COMMENTS OFFERED BY MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE DURING THE BUSINESS SESSION

Chairman Darrell Issa: The Postal Service is in fiscal trouble. The USPS is losing money. The changes affecting mail are permanent. Labor costs are more than 80% of USPS costs and must be addressed. If the Postal Service fails to fulfill its obligation to pay for its employees' retirement benefits, the Treasury would be on the hook to cover the USPS' obligations.

Rep. Elijah Cummings: The Postal Service may require a new strategic direction that meets the nation's changing needs. The majority appears to reject the notion that the Postal Service can adjust its directions to better adjust the nation's changing postal marketplace. This path is not a path to a bailout. The underlying bill put forth by the majority is fatally flawed.

Rep. Dennis Ross: This legislation would create a receiver instrument to right USPS postal costs and revenues. It would permit the USPS to deliver mail for fewer than six days a week. The USPS must find ways to balance costs and revenues and operate more like a business. GAO has dispelled the notion that there is any CSRS overpayment. There is none. The USPS must vastly restructure its operation. We no longer can postpone the Postal Service's day of reckoning. Are we willing to make the hard decisions to save the Postal Service or have it crumble on our watch. The reforms in this bill are urgently needed.

Rep. Stephen Lynch: The approaches put forth in H.R. 2309 are not the most sensible approaches to reforming the Postal Service and setting it up for the future. This bill provides for a $10 billion bail-out for the Postal Service. I will oppose this bail-out because it is unnecessary and unwarranted. I can't believe we have people who call themselves fiscally responsible who are backing this provision. I will introduce a bill that will better accomplish what the Postal Service needs. This bill would force the USPS illegitimately into receivership. The conditions the USPS would be required to operate under are impossible to satisfy. This will lead to the dismantling the USPS. It will lay of the most senior people first, and the most junior (inexperienced) people last.

Rep. Elijah Cummings: I want to note the small improvements made through this amendment of the original bill, particularly the elimination of the Davis-Bacon provisions. I still object to the sweeping changes this would mean for the Postal Service. We have a historic opportunity to reform the Postal Service and return it to profitability by transforming its business model. This bill doesn't take this path. I cannot support a proposal that would override collective bargaining agreements and authorize mass layoffs. Has there been any consideration of the effects of postal employee downsizing on veterans' preferences or their effects on older postal workers. The majority bill would curtail the quality of postal services (reductions in days of delivery and the requirement of curb-side service). This bill does not give the Postal Service the ability to innovate.

Chairman Darrell Issa: Mr. Lynch's bill would not solve the Postal Service's fiscal dilemma. Even the Postmaster General acknowledges that this is so. The federal workforce is more than ten years younger that the postal workforce. This is a senior workforce, not a complement of juniors. The Postal Service is pledging its assets to cover its borrowing needs to work through any transition. I am perfectly willing to say here today that I would like to cancel the need for prepayment, but that would leave the taxpayers on the hook. The objective is to have a leaner, more efficient post office. Without rectifying this situation will require a taxpayer bail-out.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: There doesn't appear to be enough commitment to the concept of universal service, which is threatened by this amendment in the nature of a substitute. We should be looking at the Postal Service's infrastructure with an eye toward looking it for other commercial opportunities. There seems to have been a concerted effort by the Postal Service at the top to move toward privatization, and to make the employees of the Postal Service second-class citizens. This bill would adversely affect the kind of benefits they can obtain, and disadvantage postal workers that have been disabled.

Rep. Dennis Ross: The facts are that the Postal Service is broke. Eighty percent of its costs is labor. First-Class Mail volumes and revenues are rapidly declining. We have picked up on Mr.Lynch's proposal to use any over payments toward FERS to provide incentives to those eligible to retire.

Rep. Stephen Lynch: Most of what could have been used from FERS overpayments to move people into retirement would be removed to satisfy the Postal Service's FEHB payments. My bill tries to provide an incentive help eligible postal employees to move out the door.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney: We all know the Postal Service faces a long-term structural deficit. We also know that urban area postal revenues help subsidize postal services provided in rural areas. Not allowing congressional input in matters pertaining to post office closings would be a mistake. The Postal Service, for instance, wants to close the only post office situated on one of our district's islands.

