THE FINANCIAL STATE OF THE U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 25, 2009

Serial No. 111–1

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

THE FINANCIAL STATE OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–649 PDF 2009

THE FINANCIAL STATE OF THE U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 25, 2009

Serial No. 111–1

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERRY E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

——— ———

——— ———

——— ———

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

JOHN M. MCHUGH, NEW YORK

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

WILLIAM MILES, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 25, 2009 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Burrus, William, president, American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO;

William H. Young, president, National Association of Letter Carriers,

AFL–CIO; John F. Hegarty, National president, National Postal Mail

Handlers Union; and Don Cantriel, president, National Rural Letter

Carriers’ Association ..................................................................................... 144

Burrus, William ......................................................................................... 144

Cantriel, Don ............................................................................................. 190

Hegarty, John F. ....................................................................................... 162

Young, William H. ..................................................................................... 154

Gallagher, Carolyn, chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service;

and Dan G. Blair, chairman, Postal Regulatory Commission ................... 44

Blair, Dan G. ............................................................................................. 52

Gallagher, Carolyn .................................................................................... 44

Goff, Dale, president, National Association of Postmasters of the United

States and Postmaster of Covington, LA; Charles W. Mapa, president,

National League of Postmasters; and Ted Keating, president, National

Association of Postal Supervisors ................................................................ 108

Goff, Dale ................................................................................................... 108

Keating, Ted .............................................................................................. 133

Mapa, Charles W. ...................................................................................... 116

Potter, John E., Postmaster General and CEO, U.S. Postal Service ........... 9

Williams, David C., Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service; and Phillip

Herr, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office ......................................................................................... 71

Herr, Phillip ............................................................................................... 79

Williams, David C. .................................................................................... 71

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Blair, Dan G., chairman, Postal Regulatory Commission, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 54

Burrus, William, president, American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 147

Cantriel, Don, president, National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 192

Gallagher, Carolyn, chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 47

Goff, Dale, president, National Association of Postmasters of the United

States and Postmaster of Covington, LA, prepared statement of ............. 111

Hegarty, John F., National president, National Postal Mail Handlers

Union, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 164

Herr, Phillip, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government

Accountability Office, prepared statement of ............................................. 81

Keating, Ted, president, National Association of Postal Supervisors, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 135

Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Questions for the record ........................................................................... 24

Mapa, Charles W., president, National League of Postmasters, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 118

McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 206

Page

IV

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Potter, John E., Postmaster General and CEO, U.S. Postal Service, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 12

Williams, David C., Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 74

Young, William H., president, National Association of Letter Carriers,

AFL–CIO, prepared statement of ................................................................ 157

(1)

THE FINANCIAL STATE OF THE U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, POSTAL

SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Lynch, Chaffetz, Norton, Davis, Souder,

Cummings, Bilbray, Kucinich, Turner, Clay, Connolly, Towns, and

Maloney.

Staff present: Tania Shand, staff director; Marcus A. Williams,

clerk/press secretary; Margaret McDavid and Jill Henderson,

detailees; Tyler Pride, intern; Lawrence Brady, minority staff director; Charles Phillips, chief counsel for policy; Dan Blankenburg, minority director of outreach and senior advisor; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior counsel; Jonathan Skladany, minority counsel; and Alex Cooper,

minority professional staff member.

Mr. LYNCH. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia’s first hearing in

the 111th Congress will now come to order.

I want to welcome Ranking Member Chaffetz, and members of

the subcommittee, hearing witnesses and all those in attendance.

Today’s hearing will examine the financial stability of the U.S.

Postal Service. The Chair and the ranking member and the subcommittee members will each have 5 minutes to make an opening

statement, and all Members will have 3 days to submit statements

for the record.

Hearing no objection, so ordered.

I also want to note that Mr. Turner, not a member of the subcommittee, without objection and with unanimous consent, it will

be agreed that he will participate fully in the hearing, without objection.

Mr. Connolly, you had a point of order?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Not a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just want

to make sure that on the previous vote, although it was not a recorded vote, that my statement was entered into the record.

Mr. LYNCH. Yes, you had submitted your statement and I made

a motion to enter your submission into the record.

2

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am happy to support the previous motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, thank you, Mr. Connolly.

Welcome, Ranking Member Chaffetz and members and staff of

the subcommittee and today’s witnesses, as we hold the first subcommittee hearing of the 111th Congress. I would like to give a

special welcome to the Oversight Committee chairman, Mr. Towns,

who is with us this morning, and the ranking member, Mr. Issa,

for joining us this morning.

This hearing on the financial stability of the U.S. Postal Service

is not only timely but critical to the American expectation of affordable 6-day mail delivery. The subcommittee will now examine the

nationwide economic downturn and technological advancements

have produced declining volumes and revenues for the Postal Service.

With the Postal Service facing unprecedented budget shortfalls,

the subcommittee will consider a number of options to restore financial stability to the Postal Service. We will also examine ways

for the Postal Service to continue to operate without cutting services.

On March 20, 2009, the Postal Service announced new efforts to

cut costs. Among these plans are, to close 6 of its 80 district offices;

eliminate 15 percent of administrative staff positions across all districts; eliminate more than 1,400 mail processing supervisor and

management positions; and offer voluntary early retirement opportunities to nearly 150,000 employees. These recent announcements

and new reports of the Postal Service’s dire financial condition are

of concern to myself, the members of this committee and the American public.

I expect that today’s witnesses will offer effective short and long

term strategies to reduce costs and improve efficiency in order to

help ensure financial viability of the Postal Service. In addition, to

better understand compensation at the Postal Service, I will question the Board of Governors on executives’ compensation packages.

Thank you and I look forward to a very informative hearing this

morning.

At this point, I will yield to our ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz

of Utah.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:]

3

4

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for

holding this hearing. It is critical in this time.

This is the first of our oversight hearings on the Postal Service

and our first hearing overall. We are hear today to review the life

blood issues involving the U.S. Postal Service. The U.S. Postal

Service touches everyone. There are hundreds of thousands of employees and the postal industry generates hundreds of billions of

dollars as the postal system and personnel process literally hundreds of billions of letters and packages. We all need the postal system to thrive. The task at hand is enormous.

In 2006, the Congress passed the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act marked up in this committee as H.R. 22. There is now

another H.R. 22 before us which would change the way the Postal

Service pre-funds retiree health care. The requirement that U.S.

Postal Service pre-fund the employer’s portion of its future retirees’

health benefits while paying premiums for current retirees is seen

as an unnecessary cost burden.

One thing is for sure: the U.S. Postal Service is in serious financial trouble. On January 28, 2009, the Government Accountability

Office issued a significant study regarding the deteriorating postal

finances requiring aggressive actions to reduce costs. We must continue to do our utmost to ensure that the Postal Service is managed responsibly, effectively and with the greatest integrity and

that we are constantly looking for savings and other ways to be

creative within the Postal Service to provide maximum service to

the American people as it is articulated within the U.S. Constitution and making sure that we are providing a service that will

allow our businesses, our friendships, the personal notes that will

go through the Postal Service, and that system continues to thrive.

With that in mind, we must also inquire into the Postmaster

General’s compensation package, possible consolidation policies

within the system itself and the relocation policy in force and other

issues that will come before us.

With that, I look forward to the testimony, Mr. Chairman, and

appreciate being able to participate today.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

At this point, the Chair would like to recognize the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Brooklyn, Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes.

Chairman TOWNS. Thank you very much, Chairman Lynch.

Before starting my opening statement, I would like to congratulate you on becoming chairman of this important subcommittee,

and thank you for your leadership and insight in holding today’s

hearing on the Postal Service.

I also would like to congratulate the gentleman from Utah, Mr.

Chaffetz, who as a freshman has already taken on an important

leadership role in the House by serving as ranking member of this

subcommittee. Congratulations.

Today’s hearing is fittingly entitled, ‘‘The Financial State of the

U.S. Postal Service.’’ What needs to be done? Charged with the

awesome task of providing prompt, reliable and efficient universal

mailing service to all communities, businesses and households

throughout the United States in territorial areas. The U.S. Postal

Service has certainly withstood the test of time. But the massive

5

operational and financial challenges confronting the Postal Service

are unlike any we have ever seen before. Having ended the last fiscal year with a net loss of nearly $3 billion, and that is B as in

boy, the deteriorating economic condition of the U.S. Postal Service

can no longer be ignored or deferred.

With electronic communications taking more and more customers

out of the lobby of the post office, coupled with the enormous contraction of the U.S. economy, the Postal Service is struggling to remain a financially solvent and viable entity for both now as well

as in the future.

Yet the question remains how exactly will such stability be regained and more importantly maintained in the new and evolving

21st century economy. As mail volume declines and costs from

labor, energy and expansion in the delivery network continues to

increase, the Postal Service, its union affiliates, the Congress and

the country must make some difficult decisions to get us through

difficult times.

So Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that today’s witnesses will allow

us to get at some of those answers and to help us determine what

may have already been done to curtail costs, what innovations are

currently in the works to reinvent and revive the Postal Service,

and last what we in Congress may need to do to restore the Postal

Service’s financial standings and to ensure the Postal Service’s extraordinary reliability and service.

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding such a timely

hearing and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Thank

you and I yield back.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to have you

here with us.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.

Souder, for 5 minutes.

Mr. SOUDER. I pass, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. The gentleman passes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Turner, for

5 minutes.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank Chairman Lynch and the Ranking Member

Chaffetz for allowing me to participate in today’s hearing on the financial state of the U.S. Postal Service. I look forward to reviewing

the testimony from all of today’s witnesses. General Potter, I want

to thank you for participating in today’s hearing.

In the materials we have received in preparation for today’s

hearing, the Postal Service has increased their long-term debt from

zero dollars in fiscal year 2005 to over $7 billion in fiscal year 2008.

I, along with other members of this committee, am concerned about

these figures and want to work with the Postal Service to find cost

savings and measures that will help maintain the viability of the

Post Office in the future.

With that said, as some of you know, DHL, which operated their

North American operations within my congressional district, recently ceased their domestic express shipping business, leaving essentially UPS and Federal Express as private shippers in the U.S.

domestic shipping market. I am concerned that this market consolidation will have an impact on costs in domestic shipping. I was

6

hoping that during this hearing you could comment on how this development in the private shipping markets could impact the Postal

Service’s ability to remain competitive.

Given that the U.S. Postal Service actually contracts with private

shippers for some of its delivery services, how might this consolidation in the market affect these contracts and how might these costs

result in increases overall to the Postal Service?

Again, I look forward to working with you to find effective ways

to helping the Postal Service remain competitive and am interested

in your comments concerning the consolidations in the market.

Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. The chairman neglected to note at the beginning of

the hearing that because we have five panels today in this committee, we will be here very late unless we adhere very strictly to the

5-minute rule. So Members will have 5 minutes to ask a question

and have it answered. And when the time runs out at the end of

the 5-minutes, when that light turns red, whoever is speaking may

have the opportunity to complete their thought, but we are going

to maintain a fairly strict 5-minute limit, otherwise we would be

here, again, very, very late.

At this point, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois,

Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you on your leadership and also thank you for this very timely hearing.

Last week, the Postal Service announced that it was closing offices and offering early retirement to nearly 150,000 employees, almost a quarter of its work force. The agency indicated this action

was necessary because of sharply lower mail volumes due to the recession. Supported solely by mailing and shipping revenues, not

taxpayers, the Postal Service is experiencing a short-term financial

crisis. I believe that Congress can act to provide some immediate

breathing room at no cost to taxpayers by supporting the bill that

I have co-sponsored with Representative John McHugh of New

York. Our bill, H.R. 22, removes an outdated retiree health benefit

mandate designed for much happier times.

When we passed the PAEA, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, the climate was a bit different then than what it

is now. Times have changed. The national economy is in a recession and there is no place more reflective of that than the economic

reality of the Postal Service, which has seen a steep decline in mail

volume and revenue since December 2007. Despite declines in mail

volume and revenue, the Postal Service, nevertheless, is obligated

to cover the cost of operating an extensive network of facilities, delivery vehicles and personnel necessary to serve the Nation 6 days

a week. Even with continuing extraordinary steps to cut costs, the

enormous fixed cost of operating the national mail service threatens to overwhelm the ability of the Postal Service to operate.

The aggressive approach to pre-funding future retiree health

benefits that appeared doable 2 short years ago is now untenable,

in my estimation. I hope that this hearing will give us an opportunity to thoroughly explore the problems and difficulties being

faced by what I considered to be one of our great national treasures, that is the Postal Service.

7

Actually, this time has been coming for quite some time. We

have been putting off, delaying, deferring, not dealing with it, hoping that somehow or another the inevitable we would not have to

face up to. But I think the time has now come. There is unequivocally no doubt in my mind that some serious reevaluation of our

Postal Service must take place. I believe that evaluation will begin

this morning. So I want to thank you for this hearing and certainly

welcome Mr. Potter.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

Cummings, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank

you too, I join my colleagues in expressing our appreciation for this

hearing.

We hold this hearing today at a time when our national economy

is struggling and the U.S. Postal Service is not immune to that

trend. Postmaster General John Potter, who will testify before us

today, recently testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland

Security and Governmental Affairs that the Postal Service operated

at a $2.8 billion loss for fiscal year 2008. He said the loss can be

attributed largely to two factors: the unprecedented decline in mail

volume due to increased use of electronic communications and others factors; and the economic recession that is affecting all sectors.

Mr. Potter further outlined his plan for action to achieve fiscal

solvency. In addition to raising postal rates, the Postal Service has

been able to identify over $2 billion in cost reductions ranging from

consolidation and modernization of plant operations and cuts in the

city delivery options. Many tough decisions have had to be made,

not the least of which is a cutback of 15 million work hours in the

first 2 months of this year, in addition to the 50 million work hours

saved in 2008 and the 36 million work hours saved in 2007.

The Postal Service’s 600,000 career employees have had to face

serious cutbacks to ensure the agency’s viability and we commend

them for their sacrifice. Still, this may not be enough. Mr. Potter

indicated in his testimony before the Senate panel that the Postal

Service may have to reduce delivery service to 5 days a week, rather than the current 6-day schedule. The headline-grabbing reality

served as a wakeup call to the American public and to those of us

in Congress who represent them.

The U.S. Postal Service is currently the most dependable, expansive mail delivery system in the world. Ours is the only system

that guarantees timely delivery to every address in the country 6

days a week without fail. That is why we must do all in our power

to ensure that it continues to thrive.

Some tough choices will have to be made, including both shortterm solutions like that proposed by H.R. 22, which would allow

the Postal Service to use its reserve to pay employee health benefits to more long-term decisions such as cutting back work hours

and service delivery. I expect that the leadership of the Postal

Service will have to make some sacrifices as well, including Mr.

Potter himself.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

8

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is perhaps the real moment of truth for the Postal Service

and for the Congress of the United States. We have sat with you,

Mr. Chairman, before you became Chair, in hearing after hearing

where we noted the decline of the Postal Service through, frankly,

no fault of its own. Even if it were the most efficient corporation

in the United States, it could not have been the same Postal Service it was when all of us were children, given competition from private carriers, and particularly, and perhaps most importantly, competition from other forms of communication.

The decline in the so-called volume of postal volume now during

what we are politely calling a recession which has taken out jobs

in 50 States, has to be seen on top of what the Postal Service was

already experiencing. The Postal Service had been driven into

many economic efficiency moves by the factors I have named.

Today, I will be interested in what further can be done in efficiency. It is very hard to believe that the Postal Service, given what

it was already up against, hadn’t exhausted efficiencies.

I do note that the Postal Service is like other large American corporations, having to deal with health care. And I also note that

health care was a major element in the take-down of the American

industry that literally created the American middle class, the automobile industry. I think that somehow everybody has to look at

that when it comes to this particular corporation. There is no question in my mind it could take it down. The question becomes what

do we do to keep that from happening. There may be some temporary things we can do. We have to watch out for what we do.

Something has to give.

I don’t blame the Postmaster for talking about 5 days a week

service. I know he doesn’t want to do more layoffs. But if something has to give, we have to find out what it is if we want to remain a country that has a national postal service.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes the

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be

here today, and welcome, Mr. Potter.

I just want to note that obviously the Postal Service is struggling

in this economy like everybody else and is struggling to try to make

itself a more solvent organization. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor

of H.R. 22, which if enacted we believe would save as much as $2

billion in retirement payments this year for the Postal Service.

I do want to stress, however, Mr. Chairman, that just as we have

seen concern about issues like bonuses in non-performing companies or companies that can’t meet their financial goals, I think the

Postal Service has to look to itself in that regard as well. I would

hope this hearing will examine that.

I also, as somebody who until 9 weeks ago was the head of a very

large local government, I think about my own jurisdiction. The

Merrifield Post Office, which serves all of northern Virginia, or

most of northern Virginia, hours got changed with almost no comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
9

munication to local governments. So I would hope that as we explore in this hearing the operations of the Postal Service we can

also talk about improving communication with our local officials, so

that if there are changes contemplated, there is an advance notification and the opportunity for some kind of dialog before those

changes are effectuated and having to be absorbed and explained

by local officials who had nothing to do with those changes.

So I look forward to this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I may be in and

out because we are marking up the budget today in the Budget

Committee. But I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting

this hearing.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady

from New York, Mrs. Maloney, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. I just want to welcome the Postmaster General and express my support for the Postal Service and

H.R. 22. Likewise I am in a markup in another committee, but I

wanted to note their bravery through the anthrax attacks and their

efforts to get the job done in rural areas and all across our country,

and my support for working with you in this hearing and for more

solutions to make the Postal Service more efficient and to be supportive of the workers and their important contribution to our

country.

Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

The committee will now hear testimony from today’s witnesses.

It is the committee policy that all witnesses are sworn in. I invite

Mr. Potter to please rise and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record show that the witness has responded

in the affirmative.

Welcome, Mr. Potter. Mr. John E. Potter, Postmaster General

and CEO of the U.S. Postal Service was named 72nd Postmaster

General of the United States of America on June 1, 2001. He currently sits on the Postal Service Board of Governors and is vice

chairman of the International Post Corp., an association of 23 national posts in Europe, North America and the Asian Pacific.

Welcome, Mr. Potter.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL

AND CEO, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

Mr. POTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Congressman Chaffetz and members of the committee.

It is an honor to be here representing the hard-working men and

women of the U.S. Postal Service to discuss the financial challenges

facing our great institution. We are working hard to serve America

and we are proud of our accomplishments.

For example, in 2008, service and customer satisfaction reached

record levels. Employee satisfaction hit an all-time high, as workplace accidents were at an all-time low. For the 5th straight year,

the Postal Service was rated the most trusted Federal agency and

1 of the 10 most trusted organizations in America. We reduced our

costs by over $2 billion.

10

Let me assure you that we are concerned about the future and

we are investing in the future. We are modernizing our Web site,

adding new automated equipment, introducing next generation bar

codes to improve efficiency. And we are using the pricing flexibility

from the Postal Act of 2006 to grow mail volume.

But despite these positive efforts, a diversion of mail to electronic

communications and a severe contraction of the economy have left

the Postal Service in a very precarious position. Over the years,

first class mail volume has declined due to the diversion to the

Internet. This has been somewhat offset by the growth in advertising and other mail. However, ad mail produces less revenue per

piece than first class mail. This, combined with a growing number

of delivery addresses, has caused our entire organization to focus

on productivity to close the revenue gap. We have taken billions in

dollars of costs out of our base and we have done that for the past

8 years.

None of us, though, anticipated the dramatic downturn in the

economy. By the end of this fiscal year, mail volume is projected

to fall by more than 30 billion pieces from 2007 levels, the equivalent of $12 billion of lost revenue. Our people have responded heroically. We are working together with our unions and management

associations. We plan to reduce costs by $5.9 billion this year alone.

To make this happen, we have instituted a nationwide hiring

freeze. We are consolidating operations, using fewer machines on

fewer work shifts and fewer facilities with fewer mail carriers. We

are eliminating thousands of administrative and supervisor positions and we are offering voluntary early retirement to 150,000 employees.

Despite these unprecedented efforts and based on current volume projections, we will come up approximately $6 billion short of

breaking even this year. Even with a cash carryover of $1.4 billion,

and an ability to borrow $3 billion from the Treasury, we will still

run out of cash with approximately $1.6 billion in obligations that

we cannot meet this year.

I know that the House cares very much about the Postal Service.

That is why I am urgently requesting that you enact H.R. 22, introduced by Representatives John McHugh and Danny Davis of this

subcommittee, and co-sponsored by over 200 Members of Congress.

H.R. 22 would permit the Postal Service to pay its share of

health benefit costs for current retirees from our retiree health

benefit trust fund, which today has a balance of $32 billion. The

Postal Service contributes more than $5 billion to that fund each

year. H.R. 22 addresses our critical cash-flow.

But we also need to be prudent and look ahead. Mail has helped

build this great Nation, but even with the decline in mail volume,

we remain a conduit for a trillion dollars in commerce. And a

strong Postal Service, we cannot put our Postal Service at risk. But

our law limits our ability to act and adjust to changes in mail use

when it comes to pricing, delivery frequency, the number of post offices and the types of products we can offer. These restrictions will

put our post at risk if we don’t step up and change them.

The time for change is now. That is why I am engaging all our

stakeholders, consumers, mailers, industry and employee groups,

the Congress, the PRC and others, in a dialog about how we can

11

keep the Postal Service strong. It will require structural changes

to match our service levels with the changing demand. The demand

for mail delivery reached a peak of 5.9 pieces of mail delivered to

each address in 2000. Today we are delivering 4.7 pieces of mail.

Given this trend, I believe the Postal Service Board of Governors

needs the flexibility to change delivery frequency from 6 to 5 days.

This would help us reconfigure our operation in line with today’s

demand, keeping rates affordable. We cannot lose sight of the fact

that our customers pay the costs of our services. We are not funded

by congressional appropriations. We have to find the right balance

between service and affordability and we have to do all we can to

avoid having the burden of long-term retiree costs fall on taxpayers.

By taking the necessary actions today, I believe we can accomplish both. There is a path to success. I remain bullish on the mail.

I am convinced that mail volume will grow as the economy grows.

The mail is important to America. I am convinced it is a key to

helping the economy grow. A viable Postal Service requires change.

We are pushing the boundaries of change within the Postal Service

and with your support, we can modify the law to assure a strong

and bright future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my remarks.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Potter follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Potter.

Let me begin the questioning. Before I do, we have invited Members to submit their questions in writing, for those who are unable

to attend. I would like to enter into the record the questions for the

record on behalf of Representative Jose Serrano before this committee. With unanimous consent, I will enter those into the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

24

25

26

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Potter, let me get right to one issue that is probably uncomfortable for you and for myself as well, and that is the

matter of your salary and compensation, let me broaden that out.

