U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–430 PDF 2005

S. Hrg. 109–198

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: WHAT IS NEEDED TO

ENSURE ITS FUTURE VIABILITY?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 14, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANN C. FISHER, Deputy Staff Director 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Minority Counsel 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 3

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 5

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 6

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 7

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 7

Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 14

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005

Timothy S. Bitsberger, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial 

Markets, U.S. Department of the Treasury, accompanied by Roger Kodat, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Government Financial Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury ........................................................................................... 10

Dan G. Blair, Acting Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ................ 13

Hon. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service ........................... 21

Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 23

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bitsberger, Timothy S.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Blair, Dan G.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Potter, Hon. John E.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

Walker, Hon. David M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64

APPENDIX

Letter from Dan G. Blair to Senator Stevens dated April 20, 2005 .................... 80

Prepared statements from: 

Diane J. Elmer on behalf of Cox Target Media, Inc. (Valpak Direct 

Marketing Systems, Inc.), Largo, Florida ................................................... 82

William Burrus, President, American Postal Workers Union (AFL–CIO) .. 96

American Forest & Paper Association ............................................................ 103

Response to questions for the Record from Senator Carper for Mr. Bitsberger . 107

(1)

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: WHAT IS NEEDED TO 

ENSURE ITS FUTURE VIABILITY? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Lieberman, Stevens, Coburn, Warner, 

Akaka, and Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. 

Today, the Committee holds its ninth and final hearing, I hope, 

on Postal reform. The time and effort this Committee has devoted 

to this subject reflect its importance. The U.S. Postal Service is the linchpin of a $900 billion mailing 

industry that employs more than 9 million Americans in fields as 

diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, paper manufacturing, and financial services. A healthy Postal Service is indispensable to thousands of businesses throughout the country. During this series of hearings, we have heard from many such businesses. Whether it is Time Magazine or a small community newspaper, affordable universal service is essential to a well-informed 

public. Whether it is a national retail giant or a small Maine manufacturer of down comforters, a vast sector of our economy depends 

on the Postal Service. 

Yet the Postal Service’s future is not assured. At our first hearing in September 2003, the Committee heard from Jim Johnson, 

Co-Chairman of the Presidential Commission on the Postal Service, 

who emphasized that the Postal Service was an institution in serious jeopardy. Mr. Johnson went further by warning that, ‘‘An incremental approach to Postal Service reform will yield too little, too 

late, given the enterprise’s bleak fiscal outlook, the depth of current 

debt and unfunded obligations, the downward trend in First-Class 

Mail volumes, and the limited potential of its legacy Postal network 

that was built for a bygone era.’’ That was a very strong statement, 

and it is one that challenges the Postal Service and Congress to 

embrace far-reaching reforms. 

The financial and operational problems confronting the Postal 

Service are serious, indeed. The Postal Service’s long-term liabilities are enormous, to the tune of $7.6 billion for workers’ comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Dec 16, 2005 Jkt 021430 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\21430.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
2

pensation claims, $3.5 billion for retirement costs, and $50 to $60 

billion to cover retiree health care costs. The Postal Service also 

has yet to pay almost $2 billion in outstanding debt to the U.S. 

Treasury. 

There has been some positive news. The Postal Service has 

worked hard to improve its finances, and in an unexpected turn of 

events in late 2002, the Office of Personnel Management discovered 

that if the Postal Service’s payments into the Civil Service Retirement System fund were to continue on the basis required under the 

then law, the Postal Service would overfund its estimated retirement liability by approximately $71 billion over a period of 60 

years. Senator Carper and I introduced legislation to correct that 

funding problem. That bill’s enactment enabled the Postal Service 

to delay its next rate increase and to more aggressively pay down 

the debt owed to the Treasury. 

Despite this reprieve, the underlying problems remain. One of 

the greatest challenges for the Postal Service is the decrease in 

mail volume as key components of business communication, such 

as bills and payments, move increasingly to the Internet. This is 

highly significant, given that First-Class Mail accounts for 48 percent of total mail volume and the revenue it generates pays for 

more than two-thirds of the Postal Service’s institutional costs. 

Two weeks ago, Senator Carper and I reintroduced Postal reform 

legislation, S. 662, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 

of 2005. Our legislation preserves the basic features of universal 

service—affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail Postal services. As a Senator representing 

a large rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents, whether 

they are living in the Northern woods of Maine or out on the islands or in the many rural communities in my State, have the 

same access to Postal services as the people of our large cities. If 

the Postal Service were to no longer provide universal service and 

deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communications link 

upon which many Americans rely surely would be jeopardized. 

Affordable, predictable Postal rates are also of paramount importance to thousands of businesses that rely on the mail and to their 

millions of employees and customers. This basic fact was brought 

into sharp focus at a hearing that I chaired in March 2004 in 

which we heard from several such businesses. One of our witnesses 

was Chris Bradley, the owner of that small Maine manufacturer of 

down comforters and pillows. It is called Cuddle Down. The previous rate increase in June 2002 raised standard Postal rates an 

average of 8 percent. Mr. Bradley pointed out that for Cuddle 

Down, that meant an increased postage bill of $240,000. He explained that was the equivalent of eight good jobs that would have 

to be cut just to stay even. 

Excessive and unpredictable rate increases clearly are a recipe 

for business failures and job losses. High rates also further reduce 

mail volume, aggravate the threat to universal service, and lead to 

even more rate increases. The only way to avoid what the Government Accountability Office refers to as a potential death spiral is 

through comprehensive reform, such as the bill we are considering 

today. 

3

We are working closely with the Administration to implement 

the recommendations of the Postal Commission appointed by President Bush. I believe those recommendations would put the Postal 

Service on the path toward financial solvency and prepare it for the 

challenges of the 21st Century. 

The Administration has, however, serious reservations about two 

significant Commission recommendations. The first is the question 

of how so-called savings that resulted from our work to correct the 

Civil Service Retirement System overpayments should be spent. 

The Administration proposes that the entire $43 billion in savings 

over the next 10 years be used to prefund retiree health benefits. 

This would take all of the benefits from correcting the overpayment 

away from the American mailing public and would lead to unnecessarily high rate increases. This really would amount to a tax on 

Postal customers. 

The second concern that the Administration has concerns who 

should bear the responsibility for paying the cost of retirement benefits for Postal Service employees that is attributable not to their 

time working for the Postal Service, but rather their previous military service. The Administration contends that the Postal Service 

must continue to pay these benefits. I believe that is unreasonable 

and unfair. It makes no sense to me that we are asking the Postal 

Service to pay the retirement costs for the military service of its 

employees. As the President’s own Commission noted, this provision, ‘‘asks those who use the Postal Service to subsidize the military every time they use the mail.’’ And I would note that the Postal Service is the only entity that is asked to make retroactive payments for this cost. 

During this Committee’s examination of the issues surrounding 

Postal reform, which has now spanned some 18 months, we have 

heard from a wide range of experts. Some have been experts in 

issues pertaining to government finance and management. Others 

have been experts in running a business or in keeping the American people informed and in touch with each other. Their perspectives have differed, but their basic premise has not. They all told 

us that universal, affordable, and predictable Postal rates are a 

fundamental building block of our economy, and that is why I have 

spent so much time in my opening statement today making the 

point that the Postal Service is critical to the prosperity of our 

economy and it is the source, indirectly, of more than 9 million 

jobs. It is so fundamental. It is such a part of the fabric of American life that it can easily be taken for granted. 

As Benjamin Franklin, the founder of the very first U.S. Post Office, once said, ‘‘When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.’’ 

We must not allow this well to run dry, for we already know that 

we would lose something very precious. 

Senator Lieberman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

for that excellent opening statement. I don’t know that I could add 

anything to it, so I won’t try to. I will ask that my statement be 

included in the record. 

4

There are two things, maybe two or three, that I would say. One 

is that I am going to sometime later today figure out how to order 

something from a company called Cuddle Down. [Laughter.] 

It has already improved the course of my day, just hearing that 

term mentioned here. 

But second, is to thank you and Senator Carper, who I believe 

is on his way here today, for the extraordinary work you have put 

into this challenge of Postal reform. The Post Office means a lot 

to the American people. It is part of our history. It was one of the 

initial powers given to Congress in the Constitution, and it is facing challenges that obviously the Framers and Founding Fathers 

never envisioned. But we need it, and we need to do some things 

to keep its service universal and affordable. 

Because the Postal Service is such an important entity to the 

American people, there are a great diversity of groups and interests 

involved. There are many who would have said bringing those together, all those groups together to achieve a national purpose in 

Postal reform, was just about impossible. But you and Senator Carper have done it. 

Somebody, I think, described you the other day in this regard as 

having the wisdom of Solomon. I thought that was a bit gender biased. I wanted to say you had the wisdom of the Prophetess Deborah, and maybe Carper has a little of Solomon in him. 

The other thing I want to say to everybody here is what we all 

know, which is we have got to get together and do this this year 

or there is going to be a rate increase that will have very harmful 

effects on our economy. This is a delicately balanced proposal that 

Senator Collins and Senator Carper have put before us. To my way 

of thinking, not that anything is perfect, none of us are perfect, no 

product we come forth with is perfect, but the burden of proof 

ought to be on anyone making substantial changes to this proposal. 

What we really need is to get together and figure out how to get 

it done, not for any special interest, but really for the national interest. 

With that, and the hope that Senator Carper is on the way, I 

thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Look at that. Right on 

cue. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Madam Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing and for crafting the reform legislation we will discuss today,and more generally, for your faithful commitment to guiding the postal service toward a more solvent future. You and Senator 

Carper have shown great determination in trying to repair the financial condition 

of the U.S. Postal Service, and all of America is indebted to you for your hard work. 

The Postal Service is one of our nation’s oldest public functions. In fact, Section 

8, of the United States Constitution gave Congress the power to establish post offices BEFORE it granted the authority to create a judicial system, declare war, or 

raise an army. The founding fathers recognized the importance of connecting a diverse and dispersed people through long distance communication, and 230 years 

later, the Postal Service remains essential to our economy and way of life. 

