Amendment number four. It deals with requirements for pilot disposal. And let me say first, dr. Coburn, anything you would like to say . Okay. Bob, if you are ready. There is an effort here to see if they can expose excess property. I have had questions as to why it is in the bill, but that is where the majority is and maybe even more. I want to make sure local governments are notified of proposed disposal property inside a local governments jurisdiction. So this amendment, which i understand has been accepted, will require local governments be notified of any properties in the jurisdiction which are made part of the expedited Pilot Program. Let me make a couple comments. I think this is a good amendment and i am pleased dr. Coburn and i have been able to come to an amendment. The Pilot Program was established under real proper legislation and it is incorporated into the this proposal the direct of the Surplus Properties will be disposed of into the program and any Agency Looking to dispose of any property needs to work with the local government. Therefore, this amendment insures a duty that is already taking place through the current disposal property will be done during the Pilot Program. And i believe this proposal is fair and insures tat state and local governments are notified during the expedited disposal program. Dr. Coburn . I support this. Any comments on this amendment . Can you remind me the savings, i think it is 15 potential the value of it for the record . We dont know the value. But we know we are spending 2 billion a year maintaining empty buildings. And hopefully one of the list they should put on here because the house no longer does the page building and they should figure out what to do with. Thank you for your support. You have been very support of the property legislation. I in favor of 11 amendment number four to our substitute, say i. The is win. Appear issue came up late in the game with respect to alaska and it is important to him and the state and i recognize you. I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member for accepting to bring this amendment up. The filing deadline passed but in the last ten days the pole surface increase rate on packages increased over 50 and they used a process called market dominant and the post master general acknowledged there was unintended consequences this was a National System to make sure if there was competition you would have a rate structure. The Postal Service is dominant in rural alaska. So we are asking for a study whether the standard post package can be market dominant rather than competitive in the rural areas. The post office is acknowledging this consequence and we want to give them the chance to study it. I mind ask for unanimous consent. Any objection . All right. The amendment is in order. I think the deputy post master general is here and i might ask him to come to the table to talk about the amendment. Any further comments you would like to make in explaining the comments . No, i would be anxious for the post office to respond. I understand the process they did, but in alaska there are marketdominant forces and i have heard from hundreds, if not more, from alaskans all across the area and it would be great to hear their comment on the record. Sure. Deputy post master general welcome. We understand in alaska the affect of the price increases could potentially have a disproportionate impact because of the lack of roads, for example, in alaska. It is something we are happy to look at and work with you on. I think the amendment makes sense so we are more than happy to accept that. I take from that the post office is committed to solving this problem . Yes. Thank you for that clarification. 80 of the communities have no road access and the post office is how they get their goods and food and supplies. Thank you for your cooperation. Any further conversation on this . All in favor say i. Opposed say nay . The is have it. The amendment i offered that was accepted was 11 number four as modified. Without objection. Okay. I think we will go to the republican side and senator paul you are right now the only republican with an amendment so you are recognized at this time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Last week when we brought this up and just for clarification is this amendment number one . This is amendment number three. Last week there were questions whether or not this amendment which would allow the bringing of guns on post offices property and whether this would apply to malls and Federal Buildings. We have added that to and now it is distributed and i believe it is in red for the changes. The changes are two and three and in the third section we say nothing is contruded the right of the private property owners. We would like to have a vote i am going to ask you to go back and repeat slowly what you just said. I want to make sure i understand you. We have making it explicit if there are private regulations or private restrictive things that dont allow guns in a mall those are in place and this doesnt supersede the private carry of gun. There are post offices in malls and Convenience Stores this is any contract. It says the rights of private property owners. So any contract that is restrictive of ownership or use of a post office in those elections isnt superseding. This ruling supersedes the post offices rules on guns but not private or any federal, state or local laws on guns. Could you take a moment and bring us up to speed on the federal court ruling. I believe a District Court judge in colorado was asked to consider an instance involving a posting customer who had the right to kercarry that weapon i the parking lot of the post