Rep. Gerald Connolly: I'm heartened to hear the chairman speak of a desire for a bi-partisan bill, but that's not the nature of the bill that's before us today. There is a chasm between us that will be difficult to bridge. What we're being presented in this bill today is a false choice. We believe there are alternatives that can be pursued. Legitimate concerns raised by both sides of the aisle need to be acknowledged by all.

Rep. Todd Platts: I am concerned about the effects this bill could have on older workers that might find it very difficult to find other forms of employment. I'm also concerned about the effects of curb-side rather than door-to-door delivery on the elderly and historic districts.

Rep. Danny Davis: Some changes must be made. In some instances, we may be going overboard. It's good to get rid of antiquated approaches, but I have concerns about worker protections and worker rights. In my district alone, there are five postal facilities slated for closure, despite the extensive geographical coverage these facilities provide.

Rep. Peter Welch: Whatever we do we must ensure that the postal system we need continues for as long as it's needed. It is unfair to provide a private sector business model to the USPS.

Rep. James Lankford: We need to reduce the burden they must face from $5 billion to $1 billion and to adjust some of these payments to better enable the Postal Service to afford them.

Rep. Stephen Lynch: The Postal Service is the only federal agency that's required to make retirement health benefit pre-funding in the manner expected of the Postal Service. It would be preferable to require covering these expenses as prudently as possible as the need to pay these expenses arise. Mr. Lankford's approach, while laudable, would give the Postal Service a breathing period of only a year.

An amendment offered as a substitute Mr. Ross on H.R. 2309 was approved by majority vote.

Rep. Elijah Cummings: Discussed an alternative offered in conjunction with Mr. Lynch.

Chairman Darrell Issa: We have made an attempt to incorporate some of your proposals within our own, but I don't support your amendment. It doesn't address the need to permanently reduce overall postal costs. This amendment would also require an increase in postal rates to an extent that cannot be supported by the Postmaster General and the Board of Governors. We're even adjusting requirements in our own bill to eliminate rate-driven postal volume growth disincentives.

Rep. Elijah Cummings: We also would delay the imposition of rate increases until at least 2015.

Rep. Pat Meehan: I'm frustrated by the inability to consider all the issues that have been raised by the Cummings-Lynch proposal given the very short time-frame in which this proposal is being addressed.

Rep. Gerald Connolly: We ought to be debating which is the best way to save the Postal Service. I wish we could find a vehicle where we could find common ground devoid of political agendas.

An alternative proposal offered by Rep.. Cummings and Rep. Lynch alternative proposal was defeated by majority vote.

Rep. Dennis Ross: Spoke toward his amendment to delay any increase on periodicals until efficiencies are first attained.

Chairman Darrell Issa: I agree to your proposal, as long as it doesn't delay the imposition of cost-of-living related interests.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney: I appreciate greatly Mr. Ross' proposal. The magazine industry is the source of many millions of jobs, and the magazine industry is a key element within my district. This would allow two more years to enable periodical publishers to adjust to whatever changes might be necessary for mail services that are "under water." This proposal will help save jobs that are already there. This is an important amendment. (Various members also expressed their support.)

An amendment offered by Rep. Ross providing a stay on extraordinary periodical postal rate increases was approved by majority vote.

Rep. Stephen Lynch: (Addressed his proposal to require a recalculation of the Postal Service retirement related liabilities. H.R. 1351. His proposal concerns the requirement that the Postal Service pay 70% of a retiree's benefits despite years of service rendered to the federal government vs. the Postal Service.)

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle: The numbers underlying the Lynch proposal need to be re-studied. The numbers I thought I was supporting now seem quite different with GAO's interpretation of the facts.

Rep. Pat Meehan: (Joined with Rep. Buerkle in expressing concern regarding prior support of the Lynch proposal.)

Chairman Darrell Issa: Even Sen. Carper said that he agrees that CSRS refund be set aside until other more important issues are addressed and resolved. The act that created these liabilities may be unfair, but what the law requires is clear.

(Considerable discussion ensued on the correctness or incorrectness of GAO's final report.)

Rep. Stephen Lynch: Another aspect of my amendment, however, would allow Members of Congress to be involved in postal closing considerations.

