessions they went back to their membership and they said look the postal service is in a tough spot we are going to have to absorb some sacrifice here they went back to their members and their members ratified that contract in good faith and what do we do after they have ratified that contract for four years i think they took zero the first year zero the second year then they get some increases down the line in the last couple years of the contract now we are going to tear that up we are going to lay them off the underling bill has the most senior employees getting laid off first and the folks who are brand new and cant find the mens room or dont know which side of the stamp to lick theyre going to stay while the senior people this gentleman right here sat there from the union and i knew i could see the frustration in his face because he talked about how they had given the unions  given their blood their sweat their tears that they understood sacrifice they got it and that working with the postal service that said i think over one hundred thousand employees over a three or four year period and how he felt like they were constantly being squeezed and squeezed and squeezed to death i think what you just said is so significant in that you sit down you  bargain in good faith every time our employees our government employees hear sounds coming out of congress quite often that are negative at some point i think we have to begin to also ask about the question of fairness and that is what you are talking about what is fair and what is right and there is another piece to this when you have to make the sacrifices okay we are going to do that and then they make the sacrifices and then they get kicked in the teeth there is something wrong with that picture something awfully wrong with that picture and mister meehan as i said before i working through this like a heart surgeon doing the most complex surgery as opposed to just sort of moving along and i am not talking about kicking anything down the road i am talking about us actually sitting down and going through this and keeping in mind that there are people when we do the things that we are doing here there are people who are affected there are families who are affected there are neighbors that are affected there are constituents that are affected there are mailmen and wom the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized mister meehan thank you mister chairman the essence of what we are trying to do is work in a way in which we appreciate the issue of collective bargaining and what has been done to this point in time  this is an outreach to give the unions the appreciation and recognition for what they have done and what they have given one of the issues we also need to face and we are all here collectively is the math it is the math we look down the road and they do not have to do layoffs this opens the position that they could be authorized if necessary lets hope that there is a way in which it doesnt need to be done what it is doing though is enabling that to be a mechanism but i am looking at the math and i am struggling for a way to try to protect as many of the workers as we can and to protect their rights as best we can but also we have to protect the taxpayers because that to the extent that this does not the post office cannot find its way to make itself able to operate on an even keel the taxpayers are going to be told that they have to pay for it and they didnt have a place at that table the very people who did have a place at that table we are asking now to go back and find a way to make it work the management that negotiated with that give them that two year window make it work this is really an effort to try to appreciate what labor has done and to include them in the process so that we can get people to find parties negotiated a contract just a few months ago and this does change one aspect of that the rif prohibition in the existing contract in the gentlemans amendment it allows or requires that to be taken out but as part of a new negotiation so the union made concessions in order to get that when they renegotiate it is not just the rif issue that will be on the table but any other concessions that they may have given up maybe now they are going to say hey we are not going to give up that since we no longer have the rif prohibition so it is to try to have as the ranking member said a good faith negotiation is what i think the gentleman is after that labor and management will negotiate a new understand correctly during negotiations the union could negotiate for example substantial payments for people who are rifed because in fact it wasnt in their original contract they could negotiate other concessions or even have to all realize that at some point in time there may be a need to look at reduction in force that there be an equitable way to do it and that in return for what was negotiated they can open the door to  renegotiation it would not be equitable to have prospectively three of the other remaining unions that have not yet negotiated their contracts to be subject to no layoff to be subjected to clauses which could benefits for current employees this is separate from the issue we discussed and debated a little earlier this one doesnt involve competing gao estimates this is something we actually did in the two thousand and six legislation here in congress as a result of the postal accountability and enhancement act of two thousand and six the postal service is the only entity public or private which is required to pre fund pre fund its anticipated retirement pension and health costs at one hundred percent that is far more than the industry norm which we like to cite as a model of between sixty seven percent and eighty percent for public entities and it is particularly unnecessary in light of the rapidly shrinking postal workforce this requirement is the primary reason for the postal services pending technical default but for the pre funding requirement the postal service would have been in the black since two thousand  would direct the postal regulatory commission to recalculate the retirement pre funding rate based on industry best practices and expected changes to the postal service workforce according to the government default rates nationwide are less than zero point zero three percent far lower than the private default rate of ten percent by aligning retirement pre funding requirements with the same best practices that have protected the solven of other governmental entities we can also protect the postal service retirement savings