There have been some reports in the press that when you dig into

the facts, that there is not necessarily reflective of an accurate assessment of your compensation. But we in our districts, myself

with a heavy postal population in my district, have been confronted

with this, well, I will tell you exactly.

I was at the Stop and Shop the other night and an older gentleman, a retiree of the Post Office, confronted me, as my constituents are sometimes known to do, and said, let me get this straight,

Congressman. You paid CEO Potter $800,000 to lose $3 billion last

year. Couldn’t we get somebody to do that job for less? That was

basically how they laid it on me.

I tried to explain our position and yours, but I want to give you

a full opportunity to do that. Given today’s environment, and I am

sure you are aware of the whole situation with AIG and bonuses

and going to Merrill Lynch. In this environment, in these difficult

financial times, can we justify, can the Postal Service justify your

compensation package, which I would like you to clarify? I am sure

it has been exaggerated, I have already looked at the numbers

here. But I want you to basically tell us what your compensation

package represents and how it is broken down. I want you to inform the committee of at least your side of the story.

Mr. POTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, let me talk about elements of this $800,000 plus number.

The first element that I believe probably shouldn’t be there in

terms of compensation is the fact that I have a security detail,

which is attributed as a revenue to me, or a pay to me, of some

$66,000. That service is performed by the U.S. Postal Inspection

Service. So that is an element of my pay.

My base pay as prescribed by law is up to 120 percent of the Vice

President’s salary. Prior to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, it was much less.

Mr. LYNCH. Postmaster General, is there an historic reason why

your pay was tied to the Vice President of the United States. I

don’t see any similarity in responsibilities. Not to reflect poorly on

either one of you.

Mr. POTTER. I am just describing what it is. The rationale was

the Congress’s, not mine. I was not imploring people for a pay

raise. The Board of Governors had asked the Congress for additional flexibility to hire and retain talent in the Postal Service. So

again, by law my pay is $263,575.

Since, and as a result of me being a career employee at my age,

every year that I stay I get 2 percent additional credit in the Civil

Service Retirement System.

Mr. LYNCH. How long have you been in that system?

Mr. POTTER. I have been in that system since 1978. So almost

31 years. So each year that I stay, I get an extra 2 percent in my

pay. In addition to that, since I am not 55 yet, every year I stay

that is 2 percent of a penalty that would incur if I were to leave

early. So automatically every year that I stay, there is a 4 percent

growth in terms of my pension.

27

And the other thing that drives the pension is a 3-year high for

employees. They take an average of your top 3 years’ pay. And

since I got such a steep increase in pay as a result of the law, it

produces in terms of pension over the course of my life a value of

some $300,000 plus.

Mr. LYNCH. I only have about 30 seconds left, and I have to hold

myself to the same rule. The bonus. You have a statute that I reviewed that says your pay is basically equal to, your salary is equal

to the Vice President’s, $263,000 or something like that, and then

I see you get $130,000 something in a bonus. Quite frankly, last

year, the Post Office lost $3 billion.

Mr. POTTER. That was an incentive payment. It was tied to goals

agreed to between myself and the Board of Governors. The things

that drove the incentive pay were service performance was a major

element. And obviously we set record levels. Employee satisfaction,

accidents at record low, employee satisfaction at record high, customer satisfaction at record levels. And I think there was a recognition by the Board of Governors that I wasn’t in control of the economy and that we did eliminate 50 million work hours.

Mr. LYNCH. All right. I am going hold myself to the same rule

and I am going to yield and recognize the ranking member, Mr.

Chaffetz, for 5 minutes for questioning.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.

Potter, for being here. My congratulations and hats off to the entire

postal community for the great savings and efficiency that were accomplished under your watch and with the great work of literally

thousands and thousand of others. So congratulations for that.

Obviously this Committee is Oversight and Government Reform.

While we need to talk about some of the huge massive changes

that need to happen in order to put the Postal Service back into

the black, I do feel compelled to ask you about a report that was

brought to my attention just a very short time ago. I need to ask

you about this. On March 19, 2009, there was a report done by the

Republican committee here that said, Friends of Angelo is the

name of this report, ‘‘Friends of Angelo, Countrywide’s Systemic

and Successful Effort to Buy Influence and Block Reform.’’ On page

38, paragraph 3 it says, ‘‘Fees were also waived for Postmaster

General John Potter. Potter benefited from an encounter with

Mozilo in 2003. Potter was in the process of arranging a ‘complicated’ bridge loan when he ‘coincidentally’ ran into Mozilo.

Mozilo instructed Countrywide’s Kay Gerfen to ‘let Potter know

that we/CW,’ which I take to be Countrywide, ‘will take care of it.’

Mozilo instructed Perry to ‘take one point off’ Potter’s rate and to

charge ‘no extra fees.’ Potter was referred to Mozilo and/or the VIP

program by former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Jim Johnson.’’

In an email that was written on May 21, 2003, sent by Kay

Gerfen of Countrywide, it says ‘‘Coincidentally, Angelo just into Mr.

Jack Potter (Postmaster General) and Mr. Potter will be calling on

Friday. Angelo wanted to make sure you were given a heads-up to

‘let Mr. Potter know we/CW will take care of it.’ Also per Angelo,

‘take one point and no extra fees, deal a little complicated, bridge

loan . . .’ Please let Angelo know as soon as you hear from Mr.

Potter. Thank you.’’

28

In light of this, I need to ask if you knew about this, did you accept the loan and do you feel like you were given favor by Countrywide through this encounter?

Mr. POTTER. First, I do have a loan from Countrywide. I believe

that the terms of my loan were the result of a good credit history

and of my financial position and the fact that I was buying and

purchasing a home and putting over half of the money down in

cash. And the discussions were strictly between myself and Countrywide, they were all about the loan. There was no linkage to any

expectations of official acts or anything to do with a relationship

with any elected officials.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. My understanding is the Inspector General has

started an investigation. Are you willing to cooperate with the investigation as completely as possible by turning over all documents,

consent to an interview or deposition with the Inspector General’s

investigators, and are you willing to help and assist with making

other people with knowledge of the terms of the loan available to

the Inspector General’s office?

Mr. POTTER. Yes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How much did you save by taking a discounted

loan?

Mr. POTTER. Again, I think the terms of my loan were consistent

with my credit history.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What was the nature of your actually coming in

contact, in fact, you were referred to Countrywide’s VIP program

by former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, correct? How did that

come about?

Mr. POTTER. Well, at the time, Jim Johnson was the co-chair of

the President’s Commission on the U.S. Postal Service. So Jim

Johnson was working with us as chairman of that committee during that period of time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And did Johnson indicate to you that you should

expected preferential treatment and discounts from Countrywide?

Mr. POTTER. No. Johnson indicated to me that because I had, he

and I had a discussion, he had overheard me having a discussion

with somebody and he basically came up to me and said, congratulations, you are buying a house. I had told him at the time of the

discussion that I hadn’t closed yet, that I had made an offer. He

told me that, we had a long discussion about how long I was going

to work as Postmaster General, how long I anticipated being in the

home. He suggested to me that I consider a 7/23 loan. He also suggested to me that I consider using Countrywide, which is a group

that provided him with a loan.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And you will cooperate fully, then, with the Inspector General’s investigation?

Mr. POTTER. Yes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

While I appreciate your purchasing a new house, let me try to

get down to the Post Office and what we might be able to do about

it. We know that we have serious problems. And we have gone over

and over those. I appreciate the cost cutting approaches that you

29

have developed within the system. I appreciate the proposals that

have been made. I appreciate the approaches to streamlining the

operations.

Of course, I still get people who complain that they don’t get

what they would hope that they could get, which leads me to the

point of recognizing that whatever it is that we get, we have to pay

for it one way or another. I am reminded of Frederick Douglass,

who said he knew one thing if he didn’t know anything else, and

that is that in this world, we may not get everything that we pay

for, but we most certainly will pay for everything that we get.

I am trying to, some of us believe that H.R. 22 is one way of effectuating some short-term fix for some of the problems that currently exist. Let’s say if we for some reason were not as successful

in passing this legislation, within the next 2 years what would you

predict the Postal Service would be forced into or would have to do

to try and make ends meet?

Mr. POTTER. Congressman, that is a very difficult question. The

key for us right now is volume. I believe that we have to pull out

all the stops when it comes to growing volume. I think that we

have lost, for example, 20 percent of our advertising now in each

of the last 2 months. I believe that is going to come back, because

if you look at advertising in general, it is down.

So what we need to do is we need to get past this downturn in

the economy, we need to understand how much of mail volume will

come back. There is no doubt that some of the mail lost will not

come back. We will have to step up our efforts to save money. We

plan to save $5.9 billion this year. We have a plan to save another

almost $4 billion next year. The reason that we can’t do it all at

once is because of the fact that it does take time to make adjustments in staffing.

I do think that we face, the most critical thing we face this year

is we are going to run out of money. So we are going to have to

decide which bill not to pay. I intend to pay the salaries of our employees. We may have to forego paying the Treasury part of what

we owe for the retiree health benefit trust fund. We would then be

faced with, again, the thing that we have put on the table is the

notion that we can only cost cut but so much. Moving from 6-day

to 5-day delivery is because our costs are, there is a variability in

costs that we can manage. Fixed costs we cannot.

So this year we have volume that is down some 12 percent year

to date. We have taken out 15 percent in our mail processing costs

because of the variability in that operation. We have taken out 12

percent in our post office costs to match the decline in volume. But

we cannot and have not been able to take it out of delivery costs.

Because if you have the cost of going to every door every day, it

is in a sense fixed. The only variable is how much time the carrier

spends casing mail.

So that is the dilemma. And that is why we proposed and think

we need to explore how do you take and make structural changes

that will have minimal impact on the American public and the

users of the mail but at the same time, enable us to lower our

costs.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just say that I appreciate your optimism, relative to the ability to grow volume. I just don’t see how you are

30

going to be able to do it. As a matter of fact, we are increasing the

use of electronic communication as opposed to decreasing it. I wish

you well.

Mr. LYNCH. I am sorry, the gentleman’s time is expired.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.

Souder, for 5 minutes.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first ask a quick question on the, separate from the structural problems, isn’t it, as far as the deficit that you are running

in the relationship to income and so one, hasn’t it always been true

in the Post Office that the money is made right after a postal rate

increase and you show profits and then toward the point where you

are going to do a next postal rate increase you tend to show losses?

Isn’t that the historic pattern?

Mr. POTTER. That was the historic pattern. It was addressed in

the Postal Act of 2006. The change that was made was we went

to annual price increases, smaller annual price increases versus we

were on a 3-year cycle of very large increases. So the law addressed

that. A lot of customers are very concerned about what you just described, the fact that we had these peaks and valleys and there

was major impact on the use of the mail in a year when we had

double-digit price increases.

Mr. SOUDER. So, you are saying that the loss that you currently

have is predominantly somewhat structural, but also the reason it

is more severe is because you couldn’t annually adjust because

business dropped so fast?

Mr. POTTER. Well, exactly. And if you think about us as a service

institution, versus manufacturing, in manufacturing, when demand

goes down, what you end up with is a lot more inventory, a lot of

cars in lots that were produced in the same productivity. In the

service sector, you can’t adjust service because the demand changes

on any given day. And so we have been trying to chase the decline

and demand and adjust service to those lower levels of demand.

And so it created a gap. It is a productivity gap. We are constantly

trying to bring that in line.

Where we have not been able to do it, as I said, is delivery.

Mr. SOUDER. I just wanted to make sure that the record understands that the correlation between income and loss is not exactly

the same as it is in the financial institutions or in others because

of what you just described, which is somewhat of a change. Right?

But there is a structural problem that Mr. Davis just referred to,

and that is the whole change in the way people communicate and

so on. I have two specific things I want to quickly run by you. One,

probably the most, other than limiting a day of delivery, closing

smaller post offices. It seems to me, which is also a jobs question,

window access, but also a prestige question, coming from a small

town myself. It seems to me, in the age of computer technology, as

we look at the centers like in Fort Wayne, IN, where I am from,

they are very automated, that we ought to be able to program to

keep people’s identity. Small towns are losing their schools, they

are losing everything else. And this is just unbelievably political

pressure, at least for the identity of smaller communities who get

absorbed. I just would like your comment on that.

31

The second question is that as we watch daily newspapers collapse at an amazing rate right now, and as a former retailer myself, if you pull Saturday delivery and we lose daily newspapers, for

example, R.R. Donnelly has a huge facility in my district. How do

they get things to people in a timely fashion when weekends are

the biggest sales period? It seems to me that as you structurally

look at this, somehow merging some delivery systems, communications systems, if that means you have to deliver in the morning

rather than later in the day, do newspapers have to adjust from

a Sunday to a Saturday? Habits are nice and patterns are nice, but

the technology is changing so much we could watch you getting

hammered and restricted tremendously at the same time newspapers are going out. How we communicate and keep our structure

moving is how we move goods in the United States.

Mr. POTTER. First let me address the question of community. Our

systems, our zip code based code systems are strictly geography

based. It is usually a five-digit zip code, geography based. But we

have changed our systems to allow numerous names for cities,

towns or geography within zip codes. So there is flexibility within

our system to allow that. It is more rigid when it comes to zip

codes, because of, we don’t have an infinite amount of zip codes. We

have to be careful when it comes to that.

Mr. SOUDER. Seven-digit wouldn’t allow you to expand that?

Mr. POTTER. Well, there is the discussion. Right now we have

nine-digit zip codes.

Mr. SOUDER. That is what I was thinking about.

Mr. POTTER. We could literally carve pieces of that out. As a result of that, we have enabled communities to use their community

name as an alternate to what might be the name of the formal

town. So we allow multiple names within a geographic area. But

there are segments of the country where we are out of zip codes.

Now, regarding delivery, as I said earlier, we are reaching out

to everybody, all the stakeholders. It is not a fact that we would

eliminate Saturday. But we do need to have flexibility.

Mr. LYNCH. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Potter, we recognized that there were certain delivery routes,

such as those in more rural areas, we realize those apparently had

to be contracted out. We are concerned with the more widespread

implementation of that practice. Has the Postal Service expanded

its contracting out of letter carriers, and if so, can you prove that

it has resulted in cost savings?

Mr. POTTER. Congressman, we can prove that contracting out of

delivery is less expensive than using Postal employees. We do have

and have stopped contracting out delivery in city areas and in most

rural areas. The reason is not because it is less expensive, but because of this downturn in the economy and the lack of volume. The

bottom line is, right now we are in a position where we have too

many folks.

Mr. CUMMINGS. In other words, you had too many folks that you

were contracting out to?

Mr. POTTER. No, we have too many Postal employees. So today,

we still have, despite the fact that we have a downturn in the econVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
32

omy, we have a growth of about a million addresses a year, over

a million addresses a year. Those new addresses are largely being

delivered to by career employees. We have an excess number of employees that we are downsizing. So it would make no sense in this

time to begin contract out or expand contracting out.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Talk to me about this whole doing away of, we

have talked about this before, doing away with delivering on Saturday. Is that something that is real? I have heard it before. Then

it seems like everybody gets upset, and then you are going to hear

about it for a while. Talk to me about that. I know before the Senate you again advocated for that change.

To be frank with you, and you know this, the public wants Saturday delivery, and what can we do to maintain it?

Mr. POTTER. First of all, let me assure you that being a career

employee and coming from a Postal family, I did not make that request lightly. I took it very seriously. I am very concerned about

the future health of the Postal Service. We are working very hard

with our unions and management associations to try and streamline our operations. The real key here going forward is, do we have

enough source of revenue to support the post. And we are looking

at all options. We have been looking around the world to see how

they are doing it.

Some places, posts are banks, and that is how posts are earning

money to help pay for the services that are provided in terms of

hard copy delivery. But we are precluded by law from exploring

other forms of revenue. So I think if we put everything on the

table, everything there is, including product choices, how we run

our plants, that we might find a way to get there.

But the key, the overall key is that there is a decline in mail volume. If that continues, whether it is next year or 5 years from now,

we are going to have to face the need to structurally change something. And the most obvious place, unfortunately, is in delivery.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What have you done to try to increase revenue?

Anything?

Mr. POTTER. We have a number of things. One is, we have offered rates, and we have opened up our system to others to use our

system for delivery. So our biggest, believe it or not, package customers are UPS and FedEx. Basically we will give them access to

our system. We have click and ship, where people can get online

at home, pay for postage, print out a label, put it on their package,

we pick it up. We are offering pickup now service with FedEx, we

have an experiment to do that.

In the ad category, ad mail area, we are offering and working

with customers to come up with new pricing schemes to incent volume growth. Bottom line is we are making our products much more

effective than they have been. We are adding a bar code, we are

introducing a new bar code on mail.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me ask you this last question, because I

want to obey the chairman’s orders. This H.R. 22, do you consider

that to be a solution? Is it a long-term solution? And what do you

like so much about it?

Mr. POTTER. It is a short-term solution.

Mr. CUMMINGS. H.R. 22?

33

Mr. POTTER. H.R. 22. It is a short-term solution for us. It won’t

overcome the longer term issue that I just described. I like the fact

that it is an 8-year bill and that we can plan for 8 years what our

costs are going to be for retiree health benefits.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from the District

of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Potter, the GAO, and I am going to read to you what it said,

noted that you had made, you and the Postal Service had made unprecedented cost cuts over the years. But then it went on to say,

given the growing gap between revenues and expenses, the USPS’s

business model and its ability to remain self-financing may be in

jeopardy. I want to ask you now rather than later, because this

creeping problem could creep the Postal Service out of existence, do

you believe that the Postal Service should totally rethink its business model? Have you given any thought to that and the form it

would take? And do you believe the Postal Service can sustain

itself as a self-financing entity as the 1970 statute made the Service?

Mr. POTTER. Congresswoman, I believe that we can do that, that

we can be a self-sustaining organization for a long time to come.

Ms. NORTON. On the present business model?

Mr. POTTER. Not on the present business model. I believe that

we are going to have to make changes, whether that is the frequency of delivery, whether that is the type of products that we can

offer. I think that everything has to be on the table, including the

mix of our work force. We are not in a position today looking forward where we can sit still. The sooner we act, the better off we

will be and the more viable we will be.

The biggest trap I think we have is that we don’t act quickly

enough and we create a financial burden——

Ms. NORTON. If I might ask, Mr. Potter, that is my problem

about quickly enough. So you suggested we may have to go from

6 days to 5 days. It sounds like an incremental approach rather

than a business model approach. If one looked at the entire business model, it might be that you came out not with, for example,

going from 6 to 5 days. Who knows. But if everything is on the

table, my question is, is it on the table, who is doing the rethinking

of the business model? When can this subcommittee expect to get

some evidence of thinking on a new business model?

Mr. POTTER. If that is an invitation we will gladly fill it.

Ms. NORTON. If not you, you surely wouldn’t want people who are

not ensconced in the business of the Postal Service like ourselves

to be the first to come forward and take a hack at it. I use the word

hack very advisedly. Because the moment anything gets cut, every

Member of Congress, including those who most don’t want to spend

money on anything, will say, you sure can’t do that in my community.

I looked at your press release. I asked you about 6 to 5 days, because again, that seems to me to be more of the same. Thinking

it through in that way it seems to me dismembers parts of the body

piece by piece rather than looking at the body and its core and seeing what can be left standing. In your press release of March 20th,

34

you talk about aggressive steps to cut costs. You talked about offering another round of early retirement.

And then you spoke about positions that you expect to save funds

from. Now, staff positions at the district level nationwide, 1,400

processing supervisor and management positions. Are these positions, are these layoffs? Will layoffs occur? Have they occurred?

Mr. POTTER. There will be a reduction in force, according to

OPM.

Ms. NORTON. So there will be layoffs?

Mr. POTTER. At the end, there could be. But we hope to be able

to offer everyone a job.

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you about early retirement. Have Postal employees been quick to take early retirement when they see the

condition of the Postal Service?

Mr. POTTER. We have had, I believe, some 9,000 people take advantage of the early retirement.

Ms. NORTON. How many were offered or expected to take early

retirement?

Mr. POTTER. That was a little bit above what was expected. It

was well over 100,000 people who were offered.

Ms. NORTON. It does seem to me if one is talking about big reductions that could come given the business model, let me just ask

you, is there another round of early retirement that might be offered? If so, what kind of cost does that entail relative to keeping

these people onboard?

Mr. POTTER. We have just opened up voluntary early retirement

to all Postal employees through the end of this year. So when people are being told that their positions are eliminated, they have an

opportunity to either seek a different position and/or they have the

option of retiring if they are eligible.

Ms. NORTON. I think that is a very important thing you are doing

in that way. I do think people know how to take care of themselves

and they can see the business model just like we can and they

know that you have been trying. If it is not done one way, it may

do another way that really hurts the Postal Service. We have to

keep as many people employed as we must have in order to deliver

the mail.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.

Clay, for 5 minutes.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for conducting this hearing.

Mr. Potter, thank you for being here today. I understand that

you are looking at a huge deficit within the Postal Service in the

coming years. I understand the proposal to reduce service from 6

days to 5. What would be the savings to go from 6 days to 5? How

much would that save?

Mr. POTTER. $3.5 billion.

Mr. CLAY. Annually?

Mr. POTTER. Annually.

Mr. CLAY. Annually. Is that right? OK.

How have your, in industries like the auto industry, labor and

management have found a new-found friendship or relationship.

35

How is that relationship with the management and labor in the

Postal Service? Does everybody, has everyone come to the table and

said, OK, we know we are going to have to do some belt-tightening?

Is that a pretty healthy relationship?

Mr. POTTER. I have always had a healthy relationship with our

unions and management associations. We have been meeting on a

regular basis now that we face this crisis. Everything is being discussed. It is on the table. We have made a number of changes.

Probably the most prominent example is in delivery. We worked

with the NALC to expedite changes in routes with the rural carriers. We have a count that is going on right now.

We have talked, at our last meeting, which was last Friday, we

had a discussion and we were talking about enabling people to

move from job to job more easily, because we have some pockets

of need and some places were over-staffed. So we are working

through to try and get at both efficiency as well as making sure

we are accommodating employees.

Mr. CLAY. So the labor community understands what the Postal

Service is confronted with and they are willing to work with you?

Mr. POTTER. Without a doubt.

Mr. CLAY. Wonderful. Are there any advances in technology on

the horizon for the Postal Service to help reduce costs, and are

there any new ideas to grow the business?

Mr. POTTER. We are deploying, as we speak, the next generation

of flat-sorting equipment, which will enable us to put mail into

walk sequence, flat mail, catalogs, magazines and over-sized envelopes into walk sequence for delivery. That will make that operation much more efficient. We are also introducing a next generation of bar code, which will enable us to actually count mail as it

is sorted as opposed to accepting it. And again, it eliminates some

steps and makes the mail more efficient for us to handle. And it

will be more transparent to customers, so they will have a window

into how we are processing the mail.

