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

42–749 PDF 2009

S. Hrg. 110–938 

NOMINATION OF NANCI E. LANGLEY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON THE 

NOMINATION OF NANCI E. LANGLEY TO BE COMMISSIONER, POSTAL 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

APRIL 23, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 2 

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2008 

Nanci E. Langley, to be Commissioner, Postal Regulatory Commission: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 17 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 25 

Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics ............................................... 38 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF NANCI E. LANGLEY 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper and Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. The Committee will come to order, and I am 

pleased to serve as Chairman today alongside my friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, as the Committee considers the nomination 

of Nanci Langley to be Commissioner on the Postal Regulatory 

Commission. Welcome. 

Ms. LANGLEY. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. You look familiar. [Laughter.] 

I am not sure why. We are glad you are here with us today. 

Ms. Langley, your nomination comes at a difficult and challenging time for the Postal Service, although they have had plenty 

of challenging times before. Recently, in the last 7 years that I 

have served in the Senate, the economic slowdown that we have 

found ourselves in today has hurt a number of families and businesses, but it has hit the Postal Service early and hard. I described 

in a recent meeting with the Postmaster General, the Postal Service is a little bit like the canary in the coal mine in terms of feeling 

of the economic slowdown early 

We actually heard some testimony in our Subcommittee about 

the Postal Service potentially being on track, for the first time in 

many years, to suffer significant losses, maybe as high as in the 

billions of dollars. But hopefully that is not going to be the case. 

There is always the chance that some of the mail volume that 

the Postal Service has lost as a result of the slowing economy could 

be lost for good, although we hope not. The number of communications options available to postal customers and available to all of 

us continues to increase and to grow easier to use as well. 

But having said all that, I think this is also a time of great opportunity for the Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, a bill that you have played a key role in helping 

us to get enacted, along with my colleague, Senator Akaka, and 

others, has been the law of our land for more than a year now, and 

2 

we are starting to see, I believe, some real benefits that flow from 

it as a result. 

The Postal Service is set to change prices this spring using the 

streamlined cap-based rate system called for in the Act, and it is 

my hope that the Postal Service can use this new rate system in 

the coming years to offer customers some level of predictability and 

to be more competitive in the advertising and the mailing markets. 

We also have a new set of service standards for most postal products that I trust will make the Postal Service more relevant and 

more valuable to customers that now have a lot of other communications options. 

All this makes it vitally important that we have strong, experienced leadership, not just at the Postal Service, but at the Postal 

Regulatory Commission, too. 

The Commission can play a key role in helping the Postal Service 

through the challenges that it faces in the years to come. In some 

ways, they can do this by standing back and letting the Postal 

Service take advantage of the commercial opportunities that the 

Congress has given it. 

The Commission must also ensure that the Postal Service is acting in compliance with the law and fulfilling its service obligations. 

I look forward to hearing how you, Ms. Langley, can help the 

Commission fulfill the important role it has under the new law we 

worked so hard together to make reality. 

At this point in time, I want to yield to my friend and colleague, 

Senator Akaka, to actually introduce you to a room where you need 

little introduction. But I am anxious to hear what he has to say, 

nonetheless. Senator Akaka, you are on. Take it away. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is really 

a great pleasure to be serving with you and to be with you on this 

Committee. I want to say aloha and good afternoon to everyone 

here as well. I am delighted to be at this hearing to consider the 

nomination of Nanci Langley to be a Commissioner on the Postal 

Regulatory Commission. 

It is my distinct pleasure this afternoon to introduce Nanci Langley, whom I have had the privilege of knowing for the last 18 years. 

Although I say ‘‘introduce,’’ Nanci is by no means a stranger to this 

Committee. She served in my personal office for 10 years, handling 

an array of issues, and until recently served on this Committee as 

the Deputy Staff Director of what is now the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee. 

It was in that capacity that Nanci was my senior adviser on government management, Federal workers, and, importantly, the Postal Service. She was instrumental in working for years to ensure 

that my concerns—financial transparency and workers’ rights— 

were addressed in what became the recently enacted postal reform 

legislation. 