office. What is the issue there . Can you clarify and how is the judge addressing that . I think there is the issue both of parking lots versus inside the post office and i think they are attempting to address in parking lots. But rather the courts made the decision we should say what the will of the people is through the representatives. Help me with this if you will, senator paul. Did the District Court judges ruling in this case did it set a standard or policy beyond that particular county or just that post office . I am not an attorney so neither am i. I would say my understanding is District Court rulings are not universal or set standards for the county. Supreme court does so you will see Appellate Courts make decisions and they dont apply. If you want to make a standard for the country you ought to do it and rather the court ruled one way or the other that doesnt prevent us from making a decision and weighing in on this. I am concerned there are people that can come afoul of the law for just going hunting and picking up their mail on the way home. You want to recognize the deputy post master general and comments he might have. I understand an individual in a court case won the court case because he had a gun in his pickup truck and the law says you cannot do that. In the picture of my mind is the hometown post office. You pull in and walk in and get your mail and you violate the law if your hunting rifle is in your car. The court sided with the individual, not the post office. And the most office is appealing that ruling now. My hope is this will go all the way to the Supreme Court because i think it violates the Second Amendment. Either way, the fact is senator paul is making the point that what we have seen in precidents is the trend to allow responsible people to act responsible in their state and all senator paul is asking were the right to expand the right of responsible gun holders so they dont have change everything when they walk in to get their mail. All the post office has to say is if you are following the laws of the state in terms of Second Amendment rights you are not in violation. This isnt as hard of an amendment as everybody things it is. We have done this before and in areas and it hasnt been harmful it has been beneficial. Let me ask you if you are familiar with the court case we are talking about here . I am going to ask you if you are just to comment on the status of it and the Postal Services position and your views on the underlying amendment that senator paul is offering i think to the legal status of the case i would defer to our Legal Council who is here. Tom marshal is Postal Services general council. Thanks, ron and mr. Chairman. The case you are referring to is a District Court case from colorado. In the case the plaintiff was challenge the postal regulations that bans the carrying of guns on all postal property. He islys licensed to carry a firearm. The District Court determined our regulation wasnt unconstitutional in so far it prohibited bringing the guns inside the property. But the judge said in the parking lot in this post office that regarding only this plaintiff that we violated the Second Amendment. We are appealing the right and he is appealing the right of carrying guns in the post office is constitutional. Thanks for that clarification. Can you give us the perspectives of the post office on this. Our postal inspectors who are responsible for the safety and security of all postal facilities strongly believe that the current policy should remain in affect. They are concerned about encouraging any additional security measure. They are concerned about the safety of our employees. They believe that given the 32,000 facilities it will cost them Additional Resources to go through and make sure they are all safe and secure. The administrative burdens will make it difficult on them. The third factor as you know is there has been history of violence with regard to postal facilities and i think for the safety and security of the employees we believe our current policy should remain in effect. Mr. Chairman, may i make a comment . Yes, please. I think this is illustrating why we need this amendment. The post office is obviously opposed to allowing guns in their parking lot and facilities and they are appealing it. It is an open question and the people should way in on it through the representatives. I think also it might be noted that the history of violence at post offices hasnt been from citizens coming into the post office but by the employees. What i would like to do is offer any further discussion . I had one other point. As far as the amendment, it is sported by the nra, the gun right association and the gun owners of america. All three groups will oppose an attempt to strike the language or preplace it with a study will be opposed by all three replace and this will be seen as a vote, rather it is to replace, rather or not you support lawabiding citizens right to carry a gun in a parking lot. This is a big deal in Rural America where we have people going hunting and might show up in a parking lot. I am not willing to let it wait. I am not going to let someone from kentucky go to jail or be fined for accidently showing up at the post office with a rifle in their car or truck. I hope everyone sees this and a replacement effort is seen as a vote against lawabiding systems. Is there department of justice represented here . They have issues with this amendment many being construction. Are they represented here today . I know the Postal Services has been made clear. But we ought to understand the opinion of the judge was that the parking lot is one thing. But inside a Federal Building is another thing. A