So there are a lot of innovations in terms of, that are on the table

that are being implemented to get the Postal Service into the 21st

century.

Mr. CLAY. Let me hear what you, if you could, is your wish list

for a long-term fix to the retiree health benefit? What would that

be?

Mr. POTTER. Well, if it was my wish list, I would like to just revisit this whole notion of the pace at which we pay into the retiree

health benefit trust fund. There is no other organization I am

aware of in America that has the requirement that we have. If we

were under GAAP principles we would not be paying into this trust

fund.

I understand the need to do it. But at a time when we are financially strapped, if this was the private sector, we would not make

that contribution this year, we would pass on it. The payments that

we are making on that fund are not tied into an actuarial kind of

analysis. It was really kind of a holdover from payments that we

were making into the Civil Service Retirement Fund.

So I would much prefer, I love H.R. 22, and I want it to pass.

But if you had to step back, I think we should re-think the way

36

we are paying into this and there would be more of a benefit for

the Postal Service in the short run if we did.

Mr. CLAY. And your costs are higher than other Federal employees, about 10 percent higher?

Mr. POTTER. No, they are about the same, but we are the only

ones that have that pre-funding mechanism.

Mr. CLAY. I see. Now, just as an informal survey that I conducted among Postal Service employees, they indicate to me that

they would prefer to have the day that you eliminate the service

would be Saturday and not Monday. I have to share that with you.

Mr. POTTER. I like my weekends off, too. [Laughter.]

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Potter, because of the interest in all of the issues here, we

are going to ask you to stay for one more round of questioning. Let

me begin that by asking you, we are hearing your plan, which is,

we are going to slash service possibly from 6 to 5 days at a significant burden to the customer. We are going to close post offices, we

have already closed six administrative facilities. We are going to

get rid of 150,000 employees. And then after all that, you are projecting we are going to lose $6 billion.

If that is the future here, if that is the future next year, do you

think you deserve a bonus for that performance?

Mr. POTTER. My incentive is based on performance parameters

that are agreed to with the Board of Governors at the beginning

of the year. Based on where I stand year to date in terms of our

financial position, I would not get a performance bonus this year

or incentive payment this year.

Mr. LYNCH. OK.

Mr. POTTER. And I am working very hard, because I would just

like to mention that all of our administrative employees, our managers, our supervisors, are tied into a national performance assessment program. Their pay, whether they get a raise or any kind of

an incentive pay in any year is tied to the bottom line of the Postal

Service. So I don’t want to be cavalier about this, it is extremely

important that we work hard to do well so that not that I can earn

a performance incentive, but that those folks on the front line actually get a pay increase. I think that is a great motivating tool for

our institution.

Mr. LYNCH. I understand. Just wanted to be clear on that.

Mr. POTTER. Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. H.R. 22, I mean, the fact that it is sponsored by Mr.

Davis of Illinois and Mr. McHugh of New York, two guys who I admire greatly and respect their opinion, I am inclined to be receptive

of that. But I also looked at numbers that said if we do that, if we

pay the premiums out of the trust fund rather than putting $5 billion a year into the trust fund, that down the line, not very long,

2017, we end up with $75 billion in unfunded liability for health

benefits for my postal employees. I don’t want to face that.

So are we on the same impression, that is what is going to happen under this scenario?

Mr. POTTER. H.R. 22 will have us continue to pay $5.4 billion to $5.4 billion into the trust fund each of the next 8 years. It relieves

us of the burden of paying for retiree health benefits directly in

37

each of those 8 years. The moneys come out of the trust fund. The

trust fund will grow in each of those years.

After that point in time, there will be a determination around

the requirements, the future requirements of the fund are. And

those costs will be amortized, I believe, over a 40-year period of

time. So I believe that the mechanism that is laid out in the current law and the proposal that is put forth by H.R. 22 has the double benefit of protecting our people as well as giving us short-term

relief.

Mr. LYNCH. All right. Let me just say for the record, I am not

there yet. I am open to it. I have seen some numbers that concern

me about what is going to happen to my postal employees in 2017.

And I don’t want to be holding the bag to the tune of $75 billion

for the health benefits stone cold, in 2017, looking at that problem.

Mr. POTTER. I would appreciate the opportunity to come back

and talk about that.

Mr. LYNCH. Let’s do that. The last thing is, I do have some familiarity with the Postal Service. I recognize that in your last early

retirement incentive, it had no incentive, it was just an early out,

voluntary early retirement. And you are looking to get rid of

150,000 people. That is not going to happen if you have the same

plan you had the last time. You almost added employees in your

early retirement program with no incentive.

Is there going to be any incentive for—look a the economy. Look

at the economy. Do you think people are going to go out the door

when everything is so precarious? I am just wondering, are you

going to offer any type of incentive to any of these employees? I realize you have some employees who would not be eligible because

of the importance of their positions. But will there be any attempt

to offer any incentive to get people out the door?

Mr. POTTER. It is under consideration. But we have over 120,000

people who are currently eligible to retire. We also have 150,000

who will be offered voluntary early retirement. When we say that

we are going to reduce 150,000 people, it is the equivalent of

150,000 people. That includes overtime. We have employees, noncareer employees who we can let go. Today, as we speak, we are

30,000 fewer career employees than we were this time last year,

10,000 non-career. So we have the flexibility to do that. We have

the flexibility to take our part-time flexible employees and only

work them 4 hours every 2 weeks.

Believe me, there is enough flexibility in our system to accomplish what you describe. But that is not to say that every option

isn’t on the table and we wouldn’t consider bonuses, incentives to

go some time in the future. But we don’t know that today.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, I am violating my own rule. The Chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few years ago, the President’s Commission on the U.S. Postal

Service made a number of recommendations. One of those recommendations was to a postal network optimization commission,

somewhat similar to a sort of a BRAC commission that was done

on military bases. Is this something you are supportive of, something you want to see done? Why wasn’t it done? With 34,000 postVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
38

al facilities, is this something we should be doing and where is it

on your list of priorities?

Mr. POTTER. The BRAC commission concept, as I understood it

back then, was focused on our mail processing plant network. And

it also probably could apply to our post office network.

The thing that makes us a little different than the approach in

the BRAC Commission is that we have to serve every community

in America. So we have to be in every location. Our plants have

to be within a reasonable reach of each of our post offices. So there

is, by its very nature, a network that exists. And it doesn’t lend

itself, in my opinion at the time, did not lend itself to some analysis at a national level.

So in effect, you could have it at the State and local level with

State and local politicians. But not necessarily something that really made sense to me at the time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So do you think we are at the optimal level now

or do you see——

Mr. POTTER. I think we are going to continue to evolve. I think

there are a number of discussions that were talked about here

today when it comes to the future of delivery. Well, to me, delivery

is tied to demand. So if the demand today means that we go to

every house 6 days a week, fine. Or if it is lowered, it goes to 5,

at some point it might go to 3. I do think we need to evolve. I think

our plant network has evolved and will continue to evolve. And we

do and have been consolidating operations.

I am open to, if it is a BRAC commission or some other group

coming in, taking a look at the data and making recommendations.

We would look at them.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you are not doing anything internally right

now to look at the consolidation?

Mr. POTTER. We are constantly looking at that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Constantly looking at that?

Mr. POTTER. Constantly looking at that. We are constantly closing facilities. As I said earlier, we are consolidating, moving mail

from one facility to another facility where it makes sense. For example, less mail is put into mail boxes every day. So we have fewer

facilities today that cancel mail and sort mail for the world than

we did 10 years ago.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Time is short here. You mentioned there are

150,000 employees nationwide that were given the opportunity to

take early retirement. How many do you expect would actually

take advantage of that opportunity?

Mr. POTTER. I would expect maybe in the neighborhood of 10,000

to 15,000.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. 10,000 to 15,000.

Mr. POTTER. But you also have 120,000 people who are eligible

to retire and who will retire over time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Are you suggesting, are you taking a firm commitment to say, we are making a recommendation to move to 5-day

service or are you just saying that is on the table at this point?

Mr. POTTER. What I am saying is that given what I know today

that we have to make a structural change. The one that makes the

most sense to me is to give the Board of Governors the flexibility

to move from 6-day to 5-day delivery. I think that they will exercise

39

their judgment on whether or not we need to move to that in its

entirety, whether we would do that—as I said at the Senate, I had

proposed to do that during our light volume periods. And that is

where this whole thing began. One of the Senators asked me, does

that mean that you are only asking for the summer period? I said,

no, we want to have the flexibility given to the Board of Governors,

people who are Presidentially appointed, Senate-approved, to make

that change as necessary to assure the financial stability of the

Postal Service.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you believe that will be a permanent change?

Mr. POTTER. I think once made it would be, yes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for

5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t take 5 minutes,

because I don’t believe that you can actually get blood out of a turnip.

Mr. POTTER. Am I a turnip? [Laughter.]

Mr. DAVIS. I think that you can slice it, you can dice it, you can

puree it, you can saute it, you can squeeze it and you can tease it

and you still end up with turnip juice.

But we were about to explore for a moment your optimism relative to the ability to grow volume. And I was saying that it was

difficult for me to see any room or any possibility.

Mr. POTTER. Let me just say that the Postal Service is in a number of markets. One of the products that we have is an advertising

product. When I say grow, I am talking about growing from where

we are today. If 20 percent of advertising mail went away, which

it has, and by the way, it is reflective of what is going on in the

marketplace for advertising, if people now want to make investments in advertising, I think that mail is going to be a channel

that they are going to consider. Prior to this downturn in the economy, our market share of advertising dollars, total advertising dollars that was spent on mail, had been growing. Why? Because people were looking to have the ability to target different customers.

And they wanted measurability. And mail is very measurable.

So my belief is that as the economy comes back, advertising mail

will grow again. Will it get back to the levels it was before the

economy went down? I hope so. But I know it is going to grow beyond where it is today.

Likewise packages. Our package business is down. When I do a

comparison of where we are versus the competition and look at the

impact of the downturn in the economy on their revenues, we are

very comparable. I don’t think there is anyone in this room who

doesn’t think that as the economy comes back, our competition’s

packages and their volume won’t grow. So I have faith that our

market share will be maintained as volume grows.

The one area that we have a real problem is first class mail. It

is transactional in nature, it is bill presentment, bill payment.

Once someone goes online and begins to pay bills online, they are

not going to come back to the Postal Service, because of the very

nature of, once you have that happen, you are not going to do it.

So when I talk about growth, that is what I am talking about, I

40

am talking about those categories of mail where we have a natural

strength in the marketplace. I believe that we will bounce back in

those areas. Even first class mail, we were declining in first class

mail about 3 to 5 percent per year in terms of volume. But we are

down over 10 percent. And I believe that the difference between 3

and 5 and 10 is largely driven by the economy. When the economy

comes back, we may seen an uptick in first class mail. So that is

what I am talking about, growth. And I am talking about competing in certain sectors and growing our market share.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, let me thank you very much, because I,

like Chairman Lynch, don’t want to be left holding the bag in 2017,

even if it is a mail bag. So I hope that we are indeed able to make

these ideas work. I thank you very much, Mr. Potter, for your testimony.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

Cummings, for 5 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am sitting here, I am thinking, I am just listening to you. And I am trying to make sure I am making heads or

tails of this. Let’s go to your salary. I am not going to beat you up

on your salary, you don’t have to worry about that. But the 66, you

are telling me that $66,000 of your, what they say is your compensation, it is security, is that right?

Mr. POTTER. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. What are they securing you from? Do they worry

about you? Is that mandated?

Mr. POTTER. I can tell you when it started. It started when we

were, after we came under attack from anthrax. And I was somewhere and my chief inspector got a call from someone and I think

it might have been the Secret Service.

Mr. CUMMINGS. But certainly you don’t pay taxes on that?

Mr. POTTER. No, but it is considered, for some reason, compensation.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And give me the other pieces of your compensation.

Mr. POTTER. The other piece is the salary, and then the other

piece is I am a 31-year postal employee, and my 3-year high is

going up because I got a salary increase. That is almost half of the

money they are talking about, because they are projecting at my

age I will live to 80 something, and here is how much money you

will get over those years.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me go back to this. When we look at all the

methods of communicating today, over the Internet and what have

you, clearly, and you testified to this, that has cut a substantial

amount of your business. Are we using, Mr. Potter, are we taking

full advantage of our advances in technology within the Postal System? Are there things that we could do to cut our costs further?

That is No. 1.

And No. 2, when we look at the whole idea of this Saturday service, and I can tell you, I would bet everything I have that is not

going to happen, this cutting the Saturday service. So you might

want to take that off the table.

But let me ask you this. Have we figured out which part of that

is, I mean, how do you figure out your savings? In other words, is

41

most of your savings from people actually going, our delivery people delivering the mail? I am thinking if the volume is still the

same, I am trying to figure out, while they may be delivering Monday through Friday, if the volume is still the same, there is certain

manpower that goes into preparing the mail to be delivered. I am

just trying to figure out, how do you make that divide? What percentage? Do you follow my question?

Mr. POTTER. I understand exactly what you are saying. Today,

over 90 percent of the mail that a carrier brings on the street, letter mail, is sorted by a machine into walk sequence. So they don’t

come into the office any more and case every letter. So we are down

to the point where less than 2 hours of a carrier’s day is spent in

the office preparing mail to go out on the street. So that is the letter side.

We are automating the flat side. That is coming next. So when

you look at the savings associated with not delivering mail on any

day of the week, it is having over 200,000 people leave an office

and go out on the street, driving to their delivery and then spending the day on their route.

We do recognize that some sorting that would have gone on the

morning of the day that we eliminate will have to move to the next

day. So we account for the fact that occurs. We also account for the

fact in our cost savings that rural carriers, on the 6th day, the

rural routes, excuse me, are covered by rural carrier relief folks,

who make less money than our career people. So we recognize that

the career people are the ones working 5 days a week.

Now, part of what drives us is what does the American public

think. And there have been a number of surveys of the American

public. When it comes to the future in mail, really we should be

responding to the American public. What they are saying by the

Rasmussen Poll and the Gallup Poll is that they would much prefer

to have lesser frequency of delivery than they would pay additional

postage, pay for the fact that our costs are going up because we are

so labor-intensive.

Ultimately, that is who I think we have to respond to. So believe

me, I don’t take that step lightly at all. Again, I grew up in a postal

family. I am not popular these days because I am out there talking

about it. But if the choice is mail delivery in the future or no mail

delivery, I think you have to say, let’s make the changes so we can

assure that we reach every home in America.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor

Holmes Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Potter, I am particularly interested in the

health care costs. I note again that you have proposed that over an

8-year period the statutory mandate that we imposed a few years

back to pre-fund annuitants’ health care should be relieved. Now,

the GAO says that it would prefer 2 years but that either option,

neither option may do much for the Postal Service. In what way

do you think this would fix the problem, the overall problem of the

Postal Service? And if not pre-fund it, how would you make up for

the funding of the annuitants?

42

Mr. POTTER. Let me clarify again. This year, right now we are prepared to pay $7.4 billion into retiree health benefits. That is

well over 10 percent of the revenue that we take in. So the relief

that we are seeking is the $2 billion. We will continue to pay, according to that, and that is more money going into the trust fund

that would come out to pay for the $2 billion that would come out.

Ms. NORTON. So you don’t think it would have any effect then?

Mr. POTTER. I think the effect would be that the obligation for

the Postal Service in future years, beyond 2016, will be greater for

contributory retiree health benefits, than it is today. But I would

say that we are paying too much today, that we are not paying a

fair share, that we are paying much too much. So I think what is

offered is——

Ms. NORTON. The GAO says 2 years so that we can rethink this

notion. This goes back to my business model question. Do you think

that we all need to sit down and think the entire model before

jumping to one big cut like that, one big change like that?

Mr. POTTER. Personally, I believe that H.R. 22 has the shortterm benefit of getting us through the year and enabling us to pay

our bills. And it helps us in subsequent years to do that. I do think

that you are on a parallel path, though, that we need that as well

as the discussion that you just described about, we need to look at

all our options, we need to come up with a plan and we need to

execute it. Again, I think in timing, the timing of when we execute

it is based on the anticipated demand for postal services.

Ms. NORTON. And I know we can’t predict the future, and incremental death is a pretty terrible death. So again, I am looking for

a way to deal with the problem, that is to say, short-term, yes. But

then to look at its consequences. I hear what you are saying and

understand it.

How green is the Postal Service? You do a lot of, perhaps as

much as anyone in the country, traveling by motor. Would you tell

us how you are conserving, if you are conserving fuel and how you

are conserving it?

Mr. POTTER. First, when it comes to fuel, right-hand drive, we

have changed our delivery routes to make sure that we have as

many right-hand turns in there as possible.

Ms. NORTON. How often do you buy new vehicles?

Mr. POTTER. Well, we haven’t bought vehicles in some 17 years.

Ms. NORTON. You haven’t what?

Mr. POTTER. We haven’t bought, we have a fleet, our fleet of vehicles is some 17 years old. We are very anxious to take that fleet,

modernize that fleet and——

Ms. NORTON. So if one goes down, it is just down and you don’t

replace it?

Mr. POTTER. We have aluminum-body vehicles. We have added

some vans to that fleet as deliveries have grown. But we bought

a special vehicle——

Ms. NORTON. What fuel are those?

Mr. POTTER. Right now they are gasoline?

Ms. NORTON. Why?

Mr. POTTER. Because of the fact that, well, there are a number

of reasons. But one of the reasons is that up until last year, we

were limited in terms of alternate fuel vehicles that we could conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
43

sider. Hybrids and the like we were not given credit for from the

Federal Government. That law has since been changed.

Ms. NORTON. We are not giving credit for—what do you mean by

not giving credit for?

Mr. POTTER. We were required to have a certain percentage of

our fleet be alternate fuel vehicles. The definition of what is an alternate fuel vehicle was very narrow. We worked with the Department of Energy and with the folks up here on the Hill, Congressman Davis and others, to get that definition expanded so that we

could consider other types of vehicles.

Right now we are testing, as we speak, hydrogen-fueled vehicles,

gas-powered vehicles, natural gas vehicles. We are testing a number of different alternatives.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I ask you if you would allow

this witness to submit to you an inventory of the complement of vehicles they have now, based on precisely what form of fuel they

use, so we can get a sense of that?

Mr. POTTER. I would also be proud to submit with that, Congresswoman, all of our activities in terms of going green. Because

we have a very good racket, and I would like to do it justice by submitting that as well.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. LYNCH. I think we can work that out. I know that you did

present a vehicle count inventory, but I don’t think it was broken

down as Ms. Norton would like. So perhaps you can jus look

through that and get the information to the committee as soon as

possible.

Mr. POTTER. We will be happy to do that.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, Mr. Potter, I have no further questions. I want

to thank you for your attendance here and I wish you good day.

Mr. POTTER. Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. As you probably heard, we have some votes currently

on the floor. I understand there are at least three in this series.

Which probably means we will not be back for about, at a minimum, a half hour, probably a little bit longer. Everybody is welcome to stretch your legs, and we will be back in about 30 to 40

minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. LYNCH. This subcommittee hearing will now come to order.

I want to welcome Ms. Gallagher and the Honorable Dan Blair as

witnesses. It is the committee policy that all witnesses are to be

sworn in. Could you please rise and raise your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record show that the witnesses have responded in the affirmative.

The committee is pleased to welcome Ms. Carolyn Gallagher,

chairman of the Board of Governors for the U.S. Postal Service.

Carolyn Gallagher was named Governor of the U.S. Postal Service

by President George W. Bush in November 2004. She currently

serves as chairman of the Compensation and Management Resources Committee, and is vice chair of the Audit and Finance

Committee.

The Honorable Dan Blair is chairman of the Postal Regulatory

Commission. Mr. Blair serves as the first chairman of the Postal

44

Regulatory Commission, the successor agency to the former Postal

Rate Commission. He was unanimously confirmed as a Commissioner of the former Postal Rate Commission in December 2006 by

the U.S. Senate and was designated chairman by President George

W. Bush during the same year.

The committee would now welcome opening statements. Ms. Gallagher.

STATEMENTS OF CAROLYN GALLAGHER, CHAIRMAN, BOARD

OF GOVERNORS, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; AND DAN G. BLAIR,

CHAIRMAN, POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN GALLAGHER

Ms. GALLAGHER. Good afternoon, Chairman Lynch, Ranking

Member Chaffetz and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for

inviting me. It is an honor to be here.

The current economic downturn has hit our country with a speed

and a depth that the Postal Service, like most other businesses,

could not anticipate. The dramatic decline in mail volume over the

past 18 months is simply outpacing the rate at which we can reduce our costs, given the tools available to us.

Adding to this unprecedented financial challenge is the requirement passed in the Postal Law of 2006 that the Postal Service

make payments of $5.4 billion or more per year to fund future retiree health care obligations. If not for this payment, the Postal

Service would have earned a profit of $2.8 billion in 2008, an exceptionally challenging year.

The Postmaster General and his team are responding quickly

and decisively to these challenges. They are undertaking a range

of efforts, including the elimination of work hours, major reductions

in administrative overhead, and aggressive network consolidations

that will eliminate almost $10 billion in the next 2 fiscal years.

Yet even with our best efforts, we will still come up short. Under

current law, we cannot close the widening gap between revenue

and costs and still finance today’s service levels for this fiscal year.

Despite our aggressive plan to reduce costs over the next 2 years,

our projections show that we will still lose another $13 billion over

that period.

The Postal Service has been a self-funded Government entity for

more than 30 years, and we plan to remain so. Today, we respectfully request your urgent attention in providing the Postal Service,

not with financial assistance, but with the flexibility needed to better align our resources and our responsibilities. Our first request

is for a change to fund our retiree health benefit premiums from

the retirement health benefits fund rather than from operating revenue. The Postal Act of 2006 requires an extraordinary obligation

that no other Federal agency or private sector company has to

meet. Maintaining the current accelerated payment schedule for future obligations and having to borrow money to do so when we cannot make ends meet today puts the Postal Service in an unnecessarily perilous position. It is like planning to add a new room to

your home when the house is on fire.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of Representatives John

McHugh and Danny Davis, who introduced H.R. 22, which would

45

allow this funding change and save at least $2 billion per year for

8 years. We ask all members of this subcommittee to support this

legislation. But even if H.R. 22 is enacted, we still forecast a loss

of $9 billion over the next 2 fiscal years.

Therefore, additional and immediate action is needed. The Board

agrees with management and believes that going to 5 day per week

delivery is the best option for restoring our financial health and ensuring our long-term future. The volume of mail we are delivering

no longer produces enough revenue to cover the costs of 6-day delivery to 150 million households and businesses. We need to adapt

our network to reflect the changing demand for our products and

services. Going to 5-day delivery, once fully implemented, could reduce costs by $3.5 billion per year and can be achieved without

substantial impact on our customers and our employees. In fact,

two recent public opinion polls show that the American people prefer the option of 5-day delivery over a significant increase in stamp

prices.