As the former Chair of the Postal Subcommittee, I can think of 

no one who is more qualified to be nominated to this position and 

serve as a Commissioner than Nanci Langley. She is well known 

and respected by the entire mailing community, having worked 

3 

closely with the Postal Service, mailers, and employees for many 

years. 

Being from my home State of Hawaii, thousands of miles away 

from the Mainland, let alone Washington, DC., she has a unique 

appreciation for just how important a role the mail system plays 

in everyday life. Her family was well aware of this. For 48 years, 

her parents owned a chain of clothing stores which relied on the 

Postal Service to receive timely deliveries of merchandise. 

Nanci came to work for me when I came to the Senate after the 

passing of my predecessor and colleague, Senator Spark Matsunaga. When I asked her to join my staff, little did she know that 

today she would be well known amongst the postal community as 

one of the foremost experts in the city on postal affairs. 

Not only does Nanci understand the needs of the Postal Service, 

more importantly she knows well and cares about the tens of thousands of employees that work at the Postal Service every day. It 

is this appreciation, which I share, that guides in balancing the 

needs of consumers, the Postal Service, and its employees. 

The Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), 

in particular, have recently undergone tremendous changes. These 

changes have created challenges and also opportunities. Consumers 

are now assured more regular, predictable rate increases as well as 

increased transparency in postal finances, due in large part to Ms. 

Langley’s hard work in crafting the postal reform legislation. As a 

testament to her expertise, after passing the postal reform legislation, which expanded the role of the Postal Regulatory Commission, 

she was tapped by PRC, headed by another former staffer of this 

Committee, Chairman Dan Blair, to run the Public and Governmental Affairs team. 

Since assuming that role, I can tell you that she has been as tenacious and outstanding as ever in balancing the needs of the postal community. While I was saddened by her departure from my office, I knew it was a tremendous opportunity, and now we see it 

has led to an even bigger role at the PRC. 

I will not belabor her qualifications for this position, which I 

think few have questioned. However, I do want to pass on my full 

faith in her abilities and to you, Ms. Langley, I want to extend, as 

I have for years, my deepest ‘‘aloha’’ and ‘‘mahalo,’’ which is thank 

you, for your years of dedicated service not only to me but to the 

people of Hawaii, the Federal workforce, and the mailing community of this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Committee can move this 

nomination quickly. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Akaka. How do you say 

‘‘thank you’’? Is it ‘‘maloha’’? 

Senator AKAKA. ‘‘Mahalo.’’ 

Senator CARPER. ‘‘Mahalo.’’ Thank you for that opening statement, for introducing Ms. Langley to us, and for your willingness 

to share her, not just with the folks that you serve in Hawaii, but 

with the whole country. 

I believe Ms. Langley has filed responses to a biographical and 

financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted 

by the Committee, and had her financial statements reviewed by 

the Office of Government Ethics. I won’t question you about how 

4 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Langley appears in the Appendix on page 15. 

much fun it was to go through just filling out all the paperwork 

that we deal with. I remember once when I was nominated by 

President Clinton to serve on the Amtrak Board of Directors—I 

was governor at the time—a job I very much wanted to have, an 

extra job plus my regular day job. But after going through all this 

stuff, filling out the questionnaires and the financial statements, I 

said, ‘‘I am not sure this is really worth it for a job that does not 

pay anything.’’ But I ended up doing it, and it was worth it. 

Thanks for going through all that. 

Without objection, the information that you have compiled and 

submitted to the Office of Government Ethics will be made a part 

of our hearing record. The financial data, however, will remain on 

file and available for public inspection in our Committee’s offices. 

I believe the Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, and you have had 

an opportunity, as someone who has worked in these halls in the 

past, seeing any number of people stand and take an oath. Did you 

ever think that you would be taking the oath yourself and repeating this? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Never. 

Senator CARPER. All right. You can probably do it by heart. I am 

going to ask you, if you don’t mind, just to stand and raise your 

right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before 

this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Ms. LANGLEY. I do. 

Senator CARPER. That is good. OK. 

Senator Akaka, if you would like to lead off with questions—I 

have a whole lot of questions. I really want to grill this witness. 

[Laughter.] 

But I am told by my staff director, John Kilvington, that I need 

to ask three questions first, and then if you would like to take over, 

I will ask a number of additional questions after that. 

