[Senate Hearing 106-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GUIDELINES FOR THE RELOCATION, CLOSING, CONSOLIDATION OR CONSTRUCTION
OF POST OFFICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 7, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-701 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Administrive Clerk
------
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEE
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine CARL LEVIN, Michigan
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania MAX CLELAND, Georgia
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Mitchel B. Kugler, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Minority Staff Director
Julie A. Sander, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Cochran.............................................. 1
Senator Stevens.............................................. 2
Senator Akaka................................................ 4
WITNESSES
Thursday, October 7, 1999
Hon. James M. Jeffords, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 6
Hon. Max Baucus, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana........ 8
Howard Foust, President, National Association of Postmasters of
the United States, Retired..................................... 11
Richard Moe, President, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 13
Hon. Edward J. Derwinski, Legislative Consultant, National League
of Postmasters................................................. 15
Rudolph K. Umscheid, Vice President, Facilities, U.S. Postal
Services, accompanied by Fred Hintenach, Manager, Retail
Operations Support, U.S. Postal Services....................... 17
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Baucus, Hon. Max:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Derwinski, Hon. Edward J.:
Testimony.................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Foust, Howard:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Prepared statement with list attached........................ 52
Jeffords, Hon. James M.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement with additional statements................ 35
Moe, Richard:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Umscheid, Rudolph K.:
Testimony.................................................... 17
Prepared statement with list attached........................ 72
APPENDIX
Follow-up questions and answers for Mr. Umscheid from Senator
Edwards........................................................ 33
Copy of bill S. 556.............................................. 88
Copy of Amendment to U.S. Title 39 CFR Part 241, adopted by the
Postal Service................................................. 97
Letter from Postmaster General William J. Henderson, dated
October 6, 1999, with attachments.............................. 100
Senator Levin, prepared statement................................ 105
Senator Richard C. Shelby, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Alabama, prepared statement.................................... 107
Letter from Vincent Palladino, President of the National
Association of Postal Supervisors, dated October 7, 1999....... 108
GUIDELINES FOR THE RELOCATION, CLOSING, CONSOLIDATION OR CONSTRUCTION
OF POST OFFICES
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1999
U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation and Federal Services
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
608, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (Chairman of
the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Akaka, and Stevens
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The Subcommittee will please come to
order.
Today our Subcommittee meets to conduct a hearing on the
subject of relocation, closing, consolidation or construction
of post offices. We had promised Senators Baucus and Jeffords
we would have a hearing that would also consider legislation
they had introduced, S. 556, the Post Office Community
Partnership Act of 1999.\1\ They will appear and be our first
witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Copy of the bill, S. 556, appears in the Appendix on page 88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have another panel of witnesses, including Howard Foust,
who is President of the National Association of Postmasters of
the United States, Retired; Richard Moe, President of the
National Trust for Historic Preservation; Hon. Edward J.
Derwinski, who is Legislative Consultant to the National League
of Postmasters; and Rudolph Umscheid, Vice President of
Facilities for the U.S. Postal Service, who is accompanied by
Fred Hintenach, Manager, Retail Operations Support, U.S. Postal
Services.
We are pleased to have here the distinguished Senator from
Hawaii, Ranking Member of our Subcommittee, and the former
Chairman of this Subcommittee for many years, Senator Ted
Stevens of Alaska. I will be happy to yield to Senators for any
comments or opening statements they might have at this point.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Nothing right now, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Senator Stevens.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Akaka. I am pleased you are holding these hearings, and
I hope it will give us a chance to review the proposals that
are before us. I ask that my statement appear in the record in
full, if that can be done.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that we are holding hearings
on the issue of post office closing and relocation. The last time this
issue arose it was offered as an amendment to the FY99 Treasury, Postal
and General Government Appropriations Bill in July 1998. As you will
recall, the provision was later removed in conference. I voted to table
the amendment when it was offered on the floor and I am still concerned
about the impact that the measure would have on the operations of the
Postal Service.