Another critical element ensuring the long-term financial health

of the Postal Service is strong and effective leadership. On this

matter, the Governors are certain that the Postal Service has the

right leader in Jack Potter. I welcome your request to address the

issue of the Postmaster General’s compensation package.

Our board formed a compensation and management resources

committee 3 years ago, because we know how important it is to attract, retain and develop outstanding leadership for the Postal

Service. Congress recognized this when it enacted a law requiring

that executive pay at the Postal Service be comparable to jobs with

similar responsibilities in the private sector.

In 2008, the Postmaster General’s salary was $263,575, the

amount permitted by Congress. In addition, based on his outstanding leadership in a very difficult time, the Governors awarded Mr.

Potter a performance incentive of $135,041, which is deferred and

will be paid in 10 annual installments after he leaves Postal Service employment. The balance of his compensation package includes

the cost of Mr. Potter’s security detail provided by the Postal Inspection Service and the estimated change in the future value of

his Federal pension through the Civil Service Retirement System,

based on his 31 years of service.

Mr. Potter has earned the compensation he received. The Governors believe his achievements in 2008 were both remarkable and

unprecedented. Last year, the Postmaster General and his team reduced costs by over $2 billion, more than double what was planned,

while still providing record levels of service to the American people.

The Governors have complete confidence in Mr. Potter. We need

his leadership now more than ever to lead us through the crisis we

face.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that our current financial situation is dire. The legislative changes we are requesting will not cost the Federal Government anything or require

an appropriation by Congress. But they will allow us much-needed

flexibility to meet our obligations and to adapt the Postal Service

to a changing business environment.

46

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I

would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gallagher follows:]

47

48

49

50

51

52

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Blair, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DAN G. BLAIR

Mr. BLAIR. Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member Chaffetz, Mr.

Davis, thank you for this chance to testify this afternoon.

Today the Postal Service is facing dire financial difficulties. They

are likely to worsen before they improve. The current economic crisis has substantially impacted Postal Service volumes and revenues.

The first quarter of fiscal year 2009 showed volume declines for

all classes. First class mail declined an additional 7.3 percent and

standard mail declined 11 percent. In all, total volume in the first

quarter declined 9.3 percent.

This trend is continuing in to calendar year 2009 at an accelerated rate. Total mail volume in January 2009 is 16 percent below

levels reported in January 2008. The Service reported it lost almost

three quarters of a billion dollars in January as well.

We expect it to report a further deteriorating condition for February, with continued dramatic volume decreases as well as a significant decrease in revenues. Should double digit volume and revenue declines continue, Commission analysis shows a cash shortfall

could be expected by the end of the fiscal year. Based on information given the Commission, the Postal Service projects a $12.4 billion net operating deficit for the fiscal year.

To address this situation, the Postal Service has identified internal cost savings, reductions of $5.9 billion for fiscal year 2009.

However, further reductions are needed if the Service is to meet its

payroll and other expenses.

To address this, the Postal Service has asked Congress for authority to reduce delivery days from 6 days a week to 5. Based on

the Commission’s universal service study, we estimate potential

annual savings of almost $2 billion. However, this action carries

the risk that customers may be harmed and some mailers may

choose to mail loess or leave the mail stream altogether.

The Service has also sought relief in seeking suspension of its retiree health premium payments. This is the approach taken in H.R.

22. For fiscal year 2009, those payments would be almost $2 billion. However, more relief may be required to meet the Service’s

cash-flow needs this year, should current trends continue.

Determining the amount of needed relief begins in viewing the

Service’s debt ceiling and borrowing authority. Over the last 3

years, the Postal Service has increased its long-term debt from zero

dollars in fiscal year 2005 to $6.5 billion through the first quarter

of fiscal year 2009. The Postal Service has a $15 billion debt ceiling

and may increase their debt load no more than $3 billion in any

1 year.

Borrowing against its debt ceiling and suspension of the retiree

health benefit premium will likely prove insufficient to make up for

the cash shortfall. Congress should review the required $5.4 billion

payment required to pre-fund retiree health benefits. This payment

could be suspended in part or adjusted in an effort to the Service

remains financially viable.

The Postal Service can raise additional revenues from rate adjustments. Last week the Commission approved the Service’s rate

53

increase request to adjust postal rates by 3.8 percent. These adjustments will take effect May 11th. This amount is an inflation-based

increase as intended by the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Should current inflation trends continue, the price adjustment for 2010 will likely be less than 1 percent.

Other cost reduction measures must be considered as well, but

these impact difficult policy areas where Congress has expressed,

at least in years past, a desire for the maintenance of the status

quo.

The Commission’s role is to provide transparency in the postal financial operations. I hope today’s testimony sheds some light on

the tough choices in helping the subcommittee evaluate the Service’s financial situation.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blair follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Let me begin, I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes.

Ms. Gallagher, let’s start off with Mr. Potter’s compensation. I

understand you are the chair of the compensation committee, is

that correct?

Ms. GALLAGHER. I was chair of that committee until I became

chair of the board.

Mr. LYNCH. When did that happen?

Ms. GALLAGHER. In February, early February.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, so with respect to Mr. Potter’s previous salary,

the 2008 salary, you were?

Ms. GALLAGHER. I was chair of the compensation and management resources.

Mr. LYNCH. I have been reviewing Mr. Potter’s record. He has

had some good years. I just want to point out, in 2007, the Post

Office lost $5 billion. In 2008, they lost $2.8 billion. And now, based

on testimony here, in 2009, we should expect losses somewhere in

the range of $9 billion to $10 billion unless we do something drastic

and bite into those losses with significant cuts in service.

Now, there are a couple of statutes that bear on the compensation of the Postmaster General. One is an earlier statute that ties

his compensation to the salary of the Vice President of the United

States. He is to earn no more than 120 percent of what Joe Biden

earns.

There is another statute that you referred to passed in 2006 that

indicates that the salary should be comparable in some way with

those in the private sector. Can you tell me how we ended up paying all this money to Mr. Potter in 2008 when, what was the thinking of the compensation committee when we lost $3 billion and we

gave Mr. Potter an entire package, now, I understand some of that

is his pension, of about $800,000?

Ms. GALLAGHER. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr.

Potter’s salary, the amount that he actually was paid in 2008, was

$263,000. That was the limit that was set by Congress in the Postal Accountability Act of 2006.

In addition, the board did award Mr. Potter a performance incen- tive award of $135,000, based on what we believed was remarkable

and unprecedented achievement. In the face of a very difficult year,

falling volumes because of the recession, Mr. Potter reacted quickly

and decisively. He and his team reduced work hours by 50 million

work hours. They saved the Postal Service over $2 billion, more

than double what was originally planned.

While doing those changes, they also were able to provide record

levels of service to the American people. We believe that is a remarkable accomplishment.

I also believe that when you look at Mr. Potter’s compensation,

you have to consider the size of the job. The Postmaster General

is running one of the largest organizations in the country; indeed,

the world. The Postal Service has 650,000 employees, about the

amount of Federal Express and UPS combined, with $75 billion in

revenues. We would be in the top tier of Fortune 100 companies

if we were on that list. We have 37,000 facilities and retail outlets.

We do have a statute that says we should pay the executives

comparable to their peers in the private sector. Yet based on an

61

outside consultant, who specializes in executive compensation, Mr.

Potter and his team make a small fraction, only 15 percent, of what

people running similarly sized organizations are making. We believe we are lucky to have a Postmaster General the caliber of Mr.

Potter. And we believe that he earned every penny that he was

paid.

Mr. LYNCH. Understand the frustration in the public, though,

when they take the whole picture here. They are looking at the

prospect of 5-day delivery, they are looking at the prospect of the

post office closing, they are looking at the prospect of 150,000 employees retiring or going away from the post office, regional centers

closing down and their rates going up, I might add. And we are giving the gentleman a $135,000 bonus. And I understand the idea of

comparable salary.

However, I don’t agree with the premise that just because AIG

or Merrill Lynch is giving people bonuses for driving the company

into the ground that we should emulate that. That is certainly not

the idea here, right? We are trying to reward positive performance.

Like I said, 2007, we lose $5 billion, 2008, $2.8 billion we lose.

Then now we have the prospect of losing somewhere in the area

of $10 billion in 2009 with all of this pain. It just defies logic to

me.

And we are not talking about a 10 percent or 20 percent bonus.

We are talking about 50 percent of the gentleman’s salary. I know

it is not taxpayer-funded, this is from revenues generated by the

Postal Service. But still, given the need in the system, I question

the wisdom of this. I don’t know, when exactly did you determine

his salary?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I have to take exception at the comparison of the U.S. Postal Service to AIG. The Postal Service is the most trusted Government agency and has been for

the past 5 years. It is one of the most trusted organizations in the

country. Mr. Potter and his team saved billions of dollars, $8 billion

over the last 7 years, $2 billion last year for the Postal Service. He

has been a dedicated public servant for 31 years. He has been one

of the most successful Postmaster Generals in the history of the

Postal Service.

Mr. LYNCH. Well, you know, what I would say is this, I compared

the practice of giving bonuses in the financial services industry to

people who were losing money to the practice of giving bonuses to

executives at the Post Office at a time when they are losing money.

I think that is the comparison. I am not comparing the U.S. Postal

Service to AIG. However, there is this comparability language in

the statute, and I just want to make sure that we are comparing

apples to apples and that the practice that we are trying to emulate in the private sector is, when they do a good job and get a

bonus, we will use that example at the Post Office and not reward

performance that is less than satisfactory.

I am violating my own rule here, so I am going to allow Mr.

Chaffetz from Utah, the ranking member, to ask questions for 5

minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both

for being here. I appreciate your dedication and commitment to

public service.

62

I also appreciate what Mr. Potter and the whole organization. I

wouldn’t give Mr. Potter all the credit, certainly he has a talented

team and men and women at all levels who are performing great

work and have accomplished many things, the reduction in overtime hours and such. It really is, no doubt, a team effort.

Nevertheless, I have some deep concerns. You may have a football team that is fighting and doing everything they can and you

want to pat some people on the back, but if you are losing the game

and you come up in the red, I just don’t see any room to at some

point say, we just can’t be handing out bonuses to the coach. And

so my question is, and I also hear you talk and express a concern

that he is under-compensated, in your view, in many ways, for his

base salary. To try to compare it to a $10 million salary for a comparable private sector job, and maybe we should revisit that whole

scenario.

But is this $135,000 bonus just a way to run around the statute

and give him extra compensation that you feel is deserved? At

what point do you actually cut it off and say, we lost money? And

we are either going to have to go to the taxpayers or we are going

to have to continue to suck it up until we get into the black.

Ms. GALLAGHER. Congressman Chaffetz, I think there is a very

important distinction here, and that is that the Postal Service

would have made a profit of $2.8 billion in 2008 if it were not for

the requirement passed by Congress that we pre-fund our retiree

health care obligation. We had to make a payment of $5.6 billion

in 2008. If not for that payment, the Postal Service would have

made a profit of $2.6 billion, despite the fact that our volume had

the biggest loss in the history of the Postal Service.

The fact that Mr. Potter and his team were able to offset that

volume loss and reduce head count or work force by 50 million

work hours and save the Postal Service $2 billion while maintaining the best service levels we have ever had is truly remarkable.

And I do believe that he earned more than we are able to pay him

as a public servant.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you would have actually compensated him

more than what you did?

Ms. GALLAGHER. No, I believe that he was paid fairly as a public

servant. But I think the work that he did and the accomplishments

that he made for the Postal Service were worth more.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Just my own personal belief, I do think there is

a difference in the rank and file and them accomplishing the goals

set forward by executive management. But in this case, I am so

concerned that we are taking a special effect on somebody who has

to deal with everything by the ifs. You can’t just say if, if. The reality is it lost money. And now we are coming to the point where

we have to make some dramatic changes. Dramatic changes. And

this is somewhat symbolic of the challenges that we face.

If we adjust Mr. Potter’s compensation package, that is not going

to have a material effect on the overall. But he is the leadership.

He is the CEO. He is the leader there. Do you have any plans or

inclination or anything in the works to actually change the way executives are bonused out?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Absolutely not. We believe that the achievements of the Postmaster General and his team have been remarkVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
63

able, given the challenges they are facing, that we are lucky to

have a team the caliber that we have who are willing to work at

a small fraction, only 15 percent of what their peers or what they

could make in the private sector.

We believe that they have saved billions of dollars while providing record levels of service and that they are earning every penny

that they are paid.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. He certainly wasn’t the only person to get a

bonus, correct? What is the total amount, the total dollars that

were paid out in bonuses to the executive level in the Postal Service overall?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Congressman Chaffetz, that was fully disclosed

in our 10K.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I just don’t know what the answer is, then.

Ms. GALLAGHER. I don’t have those facts and figures but I certainly will get them to you.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is it in the millions of dollars?

Ms. GALLAGHER. No, sir. The incentive payment for Mr. Potter

was $135,000.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No, I meant for the executive level Postal Service

employees, what is the total?

Ms. GALLAGHER. I am sorry, I jus don’t have that. But I would

be happy to get it to you. It was fully disclosed, I just don’t have

the facts and figures in my hands.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, I would appreciate it if you would submit

that in a somewhat timely fashion.

Last question in this round here, you expressed ‘‘complete confidence’’ in Mr. Potter. In light of this investigation that is now

going to move forward, does that taint or have any bearing on how

your concerns about Mr. Potter?

Ms. GALLAGHER. No, sir, not at all. Jack Potter is one of the most

successful Postmaster Generals in the history of the Postal Service.

Soon after taking office in 2001, he was hit with the events of 9/

11 and then the anthrax tragedies that followed soon after. He restored the public’s confidence in the U.S. mail, returned us to financial health. He has saved the Postal Service billions of dollars,

he and his team, while providing record levels of service. We are

very lucky to have a Postmaster General the caliber of Mr. Potter.

And the board has complete confidence in him. He is uniquely and

singularly qualified to lead us forward through the situations we

face today.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for

5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Gallagher, Mr. Blair, it is good to see you both.

Let me begin with you, Mr. Blair, and ask you, the Postal Service

is not a private corporation, or is it? It is not a Government agency.

Or is it? What is it?

Mr. BLAIR. It is an independent establishment within the executive branch. It is wholly owned by the Federal Government. Employees of the Postal Service receive benefits just like any other

64

Federal employee does. So in many respects it is treated like a Federal agency.

I think the two overriding distinctions is its governance structure. The Postmaster General is appointed by the Governors as opposed to being a Cabinet level member, such as he was in 1970.

And the revenues that pay their operating expenses are generated

through the sale of goods and services, unlike most Federal agencies.

Mr. DAVIS. So it is not exactly a Government agency but it functions in many ways like a Government agency?

Mr. BLAIR. I think generally, yes.

Mr. DAVIS. It is not exactly a private corporation but it functions

in many ways like a private corporation. So I guess I am wondering

whether or not there is any possibility that sometimes there could

be mixed signals, for example, if Congress directs the Board of Governors to compensate postal executives in a comparable way similar to what takes place in private corporations or private industry,

would that appear to be what the Board of Governors may have

been intending?

Mr. BLAIR. I think oftentimes legislation sends some mixed signals. I think that is just part of the balancing factor that public

servants have to undergo and evaluation. It is told to operate and

act like a business, but it has substantial public service mandates.

We outlined a number of those mandates in our universal service

study. One of the most significant of those mandates is providing

6-day a week delivery.

Mr. DAVIS. There is a culture in corporate America in relationship to executive compensation that many people now are taking

a hard look at, and not just the Postal Service, not just pseudo-governmental agencies. But people are taking a real hard look at the

culture that has developed relative to executive compensation in

corporate America. And Ms. Gallagher, my question is, given this

look that is taking place, has the Postal Board of Governors had

discussions reviewing any of its policies in relationship to response

to the public outcry that we are currently experiencing relative to

this issue?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Well, first, let me say, Congressman Davis, that

the board did struggle greatly to try to balance two competing statutes and come up with a compensation that we felt like was the

best balance between the two. However, we still believe firmly that

the compensation for Postmaster General and his team is more

than fair, given the achievements and the challenges that they are

facing and the actions they are taking to try to keep the Postal

Service financially sound in this crisis.

So we have full confidence in what they are doing and we believe

they are paid fairly.

Mr. DAVIS. So the Board of Governors is in fact cognizant and

displays sensitivity to the increasing concern about the issue?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Of course.

Mr. DAVIS. We have heard Mr. Potter talk about his optimism in

relationship to the ability of the Postal Service to grow volume.

And of course, I am trying to rationalize in my own mind the ability to do that. How does the Board of Governors feel in relationship

to that?

65

Ms. GALLAGHER. We certainly share the Postmaster General’s

confidence in the future viability of the Postal Service, with help,

obviously, from Congress as we have requested. There are opportunities for us to grow this business. We do have new flexibility that

was given to us under the Postal Accountability Act, especially in

terms of pricing our shipping products. And we want to take full

advantage of it. We are trying to take full advantage of it, and in

fact, we are growing market share in our expedited mail products.

And we are very proud of that.

As the Postmaster General discussed this morning, we are making technological investments that we think will add value to the

mail, intelligent mail bar code being the best example of that.

So we think there are opportunities. That being said, there is a

structural change in the way Americans are communicating, and

the Postal Service needs to change with it. We need to make sure

we match our resources and adjust our resources with the changing

demand for our products and services.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Ms. Gallagher, we have sort of a parade of horribles that are rolling out here in 2009. We are looking at the possibility of losing $10

billion unless we do something drastic. We are looking at post office

closings and cuts in service, perhaps, major cuts in service. Not

only that, but we are looking at the possibility of bumping up

against the debt limit, the statutory debt limit for the post office

as well, depending on how things go.

In that environment, looking at 2009, when I asked Postmaster

General Potter about the possibility of him getting a bonus in 2009,

he said, based on where we are, I am paraphrasing here, this is

not a quote, but words to the effect, I don’t expect a bonus in 2009.

I am just asking you, is that in line, as someone who sat at one

point on the compensation committee, what are your views on that

in 2009?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, it is too early to know what his

compensation will be. It is a decision for the full board. Mr. Potter

was right, it is a very difficult year for us and he has very difficult

and challenging goals. But the full board has not discussed that

yet. And it is a decision for the full board.

Mr. LYNCH. Well, I think something you should chew on is that

if you do end up bumping up against your statutory debt limit, you

are going to have to come to Congress to have that increased. And

it would be very difficult for Members of Congress to approve a system or provide support to a system that they thought was not

being fair in terms of leading by example. If you are going to ask

the American people to absorb pain and closings and increased

debt, there needs to be some type of reflection in the management

team that acknowledges we are in some tough times. It cannot be

business as usual or business as we hoped it to be. We need to be

in this together.

Ms. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I believe

increasing our debt limit was the last thing we should do. By the

end of this year, we will have $10 billion in debt. Any additional

debt will just put further financial pressure on the Postal Service.

66

It will increase our current costs, because we will have more interest costs.

I think it will make it very difficult for the Postal Service to return to financial health, perhaps even impossible for the Postal

Service to return to financial health. We have laid out a plan, a

very aggressive action plan, that we are taking to reduce costs

while maintaining service. We have asked for your assistance in

two areas, one to help us restructure our retiree health care payment and one to give us the flexibility to go to 5-day delivery,

which we believe will help us match our resources to our changing

demand for our products. With those two changes, we are firmly in

belief that the Postal Service will return to financial health and be

viable for the future.

Mr. LYNCH. I understand the prospects of H.R. 22, and again, I

have great respect for both of the sponsors, both Mr. Davis who is

here and Mr. McHugh, who is not. I regard them very, very highly

on this as well as other matters. We are going to have to look at

that. In the out years, I have already expressed, about 2017, about

having $75 billion in unfunded liability. That is problematic. But

let’s go forward. I am open to it, I am just not completely convinced

at this point.

Ms. GALLAGHER. And we are happy to share more information,

because we don’t believe that will happen. And we are happy to

share that.

Mr. LYNCH. The other concern I have with respect to going to a

5-day delivery is that you are in a competitive work out there. If

you are saying now we are going to have a 2-day market for your

competitors, people are going to rely less on the Post Office, I think

there is a downside as well as an upside. I think there is a certain

loss of market share when you become a 5-day delivery post office

instead of a 7-day delivery post office. I recognize that might be the

reality of the situation, that may be what we have to do.

It is not my first option, though, and I frankly think that we

have some other things we have to look at. That might involve

looking at some of these areas that have high density placement

for our post offices. I am not talking about our rural areas, but we

have some of our big cities in America who have a post office in

every high rise. They had the volume at one time to justify all

those, but we may have to look at some of those things.

I would like to look at the least disruptive measures to reduce

costs than simply leaping to 5-day delivery. But you are right, I

think time is growing short, we have to fish or cut bait. We are

going to be limited in our options with the passage of time. So I

certainly agree with you that we are at a critical point here.

Again, obviously we have gone to a second round of questioning.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5

minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And

Governor, I guess I am still mystified, and perhaps we will have

to clarify this later, but I recognize the series of indicators along

the way of the remarkable progress that has been made within the

Postal Service. But to try to categorize as one of those goals the financial health, that was the quote that I wrote down, financial

health, while it may be better, I don’t think it is healthy. I think

67

it is very difficult, when you have a reduction in overtime, when

you have the good men and women, rank and file, the person who

is out there delivering the mail, brunting the bulk of what has to

happen in order to make these adjustments, to see somebody at the

very top take a bonus.

In my opinion, it gets strikingly close, if not over the line, of just

trying to run around the basic compensation package and trying to

say, we are going to subvert this because we think it is too low,

we are going to get a performance bonus and that is how we are

going to get it. You can make the case, I think, to say that the

overall compensation for someone who is running the second largest employer in the United States of America, $260,000 some odd

dollars is too low. I think that is another discussion that perhaps

we have to have.

But I worry that bonus is so striking and so offensive to a lot of

people that I would hope and encourage you to revisit that. Because at the end of the day, it was in the red. And we are going

to have to make some much more dramatic challenges, and we are

asking people to potentially go back to 5-day service as opposed to

6, and yet we are handing out bonuses. It just doesn’t add up. That

is my concern.

My question to you, Governor, and then I actually do have one

for Mr. Blair, if we can get to it, the relocation assistance policy

is something I have seen some reports on that seems to be troubling. The huge, massive dollars and numbers of homes that are

going through this process, what kind of trajectory, what kind of

numbers are behind this? What is your sense of where this program is?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Well, first of all, the Board of Governors was

concerned when we heard the same stories that you did. Management is reviewing the policy. We will look at it, the board will look

at it when he has completed that review, or they have completed

that review.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When do you think we will have that back?

