General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed
This thread shows how devious and un-American this Postal Act was passed.
Part 1: HR 22 January 4, 2005 February 9, 2006 *failed*
It seems this bill has been in the works for years. Where we can catch-up to it is in the 109th Congress (2005-2006). On January 4, 2005, HR 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was introduced by Rep John McHugh (R-NY23). It came out of committee on April 13, 2005.
There were 163 cosponsors of the bill: 104 Democrats, 58 Republicans, and 1 independent. Well-known Democrats and Independents (just one) were part of the cosponsor list. It passed the House on Jul 26, 2005. The vote was 410 to 20 quite the bipartisan vote.
Then on February 9, 2006, the Senate passed the bill. I am not sure how they passed the bill, as there was not a recorded vote.
Senate passed H.R. 22, to reform the postal laws of the United States, after striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof, the text of S. 662, Senate companion measure, after agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and the following amendments proposed thereto:
Pages S898-S943
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-02-09/html/CREC-2006-02-09-pt1-PgD73.htm
It is also important to note that the pre-funding of the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund (Title VIII, Section 8909a) in the above bill (HR 22) did not have the precise dollar amount payment schedule (e.g. $5.4B not later than Sept 30, 2007 that the enacted bill has). Instead, there were formulas.
HR 22 died after the Senate passed the bill with changes.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr22
Link to HR 22 (search 8909 to find funding formula in Title VIII)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr22/text
Part 2: HR 6407 December 7, 2006 December 20, 2006 *passed*
The House
On December 7, 2006, HR 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was introduced to the House by Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA). There were three sponsors, two Democrats and one Republican.
This version of the bill contained the precise dollar amounts:
such Fund--
``(i) $5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2007;
``(ii) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2008;
``(iii)$5,400,000,000, not later than September 30, 2009;
``(iv) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2010;
``(v) $5,500,000,000, not later than September 30, 2011;
``(vi) $5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2012;
``(vii)$5,600,000,000, not later than September 30, 2013;
`(viii) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2014;
``(ix) $5,700,000,000, not later than September 30, 2015;
and
``(x) $5,800,000,000, not later than September 30, 2016.
A computed amount was used after that date.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407/text
The next day, December 8, 2006, at 10:10pm, HR 6407 was considered under suspension of the rules. Debate lasted till 10:33pm. One Democratic representative, Mr. Davis of Illinois participated in the debate. The debate was nothing but praise for HR 6407.
After the debate, the vote was taken:
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6407, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). In the opinion of the Chair,
two-thirds of those voting have responded in the affirmative.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were refused.
So (two-thirds of those voting having responded in the affirmative)
the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-12-08/html/CREC-2006-12-08-pt1-PgH9160-2.htm
The vote was only a voice vote. Representative Pence (R-IN) asked for a recorded vote and was denied.
The Senate
The very next day, December 9, 2012 (actually after midnight, December 8, 2012), the Senate proceeded on HR 6407. Senator Murray (D-WA) was the only Democrat speaking on the bill. From the Congressional Record the bill was passed by unanimous consent:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 6407) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Congressional Record Link
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2006-12-08/html/CREC-2006-12-08-pt2-PgS11821.htm
Summary
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed in less than 48 hours. There were no recorded votes. Republican Congressman Pence asked for the yeas and nays but was denied. Appears Democrats had no objections. The Congressional Record seems to indicate that Minority Leader Reid was on the floor when the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent.
I do know that the prizes of this bill were
1) Awesome and valuable Post Office buildings were sold off because of financial losses. They could not just sell off these buildings for no reason right?
2) The first reduction of services just occurred no Saturday delivery. This will snowball into increase postal workload and increase delivery times.
3) A cry will go out to privatize the Post Office
4) Postal Unions will disappear
5) And, finally, any delivery will eventually cost a small fortune.
global1
(25,166 posts)post correctly?
My impression up to this point was that this was all done by the Repugs under BushCo. Please help clarify this for me.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)The evidence shows that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, let
this bill pass without even a recorded vote.
The evidence also shows that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate
submitted and passed this bill under suspicious proceedings.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)when there seems to have been little dissent coming from the Dems. For Dems it was all about "protecting" the pensions and for the rethugs, all about eventually privatizing the postal service. Dems should have learned a long, long time ago that rethugs have an entirely corrupt agenda.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)but the Democrats could have filibustered this (or the Iraq war resolution) if they wanted. But it seems that only the Republicans use the filibuster much.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)vote for republiKKKans?
magellan
(13,257 posts)Says it all, doesn't it.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)magellan
(13,257 posts)But if unanimous consent means what it says, then not one Senate Dem fought this legislation, right? Never mind they were the minority. They gave their support to this bill. Isn't that what unanimous consent means?
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)was slightly different with a rejected request for the yeas and nays.
But you are correct on how the Senate passed the bill.
magellan
(13,257 posts)Thanks.
leftstreet
(36,076 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)This thread shows where the original bill was approved by Reps and Dems.
But in the second bill (HR6407), they changed the prefunding requirement to be
actual dollar amounts.
Here is the question: Did the Republicans dupe the Democrats into thinking
nothing was changed in the original bill HR22? One can only guess, however, this
is a republican trick.
leftstreet
(36,076 posts)They all wanted this. It's obvious
magellan
(13,257 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)And wondering why Dems allowed this as well...
sobenji
(314 posts)When my new whacked out Gov was the only one who tried to get it on the record.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Nevertheless, it was rejected by Speaker Pro Tempore Republican Ray LaHood.
Gold Metal Flake
(13,805 posts)And then report the responses here, when they can get the info back to us.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)And it is kind of late to ask how they may have voted...
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)and demand they do some real Postal reform.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I guess this is called a 'shameless self-kick'...
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)So thank you very much Valentine giver!
And, now, more opinion....
No left side of the isle talk shows today mentioned the entire story on
how this bill got passed.
Above all, I seek the truth. I was going to write a scathing Letter to the Editor on
how the Republicans forced this thru in 2006. But, as a good progressive, I had to
know the truth. My research (from this post) forced me to change my wording.
Don't be afraid of the truth. Truth and facts are the power tools to enact change.
Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
smee Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)Yes, mail gets lost. It always has. Some mail that it. Otherwise, first class letter with tracking has reached me in WA from the east coast in 3 days.
pinto
(106,886 posts)What's your take on Federal functions and unions in general? Thanks.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Republicans must be gearing up for another offensive on the Post Office.
amycirca75
(1 post)Hi all, Have been a lurker for many years but now I feel compelled to respond to this. It seems our local post office is broken and I've been hearing it's not just ours. Here are some recent local articles:
Jersey Tomato Press is reporting:
http://thejerseytomatopress.com/stories/Caldwells-and-Essex-Fells-mail-delivery-problems-reported-by-residents-and-carriers,13837?search_filter=post&town_id=1&sub_type=stories
http://thejerseytomatopress.com/stories/Caldwells-and-Essex-Fells-mail-delivery-problems-reported-by-residents-and-carriers,13848?search_filter=post&town_id=1&sub_type=stories
http://thejerseytomatopress.com/stories/Anonymous-Postal-employee-tells-JTP-We-are-NOT-slavesread-this-letter,13876
http://nutley.thejerseytomatopress.com/stories/Boston-postal-worker-adds-experience-with-bad-treatment-to-Post-Office-series,13893