The proposal in the House, H.R. 670, and the proposed Senate bill,
S. 556, would dramatically impair the ability of the Postal Service to
expand and renovate postal facilities across the United States. In my
State alone the Postal Service has identified and scheduled 32
facilities for replacement. According to a September Postal Service
memo, all but one of the proposed Alaska facilities has been approved
for funding, and of the 32 facilities slated for construction, 29 have
identified sites in each of the communities. In all of the communities,
sites were selected with the input and agreement of community leaders.
I have some examples of how the Postal Service has sought to
accommodate the desires of local communities:
Bethel--A division in the opinions of local community members led
the Postal Service to arrange several community meetings, including
meetings with the Chamber of Commerce, the City Council and the Senior
Citizens Group. In this case, the Postal Service is still working with
the community to finalize the site selection process;
Akiachak--The Postal Service signed a lease on an existing
building, the design for the building was completed and solicitation
for the construction was finalized. The village then decided they would
rather have the building put to another use. The Postal Service agreed
to cancel the lease on the building and is currently looking at an
alternate site for the Post Office;
Tununak--The Postal Service is currently working on the fourth site
recommended by the community because of ownership and flooding problems
with the first three sites.
In addition to meeting with community leaders on each of the site
selections, the Postal Service must go through several agency reviews
to make certain that they are in compliance with all of the local,
regional and State requirements. In Alaska, the Postal Service meets
with: the State Department of Environmental Conservation for an Alaska
Coastal Zone Management review; the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers for
wetlands designations and permits to construct in wetlands; the State
Historical Preservation Office; the State Fire Marshall and local
municipal offices, in addition to having local archaeological
investigations and reviews. Trying to organize these meetings and
reviews is complicated by the fact that our construction season in
Alaska is only 4 months long. If the Postal Service is not able to
proceed in a timely manner, projects could get pushed back an entire
year.
The language of S. 556 does not take into account the short
construction season in Alaska. S. 556 provides ``any person served by
the Post Office'' 30 days to offer alternatives for relocation,
closing, consolidation, or construction. The bill then would provide
the Postal Rate Commission an additional 120 days to make a
determination on the relocation, closing, consolidation or
construction. That means a construction of a Post Office can be delayed
at a minimum by 150 days, or 5 months, from the beginning of the
process to the end. After all the conversations with community leaders
and legislative bodies, a single person served by a Post Office in
Alaska could halt the construction or relocation of a new facility
during the shortened construction season, costing the Postal Service
and the residents of that community another year in getting a new or
improved Post Office.
The proposed legislation also requires the Postal Service to
``respond to all of the alternative proposals'' of individuals served
by the Post Office in a single report. With approximately 40,000 Post
Offices nationwide, requiring the Postal Service to respond to all
alternative proposals could dramatically impede the Postal Service's
effort to operate an efficient mail delivery system.
There are stories of past efforts by the Postal Service to close or
refurbish facilities against the wishes of the local community.
However, I am advised that the Postal Service has adopted regulations
to fix the problems. The community relations regulations published in
May 1999 contain provisions stating that it is the policy of the Postal
Service to comply with local planning and zoning requirements and to
have community involvement in the decision making process.
In some cases, the Postal Service may have acted in a manner that
some individuals did not appreciate. However, legislation that
dramatically slows the Postal Service's ability to expand and maintain
its operations may be heavy-handed in light of recent internal policy
and regulatory changes. Remember, the Postal Service is not an entity
supported by taxpayers--it is supported by rate payers. If Congress
wants to reinstitute the oppressive interferences with postal
operations that existed before the Postal Reform Act of 1970, this bill
is a good place to start. It's costly, inefficient, and allows one or
more people to dictate to a national entity that rate payers support.
S. 556 starts from the premise that further regulation of the
Postal Service is required. That is a false premise.