without driving it into bankruptcy through excessive payment requirements it would buy the postal service time to complete more far reaching changes to it business model including strategic co location with public and private sector entities maximizing revenue from parcel shipments associated with internet commerce vote by mail advertising changes and new retail activities with existing private sector companies in collaboration in conjunction with the ninety day extension bill introduced by mister cummings mister lynch myself and others this amendment i think would buy us some time to fashion that new viable business model for the st cent amendment of yours guts the bill strikes all of the reforms and puts one hundred dollars billion on the backs of the american people if enacted i know that the popular buzz word on  capitol hill has been well we are the only agency that has to pre fund with all due respect this is the only agency that gets to set its own fees and collect the money necessary to meet that funding what i think is not said enough around here to past the federal beltway to the american people is in fact social security has an obligation to be fully pre funded we are pre funding our own retirement as individual citizens yes the federal government in fact should have a line item for every part of the first liability but ultimately for everybody virtually except the post office that would simply mean that we would put money in and then immediately put it back into treasury bills the difference is it is not general revenue that pays for the retirement of our postal workers i want to take exception specifically to one thing you said that somehow because the post office is shrinking this is less necessary it is just the opposite if the post office were growing growth covers many ills a larger post office in the future would be able to have more and more people to defray the cost of catch up for people on retirement who had not been fully funded i could not disagree with this more this strips away any reform including the reforms agreed to with our counterparts in the senate as necessary i urge the opposition to this as not a sensible wish i could say i appreciated the comments of the chairman in response to my amendment i guess some of us get under his skin more than others certainly lecturing me about i should know better in my district frankly is gratuitous we can deal with the merits of the amendment the fact of the matter is no other agency is required to have one hundred percent pre payment that is a fact and the only reason the postal service does is because of the two thousand and six legislation that was generated by the united states congress and i am simply saying lets encourage the postal regulatory commission which of course the chairmans bill would gut and essentially take away powers to oversee because sometimes they come up apparently with recommendations with which we dont agree but i would empower them to recalibrate what is a reasonable rate if they want to come back and say no one hundred percent is reasonable then so be it but i dont think the chairman of this committee or even this committee ought to substitute itself for a robust rigorous analysis of what makes sense i do contend one hundred percent arbitrarily put in that legislation in two thousand and six a requirement no other agency has to meet and does not meet private sector standards is unreasonable and puts an undue financial burden on the postal service so my simple amendment yes would change that and would actually instead offensive given the shrinking nature of the united states postal service workforce and here is his point and i totally agree with it unlike social security which was used as a comparison the health benefits of retirees in the postal system are based on years of service you dont just get your quarters and then you qualify or age in in this case over the last four years we had one hundred thousand postal employees leave many of those were not qualified not eligible for full retiree benefits we are currently considering another one hundred thousand that would leave by early retirement and then there will be another one hundred thousand that the postmaster general wants to lay off through rif or some other fashion out of those three hundred thousand employees who will not be with the post office any more many many of those will not qualify for retiree benefits full retiree benefits out of that three hundred thousand that have left and yet we are requiring the postal service to fund the retiree health benefit plan as if all those three hundred thousand employees work full thirty years and got full retiree benefits that is the point that my friend is trying to make and the fact that it is shrinking and there will be many many many employees who will leave without vesting in terms of their  services entered into the postal service my amendment establishes a hiring preference for postal service employees whose jobs may be lost under provisions f this bill it is limited in scope and reflects the federal governments commitment to sensible solutions the men and women employed by the postal service ensure that important and time sensitive items are delivered on time helping businesses and customers effectively operate and communicate but it is not these employees not the letter carrier making daily round to gather and deliver mail and not the branch employee helping customers who brought us to the brink of postal insolvency it is the mismanagement at the hands of the postal services bureaucrats i offer this amendment to encourage my colleagues to support the postal service employees in establishing this preference the second amendment  goes to page sixty two line twenty in looking to the issue of limiting door to service we asked the authority to take into consideration a number of items one is high density population one is  poverty areas and historic value i am asking that the history value be amended to include a registered historic district as a neighborhood that that be considered in its sensitivity my third amendment goes to the issue of lowering  door delivery points asking for a report on the cost effectiveness if it is to be employed and i believe more importantly the last portion of that amendment asking the authority itself to report to congress whether or not limiting door to door delivery is feasible cost effective and would not otherwise be detrimental to the mail delivery policy of the postal service reporting to congress if there needs to be a change in the recommended door to door delivery  