Ms. GALLAGHER. I know they are in consultation with the management associations. I am not sure how long that process is. But

we don’t just buy these homes, we also sell these homes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you know how much money the Government

or the Postal Service put in? There was a real cost to this, was

there not? It wasn’t something operating in the black.

Ms. GALLAGHER. Congressman, I actually don’t know.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I guess I would ask that at some point, that the

report be given back to us specific to that program, how much it

costs to actually execute on that program. And in the essence o

time, Mr. Blair, I do have just a quick question. It is more of a clarification.

I thought I heard, and maybe I am wrong here, I thought I heard

Mr. Potter talk about a $3.5 billion savings by going to a 5-day

week. You had talked about a $2 billion savings. What is the actual

number? Maybe I just heard something wrong here, so my apologies.

Mr. BLAIR. Our projections at the Commission would be that there would be a $2 billion savings. I believe the Service’s projections did not take into account any volume declines that would reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
68

sult from reducing 1 day a week of delivery. Ours projected a 2 percent volume decline. So that is how we determined our cost savings.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. OK, so I did hear Mr. Potter correctly at $3.5 bil- lion, but you are saying you think it will actually be close to $2 billion?

Mr. BLAIR. We projected it at $2 billion. The Service did acknowledge that there would be volume reductions, it just didn’t factor

them in because they didn’t know what they would be at that

point.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is there any sort of blended analysis? There was

some discussion about maybe limiting service on some of the days

in the summer when it is the middle of July and there is not much

mail delivered, as opposed to, say, the end of December when you

have huge surges in the amount of mail that has to be dealt with?

Mr. BLAIR. I think that is a good point and that is a question I

wanted to raise as well, is that I would strongly recommend that

Congress, should it grant the Postal Service that ability to reduce

1 day a week delivery that it ask the Service for a more detailed

plan on what this exactly looks like. We heard today from the Postmaster General that it would likely be Saturday but I have heard

other days being touted like possibly Tuesday or Wednesday. I

think a more concrete plan, is this going to be nationwide or is it

just going to be for selected areas of the country or even selected

zip codes? I am under the impression it would be nationwide, but

again, I don’t want to presume anything.

There are just a lot of unanswered questions. Given the reduction of the scope has such an impact on the brand of the U.S. Postal Service, I would hope that Congress would ask the Service for

a more detailed plan along these lines.

I think one missing question is what is going to be the impact

on volume, what is going to be the impact on major mailers. We

would hope the Postal Service could produce for us what would be

seen as a, what their best estimate would be on the reduction in

volume and the impact on mailers.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this is something that we continue to explore, that we look at the differences between urban areas and

rural areas, that we look at potentially a sliding scale where there

are certain times of the year. And as you said, look at the reduction

in volume as well, because obviously that will play a major impact.

The number between $2 billion and $3.5 billion is a big enough

number that it meets that threshold. Usually a billion dollars is

just a rounding error in this body, but it meets that threshold. So

let’s dive into it, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for

5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Blair, let me ask you, let’s assume that we do all of the

things that Mr. Potter talked about earlier in terms of streamlining, staff reductions, but let’s also assume that we do not pass H.R.

22. How long do you think it would be before we would be back

talking about another rate increase?

69

Mr. BLAIR. Well, the Postal Service, the Commission last week

gave its approval of the Postal Service’s request for an inflationbased adjustments. Those rates are going to come into effect in

May, provide annually, from what we understand, probably about

a billion and a half dollars in additional revenue.

The other option open to them at this point would be an exigency

rate case, in which the Postal Service would propose to go above

the inflation-based cap based on extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. That proposal lies in the hands of the Postal Service.

Whether or not that would generate sufficient revenues to offset

the potential cash-flow problem is a good question. But I think that

this committee would be back, we would be convened back before

this committee before that would happen, because Postal Service’s

finances would continue to go south.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you think there is ever any danger that we could

price ourselves out of the market?

Mr. BLAIR. I think in some marketplaces you definitely could. I

think that was the intention behind the Postal Act of 2006, that

keeping generally within the class, or generally inflation-based

rates would be a good thing, it would add to the predictability and

stability for mailers to stay in the system.

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Gallagher, let me ask you, one of the criticisms

that I have heard of the Postal Service in relationship to its efforts

to grow volume has been sort of an internal isolation relative to the

community of ideas that the Postal Service sort of does its thinking

internally, and that external entities that come with ideas that

these generally are not received too well or viewed too positively.

How open do you think the Postal Service is to listening to other

market experts and individuals who think they have ideas? As

elected officials, everybody comes to us with everything. And sometimes these things can get vetted, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes

they get looked at sometimes they are given short shrift. How open

is the Board of Governors in relationship, and the Postal Service

to looking at these kinds of options and ideas that people come

with?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Congressman Davis, I don’t think we can afford

not to listen to any option, given the situation that we are in. I

think the Postal Service has a long history of communicating with

stakeholders, all our stakeholders. The board is of course very open

to hearing ideas. In fact, we are having lunch with the mailing

community next week.

So we are very open to hearing ideas. And certainly given the situation we are in, any ideas would be helpful.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, let me just say, I don’t envy the position that

you are in, in actuality, because I do realize that there are no simple solutions to very complex problems and very complex issues. I

do appreciate the efforts that the Postal Service is making. I appreciate the leadership that Mr. Potter has been providing and the efforts of the Board of Governors.

I thank you very much and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Let me ask, I want to go over the area of housing relocation

within the Postal Service. There was a story a few weeks back, I

think it was CNN, that ran a story about the excessive costs that

70

were being incurred by the Postal Service for relocating their employees. There were some homes there that were excessive, well,

the employees were excessively reimbursed for relocation expenses.

I know I have some information that the Post Office provided to

the committee that indicated that the relocation program costs at

the U.S. Postal Service in 2007 was $72 million for the relocation

and then expenditures specific to homeowners were $34 million. So

it was a total of $106 million in 2007. And then similarly, in 2008,

it was $71 million for the relocation program in 2008, with a reimbursement to the homeowners of $108 million.

So these are sizable programs. Ms. Gallagher, I know you mentioned that there is a Board of Governors review going on here.

Has the Inspector General for either the Post Office or the Postal

Regulatory Commission, have they been invited in or asked to conduct an investigation yet?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, the board is not reviewing the

policy, management is reviewing the policy.

Mr. LYNCH. Just management?

Ms. GALLAGHER. Yes. The board is waiting to see how the policy

is revised. We have full confidence in Mr. Potter that he will address it appropriately.

I do think the fact that we have a relocation assistance policy is

standard among Federal agencies and certainly the private sector.

We do have a policy that you hire the best person for every job,

so that is going to require moving people around. And with 650,000

employees, sometimes those are going to be big numbers.

So we have confidence that Mr. Potter is reviewing the policy,

that he and his team will show the board a policy that is appropriate.

Mr. LYNCH. Yes, well, there are a lot of opportunities, and sometimes the differentiation between employees, when you are talking

about a pool of 650,000 people, sometimes all things being equal,

they can be very similar. Very talented employees at the Post Office. So I am just concerned about this. It is a pretty large expense,

over $100 million.

I am aware that management is considering adopting a new rule

where they don’t reimburse for a house over $1 million. Which

leads me to believe the policy before allowed them to go above $1

million. I am not sure how much above. And even though CNN has

pointed out some, I would call them egregious examples, I want to

know, is this the rule or what have we here? I have a bulk number

of $71 million for housing relocation in 2007 and then a little bit

more than that in 2008. I really need the numbers. I need the

breakdown on home by home what region they were moved from

and to. I need all that information. Could you make sure that is

available to the committee?

Ms. GALLAGHER. We will certainly supply that. The policy that

we are reviewing is looking at taking it down to $800,000, not $1

million. But management is reviewing it and we will get you that

information for the record.

Mr. LYNCH. That would be great. And I do intend to ask, we have

the Inspectors General coming up and I will ask them about that

as well.

71

I am told that we are about to have votes on the floor. Why don’t

we swap out? I want to thank you both for your willingness to come

before the committee and to testify. You have been very helpful

and we thank you for your testimony, we wish you a good day.

And why don’t we, if we have the next panel, please take their

seats, that would be great.

Mr. Williams and Mr. Herr, we appreciate your appearing before

the committee. It is the committee policy that all witnesses are

sworn in. Could I ask you to please rise and raise your right

hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in

the affirmative.

Welcome, gentlemen. Mr. David Williams, Inspector General, the

Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Postal Service, was

sworn in as the second independent Inspector General for the U.S.

Postal Service in August 2003. Mr. Williams has served as IG for

five Federal agencies. He was first appointed by President George

H.W. Bush to serve as IG for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1989 to 1996. President William Clinton next appointed

Mr. Williams Inspector General for the Social Security Administration from 1996 to 1998 and then as Inspector General for the Department of the Treasury in 1998.

Mr. Phillip Herr is Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues,

U.S. Government Accountability Office. He is the Director of the

Physical Infrastructure team at the Government Accountability Office. Since joining GAO in 1989, Mr. Herr has managed reviews of

a broad range of domestic and international programs. His current

portfolio focuses on programs at the Department of Transportation

and the U.S. Postal Service.

Welcome, gentlemen, and the committee invites opening statements. Mr. Williams.

STATEMENTS OF DAVID C. WILLIAMS, INSPECTOR GENERAL,

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; AND PHILLIP HERR, DIRECTOR,

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. WILLIAMS

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chaffetz and Mr.

Davis, the Postal Service’s current financial condition is fragile and

the future is uncertain. The Postal Service lost $2.8 billion in 2008

and may lose $6 billion this year. Yet these losses should be placed

in context. Without payments to pre-fund retiree health benefits,

the Postal Service would have earned $2.8 billion in 2008, and its

anticipated net loss for 2009 would have been $1 billion.

Mail volume has declined for the last eight quarters and the rate

of the decline is accelerating. Single piece first class mail volume

continues to give way to the Internet, as expected. New declines in

business and advertising mail are closely connected to the condition

of the hardest hit sectors in this historic economic crisis. The Postal

Service must make eight more annual payments, averaging $5.6

billion each to pre-fund retiree health benefits. The Postal Service’s

annual borrowing of $3 billion may not be enough to cover the gap

72

between revenue declines and cost-cutting measures. This could

cause the Postal Service to run short of cash to pay all of its bills.

As a near-term strategy, the Postal Service is chasing revenue

declines with cost costs to limit losses. For example, even before

the recent volume losses, the Postal Service had reduced its work

force through attrition by more than 134,000 career employees

since 1999. This year, the Postal Service has set a challenge of reducing the equivalent of 48,000 full-time employees. The Postal

Service has streamlined its network operations, closing airport centers, annexes and remote encoding centers. It is increasing its effort to consolidate processing facilities. However, if staff reductions

are not coordinated with facility reductions, the Postal Service runs

the risk of having protracted anemic staffing within an oversized

network.

Working with city and rural carriers, the Postal Service has

started restructuring the delivery routes to reflect declining mail

volume. The Postal Service has reduced authorized staffing at

headquarters and at area and district administrative offices.

Through a new rapid negotiation program, the Postal Service plans

to work with its contractors to cut $1 billion from its existing contracts.

But cost reductions must be done carefully. One concern is that

the Postal Service may cut costs so rapidly and broadly that it will

be difficult to monitor the changes and guard against unintended

consequences. Aggressive cost reduction in the short term could adversely affect service, productivity and the Postal Service’s ability

to offer innovative products, and, paradoxically, reduce its profits

in the long term.

Even if the Postal Service achieves its desired cuts, there will

still be a gap between costs and revenues of as much as $6 billion

if the current estimates hold. Action beyond the Postal Service’s

authority may be needed. The Postal Service has requested limited

pre-funding relief. I support its requests. Moreover, in this current

economic climate, it may be appropriate to skip the mandated prefunding payment for 1 year or to restructure the payments. The

large pre-payments greater than the Postal Service’s annual net income in its very best years.

The Postal Service is forced to borrow to meet this aggressive

payment schedule and borrowing today to set aside money for a

debt that will not be due until the future is an unusual practice.

Removing the annual $3 billion debt limit should be considered.

The current limit of $3 billion per year may encourage unnecessary

borrowing to retain cash as a hedge against future needs.

Beyond the current crisis, the larger issue that must be explored

from an elevated vantage point is the unfolding information revolution. New social dynamics and technological innovations such as

the Internet are bringing great changes to the use of shipping and

mailing services. Other sectors, such as newspapers and periodicals

and telecommunications are also being transformed. Close monitoring and in-depth analysis are needed to ensure that the essential

roles of these industries are fulfilled, and that the needs of all

Americans, including those in rural and poor urban areas continue

to be met.

73

The Postal Service, along with its stakeholders, must focus strategically on its future to discover viable options and find its place

with other information age industries. Change, however, beneficial,

is disruptive, and my office is very cognizant of the fact that more

than 700,000 families directly depend on the Postal Service for

their livelihoods. However, these families are at risk of becoming

the first casualties if the Postal Service is unable to adapt rapidly

to this new and changing environment.

Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

74

75

76

77

78

79

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Mr. Herr.

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP HERR

Mr. HERR. Thank you, Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member

Chaffetz, Congressman Davis.

I am pleased to be here today to participate in this oversight

hearing on the financial condition of the U.S. Postal Service. As requested, my statement addresses the Postal Service’s financial condition and outlook and options to help it remain financially viable

in the short and long term.

First, regarding the Postal Service’s financial condition. Updated

projections for this fiscal year suggest the magnitude of the challenges ahead. Mail volume could decline by 22 billion pieces, a

record 11 percent over fiscal year 2008. While much of this decline

is related to the housing market downturn, the credit crisis and

lower retail sales, mail volume is expected to decrease for the foreseeable future as businesses, non-profits, governments and households continue to move to electronic alternatives. Its net loss is projected to be $6.4 billion, if it cuts almost $6 billion in costs, which

would be unprecedented. Further, it faces a cash shortage of about

a billion and a half dollars.

Mr. Chairman, turning now to short and long-term options, no

single action will assure the Postal Service’s short and long-term

financial viability. The Service has high overhead costs that cannot

be changed quickly, including 6-day delivery and retail services at

37,000 facilities. Compensation and benefits for almost 650,000 employees and about 100,000 non-career employees generate close to

80 percent of its costs.

Several options have been discussed to assist the Postal Service

through its short-term difficulties, some of which would require

congressional action. The Postal Service has proposed that Congress give it an immediate financial relief by reducing payments to

the Postal Service retiree health benefits fund by an estimated $25

billion over the next 8 years. This would decrease the available balance in the fund by approximately $32 billion, including interest

charges, in 2017.

Another option would be for Congress to provide the Postal Service with 2-year relief for its fund payments, totaling $4.3 billion,

which would provide immediate financial relief and have much less

long-term impact on the fund. We believe this option is preferable.

This would allow Congress to revisit the Postal Service’s financial

condition in 2 years, while assessing actions taken in the interim

to improve its financial viability. In other words, this approach

would keep pressure on the Postal Service to make needed changes.

However, it is no clear that either of these options will be sufficient

to prevent a cash shortfall from developing this year or next.

Looking to the longer term, progress will be needed in many

areas to reverse the growing gap between Postal Service revenues

and expenses. In January 2009, the Postal Service asked Congress

to eliminate the longstanding statutory provision mandating 6-day

delivery. In doing so, it provided little information on where it

would reduce delivery frequency and the potential impact on costs,

mail volumes, revenues, mailers and the public. Stakeholder input

80

could be provided through an advisory input from the Postal Regulatory Commission. Major changes in universal service should also

be done in close consultation with and approval from congressional

stakeholders.

Controlling wage and benefit costs will also be critical. One option will be for the Service and its unions to agree on changes during upcoming negotiations in 2010 and 2011. The Postal Service

has alternatives to provide lower cost retail services at places other

than traditional post offices, such as selling stamps at supermarkets, drug stores, by telephone and over the Internet. In the

mail processing area, the Postal Service has closed most of its airport mail centers in recent years, but only one of over 400 major

mail processing facilities. Closing facilities would be controversial,

but it is necessary to streamline costs. Options also exist to reduce

postal transportation and delivery costs.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, accelerating declines in mail volume

means that the Postal Service could run out of cash this fiscal year,

thus short-term relief is urgently needed as well as comprehensive

action to maintain the service’s financial viability.

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other Members have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herr follows:]

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much, both of you.

As you may have heard, we have a couple of votes, just two votes

on the floor. I expect we should be back here in about 25 minutes.

Again, I apologize to all of you. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. LYNCH. Again, I apologize for the slight delay there and

being called there for votes. That is the nature of the best, I guess.

And again, thank you for your testimony, Mr. Williams and Mr.

Herr.

Let me ask, you touched on earlier on, Mr. Williams, an issue

that we have been discussing with previous panels regarding the

request in H.R. 22 for relief from the current contribution plan into

the trust. And I am interested in this idea that you have proposed

about, instead of going with the 8-year plan as had been envisioned

by Mr. Potter and others, looking at a 2-year window and then I

believe reassessing at that point.

Could you expand on that a little bit? I think it has some value.

I haven’t heard the other argument about why we shouldn’t do

that, but if you could.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Actually, we are fortunate enough to have GAO,

and that was their proposal, that it either stopped or paused after

the 2-years. So I am going to ask Mr. Herr to——

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Williams, you did mention it though, right?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We did not.

Mr. LYNCH. No, you did not. OK, Mr. Herr, I am sorry.

Mr. HERR. That is fine, no problem.

Mr. LYNCH. I give you great credit, then, I am sorry. [Laughter.]

Mr. HERR. The reason that we think that it is important to do

the 2-years is one, we recognize that immediate financial relief is

warranted. We think given the financial situation the Postal Service is in, the amount that would be covered would be $2 billion and

$2.3 billion next year. So we think that would help them overcome

the cash shortfall that they are anticipating for this year.

But we also think over the longer term it is important to ensure

the sustainability of the fund, to ensure that those retirees and

their families are covered, to have some certainty that benefit will

be there for them.

The thought behind the 2-year idea that we are sympathetic to

is that it provides also the Congress with the opportunity to come

back, take a look at this in 2 years, to see whether or not the Postal Service has made the kinds of changes that are needed to help

it become, really thinking about its business model, becoming more

financially sustainable. So that keeps your option open to come

back, see whether or not you would want to do this again, to provide two more or you would go after the additional 8. It doesn’t

forego that, it just simply gives you more options in terms of policy.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Well, I am going to go back and forth a couple

of times with that idea, back to the proponents and see where we

come out here.

Let me jump to another issue which is the housing relocations.

Mr. Williams, we did have a couple of stories in the press, I know

one by CNN, about somewhat exorbitant prices being paid for relocation of Postal Service employees. A fairly large amount, it looked

like over $100 million in 2007, 2008 for relocation purposes and for

101

employee reimbursements, I guess. Have you looked at this issue

in particular?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have just received, actually, when CNN first

broke the story, we began, Senator Grassley called us and we

worked out a request for an audit of the area. We have commenced

the audit. Then Senator Collins joined the request and expanded

on its parameters a bit. So we have just begun looking at that specific issue. We were very pleased to work with your staff as well

and have at least had discussions about it.

We are trying to look at the instant case and we are trying to

find other cases like it, and then we are trying to look at best practices employed by others. We hope to in a timely fashion provide

light on it in time for this look that Chairman Gallagher referred

to in hopes that we can affect its outcome and make sure that we

have informed the debate on both sides and allowed enough information to be present to alter the policies.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. If it helps, we would make a formal request to

join with Senators Grassley and Collins as a House entity interested in that issue. So whatever is required of us to get involved

and included in that loop on information, the committee would

greatly appreciate it.

At this point, I would like to yield to my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz,

of Utah for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too had questions

about the relocation assistance policy, so it is good to know that

you are moving forward on that.

Mr. Williams, can you give us any insight and confirmation that

there is indeed an investigation regarding Mr. Potter specifically as

it relates to this possible sweetheart deal that he got from Countrywide?

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is a very broad-based investigation going on

involving Countrywide being conducted by the U.S. Attorneys Office. It is in early stages and we are cooperating because of the incident that you explored and reported on earlier.

We have done as much work as we can until records begin to arrive in response to a subpoena that was issued by the Department

of Justice. They are mostly concerned with instances where there

was a clear quid pro quo on their end. But there are going to be,

there are other loans, including the one that you brought up and

discussed with the Postmaster General, that also need to be examined. A light needs to be shed on those.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is that something you will specifically be looking

into?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We are. It is under the direction of the larger investigation and that also is going to dictate a bit of the pace of it.

But knowing of your interest, of course, we are going to make you

aware of that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I appreciate that.

My understanding is, and I want to see if you are aware of the

two postal employees in Elkridge that were recently arrested for

stealing more than $600,000 in stamps and selling them on eBay.

Do you have any reason to believe that this is a widespread problem and do you have an other light on this specific instance?

102

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is a very large instance. There have been

other instances of both the theft and diversion of postage. It is

postage and cash are of course are commonly dealt with. They can

also be concealed. They can be moved from machine to machine

and the Postal Service has a very good policy of how to keep track

of that and close out timely. But policies aren’t always followed.

And in this instance, that is precisely what happened. It had been

a long time since those had been audited. When they were audited

we confirmed that the losses were quite large.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Are there mechanisms being put in place to deal

with it so that it doesn’t happen even on a small scale?

Mr. WILLIAMS. They are doing their best to assure that the policies that are in place for accountability and rapid closeouts are

being conformed with.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

Mr. Herr, this idea of 2 years versus 8 years, I just want to explore that. Would that give them sufficient time in order to maybe

develop a more long-term plan?

Mr. HERR. I think that would be one of the benefits you could

see. As I mentioned in my oral statement, we think that would also

allow Congress to keep an eye on how things are evolving in terms

of the financial situation. One thing I would like to point out about

how the payments are structured over the 8 years, they start off

at $2 billion, but then by 2016 they actually go up to $4.2 billion.

So much of the relief is front-loaded, if you will. So that 2-year period would allow Congress to look for a plan, look for what some

of the options would be going forward. We outline some of those in

my testimony as well.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Very good. Last thing, Mr. Chairman.

Again, going back to the President’s Commission that was executed a couple of years ago, this idea of a postal network optimization committee to look at the closing of facilities, is that something

you have taken an opinion on or want to state an opinion on?

Mr. HERR. It is something I think in the past that has come up

previously . I think part of it would be a question of how something

like that were to be structured. Obviously, closing postal facilities

anywhere is an issue that is difficult for the Service, I think partly

because of interest from a number of different parties. So it may

be important to provide——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you see anything formally underway at all?

Mr. HERR. Not that I am aware of, no, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is a great deal of activity with regard to examining the possible combinations and reduction of this oversized

network that we have. But it is not a national effort. There is a

great deal happening at the local level. And then the job of the national effort is to make sure that big highways that the mail moves

on and so forth are not disrupted by local decisions.

But there have been a lot of closures already. There have been

60 air mail centers and 52 annexes, 10 remote encoding centers.