In the past year, mail carriers delivered over 200 billion pieces to 142 million 

homes, offices, and other delivery points. More than 707,000 career employees work 

directly for the Postal Service, and it sustains a $900 billion mailing industry. In 

short, nearly every American depends upon it. 

The existing legislative charter for the Postal Service, the Postal Reorganization 

Act of 1970, has served us well for many years. But technological and other advances over the last few decades have altered the business model of most American 

5

companies, and while the Postal service has worked hard to keep up, there is only 

so much it can do. Now, it needs our help. 

E-mails, faxes, the web, and inexpensive long-distance telephone services have become increasingly popular substitutes for conventional mail. Even in the more traditional markets of overnight express and package delivery, intense competition has 

rendered the USPS a secondary player in most parts of the country. 

The Postal Service is unable to challenge this formidable competition, effectively 

partly because it operates under a cumbersome system that prevents quick rate adjustment to meet the changing needs of customers and the changing strategies of 

competitors. To make matters worse, use of the mails to deliver bio-terror agents 

B anthrax in 2001 and ricin in 2003 B has imposed significant, unexpected costs 

on the Service. 

On top of these challenges is the impending burden of large financial liabilities 

and obligations, including pension and retiree health obligations. The Postal Service’s pension obligations were addressed temporarily in 2003 after we discovered the 

USPS was substantially overpaying its pension obligations and, without legislation, 

would have overpaid the U.S. Treasury by over $70 billion. 

The Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act, authored by the 

Chairman and Senator Carper, fixed the situation temporarily by allowing the Postal Service to use those savings for mail delivery through 2005 and avoiding a rate 

increase.Next year, however, it must begin paying the Treasury again, this time into 

an escrow account, until Congress decides how the money should be used. 

Already, the Postal Service Board of Governors is seeking a rate increase for next 

year to meet the $3.1 billion escrow requirement. That increase could bump postal 

rates up by approximately 5.4 percent. 

The fear is that we are approaching what those in the postal community call the 

‘‘economic death spiral,’’ which occurs when falling mail volume and unreasonable 

financial obligations force postal rate increases that lead to further drops in volume. 

The way out of the death spiral is through focused leadership. And Chairman Collins and Senator Carper have provided that in the form of S. 662. 

Your bill provides a sound framework for reform. It would hold down rates by 

eliminating the escrow requirement and allowing the Postal Service to use much of 

the savings for delivering the mail. The bill would also return to the Treasury the 

obligation to pay for postal worker’s retirement costs related to their military service. Other provisions would establish a more flexible and streamlined process for 

setting postal rates, and help establish a viable business model. 

Not all issues have been resolved, but this hearing is an opportunity to hear from 

knowledgeable witnesses who can help us understand and address those that remain outstanding. Thank you for participating, and I look forward to your testimony.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

You can tell him that he is as wise as Solomon. He would have 

liked that. 

Senator Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Madam Chairman, thank you for your work, 

and Senator Carper, for your work, as well, on this. I am new to 

the Senate, just getting a good look at this bill, and I understand 

the requirements and the necessity of it happening. 

I think there are a couple of important points as I have gone 

through the testimony that need to be emphasized, and I know 

your bill goes toward that direction. Incentivization for efficiency is 

one of the things that has to happen at the USPS. We have got to 

reward people who save money, who come up with ideas to make 

the system more efficient. And I hope incentives can be expanded 

and made more an important part of the system because I believe 

people respond to that. 

And the second thing I would say is you mentioned the significant costs of health care. There isn’t a hearing I go to that health 

care isn’t involved, and it is out of control in this country. If we 

6

want to save some of this $50 billion, which we know 30 percent 

of all the health care costs in this country today don’t help anybody 

get well, we need to all be concerned about overall health care reform in this country. I think every bill that we see has health care 

impact. 

The U.S. Postal Service is adversely impacted because of the inflation and lack of efficiency in health care, and we ought to consider even putting a demonstration project in this bill for Postal 

workers to cut the cost of health care, because it is out there. And 

where there are projects going, we are cutting the cost of health 

care 30 percent over the year before. 

So it is a big factor. It is a big benefit. It is something that people 

deserve. By not only cutting the cost, but improving the outcomes, 

we are seeing that it is possible, and I hope that you will consider 

that as we move forward on this. 

I congratulate you on the hard work that you have done. I look 

forward to hearing part of the testimony. I have to go to a Judiciary Committee hearing. I won’t be able to hear all of it, but I assure you I will have read it and then will work with you to try to 

bring this to fruition. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am pleased to 

be here this afternoon to discuss with our distinguished witnesses 

S. 662, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. I welcome 

our panelists and thank them for their input into this important 

discussion. 

I also want to take the time, Madam Chairman, to compliment 

you and Senator Carper. I want to thank you for your steadfast 

dedication in crafting bipartisan legislation to ensure the future viability of the U.S. Postal Service. 

I had the privilege of serving as the Ranking Member alongside 

Chairman Collins throughout this Committee’s series of hearings 

on Postal reform last year. It was my hope, and I am sure it was 

the Chairman’s hope, too, that the bill introduced in the 108th Congress would have been considered by the Senate prior to adjournment. Although that was not the case, discussions have continued, 

and I thank all participants for their efforts in turning the challenges faced by the Postal Service into what I consider to be new 

opportunities. 

One area of particular interest to me is financial transparency. 

I have long advocated the need for greater financial transparency 

within the Postal Service. In fact, it was the lack of financial transparency that moved the leadership of our Committee several years 

ago to ask the Postal Service for a comprehensive transformation 

plan to address its short- and long-term operational and financial 

goals. I would like to add that Postmaster General Potter ably presented that report to the former Postal Subcommittee in May 2003. 

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that I support the provisions of the Collins-Carper bill dealing with financial transparency. 

There are a couple of major provisions of Postal reform, however, 

in which differences remain. One issue is military retirement costs, 

which I know our first two witnesses will discuss. Like the ChairVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Dec 16, 2005 Jkt 021430 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\21430.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7

man of this Committee, I do not believe it is fair that the Postal 

Service should be the only Federal agency to pay retroactive costs. 

Another issue is the escrow fund. While all parties support additional flexibility for the Postal Service, the Administration would 

mandate that escrow funds be used solely to fund post-retirement 

liabilities. Money used to pay down the long-term liabilities is 

money unavailable to cover the other costs. That is why I support 

the provisions in S. 662, which would use the escrow fund to prepay Postal retirement health care costs, to pay down any outstanding debt, and to hold down operating expenses, all of which 

affect Postal rates. 

Chairman Collins, I regret that I am unable to stay for the entire 

hearing, but I want you to know how much I appreciate what you 

and Senator Carper are doing on this issue, and I look forward to 

working with you to ensure that the Postal Service is able to maximize performance, maintain financial viability, and adapt to its 

competition. Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator. You contributed greatly to the bill last year, and we look forward to continuing 

to work with you. 

Senator Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Madam Chairman, I won’t make an opening 

statement. I just associate myself with the remarks of my friend 

and colleague from Hawaii. 

My first Federal job was in 1943 as a 16-year-old mail carrier because there was nobody else around during World War II to carry 

mail. So I have always had a great respect and affinity for the 

Postal Service, and I am going to be counted on as a supporter. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I knew a lot of your distinguished past, but I didn’t know that it included being a letter carrier, as well. 

Senator WARNER. That is right. 

Chairman COLLINS. That is wonderful. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you. And I got bitten by a dog once, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman COLLINS. I have a feeling that there are a lot of letter 

carriers out there who could relate to that experience, unfortunately. 

I am now very pleased to call upon Senator Carper, who is the 

primary co-author of this bill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have said this 

many times publicly and privately. It has just been a joy working 

with you and your staff on this effort. 

To Senator Akaka, we wouldn’t be this far along without your 

help and support and that of your staff, and we are grateful for 

that. Thank you for your kind words. 

I thought we actually had an excellent chance last year to enact 

meaningful Postal reform legislation for the first time in, I guess, 

more than three decades. Madam Chairman, you and I worked 

8

with all of our colleagues on this Committee and some that aren’t 

to draft a bipartisan bill that enjoyed the support of a wide variety 

of interests, from labor unions on the one hand, to the largest mailers, to the Postal Service’s private sector competitors. And I wasn’t 

sure I would ever be able to say that last part of that last sentence. 

That bill that we introduced and worked through ultimately 

passed this Committee on a 17–0 vote, and its House counterpart 

also passed through the Committee over there unanimously. We all 

know we were unable to get a debate on the floor of the House or 

the Senate on Postal reform legislation. It continues to amaze me. 

The bill is reported out of the Committee after years of back and 

forth. It had unanimous consent in both of the relevant committees. 

It couldn’t get onto the floor for debate. 

But I am confident that this will be the year when we get something done. Given all the time, energy, and effort that has been put 

into it, we ought to. 

We once again have a bipartisan bill that enjoys wide support. 

Also, just yesterday, I think our colleagues in the House, and you 

probably already said this, but our colleagues in the House were 

again able to get their version of our bill through the Government 

Reform Committee, again unanimously, on a 39–0 vote. I believe 

our bill this year is even better because I think we benefited from 

the active engagement of a number of folks, including some people 

in the Bush Administration. 

I have been critical, as you know, of the Administration’s views 

on Postal reform—some of the Administration’s views on Postal reform in the past. Let me say, the Commission appointed by the 

President, which actually agrees with us on military pensions, 

which agrees with us on the escrow account issues—they don’t 

agree with the guy who appointed them, but the Commission 

agrees certainly with us on those issues. But while we still have 

some disagreements with the Administration, I think we have narrowed those, and I am pleased we have been able to work with 

them in recent weeks to include in our bill a number of the President’s priorities in areas like financial transparency and executive 

pay and the rate cap itself. 

It is my hope that we can continue to work with the Administration in the coming weeks to come up with an agreement on what 

I believe are the final issues we don’t see eye-to-eye on, Madam 

Chairman. It is too bad Senator Warner has left, because in addition to carrying mail at the age of 16, he was Secretary of the 

Navy. He also served in the Navy and in the Marine Corps. I 

served in the Navy, too. He was my Secretary of the Navy when 

I was on active duty during the Vietnam War. I still call him Mr. 

