It's on the amendment of Mrs. Block. I think the issue here is whether we state it in an aspirational way, where we're stating the positive future we want to create, or whether we use the motion to express concern about the trend that we've observed, which is a negative one. I think the motion as amended would do the latter, express concern about the loss of postal service.
Certainly the discussion of long-term viability and sustainability fits in the context of the loss we've seen. We want to reverse those losses. We want to see rural communities receive better service.
I'll leave it at that. It seems like maybe that's the distinction here on the two sides of the table.
As I said before, I support the amendment that's been put forward.