It is required, I think by Committee rules, to ask these three 

questions, and I will start—Mr. Kilvington says you might have an 

opening statement. Is that possible? 

Ms. LANGLEY. It is possible. It is probable. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Well, then, go ahead. We would love to have 

your opening statement, and then I will ask those questions, and 

then yield to Senator Akaka. Go ahead. 

Ms. LANGLEY. I will try to be brief. 

Senator CARPER. No. Take your time. I want to hear this. 

[Laughter.] 

TESTIMONY OF NANCI E. LANGLEY,1 TO BE COMMISSIONER, 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Ms. LANGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As someone who sat 

behind Senator Akaka for so many years on the dais in front of me, 

I am humbled and I am pleased to be here today. I wish to thank 

the President for nominating me as a Commissioner of the Postal 

Regulatory Commission, and I am grateful to the Senate Majority 

Leader, Harry Reid, for recommending me to the President. And I 

5 

am especially grateful to you, Senator Akaka, for your long advocacy on my behalf and your gracious words today. 

I am honored to be accompanied by Dan Blair, whom Senator 

Akaka mentioned, a former staffer on this Committee, but, more 

importantly, Chairman of the Regulatory Commission. He is here 

with Vice Chairman Mark Acton and Commissioner Tony Hammond. Commissioner Ruth Goldway is in California with her family 

observing Passover. And I am equally pleased that two former PRC 

Chairmen, George Omas and Ed Gleiman, are here as well. And I 

would also like to acknowledge the many friends and colleagues 

who are wishing me good luck today. 

And, last, but most importantly, I would like to introduce my 

husband of nearly 30 years, William Selander, who, for more than 

two decades as a Senate spouse, rarely complained about missed 

meals and having to take vacations during Senate recess. 

Senator CARPER. Rarely complained? 

Ms. LANGLEY. I said rarely, yes. Rarely. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Where is he? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Right behind me. 

Senator CARPER. Welcome. How are you? He has your back. 

Ms. LANGLEY. Yes, he has my back. 

Senator CARPER. Just like you had Senator Akaka’s for all those 

years. 

Ms. LANGLEY. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. Good. 

Ms. LANGLEY. But I do continue to be Bill’s biggest fan, and I 

thank him for all his support. 

I am fortunate to have worked for two fine Senators from my 

home State of Hawaii, the late Senator Spark Matsunaga and Senator Akaka, who has been both my mentor and my role model for 

over 17 years. I thank you, Senator Akaka, for all the experience 

and opportunities you have afforded to me. And although I have 

left your Subcommittee, I know that I am in your heart, as all the 

people of Hawaii are in your heart. 

And having spent so many years helping to draft, negotiate, and 

enact the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), I 

am pleased that I am now inplementing the Act as part of the senior team at the Postal Regulatory Commission. If confirmed, it will 

be my privilege to continue my public service as a member of the 

Commission. 

In closing, as I looked around the room before I sat down, I know 

that bringing to fruition the PAEA was not done in isolation. The 

mailing community, from union and association members to business mailers, to individual citizens, moved this effort forward because of their collective desire to sustain the Postal Service. The 

American people have Members of Congress, especially Senator 

Carper, Senator Akaka, Senator Collins, and Senator Lieberman, 

to thank for their tireless efforts. Ensuring a fair balance between 

the flexibilities granted to the Postal Service by the new law, with 

the accountability and transparency provided by the Commission, 

will be my goal if confirmed as Commissioner. I have the greatest 

respect for the four Commissioners who are now carrying out these 

duties. 

6 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka. I also thank your 

wonderful staff who helped me through this nomination process: 

John Kilvington, Larry Novey, Chris Barkley, Brooke Hayes, Evan 

Cash, Kristine Lam, and Jennifer Tarr. They have all been wonderful, as well as Jennifer Tyree, and Rick Kessler, my former staff 

director. Thank you so much. That concludes my statement, and I 

am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that really wonderful statement. 

Again, as I was trying to say before you interrupted with that 

opening statement, I was trying to get to some of these questions. 