There have been 10 of these successful local efforts, there are 16

on the horizon now and deeper into the process there are the beginnings of as many as 40 more. That is another way of engaging in

this without a BRAC-type of effort. But the BRAC-type of effort

does have merit.

103

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Mr. Williams, I don’t know if you were here for the testimony of

Postmaster General Potter and Ms. Gallagher, who was formerly

on the compensation committee. In looking at the framework that

the compensation committee uses to determine the CEO’s salary

here for the Postmaster General, there seem to be a couple of balancing statutes. One is a statute that I believe in 2006 requires the

salary to sort of be pegged to the Vice President’s salary, 120 percent of that as a maximum.

Then there is another part of the statute I believe, it might have

been PAEA, that says the salaries to the degree possible, should be

comparable to private sector. Those seem to be, at least in this

case, at odds. In terms of the process they used in arriving at the

salary and then applying the bonus and the whole package, did the

compensation committee operate within the legitimate framework?

I know they had the same struggle in terms of the testimony of Ms.

Gallagher, she said they sort of struggled with the two statutes and

perhaps it is Congress’ fault for entering into an area of considerable ambiguity in the statute, trying to get people to follow two directions that are not necessarily going in the same direction.

But your own opinion of the job they did?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Some clarity with regard to the two references

and the two directions would be useful. I know that what we tried

to do when we became aware that deferred compensation had been

paid, we tried to work with both your staff and then we also

worked on the Senate side to try to draw together all of the legal

references and assure that there was a legal basis for both the bonuses and then for the usage of deferred compensation, which I

was not familiar with.

We worked with OPM as well, and they are telling us that this

situation that occurred here was the one for which their opinions

had been formulated, that if a salary and a bonus goes over the

cap, whatever that cap is, that it may be paid in deferred payments. Then we asked them had it ever been done. In my knowledge, we had driven off the map at that point. They said 23 departments had done it and there were 81 individuals that had been

given deferred payments for this.

There does seem to be a legal basis for both of those, for the bonuses and you gave some of the citations. They are a bit fragmented and there are a number of them. And then for the deferred

payment, we rely upon Title V in OPM. Actually, GAO has done

some legal opinions with regard to abuses of deferred compensation, and it does not appear that what happened here——

Mr. LYNCH. Let me just sort of refine my question a little bit,

then. The deferred compensation aspect of this, you have a current

year cap and it seems to me that they exceeded that cap by putting

the money into the next year, or not necessarily the next year, but

future years. It looked to me, as someone who worked for 20 years

for a fixed wage, per hour, it seemed to be a way of getting around

the cap by putting the money in other years, which I thought at

least at first blush contravened the intent of Congress in putting

in a yearly cap. Am I wrong on this, or how usual is this? Is it a

function of, Mr. Potter, using his example, has been an employee

104

for 31 years. And so obviously, over those years, and these are his

latest years, going into year 31, obviously he has built up some

value in his pension fund.

I guess what I am asking, is it a function of that, that he is in

the latter years of a long, long length of service in the post office

and now what he has there, the corpus of his retirement is

compounding rapidly now because he is at the end of his career,

is that it or was there a conscious decision by the compensation

committee to inject something, make a contribution into something

that actually exceeded the statutory cap?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The deferred payments were not a result of the

accrual and increasing in value of his pension, as far as we could

determine. It looked as though that they arrived at his salary and

they did use consultants to do that, as Chairman Gallagher said,

and then they had the two bonuses, the one for the PFP and the

one for the contract that Governor Gallagher was describing. Those

went over the cap and so it defaulted to this OPM decision and

process for when that happens, then that is to pay it in the next

year for which you are eligible and have not reached the cap.

So in most instances what that means is after retirement, and

in all likelihood, that is what is going to occur with regard to the

Postmaster General. So it was the bonus.

Mr. LYNCH. Yes, a windfall, then.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sorry, sir?

Mr. LYNCH. It was a windfall.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not sure if that is precisely the word I would

have used. They knew that they had gone over the cap. And then

they defaulted to the direction of OPM and that was the applicable

statute.

Mr. LYNCH. All right, I am sure I have exceeded my time limit.

Are you OK?

Well, let me ask you, what would you suggest as a remedy? We

can’t have this situation where you have a cap, I mean, do you

think it would be worthwhile for Congress to consider clarification

of the statute and then cap everything, plug these holes and address that whole year to year deferment situation?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Because my jurisdiction sort of ends at the Postal

boundary, I have not found out what caused OPM to develop this

system of deferred payments. That would be a good thing to learn

and to discover. We have some idea, but I would like to have a

much better understanding of that. The only reason that we are

having this committee examine this is because it was disclosed by

the Postal Service. Apparently it has happened in 81 instances in

23 departments. This is a very large issue and I don’t understand

why it was created. It could have some merit, but I just don’t know

its origins.

Mr. LYNCH. All right, that is a fair answer. If you are the Inspector General and you don’t know, then we all have a problem. And

I am sure you are being very diligent on the issue. Maybe it is

something the committee needs to look at separately and apart

from this one instance that might be clouded because we keep referring to Mr. Potter. Maybe it is better to look at it as sort of a

statutory issue, take the personal politics out of it.

105

Mr. Potter indicated that he thought the only way back to viability is really through mail volume, increase in mail volume. Technology does not support that trend, however, with the use of emails

and folks paying their bills online. It is becoming, as the computersavvy generation gets a little bit older, it is usually old folks like

me that use the mail for paying their bills. So I don’t see that situation getting any better.

Do you think the facts out there and the trends support Mr. Potter’s assumption that things could get better on that end and that

we can balance, we can get this system back into viability on volume?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not sure all the mail is going to come back

when the good times return. I do believe that the end of this crisis

is going to come and that some of the mail will return. I think a

better option are the ones that Mr. Davis and Ms. Norton were

talking about, a new model and a new plan. There are a lot of options for viability out there for us. I think it is going to be a very

different type of Postal Service when we come out of this.

Actually, shipping probably has a brighter future, and certain

kinds of mail are going to be become very important. And we can

probably migrate into things such as saturation or neighborhood

mail in a way that we have not in the past. As I imagine the future, very powerful, sort of first mile, last mile alliances with the

competition would have all kinds of benefits. It would be financially

rewarding.

And then at the same time, it would allow a single large truck

to go through a neighborhood instead of all of these trucks bumping into one another and moving through all these crowded neighborhoods, from UPS and FedEx and no longer DHL but the Postal

Service. I think coming together would be a very green solution

and it would be financially very viable, too.

I think we can incentivize employees in a better way and we can

deploy them against the operational model in a more flexible, agile

fashion. I like what we are doing with seamless acceptance and the

intelligent mail bar code that is going to allow all kinds of benefits

for the customers and for internal operations. The Postal Service

has gotten much better in the last few years on using information

and gathering information. Bill Galligan is sort of a national treasure with regard to the development and understanding of operations that helped us immensely tighten the efficiency of the operation.

I am pretty hopeful. Maybe not for the same reason. But we have

a lot of options. The other thing I loved about Congressman Davis’

comment is we do need to listen more. Our customers are very,

very bright, and sometimes I think we are very guilty of not having

listened to them. The people who make the equipment are smart

as they can be. They live by their wits and I think a lot of times

we turn them away with wonderful ideas.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Mr. Herr, in your testimony, you suggested that

beyond the Postal Service’s aggressive plan here that they say is

urgently needed for viability, you suggest that may not indeed be

enough, what they have on the table right now. What action do you

think is needed here if that is not enough?

106

Mr. HERR. Well, at this point they are looking to take $5.9 billion

out in costs and as I mentioned earlier that would be unprecedented. They have made good progress on it so far this year. But

to make sure that happens without any additional shocks that

could come, say, from a fuel increase or something like that, so as

we mentioned in the statement, they need to be sure to think about

that. Looking at retail facilities, if there are opportunities to do

that, and we specifically mentioned facilities in urban areas rather

than small rural post offices, we think that may be an area, places

that have multiple options.

Other things, work with the unions to find ways to, there have

been some real efforts to reduce costs for delivery services. That

has been a real breakthrough agreement that they had with one

of their unions on that. So there are ways there to move forward,

too.

And I think more broadly, because 80 percent of their costs are

compensation and benefits, they need to take a look at what options are there. That is certainly the largest cost center.

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. And given the transportation costs associated

with the post office, we have caught a real break here in the past

8 months with the price of fuel. That has been somewhat of a stimulus. We have dodged that bullet while we are facing some others.

I am not sure if the gentleman from Illinois has any questions.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. LYNCH. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois,

Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams, Mr. Herr, it is good to see you both.

Mr. Herr, let me ask you, the Postal Service is required to prefund 80 percent of its future liability for retiree health benefits by

2016. Do you know of any company in the country that is required

or chooses to pre-fund on such an accelerated schedule?

Mr. HERR. I am not familiar with companies, but I do know in

the Federal Government, other agencies, including GAO, pre-fund

retiree health care benefits. My understanding from talking with

our financial folks at GAO is that the Postal Service was behind

in terms of making these payments. So in a sense, this represents

an effort to catch up. That is why, well, one, their number of employees is large, and for that reason the size of the payment is

large as well, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Also under H.R. 22, the Postal Service would still be

pre-funding on the order of some $2 billion a year by 2016, a little

more than 4 percent of the unfunded liability per year. Although

most private companies do not pre-fund at all, do you know any

percentage of companies or what percentage of companies in the

private sector that might fund at that level?

Mr. HERR. I am not aware, we did not look specifically at the private sector. We took a hard look at the numbers the Postal Service

had provided to us.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Williams, let me ask you, we are obviously looking for all the

cost savings possibilities that we can possibly find, hope to find,

look to find, if there is anything to find. When you look at the PostVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
107

al Service’s utilization of fuel, do you have any comments that you

could make relative to what their utilization seems to be?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have recommended to them in the past that

they engage in the purchase of futures of fuel. And of course, that

definitely faded into the background when the price of gasoline

spiked. As it lowers again, it might be tempting to reconsider the

purchase of that. I think as the network is right-sized, there will

be fewer places to drive between and among. And that is going to

result in some conservation. The possibilities for alternative fuel is

very exciting. I would love to get more involved in it and I believe

we are going to be meeting with Congressman Serrano on exploring

some of those possibilities. Those would be great solutions if the

technology is mature enough.

We have taken a false step in the past with ethanol. We bought

ethanol, 1,300 trucks and we don’t use ethanol fuel in them, we use

regular gasoline because of the availability. So it does pay to look

before we leap. But there are some exciting possibilities out there

on that front.

Mr. DAVIS. We have all been excited and delighted recently, at

least in the last 3, 4 months, but we never quite know what might

happen in the future. And just as we have experienced some price

reductions, it is also possible that we might be in a situation again

where the prices escalate. That is a possibility.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I agree.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I have no further questions,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

I want to thank both of you for your great testimony here. Thank

you for helping the committee with its work. We will continue to

work on a couple of these issues outside of committee, outside of

hearing. But we really appreciate your willingness to come here

and testify today. You are free to go and have a good day.

I would like to invite the next panel up, just to get you seated.

Welcome, gentlemen, Mr. Goff, Mr. Mapa, Mr. Keating. We appreciate your willingness to come before the committee to help us

with its work.

It is the committee policy that all witnesses are sworn in, so I

would like to ask you to rise and please raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Dale Goff is the president of the National Association of

Postmasters of the United States. Dale Goff is in his 39th year

with the U.S. Postal Service, and began as a postal assistant in

New Orleans. He has been a member of the National Association

of Postmasters for 29 years. His NAPUS positions have included

State president, national vice president, national president, among

others. He was also postmaster of the year in 1994.

Mr. Charles Mapa is president of the National League of Postmasters of the United States. Charles Mapa is a postal and military veteran with 35 years of service. Mr. Mapa has been a member of the National League of Postmasters for 24 years. He has also

served as the California branch vice president, executive vice presiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
108

dent and president. Mr. Mapa was elected national president in

2006 and re-elected in 2008.

Mr. Ted Keating is president of the National Association of Postal Supervisors. Mr. Keating worked for the U.S. Postal Service for

40 years, following 4 years with the Air Force. Mr. Keating began

his membership in the National Association of Postal Supervisors

as a member of the Northeastern Branch 498. For 15 years, Mr.

Keating served on the Massachusetts State Executive Board, including 9 years in which he held the position of secretary-treasurer.

Mr. Keating was elected to the position of executive vice president

of the National Association of Postal Supervisors in August 1998.

Mr. Keating retired from the Postal Service in October 2004, and

has assumed the presidency of the Association in December 2004.

Welcome, gentlemen and Mr. Goff, if you could, we will welcome

your opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF DALE GOFF, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTMASTERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND

POSTMASTER OF COVINGTON, LA; CHARLES W. MAPA,

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF POSTMASTERS; AND TED

KEATING, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL

SUPERVISORS

STATEMENT OF DALE GOFF

Mr. GOFF. Mr. Chairman, my name is Dale Goff. I am president

of the 40,000-member National Association of Postmasters of the

United States [NAPUS]. I am also postmaster of Covington, LA.

I represent the managers in charge of the 27,000 independent

post offices in this Nation. These post offices serve urban, suburban

and rural communities. Some of these post offices support a network of postal stations, community postal units and contracted

postal stations. Other offices are so small that they define the community, employ just the postmaster and have limited hours of operation.

For customers living in isolated towns, the post office is their

lifeline to the outside world. During this past summer, a New England postmaster illustrated this point at a PRC hearing on the universal service obligation. The postmaster serves a remote offshore

town and is the commercial hub of the island. The post office is the

town’s pharmacy, since mail order drug companies are the primary

means of dispensing medications, and the town’s bank, since money

orders are used for commerce.

The picture being painted today is not very pretty. Mail volume

is crashing and so is its associated revenue. Service cuts and work

hour reductions are deep and wide. Residential and business customers feel the squeeze as postmasters are being directed to cut

window hours, close on Saturdays, consolidate delivery routes,

defer necessary repairs and restrict access to mail supplies. Service

and safety are being compromised. These actions are the result of

factors that are beyond the control of the agency. The economic

contraction has swallowed up mail volume and revenue.

My fear is that too short a financial lifeline is fools gold. As front

line managers, postmasters are highly qualified to offer input with

regard to the financial instability of the Postal Service and longVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
109

term strategies for streamlining its operations. First and foremost,

it is crucial that the committee report favorably H.R. 22, bipartisan

legislation to provide the Postal Service and its customers a temporary financial lifeline. This measure permits the Postal Service

to accelerate the effective date of using the Postal Retirees Health

Benefit Trust Fund to pay current retiree premiums. It amortizes

the remaining fund liability to a more attainable period of time.

This proposal is neither a bailout, nor does it cost U.S. taxpayers

a dime. H.R. 22 is fair, responsible and helps protect the universal

postal service.

It is imperative to note that the crisis plaguing the Postal Service is beyond its control and a fiscal climate exists that Congress

did not envision when the postal reform law was enacted. Now the

tools with which Congress equipped the Postal Service and the associated fiscal requirements are problematic. Postmasters are troubled by budget analysis which theorizes that temporary postal relief would undermine efficient business practices and aggressive

cost-cutting.

Mr. Chairman, extinction of universal postal service would be the

product without passage of postal relief legislation. In the absence

of such legislation, postal doomsday falls on Wednesday September

30, 2009. On that date, the Postal Service will no longer be able

to perform its constitutional duties on behalf of our country. Eight

percent of this Nation’s gross domestic product is tied to the Postal

Service. So failing to respond to this crisis is not an option.

The administration can help to alleviate this crisis. The Office of

Personnel Management has the authority to more accurately recompute the 2002 estimate of the USPS projected overpayment into

the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund. The calculation made by

the previous administration significantly understated the overpayment.

The Postal Service can help itself. Clearly, the immense postal

bureaucracy contributes to inefficiencies in costs. In 2003, NAPUS

testified before the President’s Commission on the U.S. Postal

Service about the necessity to de-layer the bureaucracy. Last Friday, the Postal Service took a step in the right direction but fell

short of this mark.

Fortuitously, last week I glanced through the manuscript of a

1951 hearing before the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee. The hearing record relates that the Hoover Report on Government Reorganization provided for the decentralization of the

Postal Service into 15 regions, enabling closer supervision of the

more than 40,000 post offices. Mr. Chairman, today we have 13,000

fewer offices than in 1951. Yet the Postal Service finances about six

times as many districts as proposed in the Hoover report.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Goff, you have exceeded the time limit. What I

am going to do is this. I am going to let you finish your statement

when I come back. I know you have a few more pages there, I am

reading along with you. But I have a vote on the floor and I cannot

miss it. Actually, I have two or three votes. These will be the last

votes for the day so we will be able to finish up when I come back.

Thank you, and again I apologize.

[Recess.]

Mr. LYNCH. Again, my apologies for the delay.

110

Mr. Goff, If you could just sum up that would be great, and then

we will continue with the testimony.

Mr. GOFF. I will be glad to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GOFF. The recommendation that was made back in 1951 said

that instead of saving money and bringing about more efficient operations, the cost for money for the post office and the amount of

bureaucracy that would be there that would have little districts out

there where we would have just all different types of postmaster

generals. What we are asking for, Mr. Chairman, is that the future

of the Postal Service is in the hands of this committee and H.R.

22 is the only means right now for the salvation that we could get.

Mr. Chairman, I do apologize, I am from the south so I talk a

little slow.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goff follows:]

111

112

113

114

115

116

Mr. LYNCH. You talk just fine. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Mapa.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. MAPA

Mr. MAPA. Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member Chaffetz, members of the subcommittee, good afternoon, wherever you are. With

your permission I would like to briefly summarize my testimony

and ask that my full statement be accepted and entered into the

record.

Mr. LYNCH. Without objection.

Mr. MAPA. My name is Charlie Mapa and I am president of the

National League of Postmasters. We have been representing postmasters since the late 1800’s. I am pleased to appear before you

here today. Thank you for inviting all of us to testify.

Before summarizing my statement, I would like to congratulate

Chairman Lynch on being named chairman of this subcommittee.

It is comforting to the League to know that the Chair comes with

a very strong postal background.

In my written testimony I address three topics: No. 1, the overall

state of the Postal Service and the need to allow the Postal Service

to refinance its obligation to fund our retirees’ health benefits as

H.R. 22 would do. No. 2, the importance of small post offices to

rural America and the minuscule amount of money that closing

substantial numbers of them would save. No. 3, the manner in

which the Postal Service has controlled costs over the last several

years, the diminishing returns of that approach and the means to

better increase efficiency and reduce costs.

Clearly, the Nation is in extremely troubled times. The economy

is at its lowest point since the Great Depression. The Postal Service is in trouble and needs relief. H.R. 22 would give some relief.

The consequences of not acting are disastrous. There are $8.4 million postal-related jobs and more than $1 trillion in revenue attributed to the mailing industry. That I believe is even larger than the

auto industry.

If the mailing sector were to crash, it would shake the American

economy to the core and given its fragile condition, it could bring

the entire economy to a standstill. That must be avoided at all

costs.

Let me also emphasize that relief must exist beyond 2 years.

Anything else would create a system that will appear to be on the

edge of disaster, held together by spit, glue and rubber bands. That

is exactly the image that will drive mailers to aggressively seek alternatives to the Postal Service, electronic and otherwise, that will

result in a loss of volume that otherwise should not have been lost

and otherwise would not have been lost.

H.R. 22 will save the Postal Service and it will do so without

spending a dime of the taxpayers’ money. My written testimony

goes into much greater detail about how H.R. 22 works.

In terms of small post offices, when one comes to the world of

postal and public policy concerns, one often assumes that many

small offices could be closed, resulting in little harm and significant

savings. Usually that point of view is predicated upon a misunderstanding of the role of the small post office in rural America, and

117

the mistaken belief that the cost of maintaining these post offices

is much greater than it actually is.

My testimony shows that small post offices are vital to the continued existence of rural America and that they truly bind rural

America together. When a small, rural post office closes in a rural

community, often the community ends up becoming a ghost town.

Mr. Chairman, closing small post offices savings no significant

money. If one were to close the smallest 10,000 post offices, more

than one-third of all post offices in the country, the savings to the

Postal Service would be minimal, less than 1 percent of the Postal

Service’s budget. The bottom line is that if the Postal Service wants

to close a small, rural post office and the community doesn’t care,

so be it. But if the Postal Service wants to close a small, rural post

office and the community does care because it doesn’t want to disappear, then the Postal Service shouldn’t close that office.

Finally, my testimony looks at the way the Postal Service has reduced costs over the last decade and argues that a better way to

gain efficiency is to flatten the management structure and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. One way the Postal Service has

saved costs is by reducing carrier and clerk hours and shifting

these hours onto the postmaster for the postmaster to work instead

of the clerk or carrier. Today, many postmasters are working 60

and 70 hours a week, some even more. Mr. Chairman, massive

burnout is close. A disaster is looming on the horizon and I would

be remiss in my duties if I did not make that perfectly clear.

Finally, instead of becoming more efficient, we are becoming

more and more bureaucratic, more telecons, more forms, more reports. It needs to stop. One way is to eliminate management layers.

The Postal Service recently cut the number of districts down to 74.

It needs to do more and reduce these down to something more like

40. The idea is not that cost savings come from the positions cut,

but from the streamlining and removal of layers of management

making decisions easier and cheaper to make and easier and

cheaper to implement. The thing to do in these challenging times

is to flatten the bureaucracy and trust that postmasters will rise

to meet the challenge. We would do that if the Postal Service would

let us.

Thank you for considering our views.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mapa follows:]

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Mr. Keating.

STATEMENT OF TED KEATING

Mr. KEATING. Good afternoon, Chairman Lynch. It is comforting

to NAPS, as Charlie indicated, that my Boston accent will not be

a problem for this committee. [Laughter.]

Mr. LYNCH. No, you will not need a translator with me. [Laughter.]

Mr. KEATING. The Postal Service continues to suffer from the

steady erosion of mail volume. Last month USPS reported the

eighth consecutive quarter of lower mail volume, volume down

more than 15 percent from where it was this time last year. Even

greater losses are predicted through the remainder of this year.

The last time mail volume fell by this much was in 1937, in the

midst of the Depression.

The Postal Service has not been passive in response to the worsening financial condition. Over the past year, as mail volume has

continued to steadily decline, the Postal Service has initiated aggressive cost-cutting actions that have reduced the financial loss.

The Postal Service has cut 50 million work hours, stopped construction of new post offices and facilities, instituted a nationwide

hiring freeze, consolidated mail processing operations, and reduced

hours in many post offices.

Last Friday, it announced the closure of 6 of its 80 districts, the

elimination of more than 1,400 mail processing supervisor and

management positions at nearly 400 facilities around the country

and the offering of another early retirement opportunity to nearly

150,000 postal employees. These actions are expected to save the

Postal Service more than $100 million annually. More job cuts are

likely to come as downsizing continues, operations are streamlined

and processing and delivery networks are made more efficient.