i recognize myself we are prepared to accept your amendments i find each of them to be narrow and yet meaningful i am particularly supportive of your recognition that historic districts need to be considered  i think it is important that we understand that it is people who are being served and each district will be different you will have some areas that are being served by our rural letter carriers right now that a by piecework which means the volume of the mail goes down their pay goes down you have poor urban areas and poor rural areas where a post office is really the he any post offices it is just the issue of having the sensitivity to areas where there is a reduction in door to door delivery and i think the comments that you are making actually support the amendment  for example in historic williamsburg they would have to find a way to put in assuming you were living in historic williamsburg they would have to find a way to make the cluster box or mail box consistent with the fact that it would look wrong to just have a bunch of mailboxes in the middle of a historic s facility in the case of here on the hill for example they might not have a mailbox sitting out at the street with our limited curbs the gentlemans amendment does require that it might cost a little more to get it right with these historic communities and that is what he is looking at in some cases if i understand correctly it may not be cost competitive it may be better just to walk up and put it in the door at thomas jeffersons home at monticello but that is our understanding and the underlying bill did have a ninety percent not a one hundred percent goal so although it could affect the consideration for that last ten percent three point seven million homes that might not end up with an outside box we accepted his amendment in principle because we felt that it simply put the priority where it belonged in the consideration but as far as we in creating a separate workers compensation program for postal workers that would have devastating impacts to them as a former postal employee i personally know these jobs are some of the most labor intense jobs in the federal government injured workers at no fault of their own deserve fair and adequate compensation this provision raises serious questions about losing the protections currently provided for in feca we are concerned about the finances of the postal service yet i believe that mandat the postal service to create its own workers compensation program begs the question of how we can expect this financially strapped postal service to pay for it costs is this a move to privatize the workers compensation program at a time when we are experiencing the most difficult financial times since the great depression one would have to ask the question would this drive hard working americans to the unemployment rolls and finally mister chairman we all want a healthy postal service but a key component is the workers any change to be made impacting these workers should be seriously thought out seriously analyze and then whatever decisions that get made should take place workers compensation is one of the most important protections that workers have in this country and i believe that we cant just take a whack and expect the postal service which becomes a very smaller entity to establish a program of its own and expect the same kinds of protections for the workers that they get as a part of the overall government compensation system that we have i thank  but right now i want people to be at least aware that that could occur with that does anyone wish to speak in opposition okay then i will i recognize myself for five minutes  the amendment of the gentleman from illinois although well meaning strikes our attempt to deal with feca i recognize that there is no perfect language and we had a lively discussion at the  subcommittee however not only will this amendment eliminate some of the savings but it will leave absolutely no answer for the three ninety eight year old people who still receive pay because they have failed to  deal with this what i would say to the gentleman from illinois in opposition to this bill is it is my goal to work with mister miller ranking member on education and workforce and mister kline to see if we cant find mutually agreeable language having said that we have been notified by the senate most notably the ranking member over there senator collins that they have jurisdiction and they intend on doing something on it so without speaking as much to the core i think that the gentleman would agree with me that no action by striking this does leave us with some unanswered problems that will ultimately be in the final willingness to work with ed and labor to try to reach a common ground but in the meantime what we are really saying is that we are going to zero this out wipe it out and indicate that those workers would have not the protection of all the rest of the workers in our system and of course the postal service while it is a large  organization i dont think is large enough to sustain at the same level the kinds of protections for workers that they currently have under a system while i agree that there need to be some changes in terms of super annuaries that is individuals who have reached certain ages wondering what to do with them i think that we ought to be able to find a does is it provides because of the amendment delaying the control board it provides two years in which they would not be able to opt out of feca and during that time while they were proposing that for their lets call it five hundred thousand workers they would have a system at the same time the congress has the opportunity to act on an alternative my goal would be and i think the appropriate goal we should all have is that feca reform would occur  something that is within our committees partial jurisdiction but primarily in the ed and labor committee so the goal is in fact to leave a place marker here and i hope that the gentleman would view that saying that they have the power two years from now to develop their own system and leave feca doesnt mean that they have to do it it means that if we cant find a fix in two years if it saves them money while being fair to their injured employees they would have the ability to do it that is the only reason that i spoke to the gentlemans amendment i actually would hope that you would withdraw your amendment and work with me on getting to that final language along with mister miller and mister kline over at the committee of primary everything in our power to address this issue