U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

65–647 cc WASHINGTON : 2000

S. Hrg. 106–674

THE ISSUANCE OF SEMIPOSTAL STAMPS BY THE

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND

FEDERAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 25, 2000

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman

WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HANNAH S. SISTARE, Staff Director and Counsel

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel

DARLA D. CASSELL, Administrive Clerk

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES

SUBCOMMITTEE

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

CARL LEVIN, Michigan

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

MITCHEL B. KUGLER, Staff Director

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Minority Staff Director

JULIE A. SANDER, Chief Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Opening statements: Page

Senator Cochran ............................................................................................... 1

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 2

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 4

WITNESSES

THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2000

Hon. Dianne Feinstein, a U.S. Senator from the State of California: ................. 5

Hon. Mike DeWine, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ................................. 8

Deborah Willhite, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Public

Policy, U.S. Postal Service, accompanied by James C. Tolbert, Jr., Executive

Director, Stamp Services, U.S. Postal Service ................................................... 13

Bernard Ungar, Director, Government Business Operations Issues, General

Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office ..................................... 14

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

DeWine, Hon. Mike:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Ungar, Bernard:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Willhite, Deborah

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 29

APPENDIX

Letters submitted for the Record from:

The Coalition for Safer Crossings, dated February 17, 2000 ........................ 53

The American Philatelic Society, dated May 18, 2000 .................................. 55

The Women’s Information Network, dated May 19, 2000 ............................. 57

Questions for the Record from:

Senator Cochran with responses from Ms. Willhite ...................................... 59

Senator Akaka with responses from Ms. Willhite ......................................... 69

GAO Answers to Questions from Senator Akaka .......................................... 72

(1)

THE ISSUANCE OF SEMIPOSTAL STAMPS BY

THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2000

U.S. SENATE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room

D–342, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman of

the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Cochran, Levin, and Akaka.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. The Subcommittee will please come to order.

This morning we are meeting to receive testimony on an issue regarding specially issued postal stamps that are sold by the U.S.

Postal Service. These are sold with a surcharge that raises money

for special purposes.

The first such semipostal stamp was authorized by Congress in

1997 when we passed the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, which directed the Postal Service to develop and issue a semipostal stamp

to help raise funds for breast cancer research. This was the first

postal stamp of this kind ever issued by the U.S. Postal Service.

The legislation authorizing the selling of these stamps expires

this year in July, and a bill has been introduced and is pending before this Committee to reauthorize the issuance of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another 2 years.

Other bills have also been introduced in Congress to authorize

the Postal Service to develop and issue semipostal stamps to raise

funds for a number of different worthy causes. One example is a

bill to authorize a stamp to raise funds to support domestic violence prevention; there is another, by Senator DeWine, to raise

funds for organ and tissue donation awareness; and another to promote railroad crossing safety.

This hearing gives us an opportunity to examine the effectiveness of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, its acceptance by the

general public, the handling of the responsibility under the legislation by the Postal Service and what problems, if any, have developed as a result of that experience.

And so, we are very pleased to welcome to our Subcommittee the

distinguished Senator from California, Ms. Feinstein, who was the

author of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp bill and has offered

2

reauthorization legislation, and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, who

is the author of the organ and tissue donation awareness bill.

We are very pleased to have you come to the Subcommittee this

morning and discuss these items of interest to us and the Congress

and the general public, and we invite you to proceed. We call on

Senator Feinstein first.

Oh, excuse me.

Senator LEVIN. I snuck in.

Senator COCHRAN. Senator Levin, a distinguished Member of the

Subcommittee has arrived. Senator, you have the floor.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me

commend you for calling this hearing, welcoming also our good colleagues to this hearing. This is a very important subject which we

are taking up this morning.

There are many bills now which have been introduced to authorize semipostal stamps. In addition to the Breast Cancer Research

Stamp, which has already been issued and has been a success, we

have other proposals, including that of our good friend, Senator

DeWine. I looked at the list of other bills that have now been filed

authorizing semipostals. They include AIDS research, diabetes research, Alzheimer’s disease, prostate cancer, emergency food relief,

a World War II Memorial semipostal, the one this Subcommittee

has already taken up for the highway rail grade crossing safety,

and domestic violence. And, of course, we have the organ and tissue donation semipostal bill, which Senator DeWine has introduced.

I have been troubled by the principle involved here that Congress

should pick and choose which charities or causes to authorize

semipostals for. I think it puts us in a very difficult position. It is

hard to imagine too many of us voting against any of the

semipostal bills because I think most of us are involved in probably

most of those causes. I have been extraordinarily involved in the

organ and tissue donation cause, for instance. And there are a

number of other causes, diabetes, for example, where I have been

very deeply involved in trying to obtain funding for those.

I actually voted against the Breast Cancer Research Stamp obviously not because I oppose funding for that cause, which Senator

Feinstein has championed so beautifully, but because I just think

this is the wrong way for us to be raising funds and making decisions.

I would vote in a New York minute, as they say, to double the

amount of money for breast cancer research or organ and tissue donation or a number of these other causes. But to use this particular

method with the Congress picking and choosing one cause over another, seems to me, creates a lot of problems. In some cases, the

Postal Service may even lose money in the process. The Postal

Service, in terms of costs, could actually be spending more money

than is raised, and then that raises additional problems as well.

But, Mr. Chairman, this is an important subject. There is a lot

of interest in it. The causes here are clearly worthy. I do not think

there could be any doubt about the worthiness of the causes, but

the question here is whether or not we should be picking and

3

choosing semipostal stamps to raise funds for these causes, and

that is where I have some difficulty.

One of the bills we will discuss today is that of Representative

McHugh. Rep. McHugh’s bill would transfer the authority to the

Postal Service to issue semipostals, and allow them to make this

decision the same way they do on all other stamps. We have taken

the authorization of regular stamps, commemorative stamps out of

the hands of Congress and put it into Postal Service Advisory Committee because we wanted to separate stamp selection from politics. That committee has had some real success. Now, each of us

individually and by resolution make recommendations to the Postal

Service for commemoratives, but we do not make political decisions

in the Congress anymore. We do not mandate the issuance of

stamps. It is a decision of the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

and the Postal Service to try to separate stamp selection from political considerations. I think that has been a real advance for all of

us, and the bill which Congressman McHugh has introduced—

seems to me is one approach to this. It would reauthorize the

Breast Cancer Research Stamp because it is already on the books,

but it would leave the future issuance of semipostals for other

causes in the hands of the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

and the Postal Service. I think we ought to take a close look at that

approach.

So, Mr. Chairman, again I think that we are on a subject here

which that is of real importance—and I look forward to discussing

what the best way is to support these very worthy causes, which

all of us support. I thank you for having the hearing, and I want

to thank our two colleagues for their energies and their efforts on

behalf of two causes which I hope and believe have universal support in the country and in this Senate.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN

Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing. I have a long history of supporting many of the causes we will discuss today, including funding for breast cancer research and especially organ donation. These are important causes and Congress should support their full funding.

I do not believe, however, that using the U.S. Postal Service’s stamp program is

an appropriate means to fund these programs. As we all know, in the battle over

diseases and other causes, there are often many competing organizations, each promoting issues worthy of our attention. If we use the Postal Service to raise funds

to promote one worthy cause over another it will ultimately politicize the issuance

of stamps. In 1957, the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee (CSAC) was created

to take the stamp program out of the political process.

Last year, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the Look, Listen and Live Stamp

Act. That stamp would require the Postal Service to issue a semipostal stamp, or

a stamp with a tax over the regular rate, to be earmarked for an organization called

Operation Lifesaver, a nonprofit organization dedicated to highway-rail safety

through education.

Operation Lifesaver is, no doubt a very fine organization, but it is not the only

organization dedicated to preventing railroad casualties. In fact, railroad safety advocates are split over the best method to prevent rail-related injuries. Over the last

several months, railroad safety organizations have contacted my office to represent

their strong disagreement with the Look, Listen, and Live Stamp, primarily because

of the emphasis that Operation Lifesaver puts on education, and education only.

Scott Gauvin, President of Coalition for Safer Crossings, wrote: ‘‘I personally find

Operation Lifesaver spin on education appalling. Three and a half years ago I lost

a very dear and close friend of mine at an unprotected crossing in southwestern Illinois. Eric was nineteen . . . When I was in high school I received the same driver

safety training regarding grade crossing safety as my best friend Eric did. Eric is

4

now gone. The funds from this proposed stamp would not have helped him. Now

if this stamp would have been around prior to 1996 and funds were allocated to the

State of Illinois for hardware and a set of automatic lights and gates were installed

at this crossing in question I wouldn’t be writing you this letter today. I hope you

understand the difference.’’