Indeed, much more remains to be done to restore the financial

health of the Postal Service. Congress needs to do its part, Mr.

Chairman. We urge the committee to move ahead and promptly report out H.R. 22.

Even when H.R. 22 passes, however, we will not be out of the

swamp. Additional steps will be necessary. Let me take a moment

to comment on these additional steps the post office should take.

First and foremost, the Postal Service needs to rethink its organizational structure and reorganize itself. Its nationwide management framework, currently built around 10 geographic areas, is far

too large and bureaucratic and costly to be allowed to continue. The

Postal Service should return to an organizational structure based

on five geographic regions.

It is time that the Postal Service applies the same cost-cutting

scrutiny to the members of its executive ranks as it is applying to

middle and lower management. Let me repeat that: it is time the

Postal Service applies the same cost-cutting scrutiny to its executive ranks as it applies to middle and lower management.

Second, the Postal Service should promptly withdraw from the

practice of buying homes for its employees ostensibly in support of

relocation needs. This policy has caused the Postal Service to rack

up significant losses. The downsides of this policy are now becomVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
134

ing more and more evident as the Postal Service faces an inventory

of homes it must continue to pay to maintain until it can sell them.

Third, the Postal Service should stop tolerating the practice of

detailing supervisors and managers to positions that don’t officially

exist in the organizational structure. Currently there are hundreds

of supervisors detailed to these ad hoc positions, created at the discretion of district managers to address issues that personally concern them.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that I need to raise an internal

management matter like this to your attention. It is only one of the

numerous problems that NAPS and the postmaster organizations

have raised with the Postal Service. Like so many of the recommendations, they have been ignored by top USPS management.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Postal Service faces grave challenges brought about by the deep recession and aggravated further

by continuing electronic diversion. These challenges, however, are

not unconquerable. Through the three initiatives I touched upon,

including the swift passage of H.R. 22, the finances of the Postal

Service could eventually be stabilized. Postal supervisors look forward to working with you and the Congress to make sure that happens.

Thank you for the consideration of my testimony. I look forward

to continuing the dialog with you as time allows.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keating follows:]

135

136

137

138

139

140

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Let me begin by asking each of you, in terms of the proposal by

the post office presently to reduce delivery days from 6 to 5, it

seems from your own testimony that there is more that can be

gained from getting rid of some of the bureaucracy here and perhaps even consolidating some of the post offices and areas, other

than the rural areas. I understand the situation where the post office is the only game in town. As Mr. Goff indicated in New England, you have post offices that operate as a pharmacy, a bank, and

in a lot of small towns, the post office and the health center and

a gas station, that is pretty much your hub of some of these towns.

But in areas where you have a high density of post offices, have

we leapt over that phase instead and are looking to cut a delivery

day already? Are we going too quickly in this suggested solution?

Or should we be dropping back to look at some of these ways of

reducing costs?

Mr. GOFF. Mr. Chairman, I know the 6 to 5-day delivery thing,

I can tell you as an organization, as the president of NAPUS, that

I am totally against reducing down to 5-day delivery. And I say

that for several reasons. Coming from one of the largest cities and

the operational side of this, just think of the holidays that we have

now, the 10 or 12 that we have during the year. That day after the

holiday, we are constantly making up for the day that we just

missed. So if we had a savings on that 1 day of reducing down to

5 days, my idea is that we are going to just play holiday every time

after that 5th day, that we are going to catch up.

So, if there is a savings on that 1 day, we are going to lose it

on that following day.

Now, as far as the amount that would be saved from that, I am

not sure if the figures are all totally accurate. We have heard three

or four different figures today on just what that savings would be.

But from an operational side, how do we keep the mail flowing? We

flow it now. Are the retail areas still going to work? Are the clerks

still going to work to process mail? So I am not sure that the big

savings is there.

And when you talk about the consolidation of the postal network

or the stores that we have out there, I think there is some room

that we can do it as far as stations within the big cities, the big

urban areas. As you said, the rural areas, that cannot be done.

That is the life line of those communities. But I would think that

we could look at some type of area there where we could take a

station in downtown New York City and maybe put some consolidation there. As was said earlier, do we need to have one in every

high rise building. I don’t think we do, because the volume is not

there any more.

I still say that even though, and you heard Mr. Mapa say that,

we went down to 74 districts, there is still a lot of room. Mr. Chairman, we have 50 States. We could go with 50 districts. Or better

yet, we could eliminate all of the districts and just stay with our

areas we have out there. As Mr. Davis said this morning about the

communication age that we are in now, and believe me, there are

postmasters sitting in this room right now that will tell you, Big

Brother is there. Big Brother watches us on the computer all the

141

time. They know everything that we are doing. I think that can

still streamline that way.

And it is incumbent upon us, whether it is management or union

or the upper executives in the Postal Service, that we have to work

together to change this structure.

Mr. LYNCH. My time is just about expired. I would like to give

5 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to further

explore this idea of 5-day delivery, I would like to get the other

gentlemens’ input on that. Is there some sort of sliding scale or

maybe it is not for every single week, or 10 days a year? Is there

somewhere in between that you find acceptable?

Mr. MAPA. Five-day delivery, it sounds good, on the outset. But

then if you examine it like Mr. Goff has done, he is there in the

post office on a Tuesday after 3 days off. The mail accumulates.

You are delivering Saturday, Sunday and Monday mail. And that

holiday mail. So if we are going to take another delivery day out

of the week, then that means you are going to, every week, be delivering 3 days of mail on, let’s say, a Monday. It is a real challenge. Your carriers have to carry a lot more mail. You have a lot

more mail to put in the boxes. You have up times that you are punished for if you don’t make it in time for that. So that is one aspect

that we have to examine.

The other aspect is even though they say that 85 percent of

Americans don’t care if we deliver mail to them on Saturday, what

about the 15 percent that do? Who are those 15 percent? Are those

the businesses out there that actually pay a lot of money into the

postal system that help keep us going? I don’t think we need to be

too cavalier when we say we want to go to 5-day delivery. I think

there are a lot of aspects that we really have to examine before we

jump on that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have other suggestions? I don’t think anybody necessarily wants to do this. The question is, what are we are

going to have to do and what is most palatable, what is not? So

in its place, I guess a challenge to all three of you is, in its place,

what other options are there to come up with literally a couple billion dollars?

Mr. MAPA. Before we came here today, we did not sit down and

compare notes about what kind of testimony we would do. But I

saw in all three of our testimonies we called to attention the immense bureaucracy in the Postal Service and the need to reduce

that. I know that Ted would love to have his supervisors be able

to supervise, Dale and I would love to have our postmasters be able

to run their post offices. We are responsible people, we have been

trained to manage. If you gave us half a chance, I think the Postal

Service would be surprised. But we are so into micromanaging

every breath, I just think it is unhealthy the way we do things in

the Postal Service.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I want to give a little time to Mr. Keating, please.

Mr. KEATING. Sure. I too have previously testified against the 5-

day delivery. I think that it would be the beginning of the end of

the Postal Service as we know it as a service to the American people. I think that the layers of management are one thing, but there

is a lot of, the Postal Service came to us last year, the three organiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Aug 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\50649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
142

zations, probably the unions too, and asked for givebacks because

of the financial situation. We thought about it, and in the end we

eventually said no, because we see daily the waste that goes on in

the Postal Service. We give them ideas about how they can save

money and they totally ignore it.

So until we see postal headquarters addressing some of the

issues that we have given to them, we are not going to be thinking

about giving givebacks to the Postal Service. There are a lot of

things we can do internally still to get the Postal Service back in

shape. I believe we can do that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Goff.

Mr. GOFF. I agree with Mr. Keating. That was my thought, when

you asked that question. There are so many things that we have

brought forward, and just to be told no, that we are not going to

do that. We heard several times today that you are consulting with

the management associations on some issues. And I think you saw

me a couple of times just go like that, and I am going, well, I don’t

remember talking about that. Maybe they are going to consult with

us in the future on it.

But there are some issues that we have brought forward, the details that are out there, the money that we spent on people per

diem staying in hotels as they work on the details somewhere. And

some of these districts, and I can speak back for home, you may

have 15, 20, 30, 50 people working on details. There is cost involved there. We have other areas we can tighten up with.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I guess one of the challenges that I would ask you

all long-term and short-term as well to work toward and to think

about that I would be particularly interested in seeing is, the idea

of consolidating distribution facilities, post offices, I think there is

a distinct difference between a rural post office, which could be the

center of town, I can think of several in my district. I have a very

urban component, I have a very rural component. I think of Oak

City. Oak City in my district is a very, very small town, but the

post office is the center of town. It is where people gather, they do

a lot more than just pick up the mail.

I think it is a very different equation than how you deal with

maybe an urban center or downtown where there may be post offices that are literally two or three blocks apart from each other.

How to tackle that issue I think is something that needs to be addressed long term. My time is out now, the light is red, but maybe

we can explore this more in the future.

Thank you, all three of you, for being here. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Also, I would like to point out that we are going through a process right now about how to deal with the instability in the Postal

Service right now. We do have your testimony. Some of these parts

of solutions are loosely developed and others are more detailed,

such as H.R. 22. But we would want to hear from you. I think it

is very important that the postmasters, folks that are on the front

lines and trying to manage this system, have an opportunity to try

to contribute to the solution. I think that is a very important piece

there.

143

So just as the Chair of the committee, and I am sure I speak for

the other Members on both sides, we welcome your input. I think

you have pointed out some things that we haven’t heard from the

other panels. And I think they are well-founded.

Let me ask you, Mr. Goff, you also mentioned in your testimony

about the possible projected over-payment by the U.S. Postal Service into the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund and the fact that

OPM could go back and more accurately calculate that. That is

something that interests me, because this H.R. 22 issue and how

we solve that or provide some relief to that funding requirement

is a very important piece here. Everybody has talked about that.

If we don’t have accurate numbers in terms of what is required in

the first place, we need to have a solid base that we are operating

from. I need that number to be as hard as possible, the number

that we need and the amount of relief, obviously, that is required.

Could you expand on that a little bit, amplify that point?

Mr. GOFF. Just as we have been talking, we are trying to look

at ways that we can go back in and help the Postal Service. Just

as you were saying, too, we feel under the previous administration

that when we got this situation taken care of, the figure that came

about, it was one that was OK for everybody, yes, we were overpaying. But we still feel after looking at it for a while now that the

overpayments, we are still overpaying into that fund. I think that

needs to be looked at. It is just another area that we think we can

go in and find some additional funds that the Postal Service would

have.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Just so you know, I have asked my staff, committee staff to send a letter to John Barry, who is the new Director

of OPM, and ask him to give me a good hard number, look at these

numbers again and obviously, in this environment, we can’t have

the Postal Service overpaying. Then we have to figure out a way

to provide some relief that there that doesn’t put the whole health

benefit system in jeopardy. We are trying to find a way forward

here on that point, much as H.R. 22 has suggested.

But I want to have, you sort of, you need to have the right numbers to work from before you throw a projection out there, otherwise we are acting on bad information. We can’t have that, because

there is so much at risk here. But just so you know, I understand

what you said, and we are going to try to get a better number on

that going forward.

We appreciate your coming before us. We appreciate the testimony that you have rendered here. This is an ongoing process. So

we want you to be involved here. We think you have a lot that you

can contribute in your years of service and your perspective. And

you are welcome partners in this, I just want you to know that.

Your insight has been very valuable to the committee. Thank you

very much.

We have the final panel, welcome, gentlemen. It is the committee

policy that all witnesses are sworn in. May I ask you to rise,

please, and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LYNCH. Let the record show that the witnesses have responded in the affirmative.

144

I will give a brief introduction and then we will have your testimony. Mr. William Burrus, president of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO, represents the largest single bargaining unit

in the United States, which consists of more than 330,000 clerk,

maintenance and motor vehicle employees working in 38,000 facilities in the U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. William Young is president of the National Association of

Letter Carriers. He is the 17th president of that association. Its

300,000-member union represents city letter carriers employed in

the U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. John Hegarty is president of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union. Mr. Hegarty was sworn into office as National Postal

Mail Handlers Union president effective July 1, 2002. For the 10-

years prior to becoming the national president, Mr. Hegarty served

as the president of Local 301 in New England, the second largest

local union affiliated with the Mail Handlers Union.

Mr. Don Cantriel is president of the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association. He began his postal career in Bland, MO, where

he was a member of the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association. Mr. Cantriel has served at all levels of the association, beginning with the president of his local unit.

Welcome, gentlemen, and if I could, I would invite Mr. Burrus

for his opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM BURRUS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL–CIO; WILLIAM H. YOUNG,

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL–CIO; JOHN F. HEGARTY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION; AND DON

CANTRIEL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS’ ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BURRUS

Mr. BURRUS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,

thank you for convening this hearing on the financial stability of

the U.S. Postal Service and for providing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the dedicated employees that our union represents.

I commend the committee through your leadership, Mr. Chairman, for convening today’s hearing on this critical topic at a pivotal

time in the history of the U.S. Postal Service. Mr. Chairman, I will

summarize my remarks, but I ask that the complete written testimony be admitted into the record. It has been a long day and I will

try to be as brief as I can.

The Nation and the world are experiencing a financial collapse

that is unparalleled in modern history and the Postal Service, like

most institutions in our society, has been adversely affected. Mail

volume has declined, leading to deficits that threaten the very

foundation of the Postal Service.

The Postal Service can take steps on its own to respond to the

crisis, but Congress must also play its part. The most important

thing that Congress can do is to pass H.R. 22, which will provide

temporary relief from the crippling obligation to pre-fund future retiree health care costs. Absent this relief, it is unlikely that the

Postal Service can survive in its present form.

145

Over the past 10 years, as the mailing industry engaged in debate over postal reform, the overriding focus was the impact of

email, the Internet, and the cost burden associated with serving an

additional 1.8 million delivery addresses each year. With all the

emphasis on a new form of communication, there was no focus on

the real driving factor of hard copy communications, the economy.

And as the country slid toward the recession that now engulfs us,

no attention was paid to declining mail volume due to economic

stagnation.

Advocates of postal reform ignored the burden that pre-funding

retiree health care liabilities would pose on a service that would

soon suffer double digit volume reductions as a result of the Nation’s economic decline. The postal community identified the wrong

threats and was totally unprepared for the challenges we now face.

Email, the Internet and other forms of instant communications are

viewed as direct challenges to hard copy communications. But we

have known about them for years. And looking backward is of little

value when we need a vision for the future.

The numbers speak for themselves. Annual deficits are expected

far into the future. Yet the only solutions postal management has

offered are reductions in work hours, consolidation of facilities and

5-day delivery. It is expected at some point management will suggest modifications to employees’ wages and benefits in order to

stem the tide of red ink. But I defer to that time any public comment on that possibility.

I would like to inform Congress that of the group representing

postal employees, the crafts represented by the APWU have been

reduced disproportionately, 110,000 employees over a 10-year period. We would expect that reductions and other sacrifices would be

shared equally among the entire postal community. But no business can exist for long with a strategy based on cost reduction

alone. Eventually it will become impossible to maintain an acceptable level of service and there will be nothing left to cut.

However, there are steps management can initiate to address the

issue of financial stability. They could begin with a fundamental

shift in the relationship between the Postal Service and commercial

mailers. And I quote an observation by Joy Leong, a contributor to

the newsletter Mailing Systems Technology, ‘‘Mailers are customers of the Postal Service, not shareholders. Printers, mail fulfillment services and other vendors are contractors of the Postal

Service, not shareholders.’’ In recent years, these lines have been

blurred and major mailers have assumed the role of shareholders.

They have formed organizations that have been granted unfettered

access to the inner working of the Postal Service and to the decisionmaking process.

One umbrella organization has even been afforded office space in

postal headquarters. This cozy relationship between postal executives and major business mailers is unhealthy and counter-productive. One of the byproducts of this relationship is the preservation

of work share discounts that benefit the mailers at the expense of

Postal Service stability. I have repeatedly shared with Members of

Congress the views of my Union on excessive work share discounts

and their corrosive effect on postal finances. Because over time,

work share discounts have morphed into a disgraceful policy that

146

rewards large mailers with rate reductions so extreme as to be absurd.

Mr. LYNCH. [Remarks off microphone.]

Mr. BURRUS. Yes. Let me make this one point, Mr. Chairman. After investing $20 billion in automation designed to affix bar

codes on handwritten and other non-bar coded mail, the Postal

Service has converted a 1 cent per piece cost into what amounts

to a 10.5 cent bonus to work shares. This practice, policy and ratemaking process is detrimental to the health of the U.S. Postal

Service.

But I have sung this song before, Mr. Chairman. Throughout the

debate on postal reform, I have said that postal management has

chosen a path that would lead to insolvency, and let me close with

this, Mr. Chairman. The USPS’ current predicament is the result

of a flawed business strategy and a lack of vision of how hard copy

communications can be relevant into the future. Management has

failed to find a meaningful role for the world’s best delivery force,

a system that reaches every American home 6 days per week, has

a network of 40,000 facilities, enjoys stellar name recognition and

boasts a dedicated work force. Until the Postal Service finds a way

to morph that proud tradition and work force into a meaningful

role, far into the future of the Nation’s communications systems,

even with H.R. 22, the Postal Service will not be long for the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burrus follows:]

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, President Burrus.

President Young.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Good afternoon, Chairman Lynch and Ranking

Member Chaffetz.

My written submission describes in some detail how and why we

have come to this critical point in history of this extraordinary institution. It provides background on the retiree health issue, its

funding, and it outlines specific recommendations. Primary among

them is H.R. 22. I am pleased to note that 9 of the 11 members

of this subcommittee are now co-sponsors. You join the 208 other

co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. That is very encouraging to all of us here.

When the American public reacts with outrage and disgust at the

travesty of AIG, and when they fume about bailouts for banks, brokers and insurance companies that often reward wheeler dealers

who got us into these unprecedented financial messes, you listen

and you act. And you should. But I hope the innocent victims of

this greed, the corruption and incompetence of Wall Street, don’t

get lost in the midst of all this anger. And believe me, my members

are angry too. The financial elite of this country, aided and abetted

by misguided deregulation, have trashed our economy. And the historic recession we face threatens the jobs and well-being of 700,000

postal families across the country.

Nothing we did, nothing the Postal Service did and nothing the

postal industry did caused this crisis. So we hope that Congress

will listen and act to help us overcome it. I want you to know that

all of us are doing everything that we can do. The Postmaster General outlined that in his testimony, I won’t repeat it here.

I would suggest to you that letter carriers know a little something about helping out in a crisis, about steadiness when there is

panic in the air, about sharing and about sacrifice. When anthrax

appeared in the mail stream, the chances of public panic were significant. Letter carriers didn’t panic. They continued to do their

jobs in a very frightening environment. There was no public panic,

and eventually things returned to normalcy.

When Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, many letter carriers

lost their homes and all of their possessions. It was not until letter

carriers appeared on the streets of New Orleans that the public

panic began to subside and that normalcy returned.

When officials from the Homeland Security Department needed

a way to distribute vaccinations in our country if it came under a

biological attack, the Nation’s letter carriers stepped up to the

plate and volunteered to make those distributions under the City

Readiness Initiative. Every year we volunteer our services, we conduct the Nation’s largest food drive on the second Saturday in May.

We replenish all the local food banks across America, delivering

over 70 million pounds of food.

We do these things because we accept our role in society. We are

the men and women trusted by America to deliver their mail. We

come to you now because the Postal Service is in trouble, and we

need your help.

155

We contend that before you consider any drastic and counter-productive measures, such as the move to 5-day delivery, or redefining

universal service, Congress can and should take several other steps

to strengthen the Postal Service, starting with the passage of H.R.

22. I outlined those other things, by the way, in my testimony, and

I won’t bore you with it here this afternoon.

With all due respect to Chairman Gallagher and Postmaster

General Potter, this is not the time to undercut public and mailer

respect for and reliance on the Postal Service by reducing postal

services drastically and counterproductively to 5 days a week. The

Nation’s mailers have diverse needs and business is conducted 6

days week in America. In general, they want 6-day delivery, need

6-day delivery and expect 6-day delivery. If the Postal Service

doesn’t provide it, some one else will demand the right to do it, and

that will only add to the woes of the Postal Service.

Now, we are here not to ask for a bailout. We are simply asking

to use money that we have already put aside, our own money, the

Postal Service’s own money, to get us through this crisis. I am not

going to get into a debate with you all about scoring rules, which

we all know can mean what we want them to mean when it suits

our political purposes. But I am confident that the same American

public that is quite sure something is very wrong about bailing out

AIG believes very strongly that something is right about the Postal

Service. They may not appreciate AIG’s traders scurrying off with

multi-million dollar bonuses, using taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars,

but they do appreciate their letter carrier earning his middle class

salary, paying their taxes, raising their children in the community

and faithfully delivering their mail each day.

And they will thank you for helping the Postal Service to use its

own rainy day fund to do that with a binding obligation to restore

that rainy day fund when this crisis is past. Not a bailout, not a

subsidy, not a loan. Our own money. How do you score that? Well,

I will tell you how I score it, I score it a home run for everyone,

the Postal Service, postal employees, mailers, postal customers,

and oh, by the way, the Congress of the United States.

Before I conclude, I would like to address one further last issue.

Earlier today, Chairman Lynch, you said that your concern about

H.R. 22 was that it would leave a $75 billion unfunded liability in

2016 for future retiree health benefits. First, I share your concern.

These benefits are my members’ benefits, and I would never support legislation that would endanger their payment.

Second, you should note, sir, that the $75 billion estimate is

highly uncertain, if not suspect. It assumes that retiree health benefit premiums will increase 7 percent a year forever. If there is

anybody in that country who can survive that, I would like to know

who it is. Seven percent a year, every single year, forever. I am

going to submit a report from Watson Wyatt that shows that Medicare and Medicaid don’t even believe that. Their more realistic,

long-term trend rate is 5 percent annually. That ought to be instructive.

Third, I would like you to know, sir, that under H.R. 22, the balance in the retiree health fund will continue to grow from $32 billion today to $71.5 billion in 2016. Do you know how much the typical private sector company has pre-funded for its employees today?

156

Zero. Do you know how much the Treasury, the Commerce, the

Labor Departments have pre-funded? Zero. Do you know how much

the Congress of the United States has pre-funded for you and your

employees? Zero.

So please, let’s not kill the Postal Service out of an understandable yet tenuous concern about unfunded liabilities in 2016. The reality is, we need to re-examine the whole issue. I am delighted to

hear you said that you were going to look into that, sir. The current funding schedule was set by the prior administration to meet

short-term budget scoring rules. It wasn’t set on the basis of any

sound public policy or any sound accounting principles. In fact, and

this is the part I think you would be most interested in, sir, in fact,

a fair accounting of the Postal Service——

Mr. LYNCH. You really have to wrap up, sir.