There are three questions that I think we are required by Committee rules to ask, and I will ask those, and then depending on 

how you answer those questions, we will turn it over to Senator 

Akaka. 

First, is there anything that you are aware of in your background 

that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office 

to which you have been nominated? 

Ms. LANGLEY. No. 

Senator CARPER. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Ms. LANGLEY. No, I do not. 

Senator CARPER. So far, so good. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify 

before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Ms. LANGLEY. I do. 

Senator CARPER. And I have a fourth question, but I am going 

to hold off on that, and I am going to ask Senator Akaka if he 

would like to go ahead and open the questioning. Ask as many 

questions for as long as you want, and when you have exhausted 

your list, I will ask a few of my own. Thank you. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

pleasure to ask Ms. Langley this question. She has the background 

for it. This question has to do with the Pacific. 

Ms. Langley, when the Postal Service was crafting new service 

delivery standards, I urged them to ensure that standards to noncontiguous States were accurate and that they be constantly improved. However, I remain concerned that some of these standards, 

especially to Guam and Hawaii, may not fully reflect—and let me 

underscore this—the actual time, the actual time from mailbox to 

mailbox. And I am concerned about the delivery time between 

Guam and Hawaii and notice the standard is that it would take 

one day by boat from Hawaii to Guam. 

Do you plan to work closely with the Postal Service to ensure 

that this issue remains a priority to be addressed? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Yes. If confirmed, I can assure you that service 

standards and performance measurements for non-contiguous 

areas, including the State of Hawaii, as well as the territories, will 

be a top priority of mine. The Commission on its own, without my 

prompting, actually pressed the Postal Service quite a bit on the 

delivery standards for Hawaii. Particularly Hawaii and Alaska, 

7 

there was a lack of understanding why it would take 4 days from 

the West Coast to Hawaii or to Alaska, when the current service 

standards were already 3 days. 

Your concerns that were expressed to the Postal Service, as well 

as the PRC’s concerns, had a great deal of impact because it ended 

up rolling back those service standards to what the norm is now, 

and that is 3 days. As far as 1 day between Guam, we know that 

it is absolutely unfeasible to get a ship between Guam and Hawaii 

in that time frame. So I can assure you again, this will be a priority. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for leaving the Committee now. I have 

to chair another committee in a few minutes. So thank you very 

much, Ms. Langley. I wish you well. 

Ms. LANGLEY. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. With much aloha and, again, we will try to move 

as quickly as we can on my part, and I am sure the Chairman’s 

part as well, to have you confirmed. 

Ms. LANGLEY. Aloha pumehana. 

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

Senator CARPER. Senator Akaka, thank you so much. 

Ms. Langley, I served in the U.S. House of Representatives with 

Senator Akaka, then-Congressman Akaka. I never served with his 

predecessor in the Senate. Tell us a little bit about him. 

Ms. LANGLEY. Senator Matsunaga came to the House, I think, in 

the early 1970s and then came to the Senate in the late 1970s and 

served—he was Chairman of the Taxation Subcommittee on the Finance Committee for a number of years and really pushed alternative energy. That was one of his key concerns, knowing Hawaii 

was out in the middle of the Pacific, finding a viable business besides agriculture, and it was actually a good thing to do because 

the pineapple and sugar cane industry has really closed up in the 

State. But he was constantly looking for ways to use the byproducts of sugar cane and pineapple. 

Senator CARPER. He was ahead of his time. 

Ms. LANGLEY. He was ahead of his time. He also passed legislation to establish the Institute of Peace in the United States. 

Senator CARPER. Really. 

Ms. LANGLEY. And to establish the position of Poet Laureate at 

the Library of Congress. So the United States, like many other 

countries, now has a Poet Laureate. He was a very fine man. 

Senator CARPER. Good. You mentioned in your statement that 

Senator Akaka has been—you said a role model and a mentor to 

you, and he is, I think of all the Senators, maybe the most beloved 

Senator of all. People just love working with him, serving with him, 

and I think he is a role model and mentor for many of us. 

In what ways have you learned from him? I am sure he has 

learned from you as well. But give us some examples of how he has 

mentored you and the lessons that you take from that time that 

you worked for him and what you have taken with you to the Commission. 