So, in the case of this particular semipostal stamp, Congress would be deciding

not only to promote one worthy cause among various causes with the issuance of

the Look, Listen and Live stamp, but to favor one specific approach and one specific

organization over another.

Other than making recommendations or suggestions, Congress should stay out of

the stamp selection process. Before Congress authorized the Breast Cancer Research

Stamp, it deferred to the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee, within the U.S. Postal Service, to review and select commemorative stamp subjects. Congress may advise the CSAC, and many of us to write letters or sponsor Sense of the Senate Resolutions urging CSAC and the Postal Service to issue a specific stamp subject, but

we should leave the final decision on the issuance of stamps and the subject of

stamps to CSAC, otherwise politics will swamp stamp selection.

We have been waiting for the GAO report to evaluate the costs, the effectiveness

and the appropriateness of semipostal stamps as a means of fund-raising.

In the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, the Postal Service was directed to deduct

from the surcharge revenue the reasonable costs it incurs in carrying out the Act,

including those attributable to printing, sale and distribution of the Breast Cancer

Research Stamp, but the Act gave the Postal Service the authority to define ‘‘reasonable’’ through regulations. According to the GAO report, in the case of the Breast

Cancer Research Stamp, the Postal Service has not yet resolved what costs it considers ‘‘reasonable,’’ and has instead used informal criteria which the GAO claims

the Postal Service has not applied consistently.

To date, the Postal Service’s records show that the bulk of the costs associated

with the Breast Cancer Research Stamp are approximately $6 million. There are

also nearly $350,000 in costs, identified by the Office of the Inspector General, that

the Postal Service did not identify, and additional items, such as staff-related expenses and accounting functions, that the Postal Service considered inconsequential

and did not track. Out of all of these costs, the Postal Service has deducted $482,000

of that total amount from the surcharge revenue. In the end, the Postal Service will

recoup merely a fraction of the total cost. The Postal Service chose to deduct such

a small amount from the surcharge revenue because it considers the Breast Cancer

Research Stamp a ‘‘blockbuster’’ stamp, a commemorative stamp with mass appeal,

one that will be ‘‘highly retained by postal patrons and not used for postage.’’ the

Postal Service is therefore able to recover the costs from the remaining 33 cent portion of the stamp.

The GAO report shows while the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been successful, and I applaud the breast cancer research groups and the Senator from California’s commitment to the promotion of this stamp, but the cost-benefit analysis

of one semipostal stamp does not necessarily apply to another, nor does it make it

an appropriate vehicle for future fund-raising efforts.

All semipostal stamps can not be expected to be ‘‘blockbuster’’ stamps. According

to the Postal Service, in the last few years, out of almost 30 stamps issued per year,

there are only about 4 or 5 ‘‘blockbuster’’ stamps each year.

There are now a dozen proposals for various semipostal stamps introduced in this

Congress alone. If these stamps are not ‘‘blockbuster’’ stamps and the bulk of the

costs are not eaten by the Postal Service, as happened with the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, the Postal Service may not be able to turn any money over to the

charity or cause. In fact, the issuance of so many semipostal stamps may cost the

Postal Service a considerable amount of money with no benefit to charitable causes.

Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing. I look forward to

hearing from all of our witnesses today.

Senator COCHRAN. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr.

Akaka, is the Ranking Minority Member of our Subcommittee. Senator Akaka.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join you

in welcoming our honored guests and distinguished colleagues.

I am pleased also to have the opportunity today to hear from the

Postal Service on its activities relating to the Nation’s first

5

semipostal stamp, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. I also look

forward to Mr. Ungar’s testimony, who will review with us GAO’s

comprehensive report on the Breast Cancer Research Semipostal

and the use of semipostals in other countries.

I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Feinstein and

Senator DeWine who have taken time from their busy day to speak

on behalf of their bills, S. 2386, which would extend the Breast

Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act for an additional 2

years, and S. 2062, which would create a new semipostal to raise

funds for organ and tissue transplants.

As the GAO report found, the public welcomed the ability to contribute on a voluntary basis to breast cancer research through the

semipostal stamp. Although the stamp has been successful in terms

of money raised, $12.5 million as of March 24, 2000, the report

calls attention to uneven accounting procedures that have clouded

the actual additional costs associated with Breast Cancer Research

Semipostals. I know the Postal Service has responded to GAO’s

findings and recommendations and is working on a final cost recovery policy. Obviously, the issuance of semipostals poses certain

problems, and I am hopeful that today’s hearing will answer some

of these concerns and questions.

Again, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity and thank you for holding this hearing.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Feinstein, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator

Levin, and Senator Akaka. Thank you all for your comments. I

make these remarks on behalf of my cosponsor, Senator Hutchison

of Texas.

Let me begin by saying this. This stamp, by any standard you

use, has been a success. As of May 19, it has raised $14 million.

They have sold 191 million stamps. It has an organized community

of breast cancer research groups and women all across the United

States who support it.

In addition to being a money-making stamp for breast cancer research, it has also, interestingly enough, served another purpose.

The stamp has brought to the attention of women across this country, on their letters, the fact that one out of every eight women in

this country will get breast cancer. It has raised the awareness

about mammography and the need to have mammograms. So, the

stamp also has provided good public health service to people.

Now, that would not be enough if it had not produced money and

run in the black. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp has substantially run in the black. The GAO is sitting behind me. They will

testify on their report on the stamp

According to the GAO report, the Postal Service compared the

stamp’s cost to those of a blockbuster commemorative stamp. In addition to the normal costs caused by blockbuster stamps, the Postal

Service identified an additional $482,000 of costs uniquely attributable to this stamp. But if you subtract that, you’ll see the Breast

6

Cancer Research Stamp, by any quotient of success, has been a

success.

Therefore, Senator Hutchison and I implore you to please renew

it for another 2 years.

The stamp was actually suggested by an oncologist from Sacramento, California, and interestingly enough Sacramento leads all

cities in the purchase of this stamp. His name is Dr. Ernest Bodai.

He came here. He suggested the stamp. He campaigned for it. He

was joined by the breast cancer community. The stamp was designed by a postal worker who is a breast cancer survivor. It is a

beautiful stamp. It is bought at Christmas by women, on Mother’s

Day by women, and all throughout the year by women and men.

I think one day we will find a cure for breast cancer. This stamp

in a sense has become—you have heard of private foundations that

give money—this is the people’s foundation. This is how people,

wanting to make an additional contribution, can contribute to

breast cancer research. They simply go out and buy these packets.

The Postal Service has packaged them in cellophane in $8 packets.

So, people can go out and buy these packets, give them as gifts, use

them on their cards, mail in their bills with them, and it is a great

idea.

And it has proven itself. Fourteen million dollars has been raised

to date, and we feel we are just getting off the ground. Like any

new enterprise, it has got to be capitalized. We have more than

made up for the initial capitalization. Now the constituency is organized. The stamps are in the post offices. People are buying them

and it has been a success.

I would leave it up to you as to how you want to condition this

in the future. My own view is that what is really necessary for the

stamp to succeed is an aroused and organized community out

there. This exists with respect to breast cancer. The cause of medical research is universally accepted as a positive cause.

So, I would say to you in summary, the Breast Cancer Research

Stamp offers a way of heightening the public’s knowledge about a

major problem. It is a way of raising money to solve the major

problem. It is a way of groups coming together around the cause.

They use stamps as fund-raising mechanisms, for example, for

breast cancer research. I think that is good. The stamp is uniquely

popular.

So, I would just like to urge that it be authorized for another 2

years. I believe it will continue to make money, and second, I believe it will make money even more strongly than it has in the first

2 years because people are now aware of it, they are buying, they

know where to get it, and so on and so forth.

I will not take any more time, Mr. Chairman, but I thank you

very much for your consideration. I would ask that my remarks in

their entirety be entered into the record.

Senator COCHRAN. Without objection, your remarks will be printed in the record in their entirety.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN

Thank you, Chairman Cochran, Senator Akaka, and other Members of the Government Affairs Committee for giving me this time to talk about the Breast Cancer

Research Stamp.

7

The primary objective of my remarks is to ask the Committee to report out S.

2386, a bill to extend the life of the stamp by 2 years. Unless the Committee takes

action, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp will expire on July 28, 2000—just 2

months from now.

In 1997, I introduced legislation to create a Breast Cancer Research Stamp. This

idea originated with Dr. Ernie Bodai, a physician from California. With the help of

many Senators and Representatives from both parties, this idea became law in

1998.