Secretary, and he calls me Ensign Carper. [Laughter.] 

No. In all honesty, he calls me Lieutenant Carper. 

How can we say with a straight face, or how anyone can say with 

a straight face, that somebody who has served in the Army, Navy, 

Air Force, and Marines, have accrued that time in service to our 

country, and they go to work for a Federal agency, the Treasury 

Department covers the time for pension purposes, the time that 

they served on active duty. Yet if they go to work for the Postal 

Service, that same person, we expect the ratepayer to pay for the 

9

military portion of their service. That is just wrong, and it is 

wrongheaded, as well, and we have got to fix that. 

As my colleagues, certainly you, Madam Chairman, are aware, 

the Postal Board of Governors just last month sent a formal request to the Postal Rate Commission to raise Postal rates by some 

5.5 percent next year. This would be an increase of about two cents 

on a first-class stamp. It would also be the first rate increase since 

2002, when we took action to prevent what could have been, I 

think, a devastating rate increase by reducing the Postal Service’s 

annual pension payment. Let me just say that again—annual pension overpayment, because they were overpaying what they owed 

for pension purposes. 

I am told that this new rate increase of 5.5 percent likely 

wouldn’t be necessary if the Postal Service were not required to 

begin depositing its pension savings in escrow beginning next year. 

And while this new request is smaller than some of us expected, 

future rate increases will probably get bigger and bigger if we don’t 

do something about the escrow. 

Let me just conclude by saying I am eager to work with the Administration on these issues because keeping the Postal Service 

healthy is a vitally important part of keeping our economy healthy. 

The mailing industry is nearly a $1 trillion a year business. I continue to be struck by the number of people that literally step out 

of almost everywhere and say how important Postal reform legislation is. I never imagined how many businesses and families are actually interested in what we are doing here. I am not sure that all 

of our colleagues are, but this is something that is vitally important to the economic lifeblood of our country. 

We have been joined by Senator Stevens. I would just say to Senator Stevens, again, you are the father of our Postal Service. We 

have people called Solomon-like here. We had people called 

prophetesses, and we will call you the father of the Postal Service, 

because you are. The idea of leaving a legacy that endures for 31⁄2

decades is just, I think, extraordinary, especially for something of 

this magnitude. 

Let me close, Madam Chairman, just to point out that I realize 

our Postal reform bill does not satisfy all the stakeholders involved 

in this issue. It probably doesn’t solve all the Postal Service’s problems, either. Many of those problems will have to be solved by the 

Postal Service itself, and frankly, they are solving some of those—

a number of those problems by themselves, and I give them high 

marks for that. 

What the bill does do, I think, is to give Postal management the 

tools and the flexibility needed to run the Postal Service more like 

a business at a time when there is fierce competition from a whole 

lot of sources—E-mails, electronic bill payment, other forms of electronic communication, competitors who are carrying a lot of the 

materials that used to be, frankly, carried by letter carriers. 

I think more importantly, though, our bill further shores up the 

Postal Service’s finances, preserves its commitment to serve all the 

people in all of our communities. 

Madam Chairman, I have enjoyed so much working with you and 

our colleagues. The only thing that I would enjoy more is getting 

10

1The prepared statement of Mr. Bitsberger appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

a good bill on the President’s desk that he would actually sign, and 

that is my commitment and I know it is one we share. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

I do want to acknowledge Senator Stevens joining us. As my colleague said, he truly is the father of the modern Postal Service. I 

have also learned from our experience over the last 18 months why 

Postal reform is only successful once every 35 years, and this year 

is going to be the year. But we are very grateful to have him here 

with his expertise and experience, and I am particularly pleased to 

announce that Senator Stevens told me earlier today that he will 

join as a cosponsor of our legislation, and that certainly gives it a 

big boost, as well. 

I am very pleased to welcome our first panel of witnesses. Timothy Bitsberger is the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets. He serves as a senior advisor to the Secretary of 

the Treasury on a broad range of matters, such as domestic finance, financial markets, and Federal debt. Assistant Secretary 

Bitsberger is accompanied by Roger Kodat, the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Government Financial Policy. 

Dan Blair is testifying on Capitol Hill for the second time today. 

He was at an Armed Services Committee hearing this morning. I 

hope, Dan, that you at least got time for some lunch. He is the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management. He was originally appointed as OPM’s Deputy Director in February 2002. He 

has extensive experience in the civil service sector, and he served 

for, I believe, 17 years on the staff of this Committee and its House 

counterpart. So we are pleased to welcome you. 

Mr. Secretary, we will start with you. 

TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY S. BITSBERGER,1 ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR FINANCIAL MARKETS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ACCOMPANIED BY ROGER 

KODAT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENT 

FINANCIAL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Mr. BITSBERGER. Thank you. Madam Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on the need for comprehensive Postal reform. I will 

summarize my written testimony and request that my full testimony be included in the record. 

The President has articulated the need for comprehensive Postal 

reform to set the Postal Service on sound long-term operational and 

financial footing. My remarks this afternoon will focus on four of 

the Administration’s five reform principles: Flexibility, selffinancing, transparency, and accountability. 

First, I turn to flexibility. Pricing is a key part of the flexibility 

that the Administration believes the Postal Service needs. We support a hard rate cap which provides that rates for any class of mail 

cannot rise more than the Consumer Price Index in any given year. 

We support the Committee’s attempt to establish a hard cap at CPI 

and further support the Senate’s version of an escape clause or exigency rate case which establishes a very high bar to increase rates 

above CPI. 

11

We also seek to provide the Postal Service with flexibility on its 

cost side, as well. We note that the Postal Service’s $66 billion cost 

base provides significant opportunity for cost reductions without 

jeopardizing service quality or its universal service obligation. 

While some may dispute the absolute size of the potential reductions, it is indisputable that productivity at the Postal Service has 

lagged the private sector by large margins and that more effective 

management practices should be able to make significant progress 

in this area. 

Flexibility is not a blank check, though. The Postal Service currently has the ability to negotiate its portions of the premiums for 

health and life insurance for its employees. The Postal Service has 

taken advantage of this ability and negotiated benefits beyond 

those offered by the U.S. Government. Combined, the Postal Service has increased its costs for health and life insurance premiums 

by over $870 million annually above what the Federal Government 

pays for most of its other employees. 

We have focused on a model where management has the flexibility to operate as a business within the constraints of a rate cap. 

This provides the right incentives for management and derives 

greater board and management accountability. 

Now, I will turn to the principle of self-financing and the issue 

of the Postal Service’s unfunded liabilities. The Administration believes that comprehensive Postal reform must require the Postal 

Service to color all of its financial obligation, including its on and 

off-balance sheet unfunded liabilities. It is important to recognize 

that since the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act, the Postal Service 

has never satisfied the statutory mandate of being fully self-financed. The Postal Service has accumulated approximately $75 billion worth of unfunded post-retirement health, pension, and workers’ compensation liabilities. 

The Postal CSRS Funding Reform Act has provided a unique opportunity to substantially improve the financial health of the Postal Service by dedicating all of the escrow to fund the unfunded 

post-retirement health obligations, which are approximately $64 

billion. Without action, these unfunded liabilities grow to almost 

$100 billion in 2011 and over $1 trillion in 2045. We believe that 

the Postal Service should have a financing plan in place to ensure 

it can cover its post-retirement health care costs, and our proposal 

does just that. 

We also recognize concerns from ratepayers over the 2006 rate 

case. The Postal Service has indicated that the need for the 2006 

rate case is necessitated by the escrow established by the Postal 

CSRS Funding Reform Act, and that without access to the escrow, 

rates must rise to compensate. We believe that this analysis excludes the real reasons for the 2006 rate case. The reality is that 

any additional financing requirements of the Postal Service can be 

directly attributed to its inability to sufficiently reduce its cost 

since 2002, which is the date of the last rate increase. It is interesting to note that if the Postal Service had the authority to raise 

rates under the CPI capping proposed, the rates that would be in 

place today and in 2006 would be higher than what the Postal 

Service is currently proposing. 

12

We note that personnel costs are projected to be $6.9 billion higher in 2006 than in 2002, despite lower head counts. And fuel costs 

are projected to be over $700 million higher. The point of highlighting these two line items, which combined are well over two 

times the $3.1 billion rate increase that the Postal Service is asking for, is to demonstrate that the rate increase has its roots in the 

Postal Service’s general cost structure and is not linked to the escrow. To be clear, the amounts that constitute the escrow are in the 

rate base through all of the previous rate cases. The escrow 

amounts do not represent a new cost to be recovered. 

The Administration understands the concern over the 2006 rate 

case, but we also believe that all escrow funds should be committed 

to paying down unfunded liabilities rather than diverted in order 

to minimize a near-term rate increase. 

Transparency is another key principle framing reform. The Administration believes that real financial and operational transparency is essential to Postal reform. We seek to obtain this enhanced transparency through SEC reporting standards and a robust, independent regulator. We are pleased that the Senate has 

seen fit to adopt many of the Administration’s recommendations in 

this area. 

Financial transparency is important for ratepayers, taxpayers, 

competitors, employees, and management. With the expanded flexibility that the Postal Service will have on pricing discounts and 

service agreements, the Postal Service needs to fully understand 

the true financial implications of its decisions and needs to develop 

and instill a culture that measures and understands its costs at a 

very fine level, which is consistent with best practices in the private sector. Private sector companies generally produce product 

line financial statements for internal purposes, which include performance measurement and the pricing of products, services, and 

contracts. 

Finally, I want to add a short thought on accountability. Accountability will result in many ways through our reform efforts. 

A hard rate cap that has a strict escape mechanism will drive management accountability. A strong regulator will drive accountability, and real financial transparency will drive accountability. 

The Administration looks forward to actively working with you to 

craft a comprehensive reform bill that will stand the test of time 

in an enormously dynamic market. 

Thank you. I am pleased to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Kodat, it is my understanding that you are here to respond 

to questions but that you don’t have a formal statement, is that 

correct? 