Mr. YOUNG. This is it.

Mr. LYNCH. I appreciate that you have been here all day and I

am cutting you some slack. I get your message.

Mr. YOUNG. Can I finish one sentence?

Mr. LYNCH. Please do, yes.

Mr. YOUNG. In fact, a fair accounting of the Postal Service’s surplus and Civil Service Retirement Fund, which the OPM calculated

and the PAEA allocated to the retiree health benefit fund, would

most likely offset any unfunded liability. Zero. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

157

158

159

160

161

162

Mr. LYNCH. I thank you.

President Hegarty.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. HEGARTY

Mr. HEGARTY. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Lynch,

Ranking Member Chaffetz. I appreciate the opportunity to testify

and I would ask that my entire written testimony be submitted for

the record.

Mr. LYNCH. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. HEGARTY. As with your predecessor, it is an honor to have

someone as Chair of this subcommittee who has such a rich background in labor and postal issues, Mr. Chairman. I wish to focus

my comments today on what Congress and the executive branch

can do, as well as what we, the Mail Handlers Union, are doing

to help the Postal Service through its current financial crisis. The

first step is to simply enact H.R. 22.

How often does Congress see a bill that would rectify a multi-billion dollar debt situation, keep a vital function of Government

alive, yet cost the taxpayer not 1 cent? That is what H.R. 22 does.

How often are the Postal Service, the mailers, the unions, the

management associations and the $900 billion industry associated

with the mail all on the same page? This is it, and it has bipartisan

support.

Aside from not costing the public the public a penny, H.R. 22 has

the added benefit of continuing to increase the amount of money

in the trust fund for future retirees’ health care, and it does not

reduce any health care benefits. Furthermore, it gives the Postal

Service some flexibility for the foreseeable future. And I fully support keeping the trust fund healthy.

All of us at this table are in agreement. There is one aspect of

this process, however, that I would like to address, the imposition

of the CBO scoring on this bill. If CBO scores an obstacle, then

Congress needs to take a close look at the problem created by the

rules under which CBO operates. The scoring issue may be singular to the Postal Service. It is a quasi-governmental agency,

which receives no Federal appropriation for its operations. It is off

budget for some purposes and on budget for others. Why should an

intergovernmental transfer of U.S. Postal Service funds that in the

long term will not change the finances of the Treasury by 1 cent

and will not change the Postal Service’s total obligation or the total

amount of their retiree health care benefit fund, be construed as

adding to the deficit? Why should a fix that does not cost the taxpayers or the users of the Postal Service one penny be scored?

While it may make some sense in an academic accounting ledger

world, it does not make common sense in the real world.

If legislation similar to H.R. 22 is not passed, the Postal Service

may not be able to meet all its financial obligations as soon as September 30th of this year. That inaction would lead to a much bigger debt, the debt incurred by American society if we allow the

Postal Service and the $900 billion industry which depends on it

to fail. I obviously think Congress should figure out a way to pass

H.R. 22. It is, in the words of President Obama’s Reinvestment Act,

temporary, targeted and job-saving. It is similar to the stimulus aid

163

sent to the States to prevent layoffs and cuts in services. I hope the

subcommittee will look closely at this issue.

I am often asked, what are we, the Mail Handlers Union, doing

to help the Postal Service cut costs. There is a complex story to be

told here. First, during the past 10 years, thousands of mail handler jobs and more than 100,000 total postal jobs have been eliminated, mostly through attrition, while the mail continues to be

processed and delivered professionally and on time. That is why

postal employee productivity is at an all-time high.

We have also aggressively pursued labor management programs

to reduce overhead. Let me give you just a few examples. The ergonomic risk reduction process has succeeded in reducing repetitive

motion injuries by as much as 35 percent. Because of the forceful

backing of the Postmaster General and his headquarters staff,

plant managers have embraced this effort. It has been estimated

that the ergonomic risk reduction process saves on average 20 injuries per facility per year where the process is used, about a fivefold

return on the dollar. These reductions account for approximately

$77.8 million in cost avoidance.

Then there is the voluntary protection program which is driven

by employees and is OSHA-related. It looks at the cause of a specific, often traumatic injury, and seeks to prevent a recurrence.

There are measurable differences in the injury rates in facilities

that use this program versus those that do not.

Starting in 1999, the Postal Service and our union developed a

joint contract interpretation manual to encourage union and management representatives at all levels to resolve and reach consistent results on pending issues. It has saved many millions of dollars

and added a level of predictability and responsibility to our craft.

The parties also have a quality of working life program, which

provides opportunities for mail handlers and supervisors working

together to identify and resolve work problems in the work place.

The Postal Service reports that the savings are substantial, in the

millions of dollars.

Finally, as a former labor leader, Mr. Chairman, you know how

complicated a give and take process collective bargaining can be.

Yet in our current contract, which was negotiated in 2006, ratified

by our members and expires in 2011, we are reducing by 1 percent

each year the amount the Postal Service pays toward our health

care. The other unions and management associations are also on

board with these reductions. The Postal Service’s cost eventually

will be reduced by more than $250 million per year when all

unions and postal employees are taken into account. In these 5

years alone, the Postal Service is saving over $800 million, just

from this one contract provision.

So in my view, the unions have stepped up to the plate. We ask

that Congress do the same by passing H.R. 22.

Thank you for your time and attention. I will be happy to answer

any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hegarty follows:]

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, sir.

President Cantriel.

STATEMENT OF DON CANTRIEL

Mr. CANTRIEL. Thank you, Chairman Lynch, members of the subcommittee. I would like to extend my thanks to the committee for

scheduling a hearing on restoring the financial stability of the Postal Service.

I would ask that my full testimony be submitted for the record.

Mr. LYNCH. Without objection.

Mr. CANTRIEL. I will give a brief summary of my statement.

Mr. Chairman, as the NRLCA’s national president, it is in our

members’ best interest to work toward the creation of a financially

stable Postal Service. Toward this end, our union has been working

together with the Postal Service to establish revenue-generating

programs along with ways to reduce costs for the Postal Service.

One revenue-generating program we use is called Rural Reach. To date, the rural carrier craft has generated $26 million for the

Postal Service and we fully expect by the end of the first full year

of existence to exceed $30 million in revenue for the Postal Service.

Our union is the only union that can claim that actual employee

wages, what our employees take home in his or her paycheck every

2 weeks, is in large measure based on mail volume. Every year,

rural routes are evaluated and rural carrier salaries are established based on the work performed each day during the evaluation. Mail volume is a critical factor in the salary-setting process.

During boom times for the Postal Service, rural carriers can see an

increase in the route evaluations. Until recently route evaluations

generally went up due to increased mail volume and an expanding

customer base.

Unfortunately, our last two mail counts resulted in significant reduction in rural route evaluation, impacting tens of thousands of

rural letter carriers and causing their salaries to be lower. Last

year, in a 2-week mail count, rural routes served by our members

lost anywhere from 2 to 12 hours of pay each week. Each evaluated

hour is worth more than $1,500 per year. So you can see how declining mail volume dramatically affects the men and women we

represent.

This year, the NRLCA had a 4-week mail count during the last

2 weeks in February, the first 2 weeks in March. Official results

from this recently completed mail count are not available. We are

once again expecting rural route evaluations to go down, not up.

The point I am making is quite simple: our people are hurting.

They are making less money or in some cases opting to work an

additional day to make the same amount of money. It is pretty simple: reduction in rural route evaluations translates into direct savings to the Postal Service. If mail volumes decline, chances are very

good that the Postal Service will be paying our members less because there will be less mail to deliver and collect each day.

Never let it be said that rural carriers are not doing their part

to help the company. We have been doing it for decades with our

evaluated compensation system. If the business falters, labor costs,

at least rural letter carriers’ labor costs are adjusted downward.

Every postal employee we represent knows in the pocketbook what

191

it means for the company to be challenged by declining mail volume.

The Postal Service can save literally hundreds of millions of dollars if routes are evaluated when mail volume is low. But this annual adjustment mechanism does not stop with salaries. Most rural

letter carriers still provide their own delivery vehicles, from which

they are paid an equipment maintenance allowance. EMA is adjusted quarterly by measuring fluctuations in CPI-W, transportation index. In other words, EMA payments to rural carriers go

down when costs, including the costs of fuel, go down. These regular adjustments have recently resulted in significant cost savings

for the Postal Service, as gasoline and automobile prices have

dropped sharply.

Our union, like the other postal unions during the last contract

negotiations cycle, lost some ground on health benefit costs and

now pays a large percentage of health insurance premiums. Our

members now pay more while the employer contribution to Federal

employee health benefit premiums, as a percentage of total cost, is

lower. As health care costs for businesses and corporations continue to rise, our union members will pay an additional 4 percent

of the Federal employees health benefit programs over the life of

the current collective bargaining agreement. It is another example

of how our bargaining unit has provided additional savings to the

Postal Service.

The most important piece of legislation Congress should enact is

H.R. 22, introduced by Representatives John McHugh and Danny

Davis. The Postal Service is saddled with an ambitious payment

schedule to pre-fund its retirees’ health benefits. This is an obligation no other corporation or Government agency is required to prefund. The last administration required this provision to be included

for one simple purpose, to make the PAEA budget neutral.

There are several other savings opportunities that the Postal

Service would have based on the actions of Congress, including

helping them with the Medicare Part D, recalculation, looking at

the way that the FERS retirement system is set up, and the payment that is made for military retirees.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer

any additional questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cantriel follows:]

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Thank you all. We appreciate your testimony.

Let me ask, there has been a menu of options that the Postmaster General laid out and reinforced by the Board of Governors,

Ms. Gallagher. They talked about a voluntary separation program,

voluntary retirement program. To my knowledge, at least the way

they described it, it was not incentivized in any manner. I can’t remember the last time they did an incentivized retirement program.

It might have been 1982, I think, when my mom retired. That is

the last one I remember.

But there hasn’t been a great groundswell, they are not beating

the door down to get out of there. I question the efficacy of a program like that when the economy is so weak. Do you actually think

people are going to go into retirement when they see their 401(k)

and their investments cut in half? What are your thoughts on this

effort to get 150,000 postal employees to take an early retirement?

Mr. BURRUS. Speaking for the members of the American Postal

Workers Union, they are not fools, they are not going to relinquish

a job paying in excess of $50,000 a year to the uncertainty of a bad

economic situation. It is an act of desperation. They are not going

to have many takers, I predict. Our union maintains that our collective bargaining agreement requires an incentive. We will resolve

that through the grievance arbitration process.

But it is similar to the threat of 5-day delivery. It is a diversion.

There is no intent, there is no desire, and it is certainly over Congress’ congressional dead body that they will get a 5-day delivery.

Mentioning those things sucks all the oxygen out of the discussion, while we are collectively fighting as hard as we can to get

H.R. 22 passed. We really don’t need these sideshows. So I am very

critical of them even bringing these things up. They are not the answer to the USPS problem.

There are some long-term solutions, but the initial hurdle is the avoidance of that $5-plus billion obligation they have to the future

retiree health benefits.

Mr. LYNCH. Understood. That is loud and clear.

Mr. Young, on the early retirement piece here, if I am missing

something.

Mr. YOUNG. Excuse me, I couldn’t hear you, sir.

Mr. LYNCH. On the early retirement piece here, do you think that

is going to be successful the way they have it framed right now?

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir, I don’t. In the last early retirement that was

just offered to my members, less than 3,000 of them took it. It is

the uncertainty. You said it exactly right. When people lost all

their retirement savings, when the stock market plunged, they

don’t know what they are facing, what the future is going to look

like. There is a lot of people out there that are scared.

I want to get back to this idea of these things that Potter and

Gallagher brought to you this morning, and I just want to question

in a general way, Mr. Lynch, whether it makes sense to try to

make these kinds of decisions when the Postal Service is at the bottom. This would be like restructuring the Postal Service during the

Great Depression. Nobody that I have talked to in this country believes we are going to be mired forever in the current economic

state that we are. At least we all pray to God we are not.

201

So I think it makes a lot more sense to look at this when normalcy returns. I would just say one thing, a lot of people are starting to believe now that all of a sudden the Internet and these other

alternatives jumped into this. During the last 6 years, the Postal

Service made all the right moves to protect themselves from that.

And as one of the earlier panels testified, we would have actually

made $2.8 billion last year if it hadn’t been for this future retiree

health benefit payment. So I think the real key is what you said,

let’s find out what that real number is. What is the real number,

what is that obligation, and then let’s go from there in trying to

decide how we make this the best Postal Service with the funds

that we have available.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Hegarty.

Mr. HEGARTY. On the voluntary early retirement, I have a couple

of concerns. Something for the committee to consider too is, employees hired since 1984 under the Federal Employees Retirement

System, if they take an early retirement, they lose the ability to

contribute to the thrift savings plan, they lose the matching contributions, they don’t qualify for social security right away, they

really can’t live on it. A typical voluntary early retirement offer in

the last round for an employee hired in mid-1984 is $900 a month.

So I don’t know any postal employee who, as President Burrus

said, would go from a good-paying middle class job could live on

$900 a month.

For the Civil Service Retirement employees, the picture is a little

bit better for them. They were all hired in 1983 or before, some of

them are approaching normal retirement age. But I would love to

see incentives, I just don’t know where the money would come from

for that, either.

Mr. LYNCH. Right.

Mr. HEGARTY. And the last time they did an incentive was 1992,

and they lost so many employees in so many wrong places they had

to hire to replace a lot of the employees that they took the voluntary retirement.

Mr. LYNCH. I know I am over my time. But I am going to ask,

President Cantriel, could you also hit that same question?

Mr. CANTRIEL. Because we are the last mile of delivery, this is

the first time we have ever been offered the voluntary early retirement. Like the NALC, we had 606 carriers who took advantage of

voluntary early retirement. The comments that I heard throughout

the country was, if I am going to have to work, I would just as well

work for the Postal Service, because I cannot live on what I would

be getting from my retirement without some sort of an incentive

to do it. That was the general feeling from ours.

I don’t expect a large portion of our membership to take advantage of it this time. And in positions other than the declining mail

volume, which may result in the loss of some routes, if one of our

people retires, someone has to replace them, because we are that

last mile, similar to the NALC. Someone is going to have to actually deliver that mail.

Mr. LYNCH. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Chaffetz for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to those

of you who have been here since 9:30 a.m. The chairman slipped

202

me a note and said, don’t worry, we are halfway there. So hang in

there with us. [Laughter.]

We have heard various testimony and the chorus has been fairly

united on the idea for support of H.R. 22. I personally support H.R.

22, now that I have been able to dive in and look at it. Obviously

I think it has the numbers and the support, in a broad way, bipartisan way, and hopefully we can get to that sooner rather than

later.

We need revenues to go up, we need expenses to go down to get

to that magical point. We have to deal with the fact, the realities

of where things are today. So I guess I would like to lead with a

sense of what are the top three things we could do to affect either

revenues going up and/or expenses going down? H.R. 22 plays a

critical and important role and gets us a long way toward that direction.

Taking maybe 30 seconds each, knowing that you will each take

a minute—[laughter]—maybe we could start with President

Cantriel there and give me a sense of what you would add to that

list. We need big things that are going to make big differences.

What are No.s 2 and 3 on that list that you would add?

Mr. CANTRIEL. I guess I would have to piggyback a little bit on

what you heard from the managers. We see so many levels out

there. I am going to use my postmaster I just talked to within the

last week when he told me what my evaluation was. He said, I am

so tired of filling out a report verifying that I filled out the reports

that had to be reported, and not given the opportunity to run my

office. One of his comments was, I know less about running my office now than I did 15 years ago when I got the position.

So I think there has to be some streamlining in middle management and put some responsibility back on those postmasters to

make those decisions. I think Charlie and Dale both said it very

well, they are very capable of making the decisions that need to be

made there. They don’t need three levels of middle management to

tell them what they need to do.

I think we are top heavy in a lot of areas. I don’t see that we

need 80 or 74 districts. I don’t think we need 10 areas to tell our

members how to deliver the mail. We have too many people that

are not actually handling the mail telling people that are handling

the mail what they need to do and how they need to do it.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

President Hegarty.

Mr. HEGARTY. Thank you. The first thing I think we need to do

is continue the revenue generation that the unions are participating in. The carriers and rural carriers have done it for a number

of years. We just started last year talking to vendors, people we do

business with, that don’t use the U.S. mail. We now have the opportunity to fill out a form or go on the computer and a professional Postal Service sales associate will call on that business and

explain to them the benefits of the mail, how they can get better

service, how they can save money.

So that is just taking off from my craft’s perspective. But as I

said, the letter carriers and the rurals have been doing it for quite

a while.

203

One thing I would caution that you should do is not go to 5-day

delivery. That would be in the top three for me. One of the reasons,

we have talked about driving people to our competitors. The other

thing I think that would do is drive people to the Internet. Because

the first time their bank statement doesn’t come on time or the

first time their credit card bill goes late, they are going to say the

heck with this, I can go online, do all that stuff and save myself

some postage.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

President Young.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, I am just going to give you the list. First and

foremost, restore the economy. When that is done, the Postal Service is fine.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If you can give me until Thursday—[laughter.]

Mr. YOUNG. That is what I was just going to say, you are from

Utah, you can do that by Thursday. [Laughter.]

Second, the Medicare subsidy Part D, that was designed for companies to provide a drug benefit equal to Medicare. We do and just

with the stroke of a pen the previous President said, we are not

going to give it to you, notwithstanding the fact that is about $8

billion right there, $8 billion is what I am told the number is there.

Management restructuring would be No. 3. And here is No. 4 for

you. We are still paying for FERS employees for the time they

spent in military service. In the Postal Reorganization Act that we

just passed in 2006, we took care of the CSRS employees, their previous military service. That was $17 billion, that was the cost of

that. We are still asking mailers and the people who pay postage

to pay for the time that anybody who is a FERS employee after

1984, any time they spent in the military. That would be significant as well.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Great, I appreciate it, thank you.

Mr. BURRUS. No. 1 is H.R. 22, No. 2 is restoring the economy,

No. 3, to infinity, is similar to jumping off a five-story building and

flapping your arms. It doesn’t cushion the fall, but it gives you

something to do on the way down. [Laughter.]

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNCH. Let me ask, one of the other legs of the stool that

Postmaster General Potter had thrown out there was consolidation

of some of these post offices. They have already gone with six facilities, six area facilities which I guess are largely for administrative

purposes. But there is a sense that there could be some consolidation of more of the urban post offices and while that might not necessarily affect the number of people out there in terms of your

workers, we may gain some efficiencies by discontinuing the leases

that we have out there or closing down some facilities out there

that are obsolete or not being utilized to full extent.

What are your thoughts on that idea about closing those facilities?

Mr. BURRUS. In general, we oppose consolidations. We support efficiencies, if the Postal Service can prove to the community that a

consolidation is in the interest of saving the Postal Service money

while providing the same level of service to the citizens of that

community, then we stand aside and will support such an effort.

204

But what we see in the current plan is deny the single user, my

grandmother, my cousin, the student in college, to deny them the

level of service they provide for the major mailers. Major mailers

follow the Postal Service, and it is actually beneficial to them, because it reduces the number of drop points where they take their

mail to. So consolidation saves money for your major printers and

major mailers.

But it is creating a two-tier U.S. Postal Service, one system for

the major mailers, a totally different system for the person who

drops the letter in the collection box at the end of the corner. That

is the danger of this consolidation plan. It is not just efficiency. It

is separating the Postal Service into one Postal Service for the

haves, another Postal Service for the have-nots. And we oppose

that.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Mr. Young.

Mr. YOUNG. I think it is worth a look, but I caution, and I think

you know this, so I know you do, sir, because of your background,

but it is going to be real heavy on all of you. Every time we try

to close any facility in your areas, you are going to hear from all

of the people that live in that area the millions of reasons as to

why it shouldn’t happen.

I would just make this one remark, and you just take it for what

it is worth. I believe this is the right number, if it is not, I apologize, but it is close. Long Island has 80 postmasters. Ask yourself

the question, do you think that is necessary? It is not that big of

an island.

Mr. LYNCH. President Hegarty.

Mr. HEGARTY. Well, again, if it makes sense, if it is going to save

the Postal Service money. But the key is, if it is not going to hurt

service, then we are not opposed to it, provided it is done in accordance with our collective bargaining agreement and the Postal Service’s own handbooks and manuals. They have a handbook called

the Handbook PO 408, it governs their area mail processing service, where they are supposed to do a survey. And under the PAEA,

they have to have community input, stakeholder input and hold a

public hearing.

One quick example, they are doing an A and P study right now

in my home facility of Springfield, MA, and they want to truck all

of the cancellation mail, the letters that come in that need to be

run on the cancellation machines, down to Hartford, CT, to be canceled, and then truck them back up to Springfield to be delivered.

I know you are familiar with the State of Massachusetts, Springfield to Hartford is about 35 miles, it is down I–91. They would be

going down there in rush hour traffic, all kinds of weather. It

doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

So those are the types of consolidations that we are opposed to.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Cantriel, I know that you represent the rural

carriers. So you are probably outside of the possibility of consolidation in many cases. But your thoughts?

Mr. CANTRIEL. Well, we do have some in urban areas, but yes,

I do deal mostly with the rural areas. There is a real identity problem there. They do not like losing that. There are solutions that

can be there, there are things that can be done to look at to make

sure that the communities are provided the same service that they

205

have. In my area, there are three or four small offices, in one post

office, three or four clerks could provide the same amount of hours

at the window and do the same amount of service without having

a manager there all day long and still provide the service that we

need in those rural communities.

I don’t look much toward closing a lot of those down because of

the identity for that community and what goes on there. So it is

a little more difficult for me to jump on board with closing down

very many offices.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, thank you.

I don’t believe we have any more questions, but I do have a comment, and that is that the Postal Service is one of the most respected Government institutions in this country because of what

the people you represent every day do in our communities, whether

they are rural communities, folks have a great deal of respect for

their local letter carrier in the cities as well as the suburbs. Their

local clerk is a very familiar face around town.

But it is really, that reputation of reliability and of great service

is largely due to the people that you represent. So we thank you

for that.

Just as I spoke earlier with the supervisor and postmasters that

we have an open process here on how to proceed, I do want to caution that time is wasting and we don’t have a lot of options here.

We don’t have a lot of time, let me put it that way. So we are going

to have to decide on a course of action and we are going to have

to get to it. Sounds like H.R. 22 in some iteration will be part of

that approach and that response.

But we would like to do more than just that, and we would welcome your input and your ideas. You see it at a ground level, and

you have seen it for a good while. And so we would be enriched by

having your input in this whole process. We welcome it.

I thank you for your testimony here, and have a good day.

[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. John M. McHugh and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

Æ