Results of Breast Cancer Research Stamp Program: The Breast Cancer Research

Stamp has generated enthusiasm from postal patrons across the country. As of May

19, 2000, the U.S. Postal Service has sold 191 million of these semipostal stamps,

raising $14 million in surcharge revenue. So far, the Postal Service has identified $482,000 in costs uniquely attributable

to the Breast Cancer Research Stamp program. Thus, the program has generated

over $13 million dollars for breast cancer research. Clearly, the stamp has succeeded

as a fundraiser.

It is worth noting that the five post offices with the most Breast Cancer Research

Stamp sales come from regions as diverse as (1) Turlock, California; (2) Providence,

Rhode Island; (3) New York City; (4) Syracuse, New York; and (5) Boston, Massachusetts.

The stamp’s impact, however, goes beyond dollars and cents. Each stamp sold

adds to public awareness about the toll of the disease. The Breast Cancer Research

Stamp serves as a reminder for people to get mammograms and other preventive

screenings. Moreover, the stamp has given ordinary citizens a convenient means to

contribute in the fight against breast cancer.

GAO Report: Since the Breast Cancer Research Stamp is the first semipostal

stamp sold by the U.S. Postal Service, it has received intense scrutiny.

On April 28, 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded an exhaustive

review of the stamp program. GAO conducted dozens of interviews, and investigated

every facet of the program’s operations.

In the report, the GAO stated that ‘‘on the basis of the collective results of all

the measures we used to evaluate effectiveness, we believe the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been an effective fund-raiser.’’ The report also goes on to assert

that ‘‘the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been successful.’’

Seventy-one percent of the members of the public surveyed by the GAO had positive views of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, and thought the Postal Service

should continue to sell semipostal stamps.

Why the Stamp Should Be Reauthorized: The Breast Cancer Research Stamp deserves reauthorization. The program is working, and it continues to fill a compelling

need. Breast cancer is considered the most commonly diagnosed cancer among

women in every major ethnic group in the United States. More than two million

women are living with breast cancer in America today, yet one million of them have

not been diagnosed.

Breast cancer is still the No. 1 cancer killer of women between the ages of 15 and

54. The disease claims another woman’s life every 15 minutes in the United States.

More and more people today are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer

victims thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research. According to the American Association of Cancer Research, eight million people are alive today as a result of cancer research. The bottom line is that every dollar we continue to raise will save

lives.

Reauthorization Bill has Strong Bipartisan Support: S. 2386, legislation I have introduced with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to reauthorize the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has 57 cosponsors, and enjoys broad, bipartisan support.

S. 2386, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000, would

permit the sale of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 2 additional years. The

stamp would continue to cost 40 cents and sell as a first-class stamp. The extra

money collected will be directed to breast cancer research at the National Institutes

of Health and the Department of Defense.

The legislation is a straightforward extension of the current Breast Cancer Research Stamp program. It simply extends its life by 2 years. It has no gimmicks or

changes.

Numerous organizations support the reauthorization of the stamp, including the

American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the American Association of Health Plans, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Y-Me National Breast Cancer Organization, the Women’s Information Network—Against

Breast Cancer, and many others.

Conclusion: I would like to close with the following message. The Breast Cancer

Research Stamp is an example of a government and public partnership that has

8

worked. It lets ordinary Americans join in the ongoing struggle against cancer. I

urge you to help me in saving this successful program from a premature end.

The Committee has my thanks for being willing to consider my views.

Senator COCHRAN. We thank you very much for your assistance

and the information you have provided to the hearing.

Senator DeWine.

TESTIMONY OF HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OHIO

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing today. I appreciate the Subcommittee’s time, Senator Levin, and Senator Akaka.

I would like to talk about two things. One, I would like to talk

about S. 2062, which is the bill that Senator Durbin, Senator

Cleland, Senator Lieberman, and I have introduced with others.

Then I would like to talk about some of the issues that Senator

Levin has raised, that you have raised, and that Senator Akaka

has raised about the whole issue of semipostal stamps and how we

should approach the issuance of such stamps. I think there are

some very good questions that we, as a Congress, have to look at.

The issuance of an organ and tissue semipostal stamp will increase public awareness about the importance of organ and tissue

donation, and this in turn, Mr. Chairman, will help save lives. As

you know the National Transplant Waiting List, the list for those

needing organs, grows by one person every 16 minutes. Right now

in this country, 68,000 people are on that list.

Most distressing about all this, though, is that we have the technology and the ability to save the lives of those on the transplant

waiting list, but we simply lack the organs. The reality is that

many people on that list will die waiting for an organ. We lack organs, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, because most

Americans are simply unaware of the lifesaving difference they can

make by choosing to become organ donors. We lack organs because

too many family members, when faced with the most difficult time

in their life, the sudden loss of a loved one, do not know what to

say when the doctor comes out and says, can we use your brother’s,

your sister’s, your daughter’s, or your son’s organs to be transplanted? Most people have never thought about it, Mr. Chairman.

What this stamp would do is bring public awareness to this

issue. Senator Feinstein, whose bill I happen to support, has talked

about a constituency that supports breast cancer research. Mr.

Chairman, there is a broad constituency ready to buy this organ

donation stamp and to help spread the word. It is a constituency

and a group that is growing and growing by the day. They are organized and they have done a fantastic job.

Mr. Chairman, one way to remedy this organ shortage, as I have

said, is through the creation of a new organ and tissue donation

semipostal stamp which would by itself increase public awareness

as it moves through the mail. The new stamp we have proposed

would sell for up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class

stamp, regardless of the price of the first-class stamp itself, and the

revenue generated over and above the value of the stamp would go

to the Department of Health and Human Services to help fund

organ donor awareness programs. Many of these programs already

9

exist. They are out there to spread the word, to increase organ and

tissue donation awareness.

This stamp, an organ and tissue donation stamp, was issued as

a commemorative stamp, and in the very short period of time that

it has been available on the market, it has sold 47 million stamps.

It has only been on the market a short period of time when you

consider the fact that within 5 months of issuance the postage rate

increased, and people have had to buy that stamp and then add an

additional 1 cent stamp. But I think it demonstrated clearly the

constituency for a stamp like this.

If we are going to issue another stamp to bring the public awareness to this issue again, it has to be in this manner because the

Postal Service’s policy is not to reissue commemorative stamps.

Let me, though, turn now away from my bill to some of the specific questions that I think this Subcommittee has to look at, and

that is the whole issue of the semipostal stamps. I believe that

these stamps can be a great tool for informing the public about important issues. Senator Feinstein has done a wonderful job just describing how successful her stamp program has been for breast

cancer research, and I will not go through those details. Let me

just say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that this is a way that the

general public, stamp by stamp, person by person, in a very grassroots way, a very real way that everybody in this country can participate in, can help a given cause.

I understand that this Committee is now looking at a number of

different bills, and the tendency might be to say, let us just throw

up our hands and let us say, look, we really do not want to be in

this business. We really do not want to do this. Let us just not do

anything. Let us not reissue the Breast Cancer Research Stamp.

Let us not look at any of these other stamps. Let us just stop it

because we really cannot, for all the reasons that Senator Levin

has mentioned, choose between causes.

I think that inaction would be wrong, and I think it would be a

mistake. I think that this is something that clearly the Postal Service can handle. They can handle it by maybe changing some of

their procedures, some of the problems they had with the last

semipostal stamp. But they went through a learning process. They

can handle this.

The sale of semipostal stamps can generate a significant amount

of money for a good cause and can enlist the direct participation

on a grassroots level, like nothing else can, from every average

American, from a little 5-year-old who walks in with his mom and

dad to buy a stamp, to an 85-year-old man or woman who is sending out Christmas cards. Everyone can participate.

I do not know how you make the decision about which stamps

to approve. Senator Levin has talked about maybe turning it over

to the Postal Service. That certainly is one way of doing it, with

certain standard criteria to be established either by the Postal

Service or by this Congress. I am comfortable with that.

I am also comfortable, Mr. Chairman, with this Committee making the decision, to decide upon a yearly basis to issue one or two

stamps, and if the stamp that I have proposed happens to make

it, I will be very, very happy. I think that it is something that will

save lives. I think it will have a direct impact. If it is not, I would

10

hope that you would choose some stamps and set some policy to establish a process for the authorization of semipostal stamps.

I just think it is a very positive thing. It is something that the

people in this country can participate in, and I think it would be

a shame if we turned our back on this and said, well, because of

some of the difficulties in making the selection or because of some

of the difficulties in administering this, we just do not want to do

it. I think it is an opportunity. We should not let the opportunity

go. We can issue one or two stamps a year. We can provide a great

deal of money for a good cause and we can help people participate

in that cause.

I have a written statement I would like to submit for the record.