Mr. KODAT. That is correct. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Blair. 

13

1The prepared statement of Mr. Blair appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

TESTIMONY OF DAN G. BLAIR,1 ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Mr. BLAIR. I see some familiar faces here this afternoon. Thank 

you for having me. Chairman Collins, Senator Carper, and Senator 

Stevens, thank you for permitting me to testify today on behalf of 

the Office of Personnel Management. 

The President has laid out clear guiding principles for Postal reform legislation. You have made good progress toward incorporating many of the Administration recommendations consistent 

with these principles into your new Postal reform bill. However, 

the Administration still holds firm to the principle of self-financing 

as the means of ensuring the Postal Service continues to meet all 

of its obligations. That means revenue from ratepayers, not taxpayers, funds the employer obligations, including recognizing military service in its retirement funding planning. 

The Postal reform legislation currently pending before the Senate 

runs counter to this principle. The proposal would relieve the Postal Service of $27 billion in pension obligations for funding military 

retirement credit for Postal employees covered by the Civil Service 

Retirement System. Legislation enacted last Congress reduced 

Postal pension obligations by $78 billion. That legislation provided 

a model funding structure for Postal pension obligations under the 

CSRS and provided appropriate pension relief. 

Now, funding of Postal pensions is patterned after that of the 

Federal Employees Retirement System. FERS is a fully funded, actuarially sound pension system whereby all agencies are required 

to fully fund retirement costs, including all military service costs. 

Concerns have been expressed that that law singled out the Postal 

Service as the only agency required to fund military retirement 

credit for its CSRS employees. However, the USPS is different from 

other agencies and departments. It operates from revenues derived 

from the sale of its postal services and is required to fully fund its 

operations. Retirement funding is part of those operations. Covering the cost of employee pensions is a normal cost of doing business. 

Since 1974, Congress has consistently singled out the Postal 

Service in requiring it to pay more of its retirement costs. Further, 

the Postal Service is not the only agency to fund the cost of military service under CSRS. Last year, the Patent and Trademark Office was required to fully fund its CSRS costs, as well. 

Efforts to shift responsibility for fully funding Postal obligations 

from the Postal Service to Treasury represent a step backwards 

from sound pension funding and could potentially destabilize future 

retirement funding. Postal rate increases since the Postal Reform 

Act of 1970 have largely mirrored inflation. It is inaccurate to attribute any new Postal rate increase to the USPS paying for military service credit. The facts are that the USPS pension obligations 

have actually decreased due to the passage of legislation last year. 

Shifting responsibility for pension coverage does nothing to improve 

or increase Postal efficiency and does not represent any true reform. 

14

Your bill correctly requires the Postal Service to prefund its retiree health benefit costs, thereby recognizing and addressing these 

liabilities. However, the legislation would use retirement funds now 

allocated to address the military pension liabilities to pay for this. 

We believe prefunding retiree health benefits as provided in S. 662 

is a responsible plan. We urge you to delete the provision using 

transfers from the retirement fund. 

Madam Chairman, you and Senator Carper and the Members of 

this Committee have shown great leadership in taking on this complicated and contentious issue. We appreciate the opportunity 

today to participate in the hearing and your willingness to work 

with the Administration in an effort to enact true Postal reform 

legislation. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

of your questions. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Blair. 

Mr. Blair, as you know from your work at OPM, the Postal Service is required to give preference to veterans in hiring people to 

work for the Postal Service. Doesn’t it seem to be unfair to require 

a preference to be given to veterans and then penalize the Postal 

Service by requiring it to pay for these veterans’ military service 

when it comes time for them to retire, considering that if the same 

veteran went to work for HUD or HHS or the Department of Agriculture, those Departments would not be expected to bear that 

cost? 

Senator STEVENS. May I interrupt? 

Chairman COLLINS. Yes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS 

Senator STEVENS. I have just been called as President Pro Tempore to go to the signing of some bills with the Speaker in the absence of the Vice President, but I want to add to that question. 

Have you studied the history of the change from CSRS to FERS? 

I was the author of FERS. It was understood at the time this veterans’ preference would be carried forward. It did not have the burden of making this payment. That is something that has originated 

in this Administration, and I have notified the Administration time 

and time again that is wrong. We had an understanding at the 

time of veterans’ preference. 

If you hold to this position, we have thousands of new people 

coming back as veterans now. The Postal Service would be forced 

to limit the number of veterans they qualified because of this 

added burden. Now, it shouldn’t shift the burden because of that. 

It is a privilege and a benefit for the veterans’ service, for service 

in uniform, and it should not become something of an item that is 

going to stall this bill, and it will. It will stall the bill because I 

don’t think we will approve that in view of the fact there is just 

this enormous group of veterans coming back to us from this combat activity we have now. 

So I would urge you to rethink this. If necessary, I am going to 

ask to see the President on it, because I believe we had an understanding when we changed from CSRS to FERS, and we saved the 

Federal Government $8 billion in doing that. Now, there is no reaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Dec 16, 2005 Jkt 021430 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\21430.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
15

son to shift back to the Postal Service a burden we did not anticipate at the time. 

I am sorry I have to go——

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you for that strong statement. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STEVENS. My apologies to the Postmaster General. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Stevens said it far more 

eloquently than I could have. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Do you think if Senator Stevens meets with the 

President to discuss this, that Senator Stevens will wear his Incredible Hulk tie? 

Chairman COLLINS. I think he may well, and bring both of us 

with him. 

Senator CARPER. Very good. 

Chairman COLLINS. Seriously, this is an extraordinarily important issue, and we support that veterans’ preference. But what you 

are doing is penalizing the Postal Service for following the law on 

veterans’ preference and assuming an obligation that if that same 

veteran went to work for the vast majority of Federal agencies, 

that agency would not bear that cost. 

Mr. BLAIR. I respectfully disagree, Madam Chairman. When new 

veterans come back from the war on terror and should the Postal 

Service follow the law as mandated, they would be hired under the 

Federal Employee Retirement System retirement plan, and under 

that plan, as has been since its enactment in 1987, those veterans 

would be receiving payments under FERS, and FERS was a fully 

funded system. 

Chairman COLLINS. But I am not talking about FERS. I am talking about people who are under the old retirement system——

Mr. BLAIR. Well, the new employees would come in under FERS, 

not CSRS. 

Chairman COLLINS. Right, but what I am talking about is the 

majority of the service that you are requiring the Postal Service to 

cover actually is World War II veterans, Vietnam War veterans, 

Korean War veterans, and the $17 billion is wholly retroactive, correct? 

Mr. BLAIR. Well, it is wholly retroactive. That is correct. It is 

wholly retroactive because of the $78 billion credit that the Postal 

Service received was wholly retroactive, as well. When we did the 

Postal reform legislation 2 years ago, we looked at the Postal Service portion of the CSRS, and pursuant to a GAO request, we looked 

at it as if it was a fully funded system based on the FERS model, 

and we found that if it was based on the FERS model, that the 

Postal Service would be overfunding by $78 billion. And so in 

granting the Postal Service the relief from those liabilities, the 

Postal Service assumed $27 billion in liabilities associated with 

military retirement credit. 

It is important to remember, too, that the Federal Government, 

even for CSRS employees within the Postal Service, is still paying 

$21 billion in military pension costs because that was—it was PostVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Dec 16, 2005 Jkt 021430 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\21430.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
16

al service performed prior to 1971, when the Postal Service became 

the Postal Service, prior to that the old Post Office Department. 

Chairman COLLINS. I think it is very important that I clarify the record. The $73 billion that you are referring to was to correct an 

overpayment into the system. It was an overpayment that was 

being corrected, and appropriately so. What I am talking about in the $17 billion is the amount of payments that the Treasury made between 1971 and 2002. In other 

words, and would you agree that the Treasury has already made 

payments for the military service part of those Postal retirees’ benefits? 

Mr. BLAIR. Remember that $27 billion——

Chairman COLLINS. Could I ask you to answer the question and 

then go on? 

Mr. BLAIR. Certainly. Those retroactive payments were to cover—

there were retroactive payments requested, plus interest, but it 

was made in the context of the $78 billion which was forgiven to 

them. Remember that when we did the—when we based it on the 

FERS funding model, FERS covers the entire cost of the retirement 

plan. It doesn’t parse out particular benefits, such as retiree 

COLAs or spousal benefits. It picked up the full cost of that. 

And in going back to 1971, since that was the genesis of the 

Postal Service, we looked at that and we said, what would it look 

like if they were fully funded during that time, and if they were 

fully funded based on the payments that they had made up to that 

point, they would have—if they had continued that stream of payments, they would have overfunded by $78 billion. But in making 

those calculations, we also said that they would have to pick up 

costs that they hadn’t previously picked up before because that is 

part of the dynamic funding that is part of the FERS funding 

model. 

So it was part and parcel—it was part of an overall, comprehensive package of pension reform when the Congress enacted it a few 

years ago. It can’t be considered outside of the context of the $78 

billion because it was part of that. Otherwise, we would have given 

up relief of over about $105 billion. 

Chairman COLLINS. Secretary Bitsberger, how is it fair to ask today’s Postal ratepayers, today’s Postal customers, to reimburse the 

U.S. Treasury for payments that were made years ago, that were 

made between 1971 and 2002 by the Treasury? 

Mr. BITSBERGER. Senator, I think that we have been very clear 

here in our prior testimony on this matter. I agree with Mr. Blair. 

The Act of 2 years ago gave the Postal Service the $78 billion and 

incorporated with that was the military service. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Carper, perhaps you will have better 

luck. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Bitsberger, I think it is ironic that you are 

here representing the Administration—I don’t say this in a partisan way—you are here representing an administration that has 

been part and parcel of pushing the unfunded coverage of Medicare 

to unquestioned heights. When people focus a lot about the unfunded liabilities that we have in Social Security, they are dwarfed 

by what we have in Medicare and the Administration that you are 

here representing today was part and parcel of pushing through 

17

the drug Medicare Part D program, which just explodes further the 

inability to fund Medicare. And you are here today literally contravening, contradicting what your own Presidential Commission recommended with respect to allowing the Postal Service to take some 

of these monies that they were in a position to recover and to pay 

down their health care costs. That may not seem ironic to you, but 

it seems terribly ironic to me. That is not a question, that is just 

an observation. 