Senator Stevens. The proposal that is before the House,
House bill, H.R. 670, and the Senate bill, S. 556, would
dramatically impair the ability of Postal Services to expand
and renovate the postal facilities across the country, in my
judgment. In my State alone, the Postal Service has identified
and scheduled 32 facilities for replacement. According to a
September postal memo from the Postal Service, that is, all but
one of the proposed Alaska facilities has been approved for
funding, and of the 32 facilities slated for construction, 29
have identified sites in each of the communities involved.
In all of the communities, sites were selected with the
input and agreement of community leaders. I have some examples
of how the Postal Service has sought to accommodate the desires
of those local communities, and my statement goes in depth into
the activities of the Postal Service in Bethel, Allakaket, and
Tuntutuliak. In each one of these very remote areas, it is
essential that the feelings of the local people be listened to
and that they be sought out and that agreement is reached.
Primarily because they know the circumstances, they know where
the flooding is, they know where the paths the people take, the
older people take.
And in each of the communities where the site selection
took place, the Postal Service has gone through several
different agencies to make sure they are in compliance with
local, regional and State requirements. In Alaska, the Postal
Service meets with the State Department of Environmental
Conservation for the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Review, the
U.S. Corps of Engineers for wetlands designations and the
permits for construction in wetlands, the State historical
preservation office, the State fire marshall and the local
municipal offices, in addition to having local archaeological
investigations review. And they meet with the tribal leaders in
areas where there are native people.
Trying to organize these meetings and reviews is
complicated by the fact that our construction season in Alaska
is only 4 months long. If the Postal Service is not able to
proceed in a timely manner, projects get pushed back an entire
year.
The language of S. 556 does not take into account the short
construction season in States like mine. It provides any person
served by the Post Office 30 days to offer alternatives for
relocation, closing, consolidation or construction. The bill
then provides for the Postal Rate Commission 120 days to make a
determination on the relocation, closing, consolidation or
construction. That means a minimum delay of 150 days. Again, I
say, in a State like ours, one-fifth the size of the United
States, totally dependent upon climate for construction
seasons, that is just too long.
I do believe that the requirement of this legislation that
the Postal Service respond to all other alternative proposals
of individuals served by the Post Office in a single report is
just extremely burdensome. There are approximately 40,000 post
offices nationwide. Requiring the Postal Service to respond to
all alternative proposals could really impeded the Postal
Service's operation of an efficient mail service.
There are other reasons that I state here in my prepared
statement, Mr. Chairman. But I want to say, I think we all know
that at times, because of personalities and other
circumstances, the Postal Service may act in a manner that some
individuals in an area might disagree with. It is a difficult
thing for them to deal with. The Postal Service, we have got to
remember, is not an entity supported any longer by the
taxpayers. It is supported by the ratepayers.
If Congress wants to reinstitute the oppressive
interferences with postal operations that existed before the
Postal Reform Act of 1970, this bill is a good place to start,
in my opinion. It is costly, inefficient, allows one or more
people to dictate to a national entity that the ratepayers
support, contrary to the agreements with local people made
after proper consultation.
I think that S. 556 starts from the premise that further
regulation of the Postal Service is required by the Congress.
To me, that is a false premise. Thank you very much.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for having this hearing. I also want to welcome our
witnesses that will appear before this Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, approximately seven million customers a day
transact business at post offices. We expect timely delivery of
the mail 6 days a week. And the Postal Service has not
disappointed us. That is saying a lot about the Postal Service.
Given the regularity of delivery and the millions of daily
post office visits, it is no wonder that we view our local post
office as a cornerstone of our communities. Many small towns,
like their larger counterparts, developed around a post office
where the postmaster served as the town's only link to the
Federal Government.
However, there are a number of small post offices where
annual revenue is lower than annual operating costs, impacting
overall revenue within the Postal Service. In order to protect
small post offices, The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970
prohibited closing a small facility solely for operating at a
deficit.
I hope today's hearing will shed light on how decisions are
made to close a post office, what guidelines the Service must
follow in carrying out the determination, and what rights
communities have in the decision making process. I am
interested to learn how S. 556 will assist downtown post
offices, preserve the historical buildings and what differences
there are between that bill and the year-old regulations issued
by the Postal Service.