I thank the Chair and I thank the Members of the Subcommittee.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Senator DeWine. Your

full statement will be printed in the record.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DEWINE

Thank you, Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Akaka, for inviting me here

today to testify. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all the Members

of the Subcommittee to support the bill that Senators Durbin, Cleland, and I have

introduced to authorize the creation of an organ and tissue donation semipostal

stamp. I would like to discuss the merits of this particular stamp and then talk

about the importance of semipostal stamps in general.

The issuance of an organ and tissue semipostal stamp will increase public awareness of the importance of organ and tissue donation—and this, in turn, will help

save lives. As you may know, the National Transplant Waiting List—the list for

those needing organs—grows by one person every 16 minutes. Right now, over

68,000 people are on that list.

Perhaps most distressing about all of this is that we have the technology and ability to save the lives of those on the transplant waiting list—but we simply lack the

organs. We lack organs because most Americans simply are unaware of the life-giving difference they can make by choosing to become organ donors. We lack organs

because too many family members, when faced with the sudden death of a loved

one, don’t know what to say when asked to donate that loved one’s organs. If more

families would discuss this before tragedy strikes, I am convinced that this vast majority of people would say ‘‘yes’’ to organ donation.

One way to remedy this organ shortage is through the creation of a new organ

and tissue donation semipostal stamp, which would, by itself, increase public awareness and also generate considerable revenue through its sale. The new stamp we

have proposed would sell for up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp,

regardless of the price of the first-class stamp itself. And, the revenue generated

over and above the value of first-class postage—known as surcharge revenue—would

go to the Department of Health and Human Services to help fund programs that

increase organ and tissue donation awareness.

Let me now turn from my specific bill to a general discussion about semipostal

stamps. These stamps can be a great tool for informing the public about important

issues. Just look at the example of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp. This stamp

has been an extreme success. The U.S. Postal Service estimates that due to its great

demand, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp already has generated $12.9 million in

surcharge revenue, with $10.4 million being transferred to the National Institutes

of Health and the Department of Defense for breast cancer research. This has been

a tremendous success and I am confident that other semipostal stamps can do

equally well. These stamps are a valuable, simple, easy, grassroots way for Americans to support very important causes. They offer Americans a great opportunity to

participate in the promotion of issues they care passionately about.

So that we may move forward on the creation of other semipostal stamps, the U.S.

Postal Service simply needs to apply consistent criteria to determine how they can

recoup any ‘‘reasonable’’ costs associated with the designing, printing, marketing,

advertising, and distributing of such stamps. The last thing we should do is let

‘‘process’’ concerns stand in the way of creating stamps that have proven to be successful both in raising public awareness and in generating much-needed research

and awareness dollars.

11

But, I do recognize that organ and tissue donation is not the only important issue

that merits the creation of a semipostal stamp. There are a lot of competing proposals out there. What is important here isn’t so much whether the Committee decides to issue any specific semipostal stamp, but that it decides to establish a fair

process for authorizing one or two semipostal stamps each year for important

causes.

I strongly recommend that Congress acts to require the Postal Service to issue

one or two semipostal stamps each year. We should not let bureaucratic concerns

undermine the importance of creating semipostal stamps. As long as the Postal

Service is fairly compensated for the costs they incur and a fair and consistently

applied formal cost recovery process is established, we should move forward with

authorizing additional semipostal stamps.

Senator COCHRAN. We appreciate very much your taking time to

be with us. Actually, this hearing was at your request, I think, for

favorable consideration of your amendment on another bill that

was being considered by the Senate. We suggested a hearing on the

subject to look at the ramifications of continuing to approve or reauthorize the semipostal stamp that we already had. So, you have

been the catalyst for focusing attention on this issue at this time.

Senator Frist has a piece of legislation I think you were going

to add this as an amendment to. That is still a possibility because

that legislation has not moved through the Senate yet, as I understand it. Is that correct?

Senator DEWINE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COCHRAN. So, this is a timely hearing. I know you have

other responsibilities. We all have to go over and vote in just a little bit on some amendments on the Senate floor, so we will have

to take a break.

I do not have any specific questions, except to thank you, as I

did Senator Feinstein, for being available to us and helping us understand the proposals that you have authored.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COCHRAN. Senator Levin.

Senator LEVIN. Let me add my thanks to Senator DeWine for his

typically thoughtful approach to an issue.

I do not know if you have had a chance to review the Postal

Service’s position on this. The Postmaster General has taken the

position that the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, the semipostal

stamp, should not be followed by any additional semipostals for

reasons that he sets forth in his letter to us. Have you had a

chance to look at the Postal Service’s opposition to any additional

semipostals?

Senator DEWINE. Mr. Chairman, I have a summary and I have

not looked at the full testimony in detail, but I would have a comment, based on the summary at least if, Senator Levin and Mr.

Chairman, you would permit me.

Senator LEVIN. Sure.

Senator DEWINE. I do not want to be disrespectful to the Postal

Service. I think we should take into consideration what they have

to say, but I think ultimately it is Congress’ decision. This is a public policy issue. I would have expected, quite candidly, that the

Postal Service would oppose this. This is asking them to do something that they look at as not in their purview, something that they

have not done in the past. It is probably an inconvenience, maybe

a little hassle. But I think that it is our decision, as a Congress,

to make.

12

And I think that we need to look and see how difficult it is for

them to do this. Maybe they had some difficulties the first time.

The GAO has outlined some things that the Postal Service should

probably change in the future. But, you know, they can do it. They

are doing a good job. The Postal Service is more efficient today

than it has ever been in the history of this country, contrary to

what we sometimes hear when mail does not get delivered. They

are doing a good job. There is no reason they cannot handle this

on a limited basis, one stamp every year or whatever you all decide

to do. They can do it. It is just something that they can get done.

And they can charge a reasonable surcharge. They can figure out

what their costs are. Maybe we need to do a better job figuring out

what their actual costs are, and when we authorize a semipostal

stamp, know how many that the Postal Service has to sell before

they are really going to make a profit. Obviously, when you pick

the semipostal stamp, it does have to be something where there is

a constituency, where you clearly have a pretty good idea you are

not going to lose any money.

But, Senator Levin, I just think that it is our job to make that

decision. I would have expected them—and I mean no disrespect at

all—to look up and say, look, this is not our job. We are not in the

charity business. I just think they can do it and I think it is something they can do without a great deal of hassle. And it is something that will contribute to the common good, and I think we

ought to make the decision for them to do it.

Senator LEVIN. By the way, I do not think there is any doubt

that the Postal Service would agree this is our decision, that we

can issue semipostals if we want to. That is not the basis of their

opposition. The basis of their opposition is mainly the picking and

choosing issue, the politicization of charitable selection.

Senator DEWINE. And I understand that, but Congress can pick

and choose which semipostal to authorize.

Senator LEVIN. Is there not a constituency for AIDS research, diabetes research, Alzheimer’s disease, prostate cancer research, and

the World War II Memorial?

Senator DEWINE. Senator Levin, absolutely.

Senator LEVIN. Would you not agree these have strong constituencies?

Senator DEWINE. Absolutely. Let me just say, as I said, I am

comfortable with you turning it over to a commission that you want

to establish. I am comfortable with you turning it over to the Postal

Service. I am comfortable with Congress making the decision.

My guess is—and I will be willing to bet—if you took every bill

and every constituency and put them in a room and, say, there are

20 or 30 or 50 or 100, and you said to them, OK, here is the deal—

we can either not authorize any semipostal stamp at all or we can

pick one a year. What do you want us to do? To a person, to a man,

to a woman, they would say pick one. Because these are not people

who are saying ours is better or more important. These are people

who say ours is important, and I have been touched by it and I lost

a mom or a dad to this and it is important. But if it is a question

of not doing it at all or doing it and making some rational choice—

and that is what all of us in public policy get paid to do is make

13

1The prepared statement of Ms. Willhite with attachments appear in the Appendix on page

29.

tough choices every day—I think every one in that group, if there

is 100, would say do it. Make a choice—99 lose, 1 wins—do it.

Senator LEVIN. There is a second issue, though, which you have

pointed out and that is, the way in which who makes the choice

and whether we ought to leave this decision to a stamp advisory

group that is a little more separated from politics.

By the way, there is no doubt in my mind at all that the cause

that is reflected in your stamp is an incredibly important cause.

Senator DEWINE. Right, and I know you have been involved directly.

Senator LEVIN. I walk around with a driver’s license that says,

if I am killed in an automobile accident, take any organ which is

available. There is no doubt that this is an extremely important

cause. And I want to commend you and many of our colleagues for

the involvement in that cause and so many other causes that many

of us are involved in. Thank you.