I want to go back to what the Chairman was saying. I served in 

Vietnam. We have a lot of people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and places around the world. My parents’ generation 

served in World War II and Korea. For the life of me, I don’t see 

the fairness in saying that when my generation, my parents’ generation, or the current generation is serving the people of this 

country in harm’s way in many instances around the world, why 

when they go to work at the Postal Service, we expect the ratepayers to pay for the pension benefits that relate to their service 

for our country, their military service for our country. I don’t see 

the fairness in that. The Presidential Commission that our President appointed, which did a very good job, they don’t see the wisdom in that. What are we missing? 

Mr. BLAIR. I don’t think—I wouldn’t characterize it as missing, 

but you have to keep in mind the Postal Service reaps—I think you 

would agree with me, the Postal Service reaps benefits through its 

employment of veterans. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry, would you come closer and speak 

more slowly? 

Mr. BLAIR. I am sorry. I think you would agree with me that the 

Postal Service reaps benefits through its employment of veterans. 

In doing so——

Senator CARPER. Why should ratepayers pay for the military 

credit, the military years that I or anybody else has spent if we go 

to work for the Postal Service? Why do the ratepayers have to pay 

that? I am sorry. 

Mr. BLAIR. For one, it is a cost of doing business. It is a cost of 

providing an employee benefit. 

Senator CARPER. That is a cost to the taxpayers. 

Mr. BLAIR. It is a cost of a retirement structure that has benefited the Postal Service. The Postal Service, I think, reaps enormous benefits through its employment of veterans. I think that has 

been well recognized, and I think in FERS, it has never been an 

issue. It is just when we recalculated and developed a new funding 

mechanism for its CSRS portion that this has become an issue. 

Remember that under the old CSRS funding mechanism, it was 

done under a piecemeal basis. Congress mandated certain amounts 

would be picked up by the Postal Service, and that was an actuarially sound system, and we could have kept going under that system. But if you compared the old system to the FERS model, which 

is a good government model, which is a best practice model, you 

found that they would have been dramatically overfunding. 

But we didn’t pick and choose what they would be funding. We 

said, if you want to take the benefit of our analysis, take the benefit of a dynamic funding process, then you take the whole package. 

You don’t pick and choose bits and pieces of the retirement plan 

18

you want to fund and what you don’t want to fund. It doesn’t pick 

and choose what bits and pieces of the retirement plan in FERS 

it wants to fund. 

The Postal Service since enactment of FERS has been picking up 

the full cost of the military benefits, and I have not heard the discussion yet that the Postal Service should not be picking up that 

piece, either. We have a good funding model for CSRS. Frankly, 

CSRS, the rest of the government is dramatically underfunded in 

its CSRS portion, and we think that changes should be made about 

that, as well. But we have righted this system, and we ask Congress not to take steps that would underfund and be to the detriment of the retirement fund and future retirees. 

Senator CARPER. Let me back up just a little bit. The Postal 

Service has been able to—I see we have been joined by General 

Potter. The Postal Service under his leadership and the Board of 

Governors—and thanks to a lot of sacrifice on the part of the employees—has been able to begin doing some interesting things. 

They have been able to start paying back their debt to the Treasury, paying down their debt substantially. I think they have been 

able actually to use some money to address the unamortized health 

care costs for their pensioners, and it is because of the work of a 

lot of people. Some are in this room, but a lot are not. 

We are in a situation where, for years, we thought the Postal 

Service was underpaying their pension obligations. Then we find 

out that no, they weren’t underpaying, they are overpaying their 

obligation. So they had the opportunity to adjust that payment. 

And what they are doing is using, I believe, the savings from adjusting that payment to begin paying down their debt to the Treasury, begin meeting their health care obligations. What is wrong 

with allowing them just to go ahead and do that? 

Mr. BITSBERGER. Senator, we view this as the principles for selffinancing and the model for self-financing. I think that what we are 

trying to do is be able to mitigate future rate increases by acknowledging that these future unfunded liabilities exist. I think it is important to note that we need to kind of disassociate the escrow 

from the proposed rate increase for 2006. 

No one wants to see a rate increase here. What we are trying to 

do is mitigate and lower future rate increases by acknowledging 

that that escrow can be suitably used to pay down these future unfunded liabilities. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chairman, my time has expired. I am 

going to slip out of the hearing for a little bit. I will be right back. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. I am going to pursue this issue a little bit 

further. Mr. Blair, in your statement, you used the Patent and 

Trademark Office as an example of an agency that now was going 

to be required to pay the full costs of the CSRS benefits, including 

the military service credit. Isn’t that on a prospective basis? 

Mr. BLAIR. Yes, it is. 

Chairman COLLINS. Do you know of any other entity, other than 

the U.S. Postal Service, that is required to bear this cost retroactively? 

19

Mr. BLAIR. I would have to look—I would have to answer more 

specifically for the record, but I am not aware of any, but I am not 

aware of any other entity that has had the benefit of a pension 

analysis to look at their previous payments to determine that kind 

of overfunding, which the Congress addressed 2 years ago, either. 

Chairman COLLINS. Well, I would say that the Committee staff 

has done an extensive analysis and we know—the Committee 

knows of no other agency or Federal entity belonging to the CSRS 

system that is bearing this cost retroactively. I believe that your 

further review will confirm that the Postal Service is unique, but 

I do look forward to hearing back from you on that point. 

Mr. BLAIR. I think the main point on that is that you can’t consider those retroactive payments outside the scope of the retroactive benefit that was afforded the Postal Service in terms of the 

$78 billion. We looked at those payments that they had made and 

we went back to 1971 and credited them with past interest. No 

other agency made payments like that. So they are, indeed, unique 

in that respect. But to argue that—they are going to get the benefit 

of retroactive interest credits, then they need to pick up the liabilities associated with past payments that they did not make. 

Chairman COLLINS. Well, let us talk about that. In other words, 

Postal customers past, present, and future have paid, and under 

the law will continue to pay, too much in rates to the tune of $73 

billion, or your figure is $78 billion. What I hear you saying today 

is you want that $73 to $78 billion to keep flowing into the Treasury, at least in the short term, so that it can be used for anything 

and everything wholly unrelated to the Postal Service and affecting 

a $900 billion mailing industry that is critical to our economy. 

Mr. BLAIR. What we would propose, and as you have in your bill, 

is a post-retirement health benefits fund that that money would 

flow to to begin recognizing almost $64 billion in accrued liabilities 

and to prevent future rate cases, not just the 2006 rate case, but 

future rate cases and future ratepayers from having to suffer a 

huge hit that would be required in order to make payments on a 

pay-as-you-go basis under the system that was previously in place. 

Chairman COLLINS. As you know, our bill does call for prefunding some retiree health benefits, but we don’t say that every 

dollar has to go for that purpose, which is the Administration’s position. Instead, we recognize that the Postal rate consumer, who 

has been overpaying, ought to share in this funding and that would 

help the Postal Service avoid rate increases that really are not warranted if this problem were straightened out. 

Secretary Bitsberger, let me ask you, has the Treasury done any 

economic analysis of the impact of the rate increases proposed by 

the Postal Service, rate increases that would not be necessary if 

this bill becomes law? 

Mr. BITSBERGER. Not per se. The rate increase that they proposed was 5.4 percent. I believe the CPI over the corresponding period, from June 2002 to the corresponding date, is roughly up 12.4 

percentage points. So they are well within a CPI cap if that had 

existed previously. So the Postmaster General should be commended for staying well under CPI. 

I think that the harm, if there is any harm to the economy, it 

would come in the future where large unfunded liabilities could 

20

cause unpredictable and excessive rate increases. I think the ability 

to—and through the transparency have the hard CPI cap combined 

in concert with the escrow will allow the Postal Service to best 

manage its costs and its liabilities together over time, further mitigating any potential—any rate increases on the economy at that 

point in time. 

Chairman COLLINS. You know, I would really encourage you to 

look at the hearing records from the eight hearings that we have 

held on this issue. I think you would be astounded to learn of the 

impact of Postal rates on so much of the economy. The CEO of 

Time Magazine, for example, testified that postage is her single 

largest line item. It is more than the cost of the paper that Time 

Magazine is printed on. It is more than the cost of printing the 

magazine. It is more than the labor costs, which probably dismays 

some of their reporters. 

It has an enormous impact. I gave you the example of a small 

manufacturer in Maine who had a catalog company and thus could 

not increase prices because they had already been printed in the 

catalog. I really urge you to think more thoroughly about the economic impact of Postal rate increases. It ripples through the entire 

economy. It affects a $900 billion mailing industry. It affects everything from catalog companies to newspaper publishers to credit 

card companies, anyone who is a heavy user of the mails. And that 

means ultimately it affects jobs, and that is what it is all about. 

So I just want to encourage you all to continue to work with us. 

I do thank you, and I hope you do acknowledge that the Committee’s bill this year is different from last year. We incorporated 

many suggestions from the Administration that I believe strengthen the bill, such as the transparency provisions, the SEC-like disclosure provisions, the CPI cap. I can tell you that the Postal Service is not always happy that we included all of those provisions. 

The Postal Service is vital and the Administration needs to come 

up with potential compromises on the remaining issues about 

which we disagree. 

Mr. BITSBERGER. Thank you, Senator. I would like to thank you 

and your staff for working so closely with us on this. I think that 

real progress has been made and we are very encouraged by all the 

progress to date, so thank you and your staff and others, as well. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I want to thank this panel for 

being here today. We look forward to continuing to work with you 

to resolve the remaining issues to the Committee’s satisfaction. 

I would now like to welcome our second panel of distinguished 

witnesses to the hearing. Postmaster General Jack Potter has testified before this Committee at one of our very first hearings on Postal reform back in November 2003, and we appreciate the expertise 

he brings to this issue. 