Ms. LANGLEY. Well, he truely believes in finding consensus. He 

has taught me that whenever you are faced with a situation with 

two opposing sides and the two sides cannot come together, there 

8 

must be a way of bringing people together. And I know with the 

PAEA, there were differences of opinion as to what to do with the 

workers’ compensation. 

Senator CARPER. I remember that. 

Ms. LANGLEY. And with a lot of patience, we were able to work 

out an agreement that, while it may not be totally acceptable to everybody, it allowed the bill to move forward and allowed Senator 

Akaka to proudly cosponsor the bill. So I think that is a good example. 

Senator CARPER. That is a good one. Well, what do you think are 

some of the biggest issues today that are, first of all, facing the 

Postal Service but also facing the Commission? And if you are confirmed, are there any particular issues that you want to focus your 

time and attention on? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Well, I think you mentioned the economy, and that 

is certainly a huge challenge to the Postal Service today. So there 

is the double whammy, so to speak, of the economy and the diversion of hard-copy mail to digital technology, and this is a short- and 

long-term challenge. And First-Class mail and standard mail are 

very susceptible to the impact of the economy. The downturn in the 

housing and credit markets is certainly affecting the Postal Service. And the Postmaster General mentioned that the last time that 

he was before the Committee that the economy is of great concern. 

As far as the Commission, I think the challenge has been implementing the various requirements of the PAEA in a rather compressed time frame. But I believe the Commission has done an excellent job and having the new ratemaking system in effect 8 

months early has allowed the Postal Service to move forward and 

use the flexibilities granted under the new law. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

Ms. LANGLEY. And do you want me to answer—I forgot to answer 

your question about what I would do. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. What would you do? 

Ms. LANGLEY. I think that accurate, timely data is very important, and Senator Akaka mentioned the financial transparency 

issue. So compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley requirements as well as SEC-like reporting requirements, are going 

to go a long way to boost financial transparency and accountability. 

So that would be an area that I would continue to be interested in, 

as well as making sure that the non-contiguous areas along with 

rural areas and economically disadvantaged areas are served well 

by any changes in service standards. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Fair enough. 

The Postal Service has now submitted and received Commission 

approval for the first price increases under the new ratemaking 

system, as you know. New prices both for market-dominant products and for competitive products will go into effect, I believe, in 

less than a month. 

What is your view on how the process has worked so far? And, 

second, what is your own philosophy on how the Commission 

should approach your pricing changes proposed by the Postal Service? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Well, I think the first effort was a good first effort. 

The market-dominant review found that there were no increases 

9 

that exceeded inflation at the class level and that workshare discounts in general did not exceed avoided costs. There were some 

areas where the workshare discounts did exceed 100 percent of 

avoided costs, and with all but one exception, the Commission approved those. The Postal Service provided the appropriate detail 

that is required by the law, but the one that was returned to the 

Postal Service was reviewed again by the Service and returned in 

a timely manner. 

But the entire process underscores the need for timely and reliable data. That has been the mantra from the PRC for many years. 

And there is more visibility now because of the reliance on the 

Postal Regulatory Commission to provide this accountability and 

transparency through the initial review. We have a 34-day review 

of the market-dominant increases, and then there is an annual 

compliance determination, and we completed the first annual compliance determination. And that lengthy report goes into great detail on the operations of the Postal Service as well as how well 

service standards are working. 

And as far as my approach, I think the premise of the PAEA to 

provide the Postal Service with flexibility to set rates and classify 

products is going to work well. I am very hopeful that the system 

that was set up by the law and actually effectuated by the Commission through its ratemaking process will work well. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I am glad to hear that you feel that way. 

Are there some things that you have seen over the last year or 

so since we enacted the legislation with the Postal Service and the 

Commission endeavoring to meet the requirements under the law? 

Do you see any things that are not working so well that are a 

cause for concern that maybe we should be mindful of? 

Ms. LANGLEY. I think the only thing that I would be concerned 

with, and I think because of the communication, the good ongoing 

communication that is going back and forth between the Postal 

Service, is making sure that the data is available. We are still 

working with the Postal Service many times on how to present the 

data, and with the compliance determination there will be a rulemaking that will set out guidelines as to what should be submitted 

and in what form. But it is a new process and the whole system 

is evolutionary, which I believe it needs time just to work out the 

different kinks that may be in the system. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good enough. 