Senator COCHRAN. Senator Akaka.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Senator DeWine for his statement.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator AKAKA. I thank you very much.

Senator DEWINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Senator DeWine, again for your

help with our effort here this morning.

Our next panel of witnesses will include Deborah Willhite, who

is Senior Vice President for Government Relations and Public Policy of the U.S. Postal Service, and Bernard Ungar, who is Director

of Government Business Operations Issues of the U.S. General Accounting Office. We welcome you to the hearing, and we invite you

to introduce those who are accompanying you today. Ms. Willhite,

we will proceed to hear from you first.

TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH WILLHITE,1 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY, U.S.

POSTAL SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES C. TOLBERT,

JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STAMP SERVICES, U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE

Ms. WILLHITE. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Joining me today is

James Tolbert. He is the Executive Director of our stamp program.

We are honored to represent the Postal Service today. The Postmaster General is unfortunately out of town and could not join us.

He sends his greetings to you, Senator Levin, and Senator Akaka.

The Postal Service has submitted testimony that I would like

printed for the record, and I will just give you a brief background

on what our position is.

We have enjoyed the success of the Breast Cancer Research

Stamp and believe that we have had a great community of support

and it has been very successful in the cause that the Congress set

for us. But we do not believe that we should continue to print

semipostal stamps.

14

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ungar appears in the Appendix on page 42.

We are working to finalize the regulations and have been working with GAO and the Office of the Inspector General to make sure

that we do the cost accounting that has been in question for everyone.

But we think that there is a dilemma for us to continue to do

semipostal stamps.

First of all, it is not part of our core mission. Fund raising is not

part of our core mission, and it does distract from it to some degree.

Second, the choice of stamps and the causes, which has already

been alluded to this morning by the other Senators and yourselves,

is a very difficult one and we do not believe we are in the position

to make those decisions. And if you did decide to move on to having

semipostals directed to the Postal Service in the future, we would

hope that Congress would make those choices.

Finally, the philatelic community has been very averse to the

issuance of semipostal stamps. They believe that it is a tax on their

particular hobby and it dilutes the quality of the stamp program.

For those reasons, we would officially be against any future

semipostal stamps, but of course, if Congress directs us to do anything, we will do it to the best of our abilities and be as successful

as possible. Thank you, Senator.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Ms. Willhite. Mr. Ungar.

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD UNGAR,1 DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT

BUSINESS OPERATIONS ISSUES, GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. UNGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and Senator Akaka. We are certainly pleased to be here today to discuss

our review.

I am accompanied on my right by Gerald Barnes, our Assistant

Director, who is responsible for overseeing our work here, and also

by our two team members, Roger Lively and Charles Wicker. I also

have with me one of our other Assistant Directors, John Baldwin,

who has overseen our work in the past on commemorative coins

which have some relationship and similarity to semipostal stamps.

I would like to summarize the work that we had done that was

mandated by statute, as well as point out a few of the lessons we

learned from our prior work on the commemorative coin program.

The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act required GAO to address

three issues, which we have done. The first one was the appropriateness of using the stamp as a fund raiser. The key effort that

we undertook in this regard was to sponsor a study of the American public, adults 18 years or older, about a year after the stamp

was issued, and basically about 70 percent of the public would say

that it is appropriate for the government or the Postal Service to

use semipostal stamps to raise funds. In other words, they believe

that this was an appropriate function to be performed.

Most of the stakeholders that we interviewed regarding the

Breast Cancer Research Stamp believed that it was an appropriate

function for the Postal Service to undertake. As you know, the

Postal Service was not among that group; nor were stamp collecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:34 Oct 12, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 65647.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
15

tors. We certainly do agree with the Postal Service that using a

stamp as a fund raiser is not within its basic mission, and it would

need specific, separate authorizing legislation in order for it to do

so under law.

Interestingly, the stamp collectors were quite concerned about

this, initially. However, in commenting on our draft report, they

pointed out that if a mechanism or selection process could be established which they considered to be fair, and a relatively small number of semipostal stamp issues could be selected at any given time,

they would not be as opposed to semipostals.

The second issue that we addressed was the effectiveness of the

semipostal as a fund raiser. Here we looked at three criteria:

First, did the semipostal raise money for breast cancer research?

Obviously, it raised a substantial amount of money. It raised over

$10 million as of the time that we had issued our report and, as

you heard, the semipostal is expected to raise about $14 million in

total. So, it certainly raised a substantial amount of money that

has been given or will be given to the National Institutes of Health

and the Department of Defense.

Second, was the semipostal a convenient mechanism for the public to contribute? Here again we found it was. It was to be available

in all post offices, some postal vending machines and some special

events. In addition, about 68 percent of the public believed that the

use of a stamp is a convenient way for them to contribute to a designated cause.

Third, was the semipostal voluntary? Obviously, it is because

people have other stamps to choose from if they do not want to purchase a semipostal stamp.

Another issue that we addressed was the most problematic, and

that is the monetary resources used to develop and sell the Breast

Cancer Research Stamp and the reasonable costs associated with

that stamp that were to be recouped from the surcharge revenue.

Here we broke that down into two components.

First, how much did it cost the Postal Service to do this? Unfortunately, the total cost is not known because the Postal Service did

not establish a separate accounting system or modify its existing

accounting systems to completely capture all the costs. This is not

necessarily a major issue or problem in our view because the

Breast Cancer Research Stamp was considered to be a one-shot

deal, and it would have cost the Postal Service a great deal of

money to establish a separate accounting system or make substantial modifications to existing accounting systems. So, that in and of

itself, the fact that it did not do that was not a major problem.

The Postal Service did identify 18 categories of costs which it did

track. So, I think that was certainly a positive thing that the Postal

Service did. And through that mechanism, the Postal Service identified about $5.9 million in costs through December 1999 that it

had incurred.

Now, that was not all the costs. The Inspector General identified

about $348,000 in additional costs which it believed should be reported as program costs, although the Postal Service disagreed

with that. And I do not believe it has been resolved. Maybe it has

by now. It had not been resolved as of the time that we issued our

report. There are different philosophies of how one counts costs

16

here, and I think it depends upon one’s philosophical approach as

to how one would come out on that.

Of the $5.9 million that the Postal Service did identify and agree

to as being costs, about $482,000 was the amount that the Postal

Service identified that it thought should be recaptured from the

surcharge revenue, meaning that these were the costs it believed

were uniquely attributable to this stamp. And the remaining $5.4

million of its costs, the Postal Service believed, was recaptured by

the basic 33-cent cost that you would normally pay for a regular

stamp.

The real issue that we had here was that the law required the

Postal Service to issue regulations defining the criteria that it was

to use to determine the amount of cost it would recapture before

turning over the revenue to DOD and NIH. Unfortunately, the

Postal Service did not issue those regulations. During the course of

our review, it had what we would consider or call an evolving set

of criteria. In other words, it changed its criteria for recapturing

costs several times. It was a little difficult for us to nail down the

criteria that was used. So, we did recommend that the Postal Service promptly issue these regulations that would specify the criteria

it was to use. It has agreed to do that and I believe plans to do

that by July 28, 2000.

In addition, we recommended that the Postal Service provide

data and analysis to show how it is recapturing some of these $5.4

million in the basic 33 cent cost of the stamp. In other words, it

was not clear to us how the Postal Service was recapturing this

$5.4 million. We are not saying it was not recapturing it. It just

never provided the data that would show us what portion of that

33 cents covers the development and selling costs of the stamp. So,

we just did not see that. We think it would be important for everybody involved in this issue to be able to see that and be able to

feel comfortable that, yes, these costs are being recaptured, that

people who do not choose to buy this stamp are not subsidizing the

stamp.

In addition, we pointed out that if Congress has some concern

about how the Postal Service is defining reasonable costs, then it

might want to specify in legislation either the criteria that are to

be used or the specific costs that are to be recaptured.

Finally, I would just like to mention a couple of key points that

we learned from our previous work on commemorative coins, which

is a similar type of issue. The U.S. Mint coin program goes back

quite a while and we reported in 1996 that the Mint had actually

lost money on some commemorative coins, and there were a number of reasons for that.

First, the Mint sponsored a lot of commemorative coins, some of

which were not popular and did not sell well.

Second, there were too many commemorative coins on the market at one time. They literally saturated the market and the coin

collectors just did not want to buy that many commemorative coins

at the same time.

Third, the Mint was turning over the revenues from commemorative coins, in effect, before it knew whether it made money or not.

So, it was actually turning money over to the sponsors of these

17

coins or the beneficiaries of these coins and actually losing money

at the same time.

Those were some of the key things that we wanted to point out.