As the Service meets the challenges of the 21st Century, it
must not lose sight of the needs of all its communities. The
Postal Service should be proud of its accomplishments,
including its new 94 percent delivery record. However, we must
not forget small town America, which has given so much to our
country. I look forward to hearing from our panelists, who I
hope will assist us in finding a balanced and fair resolution
to these issues.
Senator Levin is testifying before the Foreign Relations
Committee, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, and may not be able to
join us.
I also ask that my full statement be made a part of the
record as well as a resolution by the National League of Cities
in support of S. 556.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka and the referenced
resolution follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
I am pleased that we are holding today's hearing in order to
provide our colleagues, the senior Senators from Montana and Vermont,
the Postal Service, and other interested parties an opportunity to
discuss S. 556, the Post Office and Community Partnership Act of 1999.
We are all familiar with the legislative history of this bill, which is
nearly identical to an amendment included in the Senate's fiscal year
1999 Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill. That amendment, like S. 556,
would establish guidelines for the relocation, closing, or
consolidation of post offices. Although the amendment was not included
in the final appropriations legislation, there was overwhelming support
for its inclusion.
The Postal Service estimates that seven million customers a day
transact business at post offices. Moreover, we expect timely delivery
of the mail 6 days a week--and the Postal Service does not disappoint
us. Given the regularity of mail delivery and the number of Americans
visiting post offices daily, it is no wonder that we have come to view
our local post office as a touchstone of our community. Like their
larger counterparts, many small towns developed around a post office
where the postmaster served as the town's only link to the Federal
Government.
Throughout the country, there are a number of small post offices
where annual postal revenue is lower than annual operating costs. This
imbalance impacts overall revenue within the Postal Service. However,
in order to protect small post offices, the Postal Reorganization Act
of 1970 prohibited closing a small facility solely for operating at a
deficit. Congress further amended the Act in 1976 by placing a
temporary moratorium on additional closings and prohibited closing
facilities serving 35 or more families. Although the moratorium was
temporary, the amendments established specific guidelines by which the
Postal Service must review the impact a closing would have on a
community, the employees of the facility, and economic savings realized
from a closure. Added to these guidelines are the new 1998 regulations,
which we will discuss today that establish procedures by which the
Service notifies local citizens and public officials of facilities
projects and solicits and considers community concerns before making
final decision relating to expansion, relocation, or new construction.
It is my hope that today's hearing will shed light on how the
Postal Service decides to close a post office, what guidelines the
Service must follow in carrying out that determination, and what rights
do communities have in the decision-making process. I will also want to
review how contract stations are impacted by these regulations.
I am interested to learn how S. 556 would assist downtown post
offices and preserve historical buildings and what differences there
are between that bill and the year-old regulations issued by the Postal
Service. I am pleased that we have with us today in addition to Senator
Baucus and Senator Jeffords, the president of the National Association
of Postmasters, Postmasters Retired, the president of the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, and my former colleague Congressman
Derwinski, representing the National League of Postmasters.
As the Postal Service meets the challenges of the 21st Century, it
must not lose sight of the its responsibility to the needs of all
customers--especially those living in small towns and rural
communities. The Postal Service should be proud of its accomplishments,
but I do not want the Service to forget small town America that has
given so much to our country. I look forward to working with you all to
find a fair resolution to the issues we will discuss today.
__________
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ``POST OFFICE
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999''
WHEREAS, Lthe United States Postal Service (USPS) is not required to
abide by local zoning codes; and
WHEREAS, Lthe USPS is not always required to consult with a community
regarding public concerns about any proposals to renovate, relocate,
close or consolidate its physical facilities; and
WHEREAS, Lpost office closings and relocations are occurring in several
small and rural communities across the United States without valuable
input and comments from the residents of those communities; and
WHEREAS, Lthis disregard of community laws and values can result in the
physical decline of an area within a community, as well as increase
community economic and social costs both directly and indirectly,; and
WHEREAS, Lpost offices which remain located in downtowns can be
critical elements in the restoration, revitalization and continued
vibrancy of these areas; and
WHEREAS, Ldowntown communities must have the opportunity to influence
their futures, and must have the necessary input into USPS decisions
that affect their communities.