David Walker is the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office. He is perhaps our most frequent witness before 

this Committee, and the insights that he and the GAO staff bring 

to our proceedings are always appreciated. 

I want to thank the Postmaster General for changing his schedule to be here today. I know that he was previously scheduled to 

be, I believe, in Texas before a large group of Postal customers, and 

21

1The prepared statement of Mr. Potter appears in the Appendix on page 45. 

we very much appreciate his rearranging his schedule. I would ask 

him to proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN E. POTTER,1 POSTMASTER 

GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 

Mr. POTTER. Madam Chairman, I did make it to Houston, Texas, 

and thanks to some very considerate customers of ours, we had a 

nice 7:45 a.m. conference, so I did get an opportunity to speak to 

over 500 customers down there, so thank you for having this hearing in the afternoon that enabled me to do that. I appreciate it. 

And good afternoon, Madam Chairman. Thank you for this opportunity to continue the critical discussion about the need for comprehensive Postal reform legislation. I want to thank you in particular for your personal commitment toward this effort. I am also 

grateful to Senator Carper and the other Members of the Committee for their support and hard work to try to move us closer to 

legislation that will protect and preserve universal mail service for 

all Americans well into the future. 

As the process toward legislative reform has continued to advance, the Postal Service has continued to pursue the goals outlined in our transformation plan, that is, to improve service and 

bring about changes that are within the framework of our current 

legislation. I have included a detailed report of the progress that 

we have made over the last 4 years for the record. Suffice it to say, 

we are transforming the Postal Service. We continue to develop 

new ways to improve service, to reduce our costs, to increase efficiency, and add value to the mail. We are currently updating our 

transformation plan to include initiatives for improvements that 

will carry us through 2010. 

Yet despite our best efforts to transform the Postal Service, these 

successes only mask the underlying dilemma that, in the future, 

jeopardizes our ability to continue to provide affordable universal 

mail service to the American public. To put it plainly, we are seeing continued erosion of high-margin First-Class Mail, which the 

framers of the Postal Reorganization Act viewed as the primary 

revenue source to support the national commitment to universal 

mail service. 

First-Class Mail volume dropped 6 billion pieces from 2001 to 

2004, mostly due to the diversion to electronic alternatives. This diversion threatens to siphon off a significant segment of First-Class 

Mail that contains financial transactions, most commonly bills, 

statements, and payments, which last year accounted for about 50 

percent of all First-Class Mail. The potential loss of revenues from 

financial transactions could run as high as $16 billion annually. 

On the other side of the ledger, our expenses continue to rise. 

Our delivery network continues to grow annually at about 1.8 million new addresses, which requires added delivery routes, additional employees, added vehicles, and thus increased costs. The net 

effect is that we are delivering fewer pieces of First-Class Mail to 

more addresses. 

This dilemma is compounded by the fact that the business model 

created by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 does not provide 

22

the flexibility and mechanisms needed to resolve this imbalance 

going forward. At some point, we will simply run out of acceptable 

options, which heightens the urgency for Postal reform legislation 

in a new business model, one that will give us the tools we need 

to break through this logjam and give us the flexibility we need to 

operate in a more businesslike manner. 

It is with that sense of urgency that I want to reiterate the 

points cited by the Board of Governors of the Postal Service last 

month as key components of Postal reform legislation. 

First, in the matter of the escrow requirement and the military 

service requirement obligation in Public Law 108–18, we maintain 

that the escrow provision should be eliminated and that the Civil 

Service Retirement System military obligation should be returned 

to the Department of the Treasury. Therefore, we support the provision of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, S. 662, 

which returns the military obligation to the Treasury and creates 

a deposit of $17 billion in a retiree health benefit trust fund and 

provides a 40-year amortization payment schedule to fund retiree 

health benefits. 

Second, comprehensive legislative reform should incorporate 

changes in the area of labor, which accounts for almost 80 percent 

of our cost. Provisions in S. 662 that make changes to workers’ 

compensation are very much appreciated. However, under current 

law, about 25 percent of our compensation costs, that is, benefits 

portion, are exempt from collective bargaining. We are not seeking 

to cap or restrict craft employee wages. Rather, I believe wages, 

benefits, working conditions all should be negotiated with our 

unions. We also believe that the regulator should not—I repeat, 

not—be given the power to determine the range within which 

wages can be negotiated. 

Third, the Postal Service should be granted the authority to 

change rates and introduce new Postal services both with the approval by the Board of Governors and within a price range determined by the regulator without prior approval. If the Postal Service 

had the authority to adjust rates within a predetermined range, we 

believe that CPI could serve as an acceptable, though challenging, 

price cap. 

Let me add that a price cap formula must have balance, balance 

that provides management with flexibility in pricing, with freedom 

to modernize infrastructure, with the ability to negotiate costs, be 

they employee benefits, vendor contracts, or air transportation 

charges. Balance in any price cap formula should also set standards that allow management to accommodate unforeseen economic 

pressures, such as escalating energy prices or steep, dramatic reductions in mail volume. To that end, the inclusion of a reasonable 

exigency provision is essential in any bill that provides for a CPI 

rate cap. 

Chairman Collins, we also appreciate very much that S. 662 calls 

for the application of the price cap at the class level. 

Finally, with regard to any future changes in the scope of the 

Postal monopoly, we believe that the Congress, not the regulator, 

should determine the appropriate national public policy within the 

context of the Postal Service’s universal service mission and other 

social obligations. 

23

1The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears in the Appendix on page 64. 

Chairman Collins, we are ready, willing, and able to step up to 

the challenges that confront us in the years ahead. At the same 

time, we do not want to return to the days prior to Postal reorganization when America’s mail system was dependent on an annual 

infusion of tax dollars to make ends meet. But neither can we rely 

on a 34-year-old business model that was created at a time when 

there was no national competition or competitive services nor electronic alternatives, and when it was assumed that First-Class Mail 

volume would continue to increase to support a continually growing 

delivery network. 

The long-term solution must be a fundamental restructuring of 

the legislative and regulatory framework. Effective and meaningful 

reform can only be achieved if it provides balanced solutions to the 

complex problems we continue to face. A piecemeal approach will 

not get us to where we need to be 10 years down the road. There 

is an essential interdependency that exists between the key legislative components that I have described. 

The current bill must strike a reasonable balance between necessary controls and essential freedoms and flexibility we need to 

bring about real reform. Those key elements are the flexibility to 

use pricing as a tool to remain competitive and to grow the business; the flexibility to provide new services and products that will 

meet the changing business needs of the Nation and the needs of 

the American consumer; the ability to negotiate all employee benefits; the ability to manage our infrastructure and adjust our networks to keep our costs under control; and a regulatory environment that protects the interests of our competitors and addresses 

issues of transparency, but one that also fosters innovative changes 

and more efficient processes instead of more bureaucratic entanglements that can only retard progress. 

At the end of the day, with these legislative components to guide 

us, we will be able to continue to provide affordable universal mail 

service to the American public well into the future. Along with the 

Governors of the Postal Service, I look forward to working cooperatively with you, with the House, with the Administration in this 

vital and critical work of defining the reform measures necessary 

to head off the dire consequences that await us all if we fail in our 

task. 

Thank you, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Walker, we are very pleased 

to have you here today. Given your great understanding of financial issues, I hope you can shine some light on our previous discussions and we look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID M. WALKER,1 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. WALKER. Chairman Collins, I think I can help you in that 

regard. Let me at the outset say thank you for the opportunity to 

be back before this Committee to once again speak about the need 

for Postal reform. Congratulations go to you and Senator Carper 

24

for your leadership in this regard. I think you and your staff have 

done an outstanding job to date, and I am hoping that we can bring 

this ship home before too long. 

I would respectfully request that my entire statement be included in the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. Therefore, I will move to summarize. 

The Service has made significant progress since fiscal year 2001, 

including achieving record net income, repaying debt, achieving additional productivity increases, and downsizing the Postal workforce. I think the Postmaster General, Jack Potter, ought to be 

commended for the work he and his key players have done at the 

Postal Service. They have really done an excellent job with the 

flexibilities that they have. 

However, I think it is also important to note that most of the net 

income that occurred was due to the passage of the law in 2003 

that corrected the formula for contributions for pensions. As you 

properly pointed out, Madam Chairman, the situation there was to 

correct the formula to make sure that the Postal Service paid for 

its full obligations, not more and not less. I will come back to the 

issue of military service in a few minutes, with your indulgence. 

Despite the progress that has been made, comprehensive Postal 

reform legislation continues to be needed in order to address certain fundamental financial, operational, governance, and human 

capital challenges that continue to threaten the Service’s long-term 

ability to maintain a self-supporting structure while providing high 

quality and universal Postal service at an affordable cost. The Postal Service has done a lot; however, many things remain to be done. 

This sounds like a typical GAO report. But they are going to need 

your help, because there is absolutely no question that legislative 

reform is still needed in several areas. 

Certain key areas for Postal reform include clarifying the Service’s mission and role so that the Service remains focused on universal Postal service and competes appropriately; enhancing the 

Service’s flexibility to operate in a businesslike manner with a governance structure suitable for a $70 billion entity, balanced by enhanced transparency, accountability, and oversight. The Service 

also needs to make needed human capital reforms and move toward prefunding certain significant post-retirement obligations, in 

particular their retiree health obligations. 

Madam Chairman, postal reform is needed to address the following key areas. Mission and role—to clarify the Service’s mission 

because the current law has enabled the Service to engage in unprofitable activities that are unrelated to its core mission, as well 

as to clarify the Service’s role in competing fairly, including its monopoly power, its authority to regulate the scope of its own monopoly, and other terms of competition. 

Second, governance, transparency and accountability. Congress 

needs to delineate the Service’s public policy, operational and regulatory responsibilities. It needs to ensure managerial accountability 

for a strong, well-qualified corporate-style board that holds its officers responsible and accountable for achieving results, not just currently, but over time, and to define appropriate reporting mechaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:07 Dec 16, 2005 Jkt 021430 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\21430.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
25

nisms to enhance the Service’s transparency and accountability for 

its financial and performance results. 