We would certainly be happy to address any questions that you

might have.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your efforts to acquaint us with the findings of your report and also the

opinions and views of the Postal Service on this semipostal stamp

issue.

Let me ask a question, Ms. Willhite, about the commemorative

stamps that the Postal Service issues. Now, we do not, as a Congress, authorize any specific commemorative stamp to be issued by

the Postal Service. The Congress recognizes the Postal Service as

an independent service, and those decisions are made by the Postal

Service. Tell us how that process works and whether or not that

would offer a way to select stamps that are specially issued with

a surcharge as well?

Ms. WILLHITE. The Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee was set

up in 1957 to advise the Postmaster General on the stamps to be

issued several years in advance. It has criteria that it has set down

through its processes. One of the different rules states that no person can be on a stamp until they have been dead for 10 years, except for Presidents. And they have other criteria to try to keep the

stamp program collectible, commemorative, reflecting the culture

and the history of the country, and those sorts of things.

One of their criteria is also that they will not authorize any

semipostal stamps because they have a commitment to the philatelic community. So, they have historically been on record as being

against semipostal stamps as a part of the commemorative stamp

program.

They do, as Senator Levin pointed out, put a layer between the

political and marketing pressures that would be on the Postal Service and act as a filter. They get some 50,000 requests for different

stamp issuances every year that they select from and suggest

stamp programs 2 to 3 years out so that we have adequate time

to get economies of scale in printing and that sort of thing.

Senator COCHRAN. How many commemorative stamps are normally issued in a year?

Ms. WILLHITE. Normally 35 to 40.

Senator COCHRAN. And how many regular kinds of stamps do

you also issue?

Ms. WILLHITE. Ten to 15 definitive stamps. Definitive stamps are

the ones that are in the booklets, in the machines. I always bring

up the berries.

Mr. TOLBERT. The work horses.

Ms. WILLHITE. They are the work horses. The flag stamps, those

that are renewed year after year.

Senator COCHRAN. What kind of expense is attributable to the

issuance of commemorative stamps? Do you keep up with that in

any way in terms of costs?

Mr. TOLBERT. Mr. Chairman, relative to the commemorative

stamp program, what we do is track the costs of printing stamps,

all the costs in terms of the retail vending applications that take

place, and much of the same costs that are right now being tracked

18

by the semipostal that the Postal Service has been able to identify

and track within a reasonable and short window of time since the

launch of the semipostal stamp.

So, basically we are able to track the costs of design, costs of the

process of the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee, the costs of

printing those stamps, any marketing initiatives associated with

that particular stamp, whether it is promotion or the price associated with that stamp, as well as what we project in terms of consumer demand against the stamp.

Senator COCHRAN. There was some question the GAO had about

the efficacy or reliability of your cost analysis in the case of the

semipostal stamp for breast cancer research. What is your reaction

to that suggestion? Are you comfortable with the fact that you

identified the costs and that it is a reliable figure so that we could

assume that those funds that are said to have been cleared, the difference between the gross receipts and the net, would be fairly accurate?

Ms. WILLHITE. In the course of the GAO study and the Office of

the Inspector General analysis of the program, we have come to

some moderation of what we thought we should be assigning costs

to. This has been a learning process. It has been an evolving process. But we are comfortable with where we are on the stamps’ attributable costs at this point in time.

Senator COCHRAN. And the bottom line conclusion is that the

Breast Cancer Research Stamp did generate substantial funds for

breast cancer research. It was successful in that regard. There is

no question about that. Is that correct?

Ms. WILLHITE. It has been incredibly successful. It has had a

wide community of support. Senator Feinstein, Senator

Hutchison—the members have continued to propel it forward. It

has been a very unique grassroots movement. Not many subjects

that you would put on a stamp could have the broad support that

the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has enjoyed. Just this past

Mother’s Day, there was a huge initiative to sell the stamps. We

are getting ready to have the Race for the Cure here in Washington, and again they will promote the stamp as part of the Race

for the Cure. So, it continues to have a very big grassroots support

behind it.

Senator COCHRAN. Senator Levin, I am going to stop my questioning at this point and let you ask whatever questions you would

like. We probably are going to have to go over and vote pretty

quickly. So, we will recess and go over and vote when the second

bells ring.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a huge community, and properly so, in support of breast

cancer research. There’s also very strong community support and

very well organized for a number of other important causes, including organ and tissue donation, and AIDS research. Is there any

doubt in your mind that there is a very strong, organized community in support of funds for AIDS research? I am part of that community supporting funds and I feel its strength. Diabetes research

I am personally familiar with—very actively involved in seeking

funds for diabetes research. Is there not a strong community supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:34 Oct 12, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 65647.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: SAFFAIRS
19

1The letter of the Coalition for Safer Crossings appears in the Appendix on page 53.

port for diabetes research? Are you able to say that one of these

commemoritves is not as strong as another?

Ms. WILLHITE. The breast cancer community uniquely surrounded the stamp from conception and continues through this day

and has been very, very unified in including the stamp as a part

of all their activities and promotion. I do not know whether the

AIDS community or the diabetes community would have the same

outpouring.

Senator LEVIN. You just do not know that.

Ms. WILLHITE. We just do not know.

Senator LEVIN. All right, but it could be.

Ms. WILLHITE. It could be.

Senator LEVIN. The same with prostate cancer, it could be, could

it not?

Ms. WILLHITE. It could be, yes, sir.

Senator LEVIN. This Committee has approved already another

semipostal stamp. And let it be clear to everybody we are not talking about whether a stamp be issued as a commemorative stamp.

It is the surcharge which is the issue here. I think there has been

a little confusion about that. There is no doubt that stamps have

a huge educational value, but that is a separate issue and it is

apart from the surcharge question.

We approved a stamp recently, a semipostal stamp that will generate funds for Operation Lifesaver, a nonprofit organization dedicated to highway rail grade crossing safety. Now, I voted against

that semipostal even though it was the Majority Leader’s bill, who

we all have tremendous respect for. I am just as much, I hope in

favor of railway crossing safety as anybody else, but I just think

when we start walking down that road, that we are going to find

ourselves in an impossible position I am afraid of saying that diabetes comes ahead of Alzheimer’s or after Alzheimer’s or one railway crossing approach comes ahead of another.

I got a letter from another group on railway crossings, and I am

going to ask that it be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman. Is

that OK?1

Senator COCHRAN. Absolutely.

Senator LEVIN. This letter is from the Coalition for Safer Crossings, and the group says the following: This person, the president

of the organization, opposes the stamp that we approved for the

railway crossing safety cause. This person says. ‘‘I personally find

Operation Lifesaver spin on education appalling.’’ That is the group

that was going to get the funds, a nonprofit, but private group that

was going to get the funds. ‘‘Three and a half years ago I lost a

very dear and close friend of mine at an unprotected crossing in

southwestern Illinois. Eric was nineteen. I fought to close the crossing where Eric was killed and since helped many families after the

loss of a loved one through my organization, the Coalition for Safer

Crossings.’’

‘‘I personally and professionally oppose the measure that the

Senate passed. When I was in high school I received the same driver safety training regarding grade crossing safety’’ as his best

friend Eric did, he writes. ‘‘Eric is now gone. The funds from this

20

proposed stamp would not have helped him. Now if this stamp

would have been around prior to 1996 and funds were allocated to

the State of Illinois for hardware and a set of automatic lights and

gates were installed at this crossing in question I wouldn’t be writing you this letter today.’’

In other words, this group favors putting in lights and gates at

crossings, very much opposing the semipostal stamp we approved

because that money was allocated to another group which favors

education. I very much worry about the Congress making these

kinds of decisions.

And by the way, before the Postal Service created a Citizens’

Stamp Advisory Committee to take this process out of politics, here

are some of the stamps that were issued when political pressures

were brought to bear: A stamp honoring the steel industry, the

trucking industry, the railroad engineers, American bankers, the

American turners, the poultry industry—and I have got to be careful here because I know I am getting close to home. [Laughter.]

Now, I love every one of those groups, just for the record. [Laughter.]

I just want the record to be absolutely clear. I favor their work.

I am all for them but I just think we have got to try to separate

these crucial decisions on where funds go from a political process.

I am afraid that once we go down the road that we have started,

unless we get a barrier there of some kind of a mechanism to

shield this from a political process, we will be making the wrong

decisions. Is it education relative to railway crossings or is it lights

and gates relative to railway crossings or neither? And by the way,

I have to tell you, I would put diabetes, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, and a

number of other causes ahead of that one, although that is an important cause. But that is not really what I think the Congress is

all about.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COCHRAN. The Subcommittee will stand in recess. We

will return as soon as possible from our voting on the floor.

[Recess.]