as i said from the beginning this really needs to be a bipartisan effort i understand exactly what you are attempting to do i think it is a good thing we just  institutions to effectively do charitable work in america in helping the poorest and the neediest people given this tight economy and high unemployment non profit organizations and faith based institutions are called upon to do more to ease the burden of our citizens afflicted with diseases mental and physical disabilities disaster drug addiction homelessness and poverty how can we expect these organizations who provide so much assistance to others be called upon yet to share again a high cost burden that tax their efforts this is just not fair and i dont think it is the right thing to do we must be cognizant of how section four hundred and three rate preferences for non profit advertising of h example this provision would cost the march of dimes foundation an additional one dollar million in postage expenses in its first implementation as a result the foundation would have to drastically cut mail volumes across the board which in turn would mean dramatic loss in donor support as we know the march of dimes direct mail program is the second largest source of funding within the organization which provides life saving research efforts for women infants and children last year the american lung association mailed about forty million pieces of mail association this imposed rate hike would significantly cut back their mail volume and significantly reduce their donations to fund research projects to improve treatments and find cures for more than thirty seven million americans there are many more examples of how section four hundred and three can hinder the efforts of many non profit and faith based institutions and let me reiterate the important for not supporting this reason is simple non profit organizations provide needed support and services for the american people programs that government cannot and will not provide in these difficult economic times non profits are being called upon to provide even more support so given the fact that they serve such a viable function i dont believe that we need to raise the rates for them to mister davis you and i think more alike than you can imagine we have an amendment which we have shown to your leadership that goes most of the way there it takes the existing  immediate makes it three years and then at that point if there is still a deficit would phase it in more slowly at two percent if you would take that as a friendly secondary we would support your effort to not have any burden until we can get those the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment mister lankford thank you i will be very brief with it we all understand very well post offices whether they be a branch or whether they be a station they are community locations in rural communities that is the only flagpole in that entire area and for many places that is the gathering location so ways to be able to honor those rural communities and allow the community to be as involved as possible with the possibility in the future that there may be consolidation of stations want to have every opportunity possible for the community to be involved in that conversation currently post offices can be appealed and they can have community involvement in that appeal but branches and stations cannot while they are smaller and more remote have fewer staff on them i do consider those as still that community amendment quite frankly that we would not have seen otherwise this technical inequality in the appeal rights so i think it is a good amendment i think it reflects a balance that we have on this committee of both rural members currently if you are a station or a branch you dont have the same appeal rights because they are a smaller location if there is a closure or combination in the law it only says that you have appeal rights if it is a post office they define it differently if it is a postal station or postal branch under current law to close anything that is part of the problem i think we are going to every week we are naming new post offices i think we will run out of names before we run out of post offices and i just think we are  appeal process that is already done voluntarily this would just codify that so people would know how they can get a chance to get input again for most people in my district and we are dealing with post office closings like everyone else is they just want to have an opportunity to be able to say their piece and to be able to know i am being the postmaster and the folks in our area have been very good about listening to people and considering and reconsidering and getting all the facts this allows all the facts to get out there so someone doesnt make a decision separate from the facts and the details in the community  consulted before they pick a post office that you may know is a key location but the post office for some reason wants to close it we had a number of those cases last year and the year before where the postal service went off and started in some areas i just want to make sure that we have as much community involvement as we can i have done the same thing in areas in my own community there is a station that we have been working with the community leaders and an area that is an african america community in my district we have worked very hard to be able to protect that station it was being pulled off it has now been re engaged but i chose as a congressman to engage at the same level as the rest of the community and to be able to put my information and be able to engage and say here are some things you should consider so i understand that as well i have been fighting hard for stations in my area also but i a rather extraordinary power for the new authority to rewrite collective bargaining agreements we have had a lot of discussion about collective bargaining here so i wont go through a new song and dance in the last year especially with one of the major employee unions for the postal service in which they have given some major concessions and this provision in the bill which in the case that the authority takes root gives them the power to essentially abrogate collective bargaining agreements and rewrite them from whole cloth is an unprecedented assault on the i think fairly fundamental premise of collective bargaining that we have talked a lot about here today if i can draw just briefly upon some experiences we have had in connecticut with this same type of power i am sure that there is a lot of hopefulness and good