You talked earlier in your testimony about the economic slowdown, and I alluded to it as well, and that has hit the Postal Service hard. We were talking with the Postmaster General, and it is 

strange that sometimes when companies feel that we might be slipping into a recession, rather than advertising more or marketing 

more, they advertise less. It is sort of counterintuitive, but it happens time after time. I think it has happened this time, too, and 

as a result, some of the reduction in advertising has had an effect, 

and fewer catalogues are going out, thinner catalogues going out as 

well. And this problem I think is compounded by the fact that at 

least some—not all, but at least some of the postal customers are 

leaving the mail or are maybe considering leaving the Postal Service in favor of other forms of communication. There certainly are 

others to lure them away. 

10 

How can the Commission itself help the Postal Service to do 

what it needs to do to get past these challenges and past these difficulties and maintain the level of service that our public depends 

on? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Well, I think the law is very clear that there is 

now a profit-making system that is available to the Postal Service, 

and the Postal Service needs to be innovative. They need to think 

outside the box, if you will, in what is an increasingly difficult economic climate. But there are simple things that they are doing 

which I think demonstrates the innovation that is needed to really 

keep them going. 

Senator CARPER. Do you want to mention a couple of those? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Yes. The efforts they are undertaking in the area 

of recycling, it does not bring a lot of revenue—— 

Senator CARPER. You are addressing the Co-Chairman of the 

Senate Recycling Caucus, so this is music to my ears. [Laughter.] 

Ms. LANGLEY. That is wonderful. 

Senator CARPER. Take as much time as you need. 

Ms. LANGLEY. OK. [Laughter.] 

The Postal Service obviously moves a lot of paper goods and material that is recyclable. So taking the opportunities to get involved 

in recycling I think is beneficial. 

They have also recently moved ahead with having a new larger 

size flat rate box, flat rate priority box, so they are beginning to 

look at different areas in which they can grow revenue or volume. 

And where the PRC comes into account is through its regulations 

to move these requests from the Postal Service in an expeditious 

manner. And the competitive products area is an area where there 

portends a lot of innovation and a lot of activity. 

Another opportunity is with competitive negotiated service agreements (NSAs), and they have not brought one forward, but there 

are opportunities there as well. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Yesterday was Earth Day, and I reminded my colleagues at our 

caucus luncheon and gave them a little pep talk on recycling, encouraged them to—in the words of one of my old ministers who 

liked to say people would rather see a sermon than hear one—I 

was encouraging my colleagues to set a good example in recycling. 

We recycle here in the Senate, I think, on any given day roughly 

3 tons of recyclables, including paper and beverage containers, 

toner cartridges, batteries, and cardboard. About 3 tons a day. This 

year we will be up over, I think, a thousand tons from the Senate. 

And for every 1 ton of aluminum cans that we recycle, we save 

about 400 gallons of oil. For every 1 ton of recycled paper products 

that we use, we avoid chopping down 17 trees; we preserve about 

31⁄2 cubic feet of landfill per year, and just do some good things. 

While I have your attention, one of my favorite recycling ‘‘gee 

whiz’’ statistics is that we throw away enough aluminum cans in 

this country in a year, just in landfills, to rebuild the entire domestic U.S. airline fleet every 3 months. And for every—gosh, I could 

go on and on. 

In any event, I am pleased to hear that the Postal Service is focusing on recycling, and I am glad you are giving them some encouragement. 

11 

You mentioned NSAs with individual customers, and I want to 

come back and just focus on that just a little bit more, if we could. 

As you know, those negotiated service agreements with individual 

customers have been talked about for some time as a tool that the 

Postal Service can use to find efficiencies and to bring along some 

additional businesses. And I know you have spoken about this to 

some extent, but let’s just dwell on it a little bit more. Are you convinced that the Postal Service has taken full advantage of its opportunities in this area? 

Ms. LANGLEY. I think they could take more advantage. 