Senator COCHRAN. The Subcommittee will please come to order.

Thank you for your patience during the votes that we had to cast

on the floor of the Senate.

We have an opportunity now to complete our hearing and we appreciate very much the Postal Service representative, Ms. Willhite,

and Mr. Ungar from the General Accounting Office being here to

help us understand the implications of this legislation on the

issuance of semipostal stamps by the U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. Ungar, you mentioned in your statement that you believe

there are similarities between the semipostal stamp program and

the commemorative coin program. That is the program operated by

the U.S. Mint. As I understand it, GAO examined the commemorative coin program and found as the number of commemorative

coins increased, the sales for each coin decreased. Would you elaborate on this for us and tell us whether you believe the success of

any future semipostal stamp would be affected if more than one

semipostal stamp were authorized by Congress?

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, it is impossible to

predict precisely what would happen, but it certainly was the case

21

several years ago, before the commemorative coin program was restructured and reformed, that there were several commemorative

coins on the market at the same time, and an analysis that we did

showed that the sales were not as high when you had more than

one commemorative coin on the market and that a number of coins

did lose money.

Now, there is a slight difference in the program. Typically commemorative coins sold at a much higher value than the face value.

In other words, there was a higher surcharge placed on the coin

than typically I would think you would have on a semipostal. Nonetheless, I think the experience would point out that at some point

you need to be careful. The Postal Service or the Congress might

need to really weigh this dilemma of how many different

semipostal stamp issues would the public be willing to buy at any

one given point in time. I think that would be a fair characterization.

Senator COCHRAN. Let me ask you whether or not you think the

stamp surcharge is about the right amount in terms of what the

traffic will bear or what the public is willing to pay as an extra surcharge. If they raise it too high, it will diminish the attractiveness

of the stamp I would expect. Do you think it is priced about right,

or was that part of your analysis?

Mr. UNGAR. No, Mr. Chairman, we really did not look directly at

that. We did get some information on foreign postal administrations’ semipostals. Some foreign semiposstals carried more surcharge than others. The proper amount of the surcharge would

probably be a topic that market research could address. I think if

the surcharge was too high, it certainly could affect the number of

stamps that are purchased. It is just something I think that would

be worthwhile to look into if the Congress is going to authorize either the Postal Service to have additional semipostals or you are

going to do it directly.

Senator COCHRAN. Ms. Willhite, what is your reaction to this

comparison between commemorative coins that the U.S. Mint has

for sale and semipostal stamps? Is there any relevance between the

two that we should understand?

Ms. WILLHITE. Yes, sir. We would think that if we had

semipostal stamps essentially competing with one another at the

Postal Service for sale, that it would diminish the focus on the

stamp that would be—if we had another stamp right now being

sold against the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, it would probably

diminish the Breast Cancer Research Stamp sales and probably not

boost the sales of the others.

Also on the subject of the amount of costs for the stamp, we did

look into the market research when we came out with the Breast

Cancer Research Stamp and found that 35 cents or 40 cents would

be what the public would prefer. They seem to like rounded, even

amounts on the stamp prices. And we went with 40 cents so that

we could continue to contribute as much as possible off of the

stamp as the rate went up. Therefore, the stamp remained a viable

tool under the criteria that it raise money with the stamp price increase from 32 to 33 cents. So, we think that that is important

also.

22

1The letters from the American Philatelic Society and the Women’s Information Network appear in the Appendix on pages 55 and 57 respectively.

Senator COCHRAN. What changes, if any, would the Postal Service have to make in its operation if Congress were to issue more

semipostal stamps to be sold? Would this affect you in terms of the

accounting system that you have or the staffing that the Postal

Service would have to have to handle this responsibility?

Ms. WILLHITE. Yes, sir. And I will let Mr. Tolbert comment on

this also because he is in charge of the stamp program and would

have to put that structure in place.

We have absorbed most of the staffing for the Breast Cancer Research Stamp through our existing resources, thinking that it was

a once-in-a-lifetime type occurrence. We did not set up a whole new

accounting procedure. We did not set up staffing just for that

stamp. If we were going to have an ongoing semipostal stamp program, like our commemorative stamp program and definitive stamp

program, we would dedicate financing and accounting and staffing

to assure its ongoing success. It would not be easily absorbed on

an ongoing basis.

Mr. Tolbert.

Mr. TOLBERT. Sure. Just to extend off of that, Mr. Chairman, it

would seem to me that as part of the semipostal proposed legislation, it would require us to set up a separate tracking system and

a costing system to track every element associated with a

semipostal stamp issuance. So, as a result of that right now, as Ms.

Willhite indicated, some of the actions and activities associated

with the commemorative stamp program/semipostal were integrated into our work efforts. But when we start talking about design, subject, research, and some of the other activities associated

with it, it would seem to me we would have to clearly establish a

separate track to account for all costs, whether it is institutional

or whether it is attributable cost to that semipostal.

Senator COCHRAN. While it is not the subject of our specific hearing, we are looking at bills that Senators have introduced, and

there are several statements we are going to put in the record. For

example, a statement from Senator Campbell who has introduced

semipostal stamp legislation. Senator Lott’s bill was already discussed to some extent by Senator Levin. We have received letters

from people commenting about the issue. So, we are going to add

to the record comments on these specific proposals.

The American Philatelic Society—when I was doing this, it was

called stamp collecting. I do not know how it got so fancy. [Laughter.]

The Women’s Information Network—we have a letter and we will

include that as well.1

But there is also the House bill that has been mentioned. Congressman McHugh is chairman of the companion subcommittee

over on the House side, and he has introduced a bill that will reauthorize the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, but create at the same

time an alternative mechanism for passing on future requests for

this kind of specially issued stamp.

23

What, if any, would your observations be, Mr. Ungar—I am going

to ask both of you—and Ms. Willhite, on that as an alternative to

the individually authorized special stamps?

Mr. UNGAR. Mr. Chairman, we specifically did not look into that.

Obviously, it would be an alternative that you would want to consider. On the commemorative coin program, there is an advisory

committee that has been set up but the actual decisions there as

to what coins will be minted are up to the Congress and specific

legislation must be enacted; so, the committee is purely advisory to

the Congress.

I guess in this case, the Congress would authorize the Postal

Service or a committee to make those decisions in terms of what

stamps would be produced and sold. I think one issue there might

be the criteria that might be used in making that kind of a choice,

if the Congress were to delegate that function.

Senator COCHRAN. Ms. Willhite, what is your response?

Ms. WILLHITE. We have looked at Congressman McHugh’s bill

and there are elements of it that we support. Again, we believe

that it would be the role of Congress to choose the subject matter

of any stamp that was not a part of the commemorative or definitive series.

Also, Senator, we believe that we would want to have some input

on the timing of the stamps. We now have a lead-in time in our

commemorative program of up to 2 years in development and 3 to

5 years in the actual roll-out of a stamp. If we were going to have

a new semipostal stamp every 6 months, it would be very difficult

for us to do that in a cost effective way. So, any legislation that

would impact the development of a semipostal act, we would like

to talk about some of the technicalities of stamp production that

might make it a more successful bill.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, judging from your comments and also

the GAO, there is more to this than just meets the eye, rather than

to just gloss it over with that kind of analogy or metaphor.

The obligation of this Subcommittee is to carefully consider and

review in a thoughtful way the proposals, and I am confident that

we will bring that kind of consideration to these proposals that are

before the Committee.

There are a number of other questions that we have that we

think we should ask and have answers for the record so that we

will have a body of facts and information that will enable us to

make a decision about whether to report out the bill or not.

I am going to yield to my good friend from Michigan for any additional questions he has and then I am going to submit the others

that I have here for the record, along with those that I mentioned.

We have statements that will be included. Senator Campbell has

introduced this legislation that I mentioned and his has to do with

violence against women, domestic violence, and to raise the awareness and funds for dealing with that. We want to have a statement

that he has prepared included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Campbell follows:]

24

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, A U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, for holding this

hearing today on the issuance of semipostals by the U.S. Postal Service. I am

pleased to take this opportunity to testify about my legislation, S. 2044, the Stamp

Out Domestic Violence Act of 2000. S. 2044 has 13 bipartisan cosponsors and I

thank my colleagues for their support.

The Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2000 will allow postal patrons to easily

contribute to the fight against domestic violence through the voluntary purchase of

certain specially issued U.S. Postal stamps, generally referred to as semipostals.

Proceeds raised from the stamps would fund domestic violence programs nationwide.