An amendment by Mr. Lynch was defeated by majority vote.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Spoke to his amendment to permit an elimination of up to 12 days of delivery per year without requiring abandonment of Saturday delivery. Lessening the service and raising the rates is not the way to encourage or move mail volume. I am opposed from moving from six day to five day delivery.

Rep. Danny Davis: I certainly don't want to see us locked in to five days of mail delivery. Mr. Chaffetz alternative provides a more reasonable option.

An amendment offered by Rep. Chaffitz regarding an alternative to five-day delivery was approved.

Rep. Lacy Clay:  I object to the idea of outsourcing jobs that should be provided by postal workers. There is an anti-union sentiment based on the belief that eliminating union influence is a way to improve our economy. Little by little this bill chips away at the Postal Service. Section 702 should be stricken.

Rep. Dennis Ross: Section 702 simply permits the Postal Service to work through more cost-efficient alternatives.

A  proposal to strike Section 702 (regarding competition) of the amended bill was defeated.

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle: (Spoke to her amendment regarding the closing of post offices in rural areas.) The amendment would limit rural area closures to no more than 10 percent.

Rep. Gerald Connolly: This amendment would work to the disadvantage of suburban communities. It would protect a specific segment of post offices without any determination of rational economic justifications.

Rep. Dennis Ross: I don't believe it is desirable to eliminate unnecessarily rural postal facilities and services.

An amendment offered by Rep. Buerkle regarding the closing of rural postal facilities was approved.

Rep. Norton: Offered an amendment that seeks a sense of Congress resolution to strike the section of the amended bill adversely affecting collective bargaining agreements.Collective bargaining works very well. We have seen no evidence that collective bargaining can't get the job done. This is a horrible precedent for this Congress to set. This sense of Congress resolution would honor the collective bargaining process and agreements.

Rep. Elijah Cummings: This amendment would simply embody the chairman's own words regarding the fairness that should be used in making any down-sizing determinations.

An amendment by Rep. Norton regarding the call for a Sense of the Congress Resolution was adopted.

An amendment by Rep. Chaffitz regarding the cost-efficiency of rural delivery was adopted.

Rep. Norton: Offered an amendment that the Postal Service identify (list) the services it provides to a community, and ensure that reasonable, accessible alternatives for the provision of such service where feasible be provided. This would require the Postal Service to look to a private sector business within proximity to any closed or consolidated facility to ensure convenience and accessibility.

Rep. Dennis Ross: This amendment would take away the tools the Postal Service needs to restructure its physical infrastructure to better address changing needs.

Rep. Elijah Cummings: The Norton amendment simply gives the Postal Service another tool to ensure adequate service is provided.

An amendment by Rep. Norton regarding the provision of alternative postal outlets was defeated.

An amendment offered by Rep. Pat Meehan and Rep. Platts that makes clear there is no intention to interfere with collective bargaining and to have the affected parties to negotiate whatever changes are needed to get the Postal Service to a more secure fiscal position before the Authority intervenes was adopted.

An amendment offered by Rep.Connolly that requires the PRC to recalculate the size of the actual liability the USPS must bear to prefund its retiree health benefit costs  based on best industry practices and changes to the size of its workforce was defeated.

Amendments offered by Rep. Turner regarding door-to-door delivery limitations (particularly with regard to historic districts and homes) were approved.

An amendment offered by Rep. Davis to strike Section 403 pertaining to nonprofit postal rates until costs are better defined and aligned was approved.

An amendment offered by Rep. Lankford to provide community involvement in any consideration to close or consolidate postal stations and branches.

An amendment offered by Rep. Towns was approved. (Whatever it was.)

An amendment offered by Rep. Murphy to strike the sections of the amended bill pertaining to the abrogation of collective bargaining agreements was defeated.

An amendment offered by Rep. Braley to strike the BRAC-style Commission on Postal Reorganizaton and efforts to close rural post offices was defeated.

An amendment offered by Rep. Braley to evaluate the impact of efforts to lessen to lower postal employment on veterans was approved.

An amendment offered by Mr. Yarmuth to strike those sections requiring the Postal Service to provide without reimbursement free mail services for armed forces overseas voting and for providing mail for the blind was defeated.

The bill as amended has been reported to the House.