NOW, THERELFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National League of Cities
supports congressional action on the Post Office Community Partnership
Act of 1999, which would require the U.S. Postal Service to cooperate
with local governments when planning to restore, replace, close or
relocate a postal facility.
BE IT FURTHLER RESOLVED that the National League of Cities supports the
goals of this legislation, which include: (1) allowing communities the
opportunity to offer alternatives to Postal Service plans to restore,
replace, close or relocate postal facilities; (2) creating an
atmosphere of cooperation between communities and the Postal Service to
enhance the best interests of all involved in these decisions; and (3)
strengthening the federal-local ties of the Postal Service and helping
to preserve the downtowns of this Nation's communities.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Let me welcome our distinguished colleagues, Senator Baucus
and Senator Jeffords. We appreciate your being here and serving
as our lead-off panel for this hearing. The Senators are
authors of legislation which is the subject of today's hearing,
S. 556, the Post Office Community Partnership Act of 1999.
We appreciate your being here, and ask you to please
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Chairman, first let me begin by
thanking you for agreeing to this hearing. We appreciated it
when you agreed to hold the hearing and appreciate it even more
now that we are here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords with additional
statements submitted for the record appears in the Appendix on page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also appreciate your Subcommittee's interest in the
subject, and look forward to listening to the witnesses.
There is much talk in the news today about revitalizing our
downtowns and encouraging smart growth. Local post offices are
important tenants in any vibrant downtown. A recent article in
USA Today cited a 1993 study that found 80 percent of people
who shopped downtown planned their trip around a visit to the
post office.
About 2 years ago, there was an obvious increase in
construction activity on the part of the Postal Service in
Vermont. Decisions were being made by officials that were
having profound effects on Vermont's villages and downtowns,
with little or no input from the people living in those
communities as to whether what the Postal Service was planning
to do was a good idea.
In response to this activity, and similar stories from
around the country, Senator Baucus and I began examining this
issue. S. 556, the Post Office and Community Partnership Act of
1999, is a result of our efforts, and the input of postmasters
and historic preservationists and many other local officials.
Our bill would enable communities to have a say when the Postal
Service decides that their local post office will be closed,
relocated, or consolidated.
Members of the Subcommittee may ask why legislation is
necessary. A few years ago, the General Store on the Green at
Perkinsville, Vermont, went bankrupt, and the adjacent post
office wanted to leave the small village center for a new
building outside of town. By the time the community was aware
of the relocation, plans were so far along that there was no
time to fully investigate alternatives. In fairness to the
Postal Service, since the issuance of their new rules in 1998,
they have worked very closely with a number of Vermont
communities on postal location issues.
What I think the Postal Service has learned in Vermont is
the one-size-fits-all approach to community needs just doesn't
work. While Vermonters recognize that the Postal Service has to
be convenient, safe and efficient, the building and site
standards of the Postal Service are sometimes at odds with the
goal of strengthening downtowns. Specifications for ceiling
heights, flooring materials, loading docks, parking spaces and
so on have all been standardized. The standard model prescribed
by the Postal Service is essentially a ``suburban'' model.
The easiest way to meet the specifications is to build a
new building. These specifications are often very difficult or
impossible to meet either in existing buildings or newly
constructed facilities within Vermont's villages and downtowns.
For example, in one Vermont community, the Postal Service is
proposing to rehabilitate an historic building and construct a
large addition. An admirable idea. But the preliminary site
plan also shows the demolition of a number of the neighboring
buildings in order to create the parking truck access required
by the Postal Service's specifications.
Although the Postal Service has followed its new community
notification process in Vermont, and it has kept State
officials and legislators up to date on current projects, it is
still critical that the process be enacted into Federal law and
an appeals process, which is not currently in the Postal
Service rules, be mandated.