Consider the following: A woman is battered every 15 seconds in the United

States. According to the Justice Department, four million American women were victims of violent crime last year. Two-thirds of these women were victimized by someone they knew. In fact, 30 percent of female murder victims are killed by current

or former partners. In Colorado alone, the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence reported 59 domestic violence related deaths in 1998. We can and must make

every effort to change that. But, before we can eliminate the incidence of domestic

violence we must acknowledge the problem and identify the resources needed to

combat the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I believe S. 2044 represents an innovative way to generate money

and raise awareness for the fight against domestic violence. As you know, a recent

GAO report calls the Breast Cancer Research Stamp an effective fundraiser. According to preliminary reports, more than 164 million stamps have been sold nationally,

raising $12 million for breast cancer research. My bill is modeled after the Breast

Cancer Research Stamp legislation, and I am confident it will be just as successful.

Specifically, under the Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2000, the Postal Service would establish a special rate of postage for first-class mail, not to exceed 25

percent of the first-class rate, as an alternative to the regular first-class postage.

The additional sum would be contributed to domestic violence programs. The rate

would be determined in part, by the Postal Service to cover administrative costs,

and the remainder by the Governors of the Postal Service. All of the funds raised

would go to the Department of Justice to support local domestic violence initiatives

across the country.

In a country as blessed as America, the horrid truth is more women are injured

by domestic violence each year than by automobile and cancer deaths—combined.

We can no longer ignore this fact for our denial is but a small step from tacit approval. The funds raised by this stamp will represent another positive step forward

in addressing this national concern, and I urge the Committee to act favorably on

this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COCHRAN. Senator Levin.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Willhite, first let me ask you a question about the advertising and promotion costs for regular commemorative stamps. My

understanding is that the entire annual budget to promote stamps

and postal products is $1 million. Is that correct?

Ms. WILLHITE. I am going to let Mr. Tolbert, who actually runs

the budget, get into the nitty-gritty with you, Senator.

Mr. TOLBERT. Senator, relative to the advertising and promotion,

it is not specifically for a stamp. There are philatelic products

which we produce, which you just referenced, and we have basically, from a costing standpoint I would say, for fiscal year 2000

allocated approximately $1 million against costs for philatelic products.

Senator LEVIN. Does that include stamps, the promotion of

stamps?

Mr. TOLBERT. Yes, to some degree, because the product is an extension of the stamp. Yes.

Senator LEVIN. According to this memo from Terry McCaffrey,

manager of Stamp Development, to Tom Edwards, it says that the

25

annual budget is approximately $1 million to promote the entire

annual program, which is what I think you are saying as well.

Ms. WILLHITE. Yes.

Mr. TOLBERT. Yes.

Senator LEVIN. Now, on this one stamp, on the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, is it not accurate that there was $1.5 million

spent in advertising and promotion?

Mr. TOLBERT. Yes, there was in terms of tracking against the

semipostal. Just to extend off that for a second, as well as part of,

I believe, the Office of the Inspector General’s report, there was a

difference in the Postal Service and their audit relative to the advertising promotion which, for example, the billboards in Times

Square—those were billboards that were part of the overall program, but one of the spots was allocated to promote the Breast

Cancer Research Stamp.

Senator LEVIN. Well, if your total budget for promotion and advertising for your entire program, including commemorative

stamps, is $1 million, and you have spent $1.5 million on one

stamp, then that is clearly a lot different from what you ordinarily

would spend to promote a commemorative stamp. It is a lot more

than you have ever spent, I guess, to promote one stamp. Is that

not true?

Mr. TOLBERT. I would say yes, there was a lot more spent

against the semipostal as it relates to the advertising and promotion.

Senator LEVIN. OK, but none of that $1.5 million was used as

part of your reasonable costs for reimbursement. Is that correct,

Mr. Ungar?

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, sir. The Postal Service did not recoup that

money from the surcharge revenues, at least as of yet, and I think

the Postal Service did not plan to do that. We would certainly suggest that the Postal Service might want to reconsider its decision.

The concern that we would have is that, while statutorily the

Postal Service does have a lot of discretion here, I think the issue

is a precedent. This stamp obviously, was quite successful. If the

Postal Service should, unfortunately, have a situation in the future

where a semipostal stamp is not so successful and does incur a substantial amount of incremental costs like advertising, it could find

itself in a loss position. So, I think it might be wise, if the

semipostal program is going to continue, that this type of issue

really be reassessed.

Senator LEVIN. Why were the promotion and advertising costs for

this commemorative not attributed to this commemorative, particularly in light of the fact that they exceeded the entire budget of the

entire Postal Service to promote all commemoratives for the entire

year or your entire program? Should that not have been attributed

to this program? Mr. Tolbert or whoever does the attribution here?

Mr. TOLBERT. Yes.

Senator LEVIN. No, I am sorry. I was not sure whether you make

the policy decision or not. If you do, let me address it to you.

Should the cost of the $1.5 million, or part of that, not have been

attributed to this stamp as one of the costs to be deducted from the

surcharge revenues?

Mr. TOLBERT. Yes, sir.

26

Senator LEVIN. But it has not yet been done.

Mr. TOLBERT. Not to my knowledge.

Senator LEVIN. By the way, I am not trying to reduce the amount

of money that goes to breast cancer research. If you put an amendment on that floor right now asking me would I add $6 million to

breast cancer research, you would get an aye from me. OK? So,

that is not the issue. The issue here is what we are getting into,

what is the road we are walking down, and how are we going to

figure this out.

What would be the estimated costs of the Look, Listen and Live

Stamp, Mr. Tolbert? Could you give us that? The bill that has

passed the Subcommittee and now the full Committee. Have you

made an estimate as to what that would cost?

Mr. TOLBERT. I have not, no.

Senator LEVIN. Let us assume that the costs on that were $3 million or $2 million, but that the surcharge produced less than that

so that there was actually a deficit. Mr. Tolbert, what then happens? With that stamp, a private foundation is supposed to get the

money. It is not even a governmental research program. Would the

private foundation then reimburse the government for the loss to

the government? Is that part of the program?

Ms. WILLHITE. Under the legislation, if it was the same legislation of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, if we could not get back

our reasonable costs, we would not be able to give any money to

the program. I do not know that we would be able to actually

charge the program, but it would mean that the stamp would not

provide any money to the program.

Senator LEVIN. Well, thank you all. I think there are a lot of

questions that this hearing has brought up. I hope, Mr. Chairman,

that one of the things we will really look at and ask the Postal

Service to review is this other approach where the Citizens’ Stamp

Advisory Committee or a similar group can fairly and objectively

apply criteria without political influence.

If we are going to have more semipostals after the Breast Cancer

Research Stamp, those decisions ought to be made by an independent, objective citizens group working with the Postal Service—

applying fair criteria so everybody knows exactly what those criteria are.

I hope that we would get a Postal Service response to the bill

that authorizes the Postal Service to issue semipostals. If you have

not already given us a response to Congressman McHugh’s bill,

could you give us your response?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Senator.

Let me ask you one final question. This breast cancer research

authorization expires in July. So, if the Congress does not act, how

do you phase this out? Is it just ended if somebody comes up to the

window and wants to buy a Breast Cancer Research Stamp, can

they still do that? Do they pay a surcharge? Will it be an automatic

commemorative, or if we do not authorize it, what happens?

Ms. WILLHITE. If it is not reauthorized, sir, we will take it off the

market. We have a very defined time table for removing stamps

from the post offices, and that pull-out process would actually—we

would do our first Postal Bulletin notice June 15, that the stamp

27

was going to expire July 28, 2000, so that we would make sure that

all of our clerks and postmasters knew that the stamp was no

longer authorized for sale.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much.

Senator LEVIN. May I have one comment, Mr. Chairman?

Senator COCHRAN. Sure, Senator Levin, go ahead.

Senator LEVIN. I think the question of reauthorizing an existing

semipostal is a different issue from whether there be additional

semipostals. At least in my mind it is. We have got the costs already sunk into this and spent. We have got stamps I presume

printed. I think there are still, what, 10 million or 15 million or

whatever number.

Mr. TOLBERT. Seventeen point five.

Senator LEVIN. Seventeen point five are already printed. So, I

think that is a different issue than whether or not we authorize additional semipostals. At least in my mind it is.

So, my doubts about semipostals in principle are real, but I put

that in a different category from the reauthorization of something

which already exists and where we have already spent money. I do

hope, though, that if we are going to reauthorize, that we would

look at this other possibility of having the decisions made on

semipostals being made by this group that distances this from political forces which otherwise, it seems to me, are unleashed to nobody’s benefit.

Thank you.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Ungar and Mr. Barnes from the GAO and Ms.

Willhite and Mr. Tolbert. We appreciate your cooperation and your

good assistance to our Subcommittee.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

(29)

A P P E N D I X

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Æ