faith on behalf of the majority in that this section says that first the authority has to try to reach new agreements through traditional collective bargaining and then should they not reach the desired outcome then they can modify the contract in order to fall within the desired financial savings targets that the authority has set we have gone through that process in connecticut very painful process of several major cities being taken over by oversight boards run by the state our statutes looked very much like this but the reality was very different in connecticuts case the authority board really papered over the initial process of collective bargaining and then went right to rewriting the contracts when they did that though they were as this statute requires them supposed to stick to the portions of the contract that have financial ramifications they essentially rewrote the contract from the ground up including lot of non financial changes that had to do with work rules and worker protections and safety requirements and this section of the bill only about two pages long i would argue is woefully inadequate in setting up  some basic restrictions on the powers that this new board would have to rewrite these agreements i am sure there is a conversation to be had about a modification to contracts to keep it within certain  agreement i think this is wrong headed and as it is written now i dont think it has any of the type of protections that we would want given this unprecedented power to essentially completely wipe out a collective bargaining agreement at the whim of this new authority is pretty important to point out that the collective bargaining agreements need to be preserved to the extent that they can be preserved as a last priority should they ever be touched or addressed i think that is what we have accomplished in the meehan amendment  that the collective bargaining agreements will be preserved unless there is absolutely nothing less that can be done to save the united states postal service i think one of the most important things that we have to look at as we pass this bill is where are the cost saving measures and where can it come from can it come from going to door to curb service of three dollars fifty cents billion reduction can it come from closing certain processing facilities can it come from closing certain post offices can it come from reducing the number of employees there not by amendment there is a provision that would eliminate the right of public appeal on the issue of closure or consolidation of a post office if there is a contract post office within two miles this amendment simply would restore the ability of the public to appeal that closure in the case that they have a relatively nearby contract post office at the root of this amendment is just the idea that every town and every city is unique  there seems to be no harm in simply allowing the public to make a case that having a postal contract facility within two miles is inadequate and that could happen for a variety of reasons the layout a towns postal infrastructure is different by city and by municipality in some of my towns for instance we have major cities with only two postal facilities one postal facility and a contract facility they happen to be both in the downtown area probably about two miles away from each other but serving totally separate sides of the town so the proximity of the two really has nothing to do with whether or not that area needs two post offices it needs two one serving one area one serving the second area second the quality of these contract post offices varies widely and it seems appropriate to very least allow the public to make the case that the contract post offices that lies within two not sufficient is not adequately staffed doesnt have the degree and range of services necessary to compare or substitute for the post office that is being closed this is really an amendment just to restore a modicum of for post office closures as i said a little bit earlier i think as we go through this process we need to keep in mind that there are some people some very important people who have a stake in all this and that is our constituents  specifically the amendment in the nature of a substitute would remove language that provides citizens and other postal stakeholders the opportunity to appeal the closure of a facility to the postal regulatory commission i can republicans and democrats come up to me and i am sure you have too mister chairman complaining and worrying about how they are going to keep their post offices open and basically saying that it is their constituents that are banging down  the door one of the things i think we always want to do is give the public an opportunity to have some kind of say i think that is what the gentleman is trying to do given the importance that many postal facilities  especially in rural america and smaller towns it is important that americans still have access to a full suite of legal options when they wish to appeal these closures through these appeal procedures we can ensure that our constituents voices are heard and that their concerns are fully vetted postal reform is going to produce significant challenges for our constituents eliminating traditional and reasonable protections in the postal services facility closure process certainly isnt going to ease these challenges so i support the gentlemans amendment and i would hope we can do this one for our constituents mister murphy i thank the gentleman as he mentions at the root of this bill is an acceptance that an appeal process is worthy that it is an appropriate way for our constituents to make their voice heard my suggestion is that this limitation on that appeal process is arbitrary that simply because you have a contract post office within two miles shouldnt eliminate the ability of that constituency to protest a closure whether or not there is merit to their argument well that is up to the process although i will not forestall or close in any way the possibility that we can improve the various aspects of the appeal process between now and the time this becomes law i do have concerns that the reason that we put in this very small area and i know i am a native of cleveland i live here in washington part of the time and i live in a suburban area in california so i know that two miles in california is how far i go just to get a bottle of milk well two miles here i go past eighty restaurants or maybe more plus the white house so the fact is two miles is relative we chose to feel that if the post office in their