Senator CARPER. If you were giving them friendly advice, what 

kind of friendly advice would you extend to them, the Postal Service? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Continue talking to individual customers and, 

again, be innovative, think of new ways that you can work with 

your customers. The law clearly provides for new opportunities, 

and this is especially true, as I mentioned, in the competitive product area. 

The Commission’s regulations mirror the law which ensures that 

NSA must either have a positive net effect on income or a positive 

effect on operational improvements, so long as no other competitor 

is harmed. 

The one area that continues to be problematic is that NSAs are 

not always providing value to the Postal Service. Our just completed compliance determination found that current NSAs have 

provided a net $2.5 million, and that is not a great deal of money. 

And so, more work needs to be done by the Postal Service to make 

sure that NSAs are mutually beneficial to the Postal Service as 

well as the partner. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. Thanks. 

The postal reform bill includes a mechanism within it whereby 

members of the public can file a complaint, as you know, with the 

Commission if they feel that the Postal Service is in some way violating the law. In addition, I think the Commission has a number 

of tools that it can use to compel the Postal Service to be in compliance or even, I think, to punish the Postal Service for some of the 

transgressions that it might commit. 

How do you think the Commission should handle this process? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Well, on the compliance process, we have an existing compliance system, and it will be enhanced through new rulemaking activity, probably in a short time. Under the PAEA, the 

PRC is required within 90 days to make a determination on any 

complaint that is filed to decide whether or not it merits consideration. 

I believe the complaint system will work well. It has worked well 

in the past. I think it will be more accessible to individual citizens 

and certainly accessible to mailers who may have concerns. 

On the issue of subpoena, the Commission for years has been 

seeking subpoena authority. Subpoena authority many times is just 

that: It is authority. It is the threat of having a subpoena, the 

threat of being able to use a subpoena in order to get the information or the data that is necessary. It has not always been easy to 

get some information from the Postal Service. The Postal Service 

realizes now that the Commission has subpoena authority. The 

12 

Commission has authority to levy fines, and it has authority to require corrective action, if necessary. 

My personal view is I would rather talk to the Postal Service 

first to see whether or not issues can be resolved rather than just 

wielding a subpoena when we have not spoken to the Service. 

Senator CARPER. I think you spoke to this in part, but I am going 

to ask this question anyway just to make sure I know what your 

views are. Under what circumstances do you think that the Commissioners should use the tools available to them under the law to 

ensure that the Postal Service is in compliance with the law? And 

if you want to give some examples, feel free. 

Ms. LANGLEY. Well, I think there needs to be judicious use of any 

of these tools. But I do think that if there is continued disregard 

of a Commission directive, for example if the Commission asks for 

information regarding a certain product and the information does 

not come forth, then there may be a discussion that the Commissioners would have to hold among themselves. But I think that 

would be an instance where if requested and information is not 

forthcoming what would be the next step. 

Senator CARPER. All right. The Postal Service has proposed, as 

you know, a set of service standards for its market-dominant products. How do you think the Postal Service should be using these 

standards? And what role do you hope to see the Commission take 

in ensuring that they are enforced? 

Ms. LANGLEY. The law is quite clear that the Postal Service has 

to consult with the PRC on the establishment of the initial service 

standards. That was done. The Postal Service issued those standards in December of this past year, and service standards are a key 

element in a rate cap regime. There is always the concern that a 

business that is guided by a rate cap could reduce the level of service in order to stay under a cap. And certainly this is an area that 

the Commission, in my mind, should keep a vigil eye on because 

you do not want to see service reduced in order to just stay under 

the cap. 

So I believe that the PRC has an important role in monitoring 

service performance. Also, the Postal Service is required by the law 

to consult with the Commission on the establishment of performance measures and goals, and that is ongoing right now. So there 

is definitely a critical role for the Commission, and the annual compliance determination also has a section that is devoted strictly to 

service standards. The current compliance determination does not 

include a lot of data on service standards because at the present 

time, only a little under, I believe, 20 percent of mail is actually 

measured for service. But measuring service is critical, particularly 

when we are talking about regularity and predictability of mail. 

Senator CARPER. As I recall, the Postal Service is required to 

submit a report, I think it is later this year, in which they will lay 

out their strategy for managing their facilities network, and include in that report any plans they may have for removing excess 

capacity. 