former in that case being unconstitutional for a gun to be restricted but in the latter case it is constitutional. This amendment doesnt make any such distinction. For us to adopt this rather than leaving it for the floor and getting the Justice Department opinion on this would be a mistake. The post office is appealing even allowing them in the parking lot. So not even in your car in the post Office Parking lot. We are talking about that. We are saying it the post office is appealing and dont want it inside. We are not voting on the parking lot. The Postal Service appealed on the parking lot, but this amendment isnt limited to the parking lot. The other side, the citizen, is appealing the decision of the court that inside Federal Buildings that this is constitutional and this amendment would reverse that. And i think we should hear from the Justice Department and shouldnt make a decision on this before it goes to the floor if we have time, which i would assume we will. I think we ought to leave this to the floor and not adopt this at this time. Anyone else . I will call up a Second Degree amendment that i will be offering in response to senator pauls amendment. When i was a kid in virginia, my dad took me hunting and my grandfather as well in west virginia. But, they would take us hunting and i remember any number of times going in the morning or in the day and we would put the shotguns in the trunk of the car. And we would stop at places like a Convenience Store or difference places and get something to eat or maybe Something Else we needed to buy. And when i first heard about the parking lot amendment, or the court case in colorado, i thought about those experiences with my dad and thought about well, what if he had stopped at a post office on the way home from spending the days hunting. And i thought i am that case is being heard in the courts. And it has been, i think there is a narrow interpretation and now it is going to be heard by the Circuit Court of appeals. I agree the amendment offered by senator paul goes well beyond the parking lot. And i would like to not get ahead of the court and let the Circuit Court of appeals hear the case and have the input from the department of justice and those that think the District Court judge did the right thing. I have spent a number of years of my life trying to improve the posting service and make sure they are not only to be able to survive and be relevant but be robust. In addition to managing expenses they have to manage 3233,000 post offices throughout the country and that is insuring the safety of the employees. We focus on the caliber of service they officer, i think all of us would agree insuring the safety of the employees is a top priority. Senator pauls amendment would allow the carry of weapons on federal property so long as the individual is abiding by state law. The Postal Office is saying the current regulation preserves and promotes public safety. And it is in the best interest of his customers and employees. My view is this how can we vote on something when we have not heard a minute of testimony from a single expert or consolted Law Enforcement agencies on this matter. I dont think we should uproot decades of law without studying the issue. I would urge you to commit studying the issue without having all of the facts in front of us. The other issue of parking lots goes before the federal courts. So at this point, i want to offer a Second Degree amendment to pauls amendment number three. This is modified version of my Second Degree amendment that was circula circulated this morning. The modfiction makes clear that the Postal Office must implement changes made in the reported. A group of experts would like at the issue before recommending what, if any, changes to the law is prudent. It requires that the Postal Office, and other departments submit a report to the post master general and the committees of the jurisdiction in the house and senate, if any, need to be made should the carrying of firearms be allowed on postal properties. Then the post master general submit as report for the house and senate with the cost estimates on the security changings and whether they will cause closures or relocations. And they would need to make recommendations to address the lawful carrying of firearms and how it would impact employees, customers, property and the u. S. Mail. I would not want to take a vote on any amendment without having all of the facts. With senator pauls amendment we dont have much to go on. We need to know the consequences. I mind urge my colleagues to support the amendment requiring the study on this issue. The modification we made makes clear the Postal Service must implement changes made in the report. Senator 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 implement immediately whatever they find out in their study. We have no idea where that study might go. It might go more difficulty than the present language. I appreciate that when you went to the post office you put your guns in the trunk of the car, but i come from a part of the country where post people dont have trunk, we have a pickup. We dont afford a pickup in those days thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate the modification, but i appreciate senator pauls amendment and what he is trying to do here. I would just say this i think i am a strong supporter of Second Amendment and i have more guns than i need and want more. But the bottom line is there are some places where guns are not appropriate and this building is not appropriate to have a gun in. If there is issues with the post office i dont think if is appropriate to have a gun. The parking lot is a different issue because