effort which is a stated effort to get to opportunity by moving to contract post offices that actually enhance the ability of the consumer to get there they are often going to put in a second post office replacing one often a leased post office closing that post office and saying here is a substitute i certainly would be happy to in reporting this bill out to include language asking the post office to give us an opinion of whether two miles is right and i know we have one of the esteemed members of the postal leadership here today whether two miles should be one mile or it should be three miles i am happy to look at that but i think that although two miles was arbitrary we  tried to recognize that a substantially same community being serviced by a contract post office often inside a location was something that the postmaster and his predecessor and the board have been moving toward to if you were building a new post office one mile from an old post office everyone would understand there was no reason for it to have an extended process because the post office was simply finding a location that was better i would yield to the gentleman if he has a comment mister murphy thank you mis chairman with the expectation that i am probably going to lose this amendment i would certainly entertain the offer to work on either language as the bill is reported out or a subsequent conversation based on some discussions with the post office  mister chairman we know when were are in flyover country that these are the things that happen we are just grateful to be here at the hearing with you chairman issa i thank the gentleman and i assure you that two and a half hours from home as i fly over your district i think of you mister braley i actually have two amendments at chairman issa will the gentleman be offering them en bloc mister braley i am not sure what the status of the second one is we have been talking to your staff about it so i would just ask the chairman to call up amendment thirty at this time and maybe we can go from there after we to the speech on the house floor so we will go right until oclock we will come back immediately following the speech and at that point we expect with the relatively limited amendments left that we will roll the roll votes will be voted very shortly after return and then the final two bills so we would ask everyone to come back immediately following the speech and that would put us out of here about fifteen to twenty minutes after that  mister braley you will have the last amendment before we adjourn the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment mister braley thank you mister chairman every time you say the gentleman from brooklyn i think you are talking about me because like mister towns i grew up in brooklyn i just happened to grow up in braley one of the reasons i have introduced that amendment is because growing up in that small town and knowing the critical importance of rural post offices i want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to keep those post offices open and as part of those communities because as others have said it is an incredibly important thing to those communities my amendment strikes the brac style commission that would close thousands of post offices across the country and strike the language that would also close nearly every rural and small town post office the simple truth about this bill is that it would result in the closure of almost every small town and rural post office in america it would weaken mail delivery to rural areas and lay off thousands of post office employees these post offices provide good paying jobs they ensure that the mail is delivered quickly they are great meeting places and they support local businesses my constituents in the first district of iowa rely heavily on them for their livelihoods closing these rural post offices would devastate many of these communities put more people out of work and hurt the local economy in thousands of small towns that is why i believe in a better solution lets solve the post offices financial problems by passing the lynch plan and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment it would do several things it would strike subtitle a in section one twelve of the bill right now according to the prc maintaining all small and rural post offices costs zero point seven percent of the total operating budget of the usps and subtitle a mandates a ten year savings of eight dollars billion so to reach that total virtually every small and rural post office would have to close subtitle a fails to account for the u s postal service with facility closures and as a result america was a good faith effort to try to address that i also have been advised that your second amendment is perfectly acceptable to us in a revised form so as soon as it is printed we are ready to accept it and with that  our amendment this morning was specifically introduced to protect the rural post offices so there would not be an inordinate number of those closed understanding that it would impose such a difficulty for folks postponed and with that the gentleman is recognized for his second amendment the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment while they are circulating mister braley i thank the chairman and just very briefly would indicate that one of the things everyone is concerned about is the impact on the unemployment rate that closing post offices will have one of the ways that we have tried to address that is by requiring the postal service and the commission on postal reorganization to consider the total number of postal employees who would lose their jobs the total number of veterans who would lose their jobs and the availability of both post office jobs and non post office jobs in the area as part of any closing decision just today in cq today there was  an ad that says it all the postal service hires more veterans than any other civilian employer i am proud to be the ranking member on the economic opportunity of the veterans affairs subcommittee we have one out of every four iraq and afghanistan veterans unemployed which is a shameful thing for this country to be facing and we know that the postal service does a great job of putting veterans to work we know that every veteran who completes the transition assistance program for service members occur as soon as we have a working quorum after the speech on the house floor for which the seats are disappearing fast mister connolly could i just inquire of the chair how many roll call votes do we have right now chairman issa about ten i guess