What role should the Commission play in developing and also in 

monitoring the implementation of this strategy? 

Ms. LANGLEY. Well, once more, I believe Congress wisely ensured 

that the Postal Service consult with the Commission on its June 

13 

2008 report that is due to Congress on facilities. And as part of this 

report, we have already made mention to the Postal Service in the 

past two hearings, that the Service needs to keep interested Members of Congress, stakeholders, and the public, as well as employees, informed about any decisions that they will be making. So this 

is an area where the Commission, I believe, is performing good 

service. 

Another thing is that the Commission in 2006 reviewed realignment plans and found that the Postal Service’s plans for making 

the public aware of its activities was not as good as it should be. 

This determination was handed down at the end of 2006. The Commission has also met with the GAO to have the benefit of their observations in this area as well. 

One thing that is important to remember is that the service 

standards set in December 2007 are based on current facility capability, and so any realignment or reorganization of these facilities 

may or may not meet the service standards that were set forth at 

the end of the year. And that is where the performance measurement and performance goals are very important. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Among the laws that exist in this land are laws that we never 

passed here in Congress. One of them is Murphy’s Law. Another 

is the law of unintended consequences. When you look at the law 

that we worked on and finally enacted a year or so ago affecting 

our Postal Service—I asked you earlier what you thought was 

working well, and then I asked you if there were some areas where 

you had some concerns. 

Are there any unintended consequences that you have seen grow 

out of the legislation that we have passed that we should be mindful of? 

Ms. LANGLEY. There is an interesting consequence that the law 

requires the Postal Service within 90 days of the end of its fiscal 

year to file its compliance report with the Commission, and then 

the Commission has 90 days from that to issue its annual compliance determination. And because the law requires the Postal Service to have predictable schedules of rate increases, it turns out that 

when we are doing the compliance determination, we are also looking at the market-dominant and the competitive products rate 

cases at the same time. 

So it really shows how great the Commission is because we are 

able to do it. But balancing a small staff and limited resources has 

been an interesting project. But I do not believe I would classify it 

as unintended. It just turned out to be that way. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Each of the Members of the Committee, aside from Senator 

Akaka, have joined together and asked me to ask on their behalf 

one last question, and that is, if you could not have been from Hawaii, grown up in Hawaii, maybe lived in any other State—— 

[Laughter.] 

And been able to work on the staff of a Senator, what other State 

would have been your second choice? 

Ms. LANGLEY. The chairman of the Commission says Missouri. 

Senator CARPER. You can answer that one for the record. 

14 

Ms. LANGLEY. No. It is well known that I enjoy going over the 

Delaware bridge and seeing the factories, and John Kilvington has 

promised a tour of the factories. 

Senator CARPER. Well, that is good. 

Ms. LANGLEY. So I find Delaware actually a very interesting and 

exciting place. 

Senator CARPER. I could not agree more. [Laughter.] 

A wonderful answer, I thought. I will share that with my colleagues after the vote. 

Well, we thank you for your service to our country. We thank 

your family, your husband for sharing you with the rest of us, and 

your parents for raising you and instilling these values in you as 

they have. We appreciate your statement today and your responses 

to our questions. 

We are going to leave the record open until noon tomorrow for 

the submission of any additional statements or questions that my 

colleagues might have. 

Do you have anything else you would like to say before we close 

the hearing? 

Ms. LANGLEY. No, other than thank you for making this rather 

nervous experience very nice. 

Senator CARPER. You are quite welcome. Thank you for allowing 

us to all be here. 

And with that having been said, I think the hearing is adjourned. Thank you all. 

[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(15) 

A P P E N D I X 


42749.001
16 


42749.002
17 


42749.003
18 


42749.004
19 


42749.005
20 


42749.006
21 


42749.007
22 


42749.008
23 


42749.009
24 


42749.010
25 


42749.011
26 


42749.012
27 


42749.013
28 


42749.014
29 


42749.015
30 


42749.016
31 


42749.017
32 


42749.018
33 


42749.019
34 


42749.020
35 


42749.021
36 


42749.022
37 


42749.023
38 

Æ 


42749.024