[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] NIP AND TUCK: THE IMPACT OF CURRENT COST CUTTING EFFORTS ON POSTAL SERVICE OPERATIONS AND NETWORK ======================================================================= 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 __________ MAY 20, 2009 __________ Serial No. 111-6 __________ 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 ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 50-809 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DARRELL E. ISSA, California CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia GERRY E. CONNOLLY, Virginia PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JEFF FLAKE, Arizona Columbia JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois AARON SCHOCK, 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 ------ ------ 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 JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah Columbia JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia William Miles, Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on May 20, 2009..................................... 1 Statement of: Burrus, William, president, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO; John Hegarty, president, National Postal Mail Handlers Union; and Dale Goff, president, National Association of Postmasters of the United States............ 67 Burrus, William.......................................... 67 Goff, Dale............................................... 94 Hegarty, John............................................ 78 Conway, Anthony W., executive director, Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers; Robert E. McLean, executive director, Mailers Council; and James O'Brien, chairman, Association of Postal Commerce................................................... 113 Conway, Anthony W........................................ 113 McLean, Robert E......................................... 118 O'Brien, James........................................... 124 Galligan, William P., senior vice president, Operations, U.S. Postal Service; John Waller, Director, Office of Accountability and Compliance, Postal Regulatory Commission; and Phillip Herr, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office..................................................... 12 Galligan, William P...................................... 12 Herr, Phillip............................................ 33 Waller, John............................................. 22 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Burrus, William, president, American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, prepared statement of............................. 70 Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, prepared statement of....................... 7 Conway, Anthony W., executive director, Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers, prepared statement of............................. 115 Galligan, William P., senior vice president, Operations, U.S. Postal Service, prepared statement of...................... 14 Goff, Dale, president, National Association of Postmasters of the United States, prepared statement of................... 96 Hegarty, John, president, National Postal Mail Handlers Union, prepared statement of............................... 80 Herr, Phillip, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of.... 35 Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, prepared statement of.............. 4 McLean, Robert E., executive director, Mailers Council, prepared statement of...................................... 120 O'Brien, James, chairman, Association of Postal Commerce, prepared statement of...................................... 126 Waller, John, Director, Office of Accountability and Compliance, Postal Regulatory Commission, prepared statement of............................................... 24 NIP AND TUCK: THE IMPACT OF CURRENT COST CUTTING EFFORTS ON POSTAL SERVICE OPERATIONS AND NETWORK ---------- WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 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 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Lynch, Chaffetz, Norton, Clay, Connolly, and Bilbray. Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Marcus A. Williams, clerk/press secretary; Margaret McDavid, detailee; Aisha Elkheshin, intern; Dan Blankenburg, minority director of outreach and senior advisor; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior counsel; and Alex Cooper, minority professional staff member. Mr. Lynch. Good morning. The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia hearing will now come to order. I want to welcome Ranking Member Chaffetz and members of the subcommittee, hearing witnesses, and all those in attendance. This is the second of what will be a series of hearings to examine the status of the Postal Service's cuts in operations and services, as well as short- and long-term plans to reduce network costs and improve efficiency. The Chair, the ranking member, and the subcommittee members will each have 5 minutes to make opening statements, and all Members will have 3 days to submit statements for the record. Hearing no objections, that is so ordered. Let me make a brief opening statement. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. Less than 2 months ago, this subcommittee held a hearing on the financial condition of the Postal Service, and the news at that time was less than encouraging. In fiscal year 2008, the Postal Service lost $2.8 billion as it confronted record drops in mail volume and demand for services. Since our last hearing, the Postal Service's financial picture has gone from bad to worse. Just halfway through this current fiscal year, the Postal Service has already experienced a loss of $2.3 billion, which is just shy of its total losses from last year. Despite plans to cut costs this year by $5.9 billion, which is ambitious, the Postal Service officials still anticipate losing a total of $6.4 billion by year's end, primarily due to the current economic recession and its negative impact on mail volume. Electronic diversion of the mail has also contributed greatly to mail volume declines as well, with more and more folks paying bills online and using emails instead of sending letters. The contraction of economic activity, particularly in the housing and financial sectors, has resulted in a sizable reduction in the volume of standard mail and has even caused some of our Nation's foremost newspapers and periodicals to move entirely to an online format. To help close the gap between costs and revenue, we all realize that the Postal Service will have to make some very, very difficult decisions in order to improve the organization's financial condition. With the reduction in mail volume, the Postal Service no longer needs much of its existing infrastructure and is therefore in the process of examining its network of facilities, as well as other processing and delivery capacities. For instance, the Postal Service recently announced facility consolidations, district office closures, and realignment of letter carrier routes as part of an ongoing effort to reduce costs and achieve savings. I have asked this morning's witnesses to address the impact of these and other measures on employees and customers, and to discuss whether these actions go far enough, and also to explore additional options that the Postal Service has at its disposal to lower expenses, to increase productivity, and ultimately achieve some level of savings. Today's hearing is intended to help us learn from our witnesses how many of these recent cuts employed by the Postal Service have impacted overall operations, as well as customer service and the future viability of the Postal Service. The subcommittee is also interested in hearing from our witnesses any additional opportunities or ideas they may have to further reduce the Postal Service's overhead and costs. The news we are faced with at this hearing is dire, and these cuts alone may not be enough to help return the Postal Service to financial solvency. The Postmaster General has discussed the possibility of moving to a 5-day mail delivery schedule, and we may be at a point where we need to seriously consider what that option would require by researching possible associated savings, making sure we have the right assessment as to what that move might involve. We also need to consider the service impacts by such a decision, and I understand that many of the members of this committee and members of the public do not believe that this is a decision that should be reached lightly. As we look toward the future after the possible enactment of some measure of financial relief for the Postal Service and beyond the current economic recession, the Postal Service finds itself having to evolve and realign its business model in order to meet the needs and service requirements of the 21st century service. As Postal Service officials continue to make difficult decisions to cut costs, there will be, of course, consequences. It is the job of this subcommittee to ensure that these decisions are well thought out and designed, since many of the good men and women at the Postal Service, as well as postal customers, are being asked to sacrifice in these tough economic times. I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion on this timely topic. Once again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for their attendance and willingness to help this subcommittee with its work, and we look forward to your input this morning. [The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. I now want to extend 5 minutes for an opening statement from our ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, from Utah. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for being here. We do appreciate your dedication and commitment, and taking time to be here. Rather than read this opening statement, I would ask unanimous consent to simply submit my comments into the record, if that is OK with you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lynch. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Chaffetz. Again, thank you, and I look forward to listening to your testimony and having some interaction with some questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. Jason Chaffetz follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Holmes Norton, the delegate from the District of Columbia, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you have done the public an important service by holding this hearing. We don't want the Post Office to disintegrate before our very eyes, and this may happen. The last thing the Postal Service needed was even a mild recession. This is a structural event and I believe we all have to wake up and realize it. Institutions will not be as they were when this recession is over; some institutions will not exist. Mr. Chairman, you said we have to look at whether or not the nip and tuck--I congratulate the committee for the use of really germane language--whether the nip and tuck, fun language, of course, but it does drive home what the Postal Service has been forced into. Everybody is doing it, but not every institution was nearly experiencing the winds from all sides. This institution has been experiencing a hurricane, and it has long been in this hurricane, and much of it not of its own making; it has to do with huge changes in our society. But the current recession did occur and once again, I think, calls into question the very business model that we have before us. The only analogy I can think of that is experiencing this kind of disintegration before our very eyes are newspapers. Nobody thinks that they are going to survive in the form that they exist. Everybody knows they are essential. Imagine getting your news from blogs and the Internet and kind of picking it all up and trying to put it together. They serve an important function. Well, they have to find another way to do it because the economy, long before the recession, was bidding them goodbye. No institution has had a deeper long-term decline. No institution that I can think of has had a deeper long-term decline than the Postal Service. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from the Postal Service this morning something other than nips and tucks. I would like to know whether there is any new thinking going on at the Postal Service. For example,--I don't even think this is a huge change, but it is a real change--I am willing to look at something that I would not have thought about when I first came to Congress, a 5-day delivery. I don't think we can say to the Postal Service, hey, make sure you deliver the mail the way you did--and I am a third generation Washingtonian. You all have done a fine job when my great-grandfather came to Washington, walked off of a slave plantation in Virginia, and the Postal Service was doing just fine then, and it continued to do just fine for generations. What has happened to the Postal Service is not the fault of the Postal Service, but the Postal Service has to find a new way to do the business of guaranteeing the delivery of essential mail to the people of this country and the world. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5 minutes. Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding these hearings. I am going to have to go to a markup of the State Department authorization legislation all day in the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I thought this was so important, I wanted to come briefly for the beginning. The future of the Post Office is at stake. The future of how Postal Service is delivered to our constituents is at stake, and this Congress needs to listen carefully and we are going to have to work together on creative solutions. I agree with Ms. Norton that it may mean that the Post Office of our grandparents may not look like the Post Office for our grandchildren as we move out to the future. We have to create a business model for the Post Office that is viable as we look to changes in technology, we look to changes in the communication media, we look to changes in the marketplace. So I am going to be very interested in getting a report on the testimony today and again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking so much time to be so thorough. We have three great panels today and I know it is going to be very informative. I think if the public really understood what was at stake, we would have to have this hearing in the Cannon Caucus Room, because, as Ms. Norton said, the future is not going to look like the past with respect to postal services. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. Just to explain the process here, there are a number of hearings going on at the same time. I know that Ms. Holmes Norton, Mr. Connolly, and our ranking member are all due in other hearings as well, so they will come in and out as others arrive as well. But that is just the nature of things. We do have a custom here in this committee to swear all witnesses before they provide testimony, so may I please ask you to rise and raise your right hands? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Lynch. Let the record indicate that all of the witnesses have signaled or answered in the affirmative. As always, your entire written statement will be entered into the record. Just as a matter of protocol, the green light on that little box before you will indicate the beginning of a 5-minute period to summarize your statement. It will turn yellow with about a minute to go, and then the red light indicates your time for statements has expired. I will do a brief introduction of the first panel before we hear testimony. On our first panel, Mr. William Galligan is the senior vice president for operations for the U.S. Postal Service. He is responsible for the organization's engineering facilities, delivery, network operations management, and post office operations. Earlier in his career, Mr. Galligan served as vice president of the retail and delivery operations and oversaw the retail and delivery function of the Nation's post offices. Mr. John Waller is director of the Office of Accountability and Compliance at the Postal Regulatory Commission. Mr. Waller leads the Commission's analysis of Postal Service price proposals and oversees technical support for studies, including measurement of the Postal Service's performance and impact assessments of major Postal Service network reorganizations. Mr. Phillip Herr 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 concerns. His current portfolio focuses on programs at the Postal Service and the Department of Transportation. Welcome, gentlemen. Mr. Galligan, you may begin with an opening 5 minute statement. Thank you. STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM P. GALLIGAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; JOHN WALLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPLIANCE, POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION; AND PHILLIP HERR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. GALLIGAN Mr. Galligan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member Chaffetz, and members of the subcommittee. As you know, the Postal Service is experiencing one of the most severe economic challenges in its 234 year history. Due primarily to the downturn in the economy, we have seen mail volume fall by 32 billion pieces, or 15 percent, since 2007. That represents a revenue decline of $12 billion. At the same time, we have experienced a continuing expansion of our delivery network, which will have grown to serve 2 million new addresses by the end of 2009. Our projections call for a loss of $6.5 billion this fiscal year, with a likely cash shortfall of $1.5 billion. And we not expect any improvement next year. As the total mail volume falls, we are also experiencing a long-term shift in mail use patterns. Over the last decade, mailers have been reducing their use of higher revenue first class mail, and as more mail is entered closer to its delivery point, the demand for end-to-end service has decreased. The combination of these factors have a profound effect on our business model. In 2000, we delivered an average of 5.9 pieces of mail to every address. Today, that has fallen to 4.7 pieces, a decline of 20 percent. Revenue per delivery obviously tracks this trend. We have been extremely focused on narrowing the gap by cutting costs without affecting service, and at the midpoint of our fiscal year, we are on track to achieve our goal of eliminating $5.9 billion in base costs. However, we face limits on our ability to reduce some costs. The enactment of the 2006 postal law requires us to pre- fund retiree health benefits, increasing our annual costs by more than $5 billion. Only new legislation can reduce this obligation, which is unsustainable in today's economy. That is why we strongly support the passage of H.R. 22, which would result in annual savings of about $2 billion. But the fact remains that all of these steps would be insufficient to return us to solvency. They will not fully close our budget gap of $12 billion. We are experiencing a long-term economic problem that requires a structural solution. Over the past several years, we have taken significant steps in this direction, streamlining our network to accommodate changing needs and new technology, consistent with the expectations of the law. Throughout each of these efforts, service has continued to improve, reaching today's high level of performance. We have closed 58 airport mail centers and 50 remote encoding centers. We have begun an initiative to transform our 21 bulk mail centers into more efficient network distribution centers. While we have made some progress in consolidating operations to reduce excess capacity at our central mail processing plants, this has generally been met by strong local resistance, one of the chief barriers we face in the critical rightsizing of our network. Your understanding and support of our efforts would help to reduce these barriers. We are also examining the operational needs at many retail and delivery facilities. Delivery volumes continue to decline, sales and revenue are down, and almost 30 percent of our retail transactions have moved from our lobbies to our Web site or to alternate access locations. There is the potential for substantial savings through consolidation at some of our over 3,100 stations and branches in cities of all sizes. Beyond the actions we have taken and those we plan to take, there is a need to make additional hard choices and tradeoffs to adjust the sharply declining mail volume so that we can finance universal service in the long-term. In considering our options, everything should be on the table. With the diminished demand for mail services, today's network requirements are beyond our financial means, but the law does not permit us to change the frequency of mail delivery. Providing the Postal Service with the ability to reduce delivery from 6 days to 5 days is an appropriate response to the sobering reality of our fiscal challenges, and one we only consider reluctantly. We have engaged our customers on this issue. Because this change would have an effect on service, it is important to understand the needs as we analyze operating in a different delivery environment. Looking ahead, the Postal Service will continue to implement the cost reduction and efficiency programs I have highlighted, while we stay focused on improving service. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate your interest in creating a stronger, yet leaner, Postal Service and look forward to working with you to achieve this goal. I would be pleased to answer any questions you have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Galligan follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Galligan. Mr. Waller, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JOHN WALLER Mr. Waller. Thank you. Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member Chaffetz, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. The Postal Service, as we have heard, is in a precarious financial position due to historic declines in mail volume. In response, the Postal Service---- Mr. Lynch. Mr. Waller. Mr. Waller. Yes. Mr. Lynch. May I ask you to please pull that mic a little closer to you? Mr. Waller. Oh, yes. There we go. Better? Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir, much better. Thank you. Mr. Waller. OK. In response, the Postal Service is continuing to make unprecedented work hour reductions and systemic changes. Solvency is contingent on the Postal Service achieving nearly $6 billion in cost savings this year and utilizing its maximum $3 billion borrowing authority. Even then the Postal Service is likely to run out of cash by year end unless it receives legislative relief that would amount to $2 billion this year. Now, the Postal Service is trying to find new revenue to offset its volume losses. For example, since the passage of the PAEA, this Commission has approved 49 negotiated service agreements between the Service and its customers, aimed at increasing revenue. Also, the Commission has recently received two Postal proposals for innovative marketing efforts, one of which is commonly known as the summer sale. While the Commission continues to encourage the agency to use the pricing flexibility granted under the PAEA, the Postal Service must rely on cost cutting and efficiency measures to deal with this current financial difficulties. To this end, the Postal Service has significant changes underway within its network. For example, as noted by Mr. Galligan, it is adjusting its delivery networks; it is employing more ground transportation, less airlift; it is adjusting post office hours and reducing the number of neighborhood collection boxes; it is once again consolidating processing facilities; and it has just begun making significant changes in how mail flows between its network of some 400 plants as part of the long-promised surface transportation and bulk mail center reorganization. At the same time, it is launching new technologies to expand automation for sorting flats to carrier delivery sequence and to revolutionize management of the mail stream from collection to delivery through the use of Intelligent Mail Barcodes. As I testified last year before the subcommittee about Postal Service efforts to realign its mail processing network, the Commission is concerned about the lack of a comprehensive plan with specific performance targets and goals, as required by the PAEA. The Commission continues to push for the Postal Service to expand the specificity and overall vision of its plans. The Postal Service is dealing with considerable uncertainty while implementing significant changes. This places a premium on the need for timely reporting on finances and service performance. The Commission is committed to enhancing the quality and utility of such reports. The Commission is once again, now, receiving monthly financial statements from the Postal Service to provide quick financial transparency. Also, the Commission expects to see a robust service measurement system come to fruition this year based on the Intelligent Mail Barcode, which will extend measurement to nearly 95 percent of the mail. For example, starting this fiscal year, the Commission is receiving the first-ever quarterly reports on speed of delivery of presorted, first class, and standard mail by district and area office. This will be an important element in tracking whether service is or is not impacted by the various changes that are being made. Even if all the cost-cutting and modernization efforts are successful, the Postal Service states its need for legislative relief in two areas. First, it has requested an adjustment in the method of paying current retiree health benefit premiums and has endorsed H.R. 22 as a means of accomplishing this. Now, to clarify my written statement, the Commission has not taken a formal position on H.R. 22, but Commission Chairman Blair did, in his March appearance before this subcommittee, state his support of relief on health benefit premiums. The Postal Service has also requested the removal of legislative restrictions on the frequency of mail delivery. In its study of Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, the Commission found the net savings from switching to 5 day delivery to be about $1.9 billion. But before implementing any such change in service, the PAEA requires that the Postal Service obtain an advisory opinion from the Commission that would involve a public proceeding on any such proposal. This concludes my statement. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I am willing to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Waller follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Waller. Mr. Herr, you now have 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF PHILLIP HERR Mr. Herr. Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member Chaffetz, and members of the subcommittee---- Mr. Lynch. Mr. Herr, I am not sure if your mic is on. Mr. Herr. I have a green. Is that---- Mr. Lynch. Can you move it a little closer to you? Mr. Herr. OK. Now? Mr. Lynch. Sure. Mr. Herr. OK. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Herr. I am pleased to participate in this hearing on the Postal Service's operations and network. My statement addresses three topics: first, challenges to the Postal Service's financial viability given current economic conditions; second, opportunities to rightsize Postal Service retail and mail processing networks; and, third, options and tradeoffs to consider. First, I would like to highlight the dramatic declines in the Postal Service's financial condition, as noted earlier. Mail volume is projected to decline 10 to 12 percent for fiscal year 2009, the largest annual decline since the Great Depression, with serious implications; a potential net loss of over $6 billion if the Service achieves an unprecedented $6 billion in cost savings; borrowing $3 billion, which is projected to still leave a $1.5 billion cash shortfall. And fiscal year 2010 is also going to be very challenging, with a projected decline of an additional 10 billion mail pieces. We are closely monitoring the Postal Service's financial viability at GAO. Depending on how effectively the Postal Service removes costs and manages its cash-flow, we may consider adding it to our high risk list. Turning to opportunities to rightsize the Postal Service's retail and mail processing networks, network rightsizing is needed to reduce excess capacity, improve efficiency, and facilitate streamlining. There is a window of opportunity for Postal work force rightsizing through attrition rather than layoffs. About 160,000 Postal employees are eligible for retirement this fiscal year, and nearly 130,000 employees are expected to become eligible to retire by fiscal year 2013. The Postal Service has made progress in expanding alternatives to its traditional retail network. Customers can now buy stamps at drugstores and supermarkets or over the Internet. Accordingly, the Postal Service can streamline its network of close to 37,000 post offices, branches, and stations, which has remained largely static, despite expanding alternatives. There is wide variation in the number of postal retail facilities among comparable counties, and opportunities to reduce them are particularly evident in urban and suburban areas. In addition, there is a maintenance backlog for these facilities. Turning to processing capacity, the Postal Service has made some limited progress in streamlining its processing network. Three long-term trends have increased excess capacity: first, automated equipment enables faster and more efficient mail sorting; second, single piece first class mail volume has declined from about 60 billion pieces in fiscal year 1990 to a projected 35 billion pieces in fiscal year 2009, meaning there is less mail to move through the network; third, destination entry of standard mail has increased from 26 percent in 1991 to 80 percent in 2008. The Postal Service understands that it has excess processing capacity and has initiated studies of area mail processing consolidations. The status of recent proposals is listed in Appendix 2 of my statement. In passing the Postal Reform Act in 2006, Congress strongly encouraged streamlining the processing network. We recognize that the Postal Service faces resistance because of concerns about the effects on service, employees, and local communities. Senior postal management will need to explain its plans, engage with its unions, management associations, and the mailing industry, as well as political leaders, and then demonstrate results. In turn, stakeholders need to recognize that major change is urgently needed for the Postal Service to remain financially viable. Other options to address the Postal Service's financial challenges involve tradeoffs. Deferring payments for retiree healthcare benefits would increase unfunded retiree health benefit obligations. Reducing delivery frequency could further accelerate mail volume decline. Downgrading delivery standards could affect time-sensitive mail. Raising statutory debt limits could exacerbate the Postal Service's financial difficulties in the future. And providing direct appropriations would be contrary to the principle that the Postal Service be financially self-supporting. In closing, the Postal Service and its employees plan an important role in the American economy. However, the environment in which it operates has changed dramatically, and so too must the Service as it takes actions needed to be self- sustaining. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee have. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Herr follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I now yield myself 5 minutes for questioning. Admittedly, there have been some significant cost reductions already with the closing of some of these air mail facilities and other jurisdictions, but let me ask Mr. Galligan, the initial projection for the Post Office was that you were going to be able to save or reduce costs by about $5.9 billion in the first year. Rather ambitious. As I understand it, at least the numbers that I have been getting in, that you are about 40 percent there, toward that number, but what I am concerned about is the effect of diminishing returns as we go forward. Are we still going to make the number, $5.9 billion? Are we going to be able to achieve those savings? And, if you could--and I realize I only have 5 minutes--could you sort of itemize in broad strokes where we are going to achieve these savings and what the impact of those savings will be on the customers and the employees? Mr. Galligan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The $5.9 billion is predicated on our success in meeting the cost reduction levels that we have set out through the year, and we have had to adjust in terms of the negative revenue situation we have experienced. Mr. Lynch. Mr. Galligan, could you just pull that mic a little bit forward? Mr. Galligan. OK. Mr. Lynch. There you go. Thank you. Mr. Galligan. I would like to recap, we have significant savings in our mail processing plants, not so much in terms of the physical infrastructure, but in the work force environment. We have attrited about 33,000 positions versus the same period last year, which about 9,000 of those positions came through employees opting to take an early out with our voluntary authority from OPM. So that labor savings constitutes the principal achievement of the levels you see year-to-date. As it relates to our mail processing environment, we have gone through with our existing facilities an extensive compression exercise opportunity to react to the fact that ad mail has declined so precipitously. Just last quarter, for instance, our standard flat volume, catalog volume, dropped 29 percent versus the same period last year. So that mail historically has been worked on what we call tour 2, our day shift. Because that volume is no longer there, we have compressed and changed work shifts so that our critical operating times are met; outgoing mail is completed by midnight, the destinating mail that reaches our delivery units is completed by 6, 7 a.m. So that compression of people has constituted significant savings. In the delivery arena, two major initiatives, the NALC, our National Association of Letter Carriers, has been very supportive and proactive working with us on adjusting our work rules around route inspections and have really had a breakthrough earlier this year, a more recent breakthrough whereby we use passive data, we work with our local unions, and we actually are able to quickly adjust routes due to this agreement. We have taken out over 2,500 routes related to that agreement starting up, and we see many thousands of additional routes ongoing. As the volume has essentially vaporized, we will expand the street portion of routes and limit the office time. In our post offices, likewise, we have benefited from rescheduling in the downsizing and capturing attrition, all the while we have reduced overtime significantly in our plants and post offices. Some levels are down in the zero to 1 percent range. So those are the principal areas that we have been able to achieve those savings. Mr. Lynch. While I still have a minute left, the idea connected to H.R. 22, that we have some forbearance in terms of the contributions currently required for retiree health benefits, if you are going to move 150,000 employees into retirement at the same time that you are reducing contributions you are reducing direct contributions and taking out of the Trust Fund, what does that do to the equation where you have a higher utilization rate? Now you have 150,000 people that used to be working; some of them at a more urgent timeframe than we had before, how does that work out for H.R. 22, that whole phenomenon? Mr. Galligan. Well, the H.R. 22, the $2 billion relief, is in effect a short-term cash crunch issue, and absent the $2 billion relief this fiscal year, our CFO basically, if everything is perfect on our cost reduction and volume doesn't slide any worse than the projections at this point, absent the H.R. 22 relief, we would run out of cash to the tune of $1.5 billion by the end of this fiscal year. So that is the need for the short-term immediate relief around cash. In terms of the longer aspects, Mr. Chairman, I think I would have to go back to our finance folks and look at the actuarial tables, because certainly the pool of 150,000 eligible people is a good news story from our ability to adjust things like our network, our downsizing, our delivery frequency, and that would give us the chance to move in a more painless environment through an attrition model. But I wouldn't hazard a guess on what actuarial burdens that might place on the long-term---- Mr. Lynch. OK. That is fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Galligan. I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, from Utah for 5 minutes. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on the H.R. 22 question, Mr. Galligan, what happens if it does pass? What happens if it doesn't pass? We have to deal with both realities. What are the plans to deal with those scenarios? Mr. Galligan. I guess, Congressman, let's start at the if it does not pass provision. Based on our forecast, we would run out of cash, even borrowing $3 billion, as our statutory requirements are allowing for this year, we would come upon, the last day of the fiscal year, $1.5 billion short of paying our obligation to the health benefits. There becomes a choice when you are the brink of insolvency. Do you pay employees? Do you pay supplies? Or do you not pay this $5.4 billion or $5.5 billion? By law, essentially, we break the law by not paying that. Not a place we want to be. Mr. Chaffetz. And when do we cross that threshold? Mr. Galligan. September 30, 2009, last day of our fiscal year. That is my understanding. Mr. Chaffetz. If it were to pass, what kind of assurances can you give us that you will continue to make the types of operational efficiencies come to reality that--and, by the way, I have to tell you, from my personal vantage point, I think the Postal Service has done a quite remarkable and dramatic job of cutting costs along the way. I think in many ways you should be commended and patted on the back. There is certainly criticism along the way, but the progress that has been made--and hats off to Postmaster General Potter, along with the staff and whatnot, but what assurances can you give us that type of commitment to efficiency would continue to propel above and beyond what would happen with H.R. 22, should it pass? Mr. Galligan. Well, I think this fiscal year and this cash situation, I do see some risks. I mean, we are projecting the ability to cost cut $5.9 billion. We are on track to do that, but there are presumptions in that based on the cost of energy, for instance. Mr. Chaffetz. What is your biggest worry? Mr. Galligan. Well, my biggest worry right now is the gas pumps in the last couple weeks have ratcheted up, and we know, I believe, it costs us about $9 million a year per penny of increase, so our ability to cost cut in the calculations on that savings include some presumptions on how fuel prices will run for the remainder of the year. We have some significant savings that we believe are occurring based on the same period last year, but if fuel gas prices cause us a problem, that could put a little imbalance there. If volume falls greater than the 180 billion piece level we forecasted, that puts more pressure to break even. Even with the $2 billion, essentially, if we miss those cost cuts and/or revenue falls below the 180 billion piece volume level--and we have not seen any light at the end of the tunnel on volume turnarounds, if those two elements mistarget, we are still at that cash position at September 30th. Mr. Chaffetz. Let me ask the last question, Mr. Chairman. I have just a moment. Mr. Galligan, it is one thing to just keep continuing to cut costs, but what are you doing to actually market and grow the services and expand the market share and actually market the Postal Service as a viable alternative to some of the competitors that may be out there? What are we doing proactively to make the Post Office more useful and more relevant in people's lives? Mr. Galligan. Postmaster General Potter has restructured our marketing organization to a products group, we have a president of products, and he is working on all opportunities of where we can grow and rebound; and I think if you step back and look at the megatrend, as was highlighted in opening comments, there is a megatrend in first class mail away from mail correspondence and mail transactions. That has moved and will continue to move to electronic diversion, the first class correspondence to email---- Mr. Chaffetz. I know the challenge, but we need a little bit more than Homer Simpson to get us out of the challenges we are facing. Mr. Galligan. Homer is not the cure, obviously. Mr. Chaffetz. Exactly. Mr. Galligan. But there are some positive things. We believe, going forward, the future in mail is a rebound in advertising dollars. One of the curious things is we have actually seen a glimmer of hope that despite the fact that ad dollars spent has declined probably 30 percent nationally, we have actually grown our share of the pie, but a dramatically reduced pie, essentially. So we see some percentage growth to about 22 percent of ad dollars. So our product people are going after ad mail. Mr. Chaffetz. We are out of time here. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I would personally love to see, and would challenge and hope, that we would get much more creative, and I would love to see and be engaged in what type of ideas, big ideas that we could have to move us in the right direction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Galligan, just a followup on the gas price. Do we not make long-term fuel contracts on behalf of the Postal Service? That is one just on this fuel issue. And is the Post Office, in absence of any of those long-term contracts, are we impacted by the State increases that are being considered on the gas tax? Mr. Galligan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are impacted at the State level because much of our fuel purchases are from local fueling stations, so there are implications around the total cost of gasoline. We strategically have not, in the past, and we have shied away from it, we have not gone into options around fuel. I know some airlines have done that strategically well for years. We have not gone out there in futures and purchased long-term contracts to basically hedge on that, so we pay as we go, essentially. Mr. Lynch. OK, thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Holmes Norton for 5 minutes. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I am trying to do is, as the title of the hearing implies, whether or not savings can make a difference, in terms of saving the institution. We just had, Mr. Waller, Mr. Galligan, an increase in the price of the first class stamp, isn't that true? Can we look forward to annual increases in the price of stamps for first class mail, and what effect has that had or is expected to have? Mr. Galligan. Yes, Congresswoman. We have, under the new law, the ability to link annual price increases, smaller, incremental price increases on our mailing products. Ms. Norton. Do you anticipate that the increase in revenue will offset or be more than the loss in business? Mr. Galligan. Absolutely not in this case. The projection coming off of this recent price increase is that it will bring us over $600 million of new revenue from now until the end of the fiscal year, and in the full cycle, it is worth about $1.5 billion. Ms. Norton. The increases were? Mr. Galligan. The increase that just went in, right. Ms. Norton. So it contributes, then, or it is a desperation move that you are going to have--is this the first time you have been able to engage in annual increases? Mr. Galligan. No, it is not. This is actually--from the law in 2006, we had one adjustment under the old rate regime. In 2007, 2008, and 2009 have been the first. And they are linked-- -- Ms. Norton. Seven, eight, and nine? Mr. Galligan. Eight and nine are actually under the new law, and they are linked, they are essentially capped at the CPI level under the law. So we will raise rates at the CPI level annually. Ms. Norton. That is just the rate. But do you anticipate that, given the problems you are having, that these annual rates are going to continue? Mr. Galligan. Well, the annual rate is allowed to continue at the CPI level. If CPI, for instance, through the next number of months, is almost at zero, that means we would not be able to file any kind of price increase next May. Ms. Norton. You testified, Mr. Galligan, that there was a 15 percent decline. I would like you to compare that with prior years. We are looking here at a very unusual period. How does that compare with the fall-off and the deficits in the Post Office? Mr. Galligan. Actually, if we look back last year, I believe we were down about 4 percent to the previous year. 2007 we were almost down the same period last year. As a matter of fact, in early 2007, we were still seeing some very positive growth in the package business and in the ad mail business. First class has been on a 5 percent erosion for many years. Ms. Norton. So we have gone from 4 or 5 percent to 15 percent in this single period that we are looking at. Again, we hope that this is a very irregular period, but it does give some indication by comparison with what you are going through now. Have you engaged in any layoffs, or have you been able to do all of your downsizing in personnel by early retirements, reassignments, and the like? Do you anticipate that there will be a need for layoffs in the future? Mr. Galligan. Well, we have not resorted to layoffs in terms of any of our network changes or consolidation efforts; they have all been done through attrition and employee repositioning. Supplemental work for us, temporary employees-- -- Ms. Norton. Are you hiring people? Mr. Galligan. No, Congresswoman, we have been in a pretty hard freeze for some period of time, with the exception of certain skills we need what are called electronic technicians, high tech jobs to maintain our equipment. We have done some hiring in specialized skills just to keep the basic---- Ms. Norton. So you have an aging work force, essentially. Mr. Galligan. Right. Very much. Ms. Norton. If, somehow--and obviously there would be lots of howls up here, because not everyone is sitting on this subcommittee and hearing what the Postal Service is going through, but if you are reduced to a 5-day delivery schedule, would that be another nip and tuck or would that have a structural effect on your decline? Mr. Galligan. That was a question that Chairman Davis asked me last time I testified, in 2007, and at that point in time volume was very strong and stable. I would have to say, quite honestly, it goes a little beyond the nip and tuck because it is Congress's authority to decide what our universal service obligation is. Ms. Norton. No, I am talking about the effect on your revenue, on your business. I mean, it is very serious, we understand, because it is a huge change from what people expect. I am not sure it as large a change from what people expect, given the plethora of ways we get information today, but it is a change. You have testified, for example, you are delivering many more households, even though you are experiencing this decline, and that has been the case before. The number of households grow and, therefore, you got your 6 day delivery on even more households. If it was reduced to a 5- day delivery, what would be the dollar effect, what would be the savings effect of that kind of change? Mr. Galligan. OK, this is on the table for discussion because we believe it the one multi-billion dollar annual savings opportunity that---- Ms. Norton. It is a what, sir? Mr. Galligan. Multi-billion dollar. Ms. Norton. But you don't know how much? Mr. Galligan. We have ranges internally around, without loss of revenue, $3.5 billion, depending per year---- Ms. Norton. Annually? Mr. Galligan. Annually. Based on the scope, I think it could go as high as $4 billion savings. Now, what needs to be estimated is what negative impact that might have on top line revenue, and the PRC has done some analysis on that. We currently have a cross-functional team working on all the aspects and kind of all the moving parts if we went to a 5-day operating model, and we will have probably a plan within the next 3 to 4 weeks to scope out all the costs. But they are interchangeable. We essentially have looked at this future model in the respect that we would still want to maintain Saturday service at retail; we would still maintain PO box service---- Ms. Norton. You would still maintain it at retail? Mr. Galligan. At retail. Ms. Norton. Because? Mr. Galligan. Because the American public depends on the Saturday morning visit to the post office to pick up packages-- -- Ms. Norton. Because many of them are able to come only on Saturday. Mr. Galligan. Right. That is a high traffic point. So we would want to maintain that. We would maintain 7 day a week service for remittance volumes moving into the banking system, because we know what that means to their cash float. We would have to make those considerations. We would maintain--if someone purchases PO box service, we would maintain that 6 days a week. And I think the PO box service goes to the fundamental, at least operational, structure problem, because what we have is sharply falling demand by the senders of mail. That is the $12 billion fall. At the same point in time, the recipient demand is fixed, essentially based on Congress's authority, universal service; and that recipient demand is not paid for, and I would venture to guess the American public would not want to pay for that through appropriations or a delivery fee of any sort. So I think your policy debate around that value of multi-billion savings and impact really cuts to that big piece. We have cost reduction efforts in the hundreds of millions around network rightsizing and station branch closing, but the one big ticket structural operational change relates to that Saturday delivery frequency and who pays. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, for 5 minutes. Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chairman, I, for the record, want to state I have a family member who is part of the Commission. I have not had extensive discussion with him, just casual holiday conversation about the challenges that the Postal Service makes. So I just want to clarify that. I guess there are not too many of us who spell our name this way, so it is a dead giveaway. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the panel members, you know, for 30 years I have been in government one way or another. I was a 27-year-old mayor facing Proposition 13 and saw some real tough decisions have to be made, down to the abolition of the police department. You talk about taking some heat, you try that. But, boy, I tell you I wouldn't want to be in your seat no matter what. The Postal Service is facing one of the toughest challenges I have seen anybody in government service ever have to face, and I would just like to say that you guys are going to have to be given the benefit of the doubt for a whole lot of things. I think the challenge here is that we have a constitutional obligation. I am not so sure that constitutional obligation requires that it be a government employee who delivers mail, but it does require that we provide some kind of service. A good example, Mr. Chairman, that we don't talk about is that the same section that requires we hold a postal system also requires we maintain postal roads, and we don't physically--the postal system and the Federal Government doesn't physically own those roads, but we make sure the service is there; and I think that is one of those things we have to be open-minded about. The gas tax issue, those of us in local government don't have to pay it, but it is a year retention of your assets before you are reimbursed for gas taxes? Mr. Galligan. I don't believe we are reimbursed. Mr. Bilbray. You are not reimbursed? Mr. Galligan. No. Mr. Bilbray. Well, I will tell you, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that one really sticks out, because why we have our military and local government exempt, when the postal system ends up looking like the deep pockets? So I think that is one of those things that we need to seriously look at. The other thing I would ask us just to be aware of is the ethanol mandate, the 10 percent by volume constitutes a $6 a gallon impact on the consumer. This is something that maybe we can raise through this committee, that when you look at the postal system, this is not just something that affects other people, it is affecting us and our obligations under the Constitution. When you get around to, hopefully, some day, being able to hire on new hirees, are you looking to split role? Mr. Galligan. Congressman, could you explain that, split role? Mr. Bilbray. Split role basically is that you have a whole separate compensation package for new hirees, so you basically separate the traditional employee from the new employee, so you are entering into a different contract with new hirees as of a certain date than the one you committed to with the older ones. Mr. Galligan. OK. We kind of refer to that as a two-tier structure. Mr. Bilbray. Two-tier. Mr. Galligan. Essentially, that is part of our collective bargaining agreement. We are a year and a half away from that point with our unions, but certainly our labor relations folks and human resource folks who deal with that could consider that. Mr. Bilbray. It is funny, on my notes I have split roll/ two-tier. It is this argument that goes around. We are really at a situation where it is sort of interesting that the advertisement segment of the service was really an addendum that took advantage of the opportunity that we were delivering letters 6 days a week to the public, and that why not have them carry advertisements at the same time. That whole world has kind of turned topsy-turvy, right? Mr. Galligan. Right. Mr. Bilbray. So now the primary obligation/responsibility has almost evaporated because of government action working with the private sector at creating alternatives, and now we are looking at maintaining status. Do you really think there is some way, a practical way within the next couple years to maintain 6 day delivery? Mr. Galligan. Personally, Congressman, as I said in my written testimony, I believe the 6-day frequency, which is essentially the Saturday delivery day, it is not a question of if, but when. There is just simply not enough demand for mail. If you look at how it is paid and ask all stakeholders, I don't believe the mailing industry would be willing to take a double- digit price increase to preserve it. I don't believe our unions would take a double-digit wage concession reduction to the payroll to preserve it. And in terms of your seat on this committee, I think you represent the American public, and I don't think the American public would want to pay out of their tax dollars a direct appropriation to preserve that. Mr. Bilbray. So we are just saying the complications that going to the five will create things like the fact that our relief carriers now are not going to have that niche of market to be able to go in there. We basically better plan on how to address the problems created going to a 5-day delivery, rather than trying to stave off the inevitable down the line. Mr. Galligan. And I would just like to point out that I believe the point in time from a labor relations position is probably at no better time than right now, and the reason I say that is contractually, with our NALC, we have temporary employees to the tune of 14,500. We still have some overtime levels that are able to be reduced in the delivery world because of the frequency, and the other piece of that is we have about 50,000 part-time flexible schedule carriers that would have reduced hours until such time that attrition caught up in the carrier world and those hours could come back. Mr. Bilbray. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, all I have to say to the panel is the only thing worse than having to be on the management side of this is being the men and women who are actually working out there in the field and actually got into a profession with the assumption that what could be more secure than being in the mail service; and history had proven this was the best, one of the most secure points of employment possible, and, sadly, history has proven us wrong on this and there are some real challenges out there. I appreciate it and I yield back. Mr. Galligan. Thank you, Congressman. I think we are the best middle-class employer in the country, and we want to stay that way. My father came out of World War II and became a clerk in New Haven, CT, and I came out of high school and became a carrier in New Haven, CT, and that is where we sought our careers and we want to keep it that way. Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. Following the disclosure of Mr. Bilbray, I must also disclose, as I have on multiple occasions, that I currently have about 17 members of my extended family who work for the U.S. Postal Service. A number of those are retired, God bless them, but a number of those, two of my sisters currently are working for the Post Office, a bunch of my cousins, my brother-in-law is a carrier. The upside of that, I have been hearing these issues discussed at the dinner table for many, many years. On the downside, management has not been at the table. [Laughter.] Mr. Galligan. Is that an invitation, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Lynch. Until now, until now. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri for 5 minutes, Mr. Clay. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it fascinating that you have so many members that depend on the U.S. Postal Service in your family. That is probably a good thing. Let me start with Mr. Galligan. In your testimony, you allude to significant limits on your authority to develop new products. Give us some examples of new products that would be created if these limits were lifted. Mr. Galligan. Congressman, I am the operations guy, so I get this secondhand from our product group, but I think the law has provided new opportunities. As I was highlighting before, we are pursuing a summer sale at this point in time on ad mail. If we can get new ad dollars on new mail, we can do those things. I think the fact that--and it is more of a governance issue--our need to bring products to market do have to go through a regulatory commission--I mean, we are modeled somewhat as a regulated monopoly, that we have a postal regulatory commission--that really governs what we can do in our retail space, for instance, what products can we put on our retail counter, so we do have to go through those kinds of processes to bring new products to market. But within the scope of the law there are new opportunities. The sale issue will be an interesting one to see if we can drive new revenue; ad decisions to maybe move ad dollars, scarce ad dollars from TV or radio or newspapers into the mail and get some business here in the back end of the year, where our fixed costs are high and our volume is very low. But it is a process that is typically in the private sector; you are not going through the rigors that we would have to go through. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that answer. How many employees do you estimate will need to be terminated due to an end to Saturday deliveries? Mr. Galligan. Congressman, that goes to my previous point. The fact that our collective bargaining situation currently is set up with about 14,500 employees, temporary employees, these are not career employees, those would immediately be shed, and we could quickly move to that if we are granted the authority. The overtime reductions and about 50,000 employees are what we call part-time flexibles, their hours would be reduced and we could avoid layoffs completely with the carrier crop. I am concerned that if we move out in the future and hit this wall after our authority to use those 14,500 temporary employees is gone, after overtime is down to zero, we would then only be able to achieve savings in those out-years with layoff. Mr. Clay. The more than 1,400 supervisors and management positions are being eliminated to reduce costs. How does the USPS determine which employees will have their positions eliminated? Mr. Galligan. Congressman, the burden is not all carried on our rank and file, our bargaining unit member; we went after, in a very aggressive way, white collar jobs. We set targets at 15 percent reduction in white collar jobs in our districts; we have consolidated six districts completely around the country to save X hundreds of positions; and in our plant environment, because, interestingly enough, in our plants, since the year 2000, we have cut our work force by one-half. That is the amount of attrition with technology, volume declines, etc. In that same time we needed to play catch-up around how many supervisors are needed for that lesser work force. I mentioned earlier that our day shift environment, because there is limited ad mail, has a bear minimum, so what we did is we calculated what we call a 22:1 ratio on white collar jobs in our plants and we reset our base of managers on that calculation. Mr. Clay. OK, thank you for that. Why hasn't the Postal Service offered any incentives to employees for taking early retirement? And are you working with the unions to evaluate the types of incentives that the Postal Service would consider? Mr. Galligan. That is probably going to be the easiest question I get this year. When we are facing potentially a $1.5 billion cash position, we do not have the liberties right now to make those kinds of decisions to even consider and offer any sweeteners or incentives this fiscal year. Mr. Clay. So you just think they are going to walk away from their jobs? Mr. Galligan. Well, we actually have a projection based on a year-to-date in this pool of 150,000 people that, by end of year, we should be down 43,000 management and craft positions nationally. That is the track we are on projecting. And that is a sizable reduction in work force. Even for an employer as huge as the Postal Service it is significant. Mr. Clay. So those 43,000 will be voluntary. Mr. Galligan. Right. Mr. Clay. Through attrition and retirement. Mr. Galligan. Right. Mr. Clay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. Rather than do another round of questions, I do recognize that our questioning doesn't necessarily hit on all the pertinent points that you would like to share with the committee, so at this point, even though, Mr. Galligan, you have had plenty of exercise this morning, I am going to ask you if you have 5 minutes where you would like to inform the committee of any topics that we did not raise or simply amplify a point that you might have touched upon earlier in your discussion, and then I will follow to Mr. Waller, so you have 5 minutes to think about. I notice there may have been questions to Mr. Galligan, but Mr. Herr and Mr. Waller, I saw you writing, so you might have your own ideas about questions that were asked to Mr. Galligan. So I am going to give you each 5 minutes just to further elucidate certain points. Mr. Galligan. Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly, the key points are immediate cash crunch. The $2 billion relief from H.R. 22 we desperately need and support that bill. From my jurisdictional point of view, I think understanding from Congress around our need to pull back this infrastructure, whether it is a plant closing or a consolidation, those are necessary choices that we have to take because of the decline in demand for mail. In our station and branch environments, and I know from the last hearing you mentioned it, we need to closely look at where we have brick and mortar facilities within very few miles or even walking distance of each other, to be able to go and analyze and do the right thing for our urban customer base. They are well equipped to take their services through alternate access, Web site, USPS.com, other avenues. We need Congress's support and understanding on that. And foremost is if there is one big lever that needs to be pulled, it is around the 5-day service, it is around understanding what we would not do on Saturday, how that would change the service standards and how much savings would come out of that effort with also some very reasonable estimates to what that might do in terms of mail volume. And I think that kind of summarizes my views operationally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Galligan. Mr. Waller, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Waller. In regard to, first, the questions, I think Ms. Norton was asking about the estimated cost savings and what it would do the revenue or the volume reduction, maybe, because people stop using the mail. The Commission, in its estimate of the $1.9 billion annual savings from going to 5 days, did assume a reduction in volume, a minor one, 2 percent, given what we are seeing lately. Maybe that is a little bit too small, but a 2 percent reduction at least built in, and the models can do what-if analyses to do more. That accounted for about $600 million of the difference between the Postal Service's larger estimate, because they didn't include that. The other point I think around the carrier issue that is very important is that mail processing is about the costs there, the labor costs, at least, vary with volume, almost 100 percent up and down. It can be done that way, and the Postal Service has been very remarkable in maintaining that. The carriers, on the other hand, it is about 50 percent variable, so that, as volume drops, you can't automatically lose as much mail by just being more efficient in your delivery, because you have that great fixed cost of going around the route every day, whether there is a lot of volume or a little volume; and that is why it makes it so attractive to do a reduction in a day of delivery, because you eliminate that fixed cost. The other issue that was raised by committee members here is the finding new forms of revenue. The PAEA did restrict the Postal Service to postal activities, related to handling mail, did not want them going into a lot of new initiatives not related to postal; and the Commission has had to go through all their related services and say is it a postal or non-postal, is it grandfathered, etc. But we have really been working very hard, the commissioners, with the Postal Service to make sure, as they come up with new initiatives--and the new initiatives are like the summer sale or the new logistics thing that was just approved to allow special loading of less than full trucks, a new type of service, and all these negotiated service agreements. One of the things that we do is turn it around very quickly, do not make it a long, lengthy hearing, so that if they reach an agreement with a mailer for a particular sales season, that the Commission works to meet either 15 day, 30 days, whatever is the legal requirement for notice, and has been very successful in that regard. So in the sense we welcome all the more they can have. The Commission is working very hard not to be a bottleneck on the approval of any new initiative. And in that sense I think that we would like to see, the Commission would like to see all sort of new revenue opportunities develop. But they are restricted by the law to postal activities, they can't go afield. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Herr, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Herr. Thank you. I think reflecting on some of the discussion and questions today, we applaud the Postal Service's efforts to achieve cost savings through work hour reductions. That is needed and necessary given the volume reductions that the Postal Service is facing this year. But that said, that is not a shortcut for longer term restructuring of the retail and processing networks. We have had discussion today about that excess capacity and where it exists. There are opportunities there. The Postal Service mentioned today in their statement about 3,000 potential facilities there. In some work we did for the Senate that came out about a year and a half ago, we had a methodology that looked at how counties are served, and that methodology might be a useful one in looking at those kinds of opportunities that are there. I think also efforts to increase efficiency. I believe that people say in this kind of operation you can't just cut, they also have to look at ways to make things more efficient, and the work we have underway for this subcommittee looking at delivery efficiency, work with the letter carriers, there are opportunities there to make sure the routes are structured in the most efficient way possible. That is very important. There is also some new technology that is being rolled out with the flat sequencing. One of the things that will enable is getting the carriers on the street more time, rather than in the office sorting mail. Those are things that will ultimately help the Postal Service achieve additional efficiencies and be able to deal with the reduced volume, but also reduce costs as well, at the same time. So we would encourage those kinds of efforts as well. The last thing, there was some mention today about an additional study that is coming out in 2 to 4 weeks, looking at the impact of 5 day delivery, and that is something that we have called for in the last several hearings we have done this year. I think that is very important for transparency. I think Ms. Norton mentioned the importance of having an understanding of the costs and the benefits of something like that, and I applaud the Postal Service in taking those steps to help people understand, both the mailing community and individuals, what that would mean for them so they can plan for that kind of change should it become necessary. Mr. Lynch. I just want to ask you about that last point you made about the study. There were two numbers out there as to what might be saved by this reduction to 5 day delivery, one was $1.9 billion, the other was considerably higher. This study, what did it reveal, or is it concluded yet? Mr. Herr. The analysis, I believe this is what Mr. Galligan mentioned that the Postal Service has underway to look at what those costs and benefits are. Mr. Lynch. All right. Mr. Herr. And that is something we have been on the record as mentioning is important. Mr. Lynch. Well, that number serves as the underpinnings of what decision will be made by the committee if it is reached. That is a very important number, so we want to make sure we get that right. In conclusion, I want to thank you each for attending here and helping the committee with its work. I am sure there are some Members who wished to attend today, but they are in other hearings, so I am going to allow them to submit questions to you in writing and allow those responses from you as well in writing. But I want to thank you again and bid you good day. The committee is going to recess for about 3 minutes until we get the next panel up, and then we will resume. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. Lynch. Again, welcome and thank you. It is the custom of this committee to ask those members who are about to give testimony to stand and raise their right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Lynch. Let the record show that each of the witnesses has indicated in the affirmative. Your entire statements have been entered into the record, and I will just do a brief introduction of our second panel. Mr. William Burrus is president of the American Postal Workers Union. Mr. Burrus is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Union Network International, which is a global federation of unions that represents postal and other service workers. Mr. John Hegarty is the president of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union. Prior to becoming national president, Mr. Hegarty served as president of Local 301 in New England, which serves my home district, which is the second largest local union affiliated with the Mail Handlers Union. Mr. Dale Goff is in his 39th year with the U.S. Postal Service. He began as a postal assistant in New Orleans. Mr. Goff has been a member of the National Association of Postmasters for 29 years, where his positions have included State president, national vice president, and national president. Welcome, gentlemen. As you have been frequent fliers to this committee in the past, I don't have to explain the rules. Mr. Burrus, you are currently recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM BURRUS, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO; JOHN HEGARTY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION; AND DALE GOFF, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTMASTERS OF THE UNITED STATES STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BURRUS Mr. Burrus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our friend, my friend, Bill Young, is not present. Do I get his 5 minutes? Mr. Lynch. No, he gets his in the next hearing. But thank you. Mr. Burrus. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for affording our Union the opportunity to express our views on the important topic of this hearing, especially at this time of reduced mail volume and revenue. The postal community is unanimous in our conclusion that immediate relief from the obligation to fund retirees' healthcare benefits from the postal operating budget is paramount. We need your help in navigating the legislative process to ensure that the Postal Service receives this desperately needed change in policy. Without it, the Postal Service will be unable to adapt and to survive. But adjusting the payment method of retiree healthcare benefits is just one option the Postal Service is pursuing, and it is only a short-term fix to stave off imminent collapse; it will not address the long-term challenges. The Postal Service is also engaged in many other efforts to reduce costs, even as it overlooks the fundamental continuing cause of its financial difficulties. These actions are having a detrimental effect on service and often generate little or no savings. Postal attempts at network realignment are a case in point. The Postal Service first announced it would overhaul the mail processing network when it released its original Transformation Plan in April 2002, but it ignored demands from legislators and workers for details about where, when, and how consolidations would take place. To date, the Service has refused to provide specifics of this Plan or the criteria it relies upon when selecting facilities for consolidation. Many of the early announcements of consolidation generated strenuous opposition from workers and affected communities. In 2006 and 2007, 37 of the 50 consolidations were terminated, placed on hold, or reversed. During this time period, the Postal Service was the subject of severe criticism by the GAO for their lack of transparency in its planning efforts and for failing to allow for sufficient input from workers, citizens, and public officials in affected communities. The Postal Regulatory Commission also disapproved of the Service's consolidation efforts. And to make matters worse, there is no conclusive evidence to support Postal claims that plant consolidation will lead to greater efficiency or savings. And despite management's assurance to the contrary, citizens, community leaders, small business leaders, and postal workers are concerned that a realigned mail processing network will reduce service and delay the delivery of mail. The danger is clear: If service to small businesses and individual citizens is permitted to decline, it could lead to the demise of the institution. Regrettably, the Postal Service has consistently failed to share an overview of its network realignment plans with the American Postal Workers Union, despite repeated requests and a national level grievance. Postal officials, however, have given an in-depth presentation about the plan to the Mailers Technical Advisory Committee, an organization representing the interest of major mailers. Management has finally scheduled a union briefing that is scheduled to take place next week. However, even if we overlook the faults, the Service's cost-cutting efforts are subverted by its postal rate strategy, which dramatically reduces revenue from major mailers without a corresponding reduction in service. And I note the testimony that preceded this panel there was not a mention about the rates. The Postal Service business model is based on the erroneous premise that discounts for large mailers increase volume. However, review of the effects of three decades of rate manipulation reveals that discounts have failed to boost first class volume. The graph appended to my testimony shows the effect of rate changes on volume and demonstrates that despite disproportionate increases in postage discounts, volume has been unaffected. This flawed rate policy subsidized large mailers at the expense of American citizens and jeopardizes the viability of the U.S. Postal Service. Rates for major mailers have been manipulated to the extent that they pay as little as 76 percent of the official first class rate for the same level of service. A two-tiered rate structure has evolved, and with the implementation of the previously mentioned cost-cutting initiatives, two levels of services are emerging, one for the large mailers and another for private citizens. The second appendix to my testimony, Attachment No. 2, illustrates the discrepancy. Letter No. 1 is the typical first class business letter that qualifies for the work share discount. Because the mailer affixed the bar code that appears at the bottom of the letter, the Postal Service reduced the first class rate from 44 cents to 33.5 cents, a discount of 24 percent. Letter 2 is also prepared by the business mailer with the bar code placed at the top of the address window. However, the postage is paid by the recipient of letter No. 1, the average American citizen. The cost, 44 cents, the full first class rate, even though the letter also contains a barcode and is prepared identically to the discounted piece and requires the same amount of work by the Postal Service. The efforts to reduce costs, plant consolidation, massive employee reassignments, reduced retail hours, and the reduction of neighborhood collection boxes will have a devastating effect on service, and faulty rate strategy has drained much needed revenue, threatening the viability of the institution. Passing H.R. 22 will provide the Postal Service immediate relief, but the long-term solution to the crisis is to end the policy of subsidizing large mailers at the expense of the American citizens and the Postal Service. Without congressional intervention, the noble mission of the Postal Service ``to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people, and to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all communities'' will be no more than prose. We can do better than that and we need your leadership, Mr. Chairman, to achieve those objectives. [The prepared statement of Mr. Burrus follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Burrus. Mr. Hegarty. STATEMENT OF JOHN HEGARTY Mr. Hegarty. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member Chaffetz, and the other members of the subcommittee, for calling this hearing. You have asked for testimony today focusing on the impact that the Postal Service's cost cutting is having on postal operations and the postal network. Responses from the Postal Service to the current economic crisis include a blanket hiring freeze for virtually all career positions, a reduction in overtime hours, and a drastic reduction in total career positions. Indeed, in just the last 18 months, the Postal Service has reduced career positions by more than 40,000 employees. Another aspect of the Postal Service's cost cutting program, and one in which mail handlers are more familiar, are efforts to reduce the number of facilities and/or to shift operations in the postal network through its Area Mail Processing [AMP] Guidelines. It has, as I said in my written statement, been a rough road, with many starts and stops along the way. The Postal Service has received much criticism from many stakeholders. Recently, the Postal Service has sent to this point at least 35 notices in which it announced that it intends to perform a feasibility study to determine if the movement of certain mail processing would help to eliminate excess capacity and/or would allow the Postal Service to make more efficient use of existing facilities. Mr. Chairman, there is a need to ensure the short-term financial viability of the Postal Service and the long-term financial viability. It may require the closing and consolidation of certain postal facilities. But there is also the need to ensure that service does not decline and that the future postal network is not cut too severely such that the Postal Service will not be prepared to provide universal and low-cost service when mail volumes recover. Our suggested solution is to approach these issues on a case-by-case basis. For example, suppose there are two mail processing facilities only a few miles apart and both of those facilities are underutilized, and the work at the smaller facility simply could be consolidated into the larger installation without disruption. Or perhaps one facility is much more dilapidated than the other. Or perhaps one facility is governed by an expensive lease; whereas, the other building is actually owned by the Postal Service. Where the proposal makes economic and logistical sense, where service standards will not be negatively affected, where major mailers in the area will not be inconvenienced, and where all negotiated requirements with the unions have been complied with, then the Mail Handlers Union will not simply oppose for the sake of opposition. Conversely, the Postal Service should not be conducting an AMP study just to show that they are doing something. In those cases where it makes sense, the Mail Handlers Union focuses on minimizing the dislocation and inconvenience that might be suffered to our employees. We have negotiated contractual provisions which require the Postal Service to give its unions and its employees advanced notice of any proposed closings or consolidations. We also have negotiated provisions which obligate the Postal Service to ensure that dislocation and inconvenience to its employees in the regular work force shall be kept to a minimum, and that is a quote right out of our Collective Bargaining Agreement. If each of these provisions were properly implemented, we would not have as many problems as we are currently facing. Unfortunately, the rational and realistic approach does not always control the day. First, the Postal Service often announces proposals that have no realistic chance of being approved, thereby causing panic among postal employees and customers, and political upheaval that is sometimes worse than the proposal itself. Second, even when the proposed closing or consolidation is eventually approved and implemented, the Postal Service does not always follow its contractual obligation to its employees. The best way to minimize hardships is to discuss the matter with the unions and management associations even before the proposal is announced publicly. The Postal Service consults with its major mailers or other customers and considers the views of the community leadership, but it also must consult with its unions at the local and national levels. The parties would be well served to discuss these proposals before a feasibility study is publicly announced, and the same message should get out to local union representatives and local management. This hearing will certainly help us to reach that goal. Turning back to the financial situation now facing the Postal Service, I would like to reiterate my organization's wholehearted support for H.R. 22, which would provide the Postal Service with some much needed relief by slowing down, but not eliminating, the USPS prefunding requirement for retiree healthcare benefits without endangering the healthcare benefits of current or future retirees. Again, thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hegarty follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Hegarty. Mr. Goff for 5 minutes, please. STATEMENT OF DALE GOFF Mr. Goff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am once again honored to speak with this subcommittee about our national postal system and the economic climate in which it serves the American public. I think it is important to underscore that the underlying cause of the USPS's dire financial situation is the weakness of the U.S. economy. In addition, if the agency was not required to prefund its retiree health costs, its financial picture would be infinitely better. NAPUS strongly believes that the justification for short- term legislative help has not abated. Consequently, we urge Congress to proceed as expeditiously as possible with such relief. Today, NAPUS will discuss the postal retail network. Postmasters are the managers in charge of post offices. Therefore, we are uniquely positioned to provide insight into the retail network operations from the ground level. First, permit me to state that NAPUS does not believe every postal facility in the country should be immune from closure or consolidation. If the Postal Service follows the law and established regulations, constructively consults with its frontline management team, and communicates clearly with the affected community, network rightsizing is achievable. On the other hand, arbitrary facility closings, consolidation for consolidation sake is not a wise strategy. Consolidating or closing a postal facility without regard to its impact on the overall network is counterproductive and will cost the Postal Service revenue in the long run. This subcommittee needs to consider, as part of its review of retail operations, the USPS's universal service obligation and how a closing or consolidation impacts both the impacted community as well as the network itself. It is important to recognize that not all facilities are similar. Of the 36,723 retail and delivery postal facilities, 27,232 are post offices, 4,851 are branches or stations, 658 are carrier annexes, 3,148 are contract postal units, and 834 are community post offices. Contract postal units and community post offices are not operated by the U.S. Postal Services and, consequently, cannot offer the full menu of postal products and services. Branches, stations, annexes, contract postal units and community post offices are all subordinate to a local post office. In many towns and villages, the only access to postal services is their post office. Furthermore, only post offices are singled out in Title 39 of the U.S. Code for special protection against closing for solely economic reasons. Far flung, isolated communities throughout the Nation use their post office as community centers, banks, pharmacies, and as the nexus for vital government services. In addition to being a revenue producing origination point, post offices are also the destination point of mailed matter. Secure post office boxes and distribution points for accountable mail characterize post offices. It is important to note that even if you close every small and rural post office in the United States, you would save only $586 million, a mere eight-tenths of 1 percent of the USPS operating budget. Mr. Chairman, indeed there are savings to be realized in the retail network, through the elimination of senseless requirements that add work hours and cost to postal operations. For example, the USPS Mystery Shopper Program wastes postal revenue. PRC Chairman Dan Blair recently remarked that the program is not statistically valid and, as a consequence, the Commission does not use the data as part of its annual compliance determination. The Mystery Shopper Program squanders postal dollars and should be terminated. In addition, postal districts contribute significant, non- necessary costs to retail operations. Many of their make-work directives add no value to postal products, nor do the orders improve customer service. These pointless initiatives waste time and money. For example, some postmasters are required to file a tracking report, get this, to track if the postmasters are completing the other requested reports. Talk about folly and redundancy. In order to save costs, I encourage the Postmaster General to negotiate with our unions about cross-craft training. An agreement in this area would enhance the skills of individual postal employees and enable postmasters to more effectively utilize their talent. On the other side of the ledger, the Postal Service has done away with programs that actually could reduce costs. For example, the Postal Service suspended managerial training. The result is that postmasters are denied necessary instruction and tools to more effectively operate their facilities and save money for their post office. In addition, the agency has eliminated or curtailed revenue generating vending machines in automated postal centers. Mr. Chairman, understandably, the task that we confront is daunting. However, the bottom line is that we must protect postal universality. Postmasters remain committed to working with Congress toward protecting the Postal Service as a national treasure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Goff follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Goff. I thank you all. I yield myself 5 minutes. As a threshold comment, each of you talked about H.R. 22. If all had gone as planned, we would have marked that up at today's hearing. However, as part of the markup and the whole amendment process, one of the critical pieces of information is really the CBO scoring of how much a particular piece of legislation will cost, what the cost associated with that would be. In fairness to CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, they have a lot on their plate right now and they thought it would take a bit more time, maybe a week, to get the hard numbers on the CBO scoring on this bill, H.R. 22. So as soon as we come back after the Memorial break, we will come back in and at the first available opportunity we will mark that up. We should note, however, that there will be benchmarks in that bill. There is relief in that bill, as you have requested, but also within that bill there are benchmarks about cost savings. For the current year, I think the Postal Service has already accomplished what they need to do, if their numbers are valid, and I believe that, in a large degree, they are. But there are also cost reduction requirements going forward in the years described in the bill, and there is also a provision where, if the economy does turn around the Post Office starts generating sufficient revenues, then there is a pour-over provision that money gets diverted back into the trust fund. So we don't allow that to go on forever. We understand the relief that is needed in the short-term, but in the long-term we think we cannot suffer those the unfunded liability that would accrue if we just allow this to go on perpetually. In any event, we will obviously have a markup on this in a couple of weeks and go forward. I want to thank you for your testimony. Let me cut to the chase. There has been significant reduction in costs already, and I commend you on your cooperation in working with the Post Office in accomplishing that. None of it could have been done without your help. However, we are getting to a situation where the cuts go closer to the bone in some cases, where we have to look at retail operations. I have a district that is two cities, Boston and Brockton, and I have 19 towns. The instances where post offices are located very close to each other happen to be in the major cities. As you know, I was a former iron worker, and it seemed like every time we threw up a high-rise of 30 stories or more, there was a post office that went right in that building, and the volume of mail at that time certainly justified it. So now we have situations in some of our major cities where you have four or five high-rises in a very close proximity and you have four or five postal facilities, a retail shop inside each of those high-rises. We are going to have to look at some of that and we are going to need your cooperation to look at some of these facilities where we have redundancy that might have been justified in earlier days, when we had higher volume, but now we only have a number of options. We have raising rates again? That is distasteful. A direct appropriation to the Post Office for the first time? A lot of people think that the Post Office is run by tax money. It is run by revenue. But we are looking at a situation where, if the Post Office runs out of money, as Mr. Galligan explained earlier today, they would be looking for some type of bailout. They have a statutory limit as to what they can borrow, and if they could not make that obligated payment on September 30th into the fund, they would be in violation of the law. And the trend is not good. Every single witness today that has opined on the likelihood of recovery in 2010 has basically said 2010 looks as bad, if not worse, than 2009. And these are historic drops in volume on the order of 1929 and the great crash. So what can you tell me about efforts to create some efficiencies here, consolidate where we have duplicative services? How do we get there, and obviously with accommodations to your employees without layoffs? We are talking about voluntary attrition meeting the goals of reduction in force. How do we work together to get there on some of these facilities that need to be closed? Mr. Burrus. I will go first. My union stands ready and willing to be an active partner with the Postal Service, with this committee, with the Congress in finding efficiencies in the Postal Service. The previous panel testified about efforts that have been underway in the past and those cuts that have been made, 70 percent of all those cuts have been in my bargaining unit. My bargaining unit is being cut in half, over 100,000 employees within the bargaining unit. So any suggestion by Postal management that the unions may be uncooperative, well, they have pulled over 100,000 employees out of the people that I represent. But I think the basic flaw of the Postal Service in their efficiency efforts is that they have viewed the network as the postal network, the 400-plus plants, the 37,000 facilities. Those facilities are under the direct control of the U.S. Postal Service where postal employees are employed. They view that as the universe where savings can be achieved. The network consists of much broader facilities than just the postal service facilities, and they are funded through the rate schedule. We provide funding for over 100 facilities scattered throughout the country to provide the same services that we provide within the Postal Service, processing and transportation. They are not being reviewed. Our machines, the machines that the employees that I represent function on, their efficiency rate is 37,000 pieces per hour. Now, if there is an 8 cent discount on every letter that goes through there, that is the wage rate that the Postal Service is paying for those private corporations to perform the exact same functions that the employees I represent are performing. So if they are willing to put everybody in the pot, everybody that plays a role in the Postal Service processing, transportation, collection, and delivery network into the pot and say we can all of us find efficiencies, then we are a willing partner. We want to participate in that. But don't just look at part of that network and impose a disproportionate share of the savings on that segment, and that is what is happening. Mr. Lynch. Fair enough. Mr. Hegarty. Mr. Hegarty. Yes. I think hard choices have to be made, but I think the key is going to be communications and input, and have the Postal Service have some meaningful dialog with the unions and management associations. I think we started doing that. I will give Postmaster General Potter credit for calling much more frequent meetings with the organizations. We met probably six or seven times in the last 8 months, which is much more frequently than we had been meeting. But, the Postal Service also needs to be realistic. As I said in my testimony, if a consolidation or closing makes sense, we are willing to work with the Postal Service. We need to reduce the impact on our employees. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding back in 2003 that requires the Postal Service and the Union to meet at the headquarters level to discuss Article 12 impacts and discuss work force repositioning issues. We have started those meetings once this came to the forefront that the AMP studies were going forward, and we are making some progress with that. But there are still the horror stories out there. We were recently notified that they were going to involuntarily excess employees from Memphis, TN to Tulsa, OK. That is 400 miles away. A postal employee who made a career decision to work for the Postal Service now has a very hard choice: Do they leave the place they grew up, where their kids are going to school, where their spouse may have a good job, to follow their Postal job 400 miles away, uproot their family, try to sell their house in this terrible real estate market, or do they just give up their job with the Postal Service? So those are the choices that some of our employees are facing, and we are really trying to minimize those types of choices. Other ways that we have tried to save the Postal Service money, I mentioned at the last hearing that all the unions and management associations have agreed to voluntarily increase the healthcare contributions. That total that we estimated last time over 5 years, with all employees together, is saving the Postal Service $800 million over the 5 years. We have also agreed to very reasonable contracts in our contract negotiations with the Postal Service in our collective bargaining agreements. For instance, most Postal employees, my bargaining unit specifically, will receive a 1.2 percent raise this year, while Government employees are in line for a 2.9 percent raise. So not only have we accepted smaller wage increases and increased healthcare contributions. So we are working with the Postal Service. One other thing I would like to point out in this particular segment is the fact that the Postal Service still has some operations subcontracted. They are paying other people to perform work that career Postal employees could be performing and, in fact, should be performing. In fact, you have clerks, mail handlers and other Postal employees around the country sometimes clocked under standby time, which means clock onto a specific operation number and go sit in the break room until we need you; and they will spend hours in there doing nothing, getting paid by the Postal Service, while we have contract employees performing empty equipment duties, sorting duties at what they used to call the HASP, the hub and spoke processing facilities. There are at least three of those major facilities that are totally non-Postal, and that is work that Postal employees should be doing. Thank you. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Hegarty. Mr. Goff. Mr. Goff. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, just like Mr. Burros said and Mr. Hegarty, the first thing that comes to mind is that we have to communicate with each other. Whether we are management or we are craft or we are headquarters or we are the people on the front line, we have to communicate; and we have done that to some extent, but as I said in my testimony, not for the sake of just saying we have communicated, or to let the committee know that we have been meeting. We have to communicate to the point that if we have viable solutions and recommendations that we have brought to these meetings, then we need to follow through and talk about them some more and put those things on the table. We have had the frequent meetings. There is also the provision, as I said in my testimony, with the law as far as consolidating facilities and closing facilities. If we follow the law, I don't think there is anybody who would dispute, if it is done the right way and it is proven that facility is not needed, then we can go ahead and agree to that situation. It is when we go in there and we are arbitrarily suspending post offices now and we are doing the different things. Urban area, rural area, as you have heard me say before, are two different things. If we have the concentration of branches in a big city, we also have those rural areas where there is not another post office for 200 miles away, so we need to really preserve those facilities. There are a lot of things that postmasters, the clerks and everybody have been involved with. We got into some programs to help generate revenue. We have all backed that. Even the mail handlers have jumped in to do some of those programs. Postmasters have eBay days, they get people that deal in eBay. They are in there telling them how to do it and how to use our products to generate revenue. We have passport days. It is all ways that we can come to that community and can generate revenue. So there are many things that we can do. The overall thing that I think we all understand is that, yes, we have to make some major changes to go forward, and the best way to do that is that we all communicate together. It is a pleasure for me to sit here with two of the craft presidents of the unions, to have a management president sitting with them to testify at the same time. That goes a long way. We have a great working relationship, all of us. We talk back and forth and we support each other on a lot of things. Sometimes Mr. Burrus goes the other way with us, but that is all right. But we do have a great working relationship and we have to keep that communication open, and I think that is the biggest thing to move forward. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Goff. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, from Utah, for 10 minutes. Mr. Chaffetz. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it and I appreciate the big group hug that is going on there at the table. That is great. If you could each maybe take a moment and from your perspective, your thoughts on 5 day delivery. And let's mix things up and start with Mr. Hegarty this time. We will let Mr. Burrus go last here. Mr. Hegarty. Thank you. I said at the previous hearing that I was concerned that 5 day delivery may drive mail volume down, may drive some of our volume to our competitors, it may cause people to pay their bills online, to do their banking online; and I still think that is the case. I am a little bit worried, especially--I think we discussed it at the last hearing--about when there is a holiday weekend. You have no Saturday delivery, no Sunday delivery, no Monday delivery; now the first time you are going to get your mail between Friday and over the weekend is going to be Tuesday. So if I am a consumer and my electric bill is late and I get assessed a penalty, or my MasterCard bill is late, or my bank statement doesn't arrive on time and I am unable to reconcile how much I have in the bank and I overdraw a check, I am just going to go online and start paying my bills online. So I am concerned with that. And that is business that will never come back. We have a competitive advantage in that we deliver on Saturdays with no extra cost to the consumers. We don't have fuel charges. Some other competitors do. So I am very concerned that 5 day delivery will cause a big drop in volume. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Mr. Hegarty. On the other hand, I think we need to be realistic. If that is the only way for the Postal Service to survive and, as Mr. Galligan described, they are still going to have retail open on Saturdays, if they were still going to deliver packages, instead of cutting out just the letters, and it is a substantial savings and it is thoroughly looked at by not just the Postal Service, but the other agencies, then we may have to accept that down the road. Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Goff. Mr. Goff. Previously, I stated that our organization was not in favor of the 5-day delivery, and I still say that at this point. We have heard this morning some different figures from the last hearing that we have had. My concern is that when we all come together and agree on one type of figure for a savings, then I can possibly agree with this, but when we are so far off on the different figures, I still have concerns about that. Just as Mr. Hegarty said, my concern is that every Monday, if we go with the Saturday as not being the day, would be that day after a holiday. Whatever we saved on that Saturday, we would be spending on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday catching up for what was there for that weekend. So that is my biggest concern with it. I am not sure that the cost is there that everybody says, and I think that we need to take some time and not overreact the way we are doing right now, to say 5 day delivery is our savior. I don't think that is going to be the savior. We need to take some time to look at this. And if the economy ever recovers--and none of know when that is going to happen--people are going to come back to ad mail. They are going to come back to the mailers out there and say, hey, you are the best bargain around and we are going to use you again because we got our economy back and we have a budget that we can start spending on mail again. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. This assessment of the dollars, Mr. Chairman, I think has been quite varied. I do not feel comfortable that we have identified what those potential savings could be, what the ultimate costs are. I have heard a huge swing in numbers, and I would concur with you that I don't think we have fully assessed not only the economic and emotional impact and business relationships that we have with our big mailers, but what the true savings and costs are. Let me also say, as we go to Mr. Burrus here, I really do appreciate that I am getting very strong impression the unions are doing everything they can to work with all aspects, and I appreciate the approach. There have been a significant number of people through various reductions and whatnot, and I applaud you all for your proactive and positive approach to it. I am sorry, Mr. Burrus, your comments on a 5-day. Mr. Burrus. I think it is an act of desperation. Perhaps we are at the point where the only things left are acts of desperation, but I think it would be the beginning of the end. I think once you legally permit another carrier to assume the responsibility of the Postal Service on any of the 6-days of the week--let's assume it is Saturday--that will add to the diversion of mail to electronic means, the economic, the shift from a debt driven society to one that engages in savings and our volume does not follow the request for credit cards and the other things that drive the commercial activities. I think that going from a 6-day delivery to 5 day delivery may hasten the demise of the Postal Service. Somebody is going to deliver on that 6th day. If the Postal Service abandons it, somebody is going to pick it up gladly. A customer mailing an item on Wednesday that, in the normal 3 day delivery, would have been delivered on Saturday, would not receive delivery until Monday. Somebody is going to fill that void. And I think any diversion of 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent of the volume, where another carrier moves into that opening I think would just accelerate the demise of the Postal Service. I don't think Congress would approve it, to begin with, and I think discussing it sucks the oxygen out of everything else, because it is such an issue that resonates with the American public. You tell the public that they may not get delivery 1 day of the week, they are not paying attention to the H.R. 22 and the impact of that and other requests for relief the Postal Service has made. Those go from the front page to the back page and everything the media focuses on is the reduction of delivery. I think it is not going to come about, but if it did I think it would be a big mistake, a big mistake. I think that FedEx, UPS, and delivery carriers that are not in the business today would pick up that opportunity; and if they can do it on Saturday, they can do it on Thursday at the same time the Postal Service is delivering, so you would have dual delivery forces out there. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. In the interest of time and the call to votes, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 5 minutes. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as possible. Let me start with the entire panel. This is a panel-wide question. Can you tell us how your union or management association is working with the Postal Service to address its current financial difficulties and what specific actions have been taken or are being considered by your union or association? I will start with Mr. Burrus. Mr. Burrus. Yes. Presently, we are not working with them. We have offered. They have made their plans in isolation; they have gone forward with them. We have applied the provisions of our contract and, where appropriate, we would oppose them. But there are no joint efforts presently. We are certainly involved in some of the efforts to build volume. Those are collective efforts in that regard, but in terms of the efforts to downsize, consolidations, they just give us notices when they think of it. There are often times that we don't get the notice timely and we find out from the news reports in the location where the consolidation is taking place. But there are no collective efforts with my union. We are the largest postal union. There are no joint efforts with us to initiate efficiencies and come up with a rational plan. As I included in my testimony, this consolidation plan that has been driven by the large mailing industry, we had a contractual language in 2001 that said we would sit down and develop a consolidation plan jointly. They have not given us a consolidation plan and we are years into that process. So there are no joint efforts in that regard. We stand available and willing to engage them. We certainly will apply the provisions of our contract, because we have secured rights that we have negotiated and we expect them to be enforced. But within the parameters of those collective bargaining agreements, we believe there is a lot of room for us to have some joint efforts. We are on the cusp of getting into a serious issue. We have 37,000 post offices; 17,000 of them where I have bargaining unit employees, and there is no union representation. Even though they are covered by my collective bargaining agreement, there are no stewards or officers in those facilities. And what management has done is systematically taken the bargaining unit work and given it to non-bargaining unit employees. Programs take clerk work and give it to an employee who is guaranteed 8 hours a day to fulfill their daily schedule. And we are going to have a national effort to return that work. That is going to cost the Postal Service millions of dollars. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Mr. Hegarty, how is your union, do you have a working relationship with the Postal Service? Mr. Hegarty. We do have a working relationship. I agree with President Burrus, though, that it could be better, and we are also willing to work with the Postal Service at the headquarters level to do whatever we need to do to cause them to save money. There are a couple of things I highlighted in my testimony a month ago that we are currently engaged in. One is the ergonomic risk reduction process, where we evaluate a facility, train people on how to improve the operations, make them more ergonomically friendly so that employees aren't risking repetitive motion injuries and sustaining injuries that would cost the Postal Service a lot of money down the road in workers compensation costs. The same thing with the Voluntary Protection program, which we partner with the APW, OSHA, and the Postal Service to reduce injuries in a building. To evaluate a building and to make that facility qualify, they have to meet some stringent guidelines established by OSHA to reduce injuries and, again, save the Postal Service money. We also continue to participate in the Quality of Working Life process, which is a cooperative working process where Postal employees from the workroom floor meet with their supervisor in what is called quality circles, and they brainstorm ways to do the job better, more efficiently, and save the Postal Service substantial amounts of money as well. Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response. Mr. Goff, how have the postmasters worked with the Service? Mr. Goff. As far as having specific actions right at the moment, the only thing that I can say on that is we always continuously have off-the-record talks about different ways of doing things that we approach each and every day. As John and Bill have said, we have sat there, we have worked; a lot of times we get told about things that are being done when it is already happening out in the field or somebody in the field tells us about it, and then we have to go back. Unlike them, we don't have a collective bargaining agreement, but we have the parts that we should be consulting on, and I think that is something that we all have to work on improving a whole lot more. Mr. Clay. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I yield back. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Clay. Here is how I would like to handle this. We have 5 minutes left on this vote, so there will be a little delay. Why don't I do this. Mr. Goff, Mr. Hegarty, Mr. Burrus, I am going to give you each 3 minutes. Any points that we have not hit upon in our questions or points that you would like to amplify for the committee, I would like to hear them now. Then I will be able to dismiss this panel so you will be free for the day. I will go over and vote, and then we will come back and take the next panel. But everybody will be able to stretch their legs. How about that? Mr. Goff, you are recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. Goff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to sit here and say, in the absence of time, I have nothing further to add. In my written testimony and what I gave verbally today, I think expresses our concerns about the Postal Service. Being a 39- year veteran of this Service, I want to see this institution stay around for another 200 years. Mr. Lynch. So do I. Thank you. Mr. Hegarty. Mr. Hegarty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have covered pretty much everything that I had thought of for today. I would say that the Postal Service needs to be more proactive in their communications, not just at the headquarters level, but with the craft employees and work with us so that we don't, as President Goff has pointed out, find out about something after it has already been rolled out, or a program when it is 99.9 percent completed and they say what do you think about this program? We are thinking of rolling it out. Our input at that point is really meaningless. I think communications is the key. And as I highlighted earlier, the situation of the folks in Memphis, TN being offered almost an important choice, I think we need to find a way around that. We need our regional people sit down with their regional people. There has to be a better way. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Burrus. Mr. Burrus. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have been a Postal employee within the Postal Service for 55 years now, a long time, and I have seen the changes that have occurred over that extended period of time, from manual, mechanized, automated, electronic. I have seen the rise of UPS and FedEx. I have seen a number of Postal Service initiatives to expand beyond hard copy communications. I understand and appreciate that it is facing significant challenges at the present time. There is no guarantee that 10 years from now representatives from my union and Postal officials will follow on a panel representing the U.S. Postal Service in its present form. It is a real danger that, if they run out of money and can't pay their bills, there is no justification for their continued existence. So I have that as a serious concern and I am concerned about Postal management's effort to make their plans and develop all of their strategies with the large mailers. There is no input by the average citizen. The only effect to the average citizen is the annual increase in postage. There is no consultation with the citizens, there is no input by those people that have their medicines delivered by mail, they send their birthday cards, Christmas cards. It is only 4 percent of volume today, so it is not a sizable number. But they are the purpose for the U.S. Postal Service, and the Postal Service really has no program designed to improve conditions for those employees. And as I testified, my bargaining unit has suffered significant erosions in the number of employees. Over 100,000 fewer jobs exist today than did 10 years. Last year, as testified, some 30,000 fewer jobs. That is understandable in the context of the entire system. I have had several meetings with the Postmaster General, and I pointed out to him it has to be spread more evenly. We are not the only bargaining unit in the Postal Service. Let's see it spread to other elements within the Postal system. To date, there is no indication that they are moving in that direction. As I said, there are people doing the same work, workers doing the same work that my members are performing and the Postal Service compensates not the individual, but the company, over $300 an hour. Now, if you are willing to pay $300 an hour to have the same work performed by the employees I represent and you say you have too many of those, you have to reduce their numbers, there is something wrong there, and my members will react, as well as my union. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. In conclusion, I just want to say, and I know we have some of the Postal Service managers still in the audience and watching, No. 1, people hate change. That goes for the American mail customer as well as employees. And when there is big change, you have to bring them along and explain it, and we in Congress hate surprises. And if we are going to make the changes necessary at the Post Office in a way that maintains respect for our employees and maintains superior service to our customers of the Post Office, then it needs to be a process that is collaborative. So a message to the Post Office: I hate these stories where the Post Office just marches along on its own direction, without talking to its employee representatives. That cannot happen. If there is any obstruction to this whole deal on H.R. 22 and going forward, it will be a lack of consultation with the employees who are affected and the mailing customers who are affected, as well as the relevant Members of Congress who are dealing at the front lines with this issue. So that needs to happen. I hope Mr. Potter is listening. We need to work with folks, especially when there are relocations involved, like the Memphis situation. That is a disaster and they need to take a good second look at that, as well as some other stories that I am hearing around the country. I want to thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your coming here and helping us with our work. I am going to run over and vote, and I will be back, but this panel is dismissed. Thank you. Have a good day. [Recess.] Mr. Lynch. Welcome, and, again, good afternoon. Thank you very much for your patience while we attended those votes. As always, I want to welcome our third panel. As is the custom at this committee, could I ask you to please rise and raise your right hands? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Lynch. OK, let the record indicate that each of the witnesses has answered in the affirmative. We have already ordered that your written testimony shall be entered into the record as written. I will give a brief introduction and then each of the witnesses will have 5 minutes within which to offer opening remarks. Mr. Anthony W. Conway is the executive director of the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers. Over the years, he has managed legislative and public policy relations with the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, trade associations, Postal unions, and management associations. Mr. Robert E. McLean has been executive director of the Mailers Council since 1996. From 1998 to 1996, Mr. McLean represented the National Association of Postal Supervisors on Capitol Hill. Additionally, he has been an adjunct professor at George Mason University. Mr. Jim O'Brien is the chairman of the Association for Postal Commerce, also called PostCom. He is also the vice president of distribution and postal affairs for Time Inc. Prior to joining Time Inc. in 1978, he has held positions with RR Donnelley, United Parcel Service, and U.S. News & World Report. Welcome, gentlemen. Mr. Conway, you may begin. You have 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENTS OF ANTHONY W. CONWAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE OF NONPROFIT MAILERS; ROBERT E. McLEAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAILERS COUNCIL; AND JAMES O'BRIEN, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL COMMERCE STATEMENT OF ANTHONY W. CONWAY Mr. Conway. Thank you, Chairman Lynch. Thank you for inviting me to testify here on behalf of the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers. The Alliance is a coalition of nonprofit organizations dedicated to the preservation of affordable postage rates and dependable mail service. Established in 1980, the Alliance includes over 300 nonprofit organizations and commercial service providers with an interest in nonprofit mailing issues. Our members include many of the Nation's best known charitable, religious, educational, scientific, and other nonprofit organizations. These members rely heavily on nonprofit standard mail and nonprofit periodicals mail to generate necessary support and communicate with existing and potential members, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders. The causes of the Postal Service crisis are well known. The decline in mail volume caused by the current economic downturn has merely accelerated the long-term decline in hard copy correspondence and the diversion of bill payments and other transactions to electronic media. When the economy stabilizes, some mail volume will return to the system, but not enough to fund the Postal Service network cost structure. The result is that even aggressive cost-cutting efforts have not enabled the Postal Service to shrink its costs fast enough to keep pace with declining mail volume. The Postal Service's stakeholders have proposed a number of solutions to these problems, and perhaps the most urgently needed as a short-run remedy is passage of H.R. 22. Other worthwhile short-term and medium-term remedies include, first, increasing work sharing to allow mailers and third-party vendors to perform functions when they can do at a lower cost; two, expanding the use of automation when this is cost- effective; and, three, more innovative pricing such as the current summer sale discount proposal. And, Mr. Chairman, it is time to seriously consider the end of Saturday mail delivery. Should you decide such a move is necessary, nonprofit mailers will work with you to ensure its successful adoption. One option that would be devastatingly counterproductive would be an emergency rate increase. As the Postal Service has recognized, this strategy would accelerate the flight of mail volume from the Postal Service and hurt society as a whole. It certainly would hurt the beneficiaries of nonprofit organizations. The current economic crisis has forced layoffs and program cuts throughout the nonprofit community. Revenues have dried up just when society needs most urgently the good work of nonprofit organizations. Further postal rate increases would only mean further reductions in mission-related programs and greater burdens on national, State, and local governments. None of the remedies discussed above, however, is likely to succeed without a thorough pruning of the Postal Service's massive cost structure. The Postal Service's infrastructure and capacity, built over many years with the assumption of ever increasing mail volume, far exceed the needs of today's postal customers. Comprehensive streamlining of this excess capacity is desperately needed. Unless this painful course is taken, the remedies suggested above will only offer a brief detour from the road to insolvency. The U.S. Postal Service is the greatest postal system in the world. It handles over 40 percent of the world's mail and maintains a delivery network that is second to none. It has been the Cadillac of postal systems for many years, but, unfortunately, the Nation's needs have changed. Instead of the big V8, the Nation now needs a midsize model with greater efficiency. If it cannot attain such an affordable size, the Postal Service could end up like some of the auto makers in Detroit. We don't want that to happen and we hope that necessary change comes quickly for an organization that means so much to American society. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Conway follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. McLean for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. McLEAN Mr. McLean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the Mailers Council, a coalition of mailers and mailing associations. My members collectively represent 70 percent of all mail in the United States. We are especially appreciative of you focusing on the Postal Service's financial problems, which are of great concern to our members, who rely on an affordable, consistent, and high quality postal system. Right now, the Postal Service's operations are operating quite well, but the word crisis seems very appropriate here. It is often overused in hearings like this, but when the Postal Service says that it may not be able to pay its employees, its retirees, or its bills on October 1st, the word crisis seems very appropriate. We think there are two reasons why the Postal Service's short-term problems exist in terms of their finances. One is the recession, which is responsible for the decline of billions of pieces of mail. The other is the aggressive schedule that the Postal Service has had to hue to under the PAEA concerning the prefunding of retiree healthcare costs. Therefore, we greatly appreciate the support that you and this subcommittee will offer to ensure the passage of H.R. 22. That is an important first step to offering the Postal Service some short- term relief, but clearly the system needs more long-term measures. Mailers firmly understand this, agree on the need to it, but have had some difficulty coming to agreement on what terms should be appropriate. When it comes to 5 day delivery, my members are open to this possibility, recognizing that it will create problems for many of them. We have opposed it officially at this point because the Postal Service has yet to offer the level of detail that we would like. Which day of the week will it be? Will this be only a summer program, as initially proposed, or will this be permanent? Will it be offered as a pilot program first? And how much will mailers be involved in any establishment of a pilot program? All questions to which we would like to have answers quickly so that we can determine whether or not this is an idea we can fully support. There are other ways that the Postal Service can reduce its expenses, and you have asked us to focus on one, which is rightsizing the delivery network. It is clear to us that the Postal Service has excess capacity in the system. It simply does not need the number of mail processing facilities that it has, nor can it afford the size of the network that it has today, given the amount of mail volume that has left the system. One of the measures that we hope the Postal Service will avoid, however, is something that Mr. Conway mentioned, and that is an exigent rate case. Any additional increase in postage rates at this point would be incredibly counterproductive and would discourage the return of mail volume to the system, which we hope will occur as the economic situation in this country rebounds. Congress has given the Postal Service a mandate to deliver excellent service to every American in every State without government financial support, which it has done for the past several decades. Right now, my members report that service is very good and the Postal Service is meeting its delivery standards, which we believe is a tribute to both good management and the support of the postal employees. We want quality service to continue, but that cannot happen unless Congress, the Postal Service, and the mailing industry all recognize that, as early as September 30th, the agency may be unable to meet its financial obligations. So we ask for your help in avoiding that so that the Postal Service does not become a burden on taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would gladly answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. McLean follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. McLean. Mr. O'Brien, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF JAMES O'BRIEN Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PostCom would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the Postal Service's cost cutting efforts. All PostCom member companies need a healthy Postal Service to ensure the viability of our businesses. In 2008, the Postal Service delivered 202 billion pieces of mail, approximately the same volume that was delivered in 1999. However, in 2008, the Postal Service delivered to 15 million more delivery points than it did in 1999. These sobering facts indicate that the Postal Service cannot remain financial self- sustaining for much longer under its current model, unless it is given the freedom to make changes in other areas. The Postal Service is much too important to the economy and to the American public to be allowed to atrophy and fail. Saving the Postal Service will require the commitment of USPS management, the postal unions, the mailing industry, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and Congress. Some of the choices facing us will not be without pain. We are all going to have to make some sacrifices. To that end, PostCom has several recommendations, beginning with network adjustments. Mailers feel very strongly that the Postal Service must adjust its network to match today's volume and service requirements. Such a network adjustment could have a negative impact on service. PostCom members are willing to accept service adjustments if the net result is an overall reduction in USPS costs and increased consistency. As long as service remains predictable and reliable, mailers can adjust their printing and mailing schedules to compensate for any network changes. Given the Postal Service's perilous financial condition, we hope that the Postal Service will not be thwarted in its efforts to streamline the network and reduce costs. The frequency of mail delivery is another issue where the mailing industry is willing to put skin in the game. PostCom understands that the Postal Service does not have many opportunities that can result in a savings of $3.5 billion. And I know you think that number is a little bit fuzzy, and we would agree. We also accept the fact that volume is declining and may never return to prior levels. Many PostCom mailers have business plans that depend on 6 day delivery. However, given the dire straits that the Postal Service is now in, PostCom is willing to work with the Postal Service on developing a delivery day solution. The end result will damage some mailers' businesses, but may be required to ensure the survival of the Postal Service. We also realize that reducing delivery by 1 day per week is a decision that cannot be made by the mailing industry or the Postal Service, but requires the approval of Congress. We urge you to give the need for this measure serious consideration. Work sharing is another very important tool for making appropriate adjustments to the scope and scale of the Postal Service's mail processing system. This process is based upon the concept of operating at the lowest combined cost between the mailer and the Postal Service. In work sharing, rates are set at a level that reflects improved Postal efficiencies and marketplace realities. This type of sensible businesslike behavior is needed now more than ever, and PostCom strongly recommends the continuation and expansion of work sharing incentives. The Postal Service is also pursuing an automation strategy to improve the processing of flat shape mail. PostCom applauds these efforts so long as they are aimed at achieving the lowest combined cost across the entire mail supply chain and are not merely shifting costs upstream to mailers and/or mail service providers. On May 7, 2009, the Postal Regulatory Commission granted the Postal Service permission to sell unutilized capacity on its trucks. The Commission has also opened a docket on summer sale prices that are designed to generate more mail volume during the USPS's lowest volume period. PostCom supports both these concepts and notes that these creative ideas represent fresh thinking that has long been absent in the Postal Service's revenue generation efforts. The Postal Service must not be afraid to fail in these tests and the Postal Regulatory Commission, Congress, and the mailing industry must provide the latitude that allows either success or failure. PostCom would be remiss if we did not mention the need for a restructuring of retiree healthcare funding. PostCom appreciates the efforts of Congressman John McHugh and the 309 cosponsors of H.R. 22. It is critical that this legislation gets signed into law prior to September 30, 2009, and we urge Congress to take immediate action. In summary, PostCom members depend on a reliable and affordable Postal Service. Given the perilous state of USPS finances, neither Congress, the Postal Service, the Postal unions, nor mailers can avoid these issues any longer. Substantive changes must happen very quickly or the Postal Service as we know it may not survive. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Brien follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Earlier today we had an opportunity to hear from the Postal Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission, we had a couple of the unions in--the American Postal Workers Union and the Mail Handlers--and also we had Mr. Goff testify from the Postal Supervisors. You are the first today who will actually testify as customers of the Postal Service, and I would like you--I know you were all present during the previous testimony and you have handled this issue for quite a while. Let me ask you to provide the committee with testimony regarding what you think the priorities should be. We are looking at, reducing costs to the Postal Service and trying to restructure the Postal Service so that its viability is assured. So if you have any thoughts on the order of priority where you think we should look for those savings, obviously in a way that minimizes its impact on your constituency businesses, but also if you think there are services that could be offered that could generate revenues that might alleviate some of the pressure we are feeling right now from a decrease in volume, I would like to hear your thoughts on where do you think Congress should look as areas of priority in trying to accomplish our goal here, which is to save the Postal Service. Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway. Thank you. In terms of the cost structure and the reduction of the costs, as I said in my written statement, the infrastructure of the Postal Service was built for a massive mail volume that no longer exists. At its peak in 2006, the Postal Service handled 213 billion pieces of mail. Few doubt the total volume will ever top 200 billion again. The excess capacity of the network has been built over many, many years, and if you recall, Mr. Chairman, prior to 1970, the Postal Service was under the control of the U.S. Congress, and during those years a lot of decisions about where to place facilities and so on were made by the Congress. As a result, you look at the total picture of the Postal Service imprint and you can see the political influence on the system. Not to say that is necessarily bad, but you can see it. It also reflects the importance of the post office and the postal system to America and to the Congress. Going forward, the need for people like ourselves and the people with a stake in the postal system to help inform the American public and the U.S. Congress about this severe problem to get an understanding and get perhaps a little more flexibility that is needed to make these changes I think would be extremely helpful. As far as new products and services, the summer sale--most in the mailing community have applauded this initiative. I think most have felt it was long overdue. But it is just the start, and I think there needs to be a whole lot more creativity within the Postal Service, and it can't come fast enough. I also think the Congress might want to consider the absolute restrictions that now exist on what the Postal Service can do. As a necessary government function, the Postal Service is everywhere in this country. It has a delivery network that is superb. I think the Congress might want to consider what kinds of things the Postal Service is well suited for that it could provide the American people that perhaps is not being provided by the private sector or perhaps could be done more efficiently by the Postal Service than is being done now by other government agencies. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean. I would like to make three points, Mr. Chairman. First of all, in terms of long-term solutions, assuming that H.R. 22 is approved--and that is a large assumption at this point, I recognize, but, long-term everything has to be on the table, from operations to compensation. Mailers recognize that and we are willing to make concessions that would ensure the future vitality of the Postal Service. Once the recession begins to subside and the economy rebounds, issues such as work sharing will become much more important. It is very important that we try to find more ways to bring more mail into the system. The Postal Service has fixed costs that are going to require to spend a certain amount of money making a delivery to your home, whether they deliver one piece of mail or 10. Work sharing can ensure that more mail is delivered to every household. That will help reduce the cost of delivery per piece, and that will help ensure that the Postal Service can return to a more positive financial situation. Third, I would suggest that we find ways of making postal products more available to folks. In Mr. Galligan's testimony, he noted the fact that you can now buy postage stamps in thousands of supermarkets around the country. Stamps are one thing; postal products are another. If you go into most post offices today, there is no longer a vending machine where you can buy more than just stamps or more than just a first class postage stamp. Wouldn't it be great if you could go to the grocery store and there would be a kiosk where you could mail a package, weigh it, get the postage that you need, and wouldn't involve the salary of a single postal employee? Greater use of technology and other ideas that would help make it more accessible to get to the Postal Service, reducing lines on Saturday, which are very long at the post office where I live in Arlington, VA, would be a positive way of ensuring that people continue to use the post office and perhaps of increasing revenue in ways that are unavailable today. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman, I think if you are looking for a game plan for moving forward, I would like to suggest first considering the short-term relief on H.R. 22, and whether the scope of that is 2 years or 8 years, or whatever Congress elects to pursue, that is really up to you and scoring here. But we as mailers don't want to see the Postal Service default on its payment to Treasury, and we are very concerned about what happens if they make a withdrawal of $3 billion on September 30th and then another $3 billion on October 1st. Where is that going to put us mid-2010? We are in a world of hurt. So I think we ought to put that issue aside and try and resolve that as step No. 1. Step No. 2, networks. The Postal Service, we should give them the flexibility to modify their networks right now. Let them run with that. I will give you an example of what happened when they messed it up. They pursued a closing of a facility out in Long Beach, CA, and that facility went awry. The service fell off the table and mailers screamed, and we went to the Postal Regulatory Commission, we went to the Postal Service. This system will self-monitor. The Postal Regulatory Commission is watching service like a hawk right now, so I don't think we need to worry too much about them going down the wrong path if we give them the flexibility to adjust their network. So I would say that should be the second step. The third step is, as you pointed out earlier, a 5-day a week delivery, and 5 day a week delivery is a big ticket item for the Postal Service. They can save a lot of money, but it is going to affect people's businesses, and I will give you an example. Our business, Time magazine, gets affected more than anybody else. We deliver 77 percent of Time magazine on Saturday today. So I have met with---- Mr. Lynch. I am sorry, say that last part again. I am sorry, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien. Seventy-seven percent of Time magazine gets delivered on Saturday. Mr. Lynch. Really? Mr. O'Brien. Yes. We built our whole business around getting magazines to people so that they have them on the weekends, because they sit on your nightstand Monday through Friday, and then on the weekend is when you have the time to read the magazines. So we have kind of built our business that way. We actually changed the schedule for Time magazine a number of years ago. So we are going to get hurt worse than anybody, to be honest with you, with the loss of Saturday delivery. But I think those are the kinds of sacrifices that we all are going to have to make. We ask the unions to make sacrifices. We are asking you to swallow a bitter pill here with your constituencies to say we are allowing facilities to close, we are allowing Saturday delivery to go away. We also look around the world and we also recognize it is not the end of the world. Canada Post does 5 day a week delivery. I believe we are the only postal service in the world that does 6 day a week delivery. So we may not be that different from everybody else in the future. We still do business in Canada with 5 day a week delivery; people adjust, consumers adjust. So I think we can get there, but as you pointed out earlier, we need to understand the numbers, we need to understand the impact, and once we have that information, mailers and the Postal Service and the American public will get behind that. You pointed out your family here, letter carriers are in your family. I think letter carriers will appreciate having Saturday and Sunday off in the long-term. So it is not the end of the world here, we just have to make sure we do it right. So if I had to prioritize the three issues going forward, relief on the finance, mail facility closings, adjusting the network to match the volume, and then finally looking at the delivery days. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Since you all mentioned the issue of 5 day delivery, there were some concerns raised at the earlier panels. Again, the savings estimates are greatly varied. I think one report came in at $1.9 billion, another one at 3.4 or something like that. So there is a pretty wide variance, and I think the committee needs to get a good accurate picture. As a matter of fact, we may look at H.R. 22, if that gets marked up in a couple of weeks, commissioning a study to see what the real savings might be. I thought Mr. Hegarty of the Mail Handlers Union raised a great point about the fact that there are 10 Federal holidays, the majority of which end up on a Monday. If you have no service on Saturday, Sunday, Monday for those seven or eight holidays that end up falling on a Monday, you have a pretty good block of time there where folks don't get their mail. That is a problem, so we need to figure that out. And I don't know if we actually build a calendar of certain Saturdays that continue to be delivered. We have to look at that more closely. This all just points out the need for a little deeper thought on this. Mr. Conway had the opportunity to come into the office yesterday and speak to me about some of the needs that he foresaw or that others raised, the issue for those who absolutely have to have delivery on Saturday. Time may not be in that category, but there may be a priority option for some of those folks, I don't know, hospitals. I am just trying to think of those constituencies that we have not heard from might be offered that option. It would have to be paid for, but under those terms we could probably find that acceptable. The other issue that was raised is the ability to retain business. If you leave that gap, as each of you has signified, of now you are going to have a couple days, Saturday and Sunday, somebody is going to fill that void, it may be UPS, it may be FedEx, but it may cause further deterioration in postal business, and I am concerned about that. I guess that will all be built into that number when they tell us what our savings will be, because there will be some spoilage by losing the business that might have been done on Saturday, but that will go away if we discontinue this practice. Talk to me about that, specifically about the issue of 5 day delivery and what it would mean to some of your constituency businesses; none of the other stuff, just the 5- day delivery. Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway. Yes, sir. Well, nonprofits in this country range from very, very large to very, very small; they are all over the lot. Their function vary, all certain worthy ideals, and their business models vary greatly throughout the country. That said, there most certainly are many nonprofits that will tell me that Saturday is extremely valuable, perhaps the most valuable day of mail delivery for them, and that may well be the case. There was a recent survey done by the Nonprofit Times, which is one of the leading nonprofit publications in the country, about mail delivery, and the question posed to nonprofits was if there had to be the reduction of a day, which day would be less impactful on nonprofits. The overwhelming selection by nonprofits in that survey was Saturday. Saturday was the least impactful. The most impactful day, interestingly, that folks said they couldn't do without was Monday; and that is owing to a lot of things, partially because nonprofits tend to operate like most organizations, with a 5-day work week. So if, say, Tuesday were deleted, you would have your staff in on Tuesday, but they would have no mail delivery, they would have nothing to work on; it would create a problem. With Saturday, most nonprofits, not all, but most, their business plan now is not modeled there. I think, of nonprofits at large, that Saturday would be the least harmful to our community. Mr. Lynch. Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean. For my members, because of the size and breadth of our organization, I have members for whom Saturday delivery is extremely important, including magazine publishers. I have others for whom Saturday is something that they could live without. So I have members that fit into everything. Some prefer that it would be Monday as the day off, some would prefer it be the middle of the week when the Postal Service would not deliver. So I am not going to be able to offer you consensus on that. For my members, what would be important is that any change like this would reduce the Postal Service's fixed costs. If it does that, it is going to help keep down postage. If it keeps down the price of postage, everybody is going to be in support of it. Also, it is very important how this is done. We have not had detailed discussions with the Postal Service about exactly how they would design such a program, and I don't think the Postal Service has done that because they are looking for a lead from you, Mr. Chairman, in terms of what Congress's approach to this is going to be, because without your support, this discussion doesn't go anywhere. As long as we are part of the discussion in terms of planning it, as long as there is an opportunity to participate in the design of it, I think a lot of my members would eventually get behind it, but we would like to know more details. That is only going to happen if we can get a sign from you that this is something that you would seriously consider, because, we have to go after the fixed costs. When more than 80 percent of your expenses are from labor and you can eliminate a lot of labor costs by eliminating a day of delivery, it is something we seriously have to consider. Mr. Lynch. OK. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman, as Bob indicated, everyone has a different preferred day to eliminate, and within PostCom, we have members such as large banks. Bank of America is a member of PostCom, and they would like to keep cash-flow moving. They don't want to allow any day to go by the wayside, and that is understandable. Weekly magazine publishers don't want Saturday to go away. But I think what we can do going forward is find solutions to that problem. There may be alternatives. Medco, the pharmaceutical company that distributes drugs, is a PostCom member. Medco doesn't want their consumers to wait 3 days to get Medco delivered. So I think we have to look at alternatives to just no Saturday. I think there are alternatives. If you look at United Parcel Service today, they do offer Saturday delivery at a premium. There are ways to work around these things, so I don't think it has to be as ice cold as people may think. Mr. Lynch. I get the impression from all the testimony today that there needs to be much more discussion about this. This needs to be very thoughtful. And I am not entirely convinced at this point that the savings are there or that the blanket elimination of Saturday delivery would produce the desired effect. Let me ask you, for some of this mail volume that we are seeing a decline in, obviously it is as a result of the recession, if you follow first class mail--I know this is not necessarily your forte--we have seen decline for a number of years, and it is the same trend, and that is a big money maker for the Post Office. We are trying to match the structure and organization of the Post Office to respond to demand. What do you see over the next 2, 3 years? I am hearing that 2010 could be just as bad, if not worse, as 2009, which would be dreadful. But going forward, what do you see in terms of the trend for mail volumes and how do we match up with that? Because we have this crisis we are dealing with now, but I see some issues down the road a little bit. Why don't we start with Mr. O'Brien? Mr. O'Brien. Sure. I have to tell you, no one has a crystal ball on this, unfortunately. I mean, if you pick up a copy of Time magazine today, it is pretty thin, and we don't know when our advertising is going to come back, and no one knows. So what we do have a feeling of is that some of this volume that has gone away, companies are gone. Conde Nast recently shut down Portfolio magazine. It is gone. So we know that is not coming down. Will other businesses pop up in the future? Sure. But I think we have a situation here where neither the Postal Service nor the mailers know what is going to happen down the road, and I really wish we did. So I can't give you a solid answer on when is the volume going to come back. What I can tell you is I give a lot of presentations on the Postal Service to industry associations and groups, and things like that, and I always survey the members of the audience, and I ask them how many of you pay your bills electronically. Invariably, nowadays, about 70 percent of the people in the room say I pay my bills electronically. And I ask them how many of you receive your bills electronically, and maybe 10 percent put their hand up. I think there is a big difference right now. People still want the hard copy, so I don't think that first class volume is going to go away as fast as you think. I think the big chunk is gone right now in the payment part of it, but I think the outgoing bills are still going to stick around for a while. I also have to tell you the Postal Service is really trying to do something about volume. Last year they hired someone by the name of Bob Burnstock. I don't know if you have met him or heard about him, but he came from private industry, and Burnstock used to be the CEO of Scott's Miracle Grow. So he came from private industry; he knows how business operates and he is very creative. He and his team were the ones who came up with the summer sale. I think there is going to be a lot more creativity down the road with that kind of person onboard. Mr. Lynch. OK. Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean. In terms of the Postal Service's future, I think it is important to remember there are two categories of customers in general, there are those who have to use the Postal Service and there are those who choose to use the Postal Service. The number who have to use the Postal Service is declining, and that may continue to be the case as documents are now permitted legally to be transmitted by email, by fax and other means. And as Mr. O'Brien noted, there are an increasing number of people who pay their bills online. But in terms of the group that choose to use the Postal Service, I always like to talk about my brother. My brother ran a restaurant in Memphis, my hometown, for a number of years. My brother did not need and could not afford television advertising, radio advertising, Internet advertising, because it reached the wrong people, it reached too many people, and it was too expensive. But the Postal Service was a terrific marketing alternative for him because it could be narrowed down not just to the zip code, but to the few blocks around his neighborhood restaurant. It was the perfect marketing tool. For many businesses in this country, the Postal Service is something they choose to use because it offers that affordability, that limited reach, and as long as we can keep postage prices down, as long as we can keep them affordable, along with the cost of printing and the cost of paper, many people are going to continue to use the Postal Service. In the association that I manage, the Mailers Council, we have once again returned to sending invoices for membership by mail. One of the reasons why is because many people look at emails, they don't necessarily read them intently, they don't necessarily act on them. And for a number of businesses, not just my association, mail continues to be the device that ensures that people act the way you want them to; buying your product, buying your service, voting, whatever it might be. It continues to be an incredibly effective communication tool. If we can keep it affordable, we will keep the mail in there. That will help ensure that there is sufficient volume to keep those fixed costs spread out over enough pieces of mail that the Postal Service can continue to operate. But without keeping postage affordable--and that means reducing the fixed costs, which is operations, the size of the network, and what we pay to employees--the Postal Service will no longer be an effective and affordable communications tool, and it will go by the wayside. Mr. Lynch. Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway. Yes, sir. Mail volume is an interesting phenomena. It is now, obviously, in major decline, but the decline of the most crucial part of mail volume, first class mail, started long before this economic downturn. First class mail has funded the basic growth of the Postal Service infrastructure forever. It makes the most contribution to the overhead costs of the Postal Service, which are extensive. It has basically paid the bills for the last couple hundred years. With that mail volume declining, I don't see it coming back. I think the decline that has started gradually in the last 5 or so years will continue. Some say it will accelerate, some say it may taper off, but I think it will continue. And that leaves you with how do you grow the necessary volume to make up for that loss. The rule of thumb for many years has been that standard mail, which is the highest growth volume product now in the Postal Service, you need almost three pieces of standard mail to make up for the loss of one piece of first class mail. Standard mail is not growing that fast; I doubt it can grow that fast in the future. So there lies the financial dilemma. Once the economy does stabilize, mail volume most certainly will come back to a certain degree, but it is the mix of mail volume that is the real critical problem. How do you replace that very lucrative product, the revenue that is lost there? I don't know that anyone in the postal community has found an answer to that. Unless someone does, we just can't afford to fund this massive structure anymore as we have, unfortunately. Mr. Lynch. Earlier today we did hear from the earlier witnesses that there has been a freeze on constructing new post offices and a freeze on hiring, so I think they get the message. But for many, many years, as you have stated, we just went on a building spree in this country of post offices, to the point where we have 36,000 of them now. And as chairman of this committee, it seems like every week I am naming a new post office. I honestly believe we will run out of names before we run out of post offices. [Laughter.] But this is a paradigm shift. We are changing the model of this to allow it to survive. I think the flexibility is important, it is just that the Postal Service is one of those constants in our life that, when it changes, as it looks like it needs to change, it upsets a lot of people. So we have to sort of bring people along, let them know what the problem is and let them be reassured that this is to preserve that universal service that they enjoy so much. I am sure that I did not exhaust all of the important areas of inquiry with my questions, so what I would like to do is give you each an opportunity, say 3 minutes. If there are certain points that you think I have missed or that need to be emphasized, please take that opportunity. Anything that you think may not have been raised at today's hearing in your panel or a question that might not have been properly addressed in one of the other panels, please feel free to raise it now. In fairness to my colleagues who are in markups in other committees, I am going to allow them to ask any questions of you in writing and welcome your responses as well. Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to first just thank you for taking on this very, very tough task. Your leadership on what is an incredibly difficult political issue is needed going forward, and I think it is going to be incumbent on my organization and everybody with a stake in the Postal Service to support your efforts. I know what you face. I have been around the postal political scene for nearly 40 years, and you are going to hear it from both sides of the aisle. But you are doing the right thing. You are taking on this issue, I think, in a very fair manner, and we will pledge to continue to support you as necessary changes are made. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Conway. Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean. Mr. Chairman, my mother comes from Lucy, TN. I have a sister in Poteau, OK, another sister in Lexington, VA, and one in Louis, DE, and there is not a UPS, FedEx, Kinkos, Minuteman Copier, or other place where you can ship things; you have to go to the U.S. Postal Service. And there are Members of Congress that represent each one of those communities, and I am sure they are going to howl when they hear, because I don't think many of them have heard yet, what we are considering at this hearing today. But what they need to understand and what we need your help explaining is that the Postal Service is an essential tool of business, not an optional one. For those businesses to reach the people who live in those communities in the future, the Postal Service has to be allowed to change, and H.R. 22 is a great first step in that direction, but additional legislation is going to been necessary. So if we are going to keep the Postal Service in these communities where they are the only way of doing hard copy communication, we have to allow the Postal Service to remain affordable, and that is where we need your help, and we appreciate your having this hearing today as a first step in that direction. Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman, a couple things that we didn't talk about. Before 2003, a Presidential commission was created to study the Postal Service, and in 2003 they issued this report, ``Enhancing the Future: Making the Tough Choices to Preserve Universal Mail Service.'' We haven't really discussed that at all. There are a lot of good thoughts in here. I would encourage the staff of this committee to review this document and see what they had to say, so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel. I would like to reiterate both what Tony and Bob had to say, in that we appreciate your efforts here. I am incredibly impressed with the level of engagement of this subcommittee and your knowledge of the issues, as well as Minority Leader Chaffetz. It is very impressive. We also want you to know that the Postal Service is not just a supplier to us; they are business partners. If they go under, all of our companies are gone, and we can't afford that to happen; and that is really at the crux of the matter here. We have all built our businesses on postal, and, as was mentioned earlier, one of the members of PostCom is the Alliance of Independent Storeowners and Professionals, very, very small people, your local hardware store and people like that; and they do exactly what Bob said, they saturate the mail delivery around their stores and that is how they stay in business. So we all need a healthy Postal Service and we commend you for taking action to help us achieve that. Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I appreciate your attendance here today. I do want to note I misidentified Mr. Goff. I said he was part of NAPS, the National Association of Postal Supervisors. He is actually with NAPUS, which is the National Association of Postmasters of the United States. So I apologize to Mr. Goff for that error. Thank you very much for your willingness to help the committee with its work. As I said before, I am going to leave the record open in case my colleagues have questions further on on some of your comments. But thank you very much for your willingness to help us today. Thank you. Have a good day now. [Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]