With regard to flexibility and oversight, Congress needs to balance increased flexibility for the Service to operate in a businesslike manner through streamlining the rate-setting process and 

allowing a certain amount of retained earnings while enhancing 

oversight by an independent regulatory body to protect Postal customers against undue discrimination, restrict cross-subsidies, and 

ensure due process. In addition, the Service needs additional flexibility and incentives to rightsize its infrastructure and reshape its 

workforce. Such additional flexibility in these areas should be balanced by safeguards to prevent abuse as well as to enhance transparency, accountability, and oversight, starting with appropriate 

disclosure of the Service’s large financial liabilities and obligations, 

much of which are currently not on the Service’s balance sheet. 

Human capital reforms and pension benefit costs are also important. Congress needs to consider legislative proposals that will revise the Service’s current responsibility for pension costs related to 

military service. In that regard, Madam Chairman, two concepts 

that I would respectfully request that this Committee and the Congress consider, which also apply in accounting. The first concept is 

matching. The second is consistency. 

With regard to matching, who benefited from the military service? The cost should be matched with the party who benefited from 

the military service. I would argue that all Americans benefited 

from the related military service. 

And second, consistency. To what extent are other entities that 

are government corporations required to bear such costs? For example, neither the PBGC, which I used to head, nor the FDIC, 

which we do the audit for, have responsibility for these military 

service costs. 

So I would respectfully suggest you may want to consider the 

concepts of matching and consistency, and I would respectfully suggest that the Administration needs to do the same. 

I think we also need to move toward prefunding of retiree health 

benefits and the need to abolish the escrow account established in 

recent postal legislation. 

In any event, progress continues to be needed toward a more 

flexible, contemporary, performance-oriented, market-based compensation system for all Service employees consistent with proven 

approaches in the human capital area. In that regard, I would note, 

Madam Chairman, that there is nothing in the current bill that 

deals with the pay comparability issue, which I think is a very real 

and important issue. There is also nothing in the current bill that 

deals with the issues that the Postmaster General touched on, 

namely the ability to negotiate benefits, which represent a major 

and growing portion of total compensation, given health care and 

other types of costs. 

In closing, let me again compliment you, Madam Chairman, and 

also Senator Carper on your leadership in this area. I have had an 

opportunity to look at S. 662 and consult with my staff. Based on 

the work that has been done to date, I think you have come up 

with a reasoned and reasonable framework for Postal reform. 

There absolutely is a need for Postal reform, and we look forward 

26

to working with you, your staff, and others to make Postal reform 

become a reality in this Congress. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker. 

The two principles that you laid out for the Committee of matching and consistency are very helpful guidelines for us to follow, and 

I appreciate your suggesting those guidelines to us. 

Mr. Walker, I just want to reemphasize a point that you made, 

and that is despite the hard work of the Postmaster General, the 

employees of the Postal Service, and the managers of the Postal 

Service, Postal reform is still very much needed. This cannot be 

done just administratively. 

Last time you testified before us, you said that if we do not act, 

the risk is that we will face either dramatic rate increases with the 

resulting detrimental impact on the economy, or the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout if legislation is not enacted. Is that still 

your assessment? 

Mr. WALKER. That is still true, Madam Chairman, and I would 

also note that there are some analogies here between the Postal 

Service and Social Security. If we take last year, for example, the 

Postal Service ran about a $4 billion surplus, I believe——

Mr. POTTER. Three. 

Mr. WALKER. Three. Well, I am sorry, Jack. [Laughter.] 

He did a great job, but not quite as good as I thought. [Laughter.] 

So a $3 billion surplus. Social Security ran a $151 billion surplus. But if you look in the out years, based upon known commitments and obligations, and in the case of the Postal Service, these 

huge retiree health obligations, which have gone up since the last 

time that we talked, these are temporary surpluses. There is absolutely no question that reform is necessary, and if reform doesn’t 

come, those two possible undesirable outcomes are still real possibilities. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I think that is a very important 

point, and I have heard you also make this point with regard to 

entitlement programs in general, that the longer we delay, the 

more difficult it is to put the Postal Service on a firm financial footing so that it can go forward. So sooner rather than later, I assume, is also better. 

Mr. WALKER. I agree, and there is another important point, 

Madam Chairman. Namely, nobody likes a rate increase. Nobody 

likes a tax increase. Nobody likes a fee increase. However, I think 

that we have to recognize reality. I believe it is better to be able 

to have modest, moderate, and predictable postal rate increases so 

the private sector can manage their costs, rather their experience 

large, unpredictable, and more frequent rate increases. 

Therefore, I commend the Committee for recognizing that while 

relief on the pension side has occurred, and you obviously have to 

decide what to do with military pensions, there is a need to begin 

to fund the retiree health obligations because in the absence of 

doing that, you are going to create tremendous pressure for much 

larger and more frequent increases in the future absent taking that 

step. 

27

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. You know, as I was listening to 

our previous witnesses, I couldn’t help but think that in some 

ways, this is a shell game. It is not as if the escrow account would 

be transferred to a Bank of America account marked ‘‘U.S. Postal 

Service.’’ It is really a matter of Postal ratepayers subsidizing the 

current Federal balance sheet. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, unfortunately, as you know, we are investing 

in most cases in trust funds or escrow accounts in non-readily marketable government bonds that are backed by the full faith and 

credit of the U.S. Government, but in the end, those bonds have to 

be paid off. In order to pay them off, you have to raise revenues, 

cut other spending, or increase debt held by the public. And as you 

properly pointed out before, we are currently on an imprudent and 

unsustainable fiscal path. It would be great if we could help the 

Postal Service be better positioned for the future. Quite frankly, 

while Postal reform is a challenging undertaking, it is a modest undertaking compared to Social Security, Medicare, and other types 

of challenges that we face. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Potter, the previous witnesses referred 

to a rationale for treating the Postal Service differently that was 

based on the Postal Service having received billions of dollars in 

appropriations. It is my understanding, however, that the $9 billion 

that was a public service appropriation that was authorized in the 

1970 Act has not been requested or received since 1982 and that 

the limited funding that the Postal Service has received from the 

Federal Treasury has been based on public policy written into law, 

for example, to cover the mandate that we have required for reduced rates for mailings to people who are blind, for example. Is 

that correct? I just think it is really important we clarify this. 

Mr. POTTER. That is absolutely correct. Since 1982, we have not 

asked for an appropriation to help us provide delivery services, and 

it is our intent, and I know it is the intent of this Committee, not 

to have the Postal Service get into a position of having to ask for 

that in the future. That is why it is so essential that we make 

these changes now, to avoid that calamity. 

Chairman COLLINS. And with the exception of federally mandated rates, such as in that area, the goal really should be that the 

Postal Service does not subsidize the Treasury and the Treasury 

does not subsidize the Postal Service. I mean, it goes both ways, 

does it not? 

Mr. POTTER. I hope so. [Laughter.] 

They have a little more power than we do. 

Chairman COLLINS. I can understand why the previous testimony might create some doubt in your mind, since it essentially 

was proposing that the Postal Service and its customers subsidize 

the Treasury, which is disturbing and unacceptable to me. 

If this legislation passes, what would be the impact, if you can 

comment on this, on the pending rate case? 

Mr. POTTER. Well, it would be a function of what is passed. For 

example, if the Senate bill were passed, obviously, there would still 

be a cost in 2006 that we don’t bear today. That cost would be 

slightly lower than what is in the escrow account. So we might 

modify that rate increase slightly. But the beauty of what has been 

proposed in the Senate is that the costs going forward are linked 

28

to our health benefit obligations. So in effect, you have a flat payment stream——

Chairman COLLINS. Like a mortgage, in some ways. 

Mr. POTTER. Like a mortgage, and it is amortized over 40 years, 

and it is reevaluated, actuarially reevaluated, year by year. But in 

effect, you have a flat payment stream, like a mortgage. 

Paying or repaying the escrow money into a health benefit fund, 

there is no linkage to the cost for health benefits and that payment 

would rise every year and that increased payment—it would start 

at $3.1 billion in 2006 and rise to over $7 billion in 2010—each 

year, that puts added pressure on rates and on the Service. 

So the notion that the military obligation remains in the Treasury, that the excess funds serve as a downpayment on, or serve as, 

in effect, the downpayment or as capital that is now available for 

future retiree health benefits and that we add to that every year 

is a notion that we embrace, and we embrace the model that has 

been proposed under S. 662 as one that is very workable for the 

Postal Service. It addresses our long-term obligation. At the same 

time, it is done in a way that does not put rate pressure on every 

year after year. It builds it into the base and it allows for it to continue going forward. 

Chairman COLLINS. Finally, before I turn to my colleague for his 

questions, could you give us a better understanding of the economic 

impact if rates spiral upward, say double-digit rates, which we 

were very worried about a year ago? 

Mr. POTTER. Well, let me first give credit to all of the Postal employees for their hard work in changing our processes and embracing the notion that we had to become more efficient. Their hard 

work, their efforts have enabled us to avoid a double-digit rate increase, and I think part of the motivation was that we explained 

to them that a double-digit rate increase would have mail moving 

away from hard copy to other media, and they understood that and 

they recognized that was a challenge that we faced. They embraced 

the notion of that challenge and they got on board when it came 

to making adjustments to our system to increase value of the mail. 

That was not only from a cost side, but a service side. 

But each product that we have has an elasticity, and so as we 

raise rates, if we have a double-digit rate increase in, for example, 

Priority Mail, we can expect a double-digit loss in volume. And so 

our products are very sensitive to price. People make decisions, for 

example, on advertising. Do they use the mail? Do they use radio? 

Do they use television? Do they use newspapers? And they do calculations based on cost and return. 

So anytime you see a dramatic jump in price, obviously, it affects 

the economics of using the mail versus using alternatives, and we 

don’t have the monopoly that we had in the past because there are 

alternatives to every product and service that the Postal Service 

has. 

Chairman COLLINS. I think that is a very important point for me 

to end my questioning on. It brings to mind the memorable phrase 

of Mr. Walker in which he described the potential death spiral of 

the Postal Service, where you increase your rates sharply. Volume 

then falls, but you are still serving the same number of addresses, 

so then you have to increase your rates to cover your costs. Volume 

29

falls again. That is what we must avoid, and that is why I am so 

committed to getting this legislation passed. I believe it will give 

you the tools you need to have affordable, predictable rates, and 

that is really key. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I understand that 

the gentlemen had an opportunity to respond to some of the comments of the previous panel with respect to military service? 

Chairman COLLINS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Did this panel acquit themselves pretty well? 

Chairman COLLINS. They did, indeed. [Laughter.] 

You will be surprised to learn that they have a different view. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, I am surprised. No, not really. 

Gentlemen, welcome. Thanks very much. I had an opportunity, 

General Walker, to talk with the other General, General Potter. 

These generals, it is almost like an Armed Services Committee 

hearing. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WALKER. You don’t have to salute us, though, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, I do anyway. 

About the growth in one of the products, it is actually a fairly 

new product, what do you call it, where people have somebody 

come by, their letter carrier come by——

Mr. POTTER. Click and ship? 

Senator CARPER. What is it called? 

Mr. POTTER. Click and ship, where people can get online and——

Senator CARPER. Just take a moment and share with us again 

the growth in that product, the acceptance by households and businesses. 

Mr. POTTER. Well, we have seen a dramatic increase in the 

amount of people who get online, access our website to produce labels for any packages that they have. They pay for postage. We 

give them the opportunity, since for security reasons we can’t allow 

them to put packages in collections boxes, the opportunity to tell 

us that they have a package and they would like our carrier, or 

their carrier, to stop by and pick up their package the next day. 

They can get insurance online for that package. They can put 

tracking and tracing on that package. 

And what we are seeing is, again, a dramatic increase in the 

amount of folks that are using that service. On a daily basis, we 

are picking up thousands of packages that in the past, we wouldn’t 

have been able to provide the convenience to our consumers, to our 

customers. So we basically use the Internet to provide services, another means of access to provide services for our customers where 

they live, where they work, and I think we have—probably are 

uniquely suited to provide that, since we are at every door every 

day. 

Senator CARPER. When I heard that, it was kind of an ‘‘aha’’ moment for me. I said, that is it. I don’t know if that is the future, 

but that is part of the future, and it is the kind of creativity that 

we are looking for. Whatever smart people within or outside the 

Postal Service who came up with that idea and who have nourished 

it and grown it, I just say, keep it up. 

30

A couple of questions. I will start, if I could, General Walker, 

with you. First of all, a question or two about the rate cap. The 

rate cap that we have included in S. 662 takes, we believe, into account some of the Postal Service’s main cost drivers, I guess such 

as fuel, such as employee health care costs. We believe it takes 

those into account sufficiently, and I would just ask your take on 

that. 

Mr. WALKER. Let me commend you, along with Chairman Collins, for your leadership in this area. I think you have done a great 

job of getting to where we are right now. 

Senator CARPER. We are only as good as our staff, and we have 

had excellent staff people. 

Mr. WALKER. And your staff, too. That goes without saying. I did 

say that before, but you are right to——

Senator CARPER. I really appreciate your saying it again, too. 

Mr. WALKER. My understanding is your rate cap is CPI, and you 

can’t do anything other than CPI unless it is unexpected and extraordinary. The only concern that I have, and I haven’t run the 

numbers on this and I don’t know if your staff has run the numbers on this, is obviously we don’t know how the issue is going to 

come out on military retirement, but we know that there is a huge 

number for retiree health care. 

I think one of the things that is important to look at is to make 

sure that the known costs for retiree health care are considered 

with regard to this cap. It is known. It is expected. It is not extraordinary. And so, therefore, I would hope that this cap would be 

able to consider that known, expected, and non-extraordinary item. 

I just haven’t run the numbers. I do, however, think the concept 

of having a cap is one that has significant conceptual merit. 

Senator CARPER. Just sort of related, assuming that the rate cap 

in S. 662 is actually enacted into law, other than the point you just 

raised, are there any other impacts that come to mind that are 

going to have an adverse effect, particularly adverse effect, on Postmaster General Potter, his successors, or others that work with 

him? Anything else that comes to mind? 

Mr. WALKER. There are two areas that I mentioned before, Senator, that are not currently in S. 662 which I would respectfully 

suggest that you consider. 

One is the issue of pay comparability. That is a real and important issue. 

The second is the issue of being able to bargain over total compensation, which includes benefits. Benefits are becoming an increasingly significant percentage of total compensation, and they 

are a big driver to long-term cost. I would respectfully suggest, as 

Postmaster General Potter alluded to, that all individuals who 

work for the Postal Service have a shared challenge and have a 

mutuality of interest to try to make sure that this business model 

is modified as necessary and that costs are moderated going forward. A big part of the costs of the Postal Service are compensation 

costs, and compensation costs aren’t just pay, they are also benefits. I would respectfully suggest that these are two issues you may 

want to think about. If you don’t have a cap, I think it is going to 

be even more important that you consider them. 

31

Senator CARPER. If I could just stay with this rate cap, General 

Potter, for just a little bit longer, you stated in our meetings, and 

I think probably here today before I got here, that the Postal Service could probably live within a rate cap based on CPI but that you 

need more ability to break from that rate cap from time to time 

than is inherent in the provision in our bill. 

Let me just ask, under what circumstances do you think the 

Postal Service might need to break the rate cap, and the second 

question is, why can’t the kind of cost drivers that might lead to 

your breaking the rate cap be accounted for in a rate that falls 

under the CPI-based cap? 

Mr. POTTER. Senator, the biggest challenge we have is the loss 

of volume, and I think as I alluded to in my opening remarks and 

as Chairman Collins alluded to in her spiral discussion, the loss of 

volume is really the challenge that we are most concerned about 

when it comes to the future. 

We are anticipating that there will be a normal decline in volume, or relatively graduated decline in volume versus a steep decline. If there were to be a steep decline in volume in any given 

year, that would be something that would put a lot of pressure on 

the Service, and one of the options should be to go back to the regulator and seek relief. 

I would like to pick up on a point that General Walker just 

talked about and that is the notion of our acceptance or our commitment and our agreement to go ahead with CPI. One of the expectations of that agreement was that we were going to have a flat 

payment schedule when it comes to contributions to retiree health 

benefits. Just think about the numbers. 

In 2006, our payment under the Administration’s proposal will 

be $3 billion. In 2016, it will be $7 billion. So, in effect, every year, 

that payment is going up, on average, $400 million. Well, where is 

that coming from? That is—$400 million on a $70 billion base is 

better than half a percent. So if you are capped at CPI and a half 

a percent is already earmarked for retiree health benefits, and then 

on top of that, under their proposal, you are paying for retiree 

health benefits and they are rising at 15 percent a year, and our 

employee health benefits are rising, the people on the rolls are rising 7 to 12 percent per year, you start to realize that there are a 

lot of costs that are above inflation. 

And so the notion going forward, if we could look ahead and say, 

is everything rising at inflation? Well, the fact of the matter is, it 

is not. It is rising above inflation in many areas, and we recognize, 

as was stated earlier, there are efficiencies that can be gained. We 

want to aggressively pursue them. There are mechanisms to raise 

revenue. We are looking for pricing freedom to do that. And what 

we are trying to seek is a balance, a balance between those cost 

drivers that are above inflation and our ability to mitigate costs 

and become more efficient and change our processes. 

But there will come a time when they don’t match. What lies in 

the balance? In my mind, I see it as a three-legged stool. There is 

revenue, there is cost, and then there is service, and we want to 

keep those three things in balance as best we can, and there may 

come a time when, not because of something that is extraordinary 

32

but just kind of in the normal business flow, business cycle, would 

have us want to exceed a CPI cap. 

I don’t envision it in the next 3 to 5 years, but I think if we put 

our caps on and say, what is going to happen 15 years from now, 

I think it is easy to envision that whoever is running the organization might seek and need to seek that relief. 

Chairman COLLINS. I want to thank our witnesses for being here 

today. It has been very helpful to have your testimony. 

Senator Carper and I are very committed to getting this legislation signed into law this year and we are going to need your help 

and your advice and expertise as we continue to work on this important legislation. I do want to thank all of our witnesses for 

being here today. 

This Committee has made Postal reform a priority. It remains a 

top priority for us, and we will be moving forward on this. The only 

other issue that we have had as many hearings on as this issue 

was the intelligence reform bill, and that became law when people 

didn’t think that it would, also. So I am equally committed to getting this bill signed by the President. 

The hearing record will be held open for 15 days for the submission of questions or other materials. 

I do want to join my colleague in thanking the Committee staffs 

and your staffs for their hard work. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(33)

A P P E N D I X 


21430.001
34


21430.002
35


21430.003
36


21430.004
37


21430.005
38


21430.006
39


21430.007
40


21430.008
41


21430.009
42


21430.010
43


21430.011
44


21430.012
45


21430.014
46


21430.015
47


21430.016
48


21430.017
49


21430.018
50


21430.019
51


21430.020
52


21430.021
53


21430.022
54


21430.023
55


21430.024
56


21430.025
57


21430.026
58


21430.027
59


21430.028
60


21430.029
61


21430.030
62


21430.031
63


21430.032
64


21430.033
65


21430.034
66


21430.035
67


21430.036
68


21430.037
69


21430.038
70


21430.039
71


21430.040
72


21430.041
73


21430.042
74


21430.043
75


21430.044
76


21430.045
77


21430.046
78


21430.047
79


21430.048
80


21430.049
81


21430.050
82


21430.051
83


21430.052
84


21430.053
85


21430.054
86


21430.055
87


21430.056
88


21430.057
89


21430.058
90


21430.059
91


21430.060
92


21430.061
93


21430.062
94


21430.063
95


21430.064
96


21430.065
97


21430.066
98


21430.067
99


21430.068
100


21430.069
101


21430.070
102


21430.071
103


21430.072
104


21430.073
105


21430.074
106


21430.075
107


21430.076
108


21430.077
109


21430.078
110


21430.079
111

Æ


21430.080