Mr. Chairman, I hope to work with you to enact S. 556 or
similar legislation, which will require the Postal Service to
abide by local zoning laws, Federal rules for historic
preservation and the wishes of local communities concerning the
relocation, closing, consolidation of construction of new post
offices.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for giving me this
opportunity to share my views with the Subcommittee. I ask that
my full statement be made a part of the record.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Baucus.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MAX BAUCUS,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my full
statement be included in the record, and I will be brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Baucus appears in the
Appendix on page 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Cochran. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, this is a no-brainer. All we
are saying is that whenever the Postal Service wants to build,
remodel, reconstruct a post office, that at least the local
folks have a chance to say what the remodeling, what the
reconstruction, and where the replacement might be. That is
purely and simply what this is.
And I stumbled across this, Mr. Chairman, because in my
State, and I think this is true in a lot of other States, what
I described is just not the case. That is, as Senator Jeffords
mentioned, it seems that the Postal Service kind of has its
cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all, particularly in small towns,
the Postal Service, in their interest of efficiency, says,
well, there's a downtown post office, maybe it needs
renovation, whatever, let's close it, and we'll build a new
modern facility on the outskirts, on the edge of town, outside
of town.
And without consulting people of their plans, they just, lo
and behold--after property is purchased and maybe construction
begun--the local folks start hearing about it after the fact.
Then it is usually too late, and they have to create a big
fuss, a big storm in order to have themselves heard.
These are people who obviously want to have efficient
delivery of mail. We all do. They just like the downtown post
office, because it is a community center, it's a community hub.
It's part of the culture of their communities. They are not
averse to remodeling it or maybe relocating the post office in
a way that makes sense both to the community spirit and for the
efficiency of the Postal Services. It's just that they don't
like, correctly, being stiffed, being just told, this is the
way it is, lock, stock and barrel.
I can give you an example. In Livingston, Montana, we were
having this problem. The Postal Service was going to close down
the downtown post office, an historic building, it's a
wonderful old building, lots of culture and feel and great
architectural history to it. The people just didn't want it
closed. That's where lots of people gathered in downtown
Livingston, go to the post office, and check their mail. It's
like the old commons in New England days.
But the post office said, no, we're just going to close it
down, and we're going to build a new post office on the edge of
town, which is very hard, nobody can walk to it, very few
could, it was efficient because then the postal trucks could
come in and out.
Well, I just happened to be in Livingston 1 day and was
talking to various people. And it dawned on me, gee, Max, why
don't you go over to the post office and just find out what
this big controversy is all about. Just because it's part of
your job, to figure these things out.
I walked over to the post office, in a very congenial,
friendly way, and asked if I could look inside the post office,
back behind the boxes, to see what it's like and how decrepit
it is or isn't, and just get a sense of things. ``Oh, no, you
can't come in. You can't come in our post office,'' I was told.
I said, ``Well, I just want to look, that's all.'' ``No,
you can't come in.'' So I said very politely, in a very
friendly way, ``Gee, I'd like to see inside the post office.''
He said, ``Well, we're going to have to check with our
headquarters.''
So for 45 minutes I stood outside the post office, and
people started to gather, ``Max, what's going on here.'' The
press started to come. I said, ``I'm just trying to walk inside
and see what the post office is all about.''
Well, finally, 45 minutes later, I got the word that I
could walk in, with only one staff person, we could go inside
the post office. I said, ``Well, OK, I designate so and so to
be my staff person.'' It was a local reporter. So we went in
and looked around. It was no big deal. We saw the loading
docks, it was a little bit crowded.
The long and the short of it is that the community and the
Postal Service reached an accommodation where some of the
postal services were moved to a new location.
But this is just one example in my State. There are many
other examples in my State. One is Red Lodge, Montana. Same
thing. Lo and behold, the folks find that the property was
purchased by the Postal Service at the edge of town to build a
new post office. Well, that raised a big stink about it, and
finally were able to put the kibosh on that one.
Another example is in Whitefish, Montana, and Augusta,
Montana. I have a letter I can read to you, Mr. Chairman, which
basically is a business person in Augusta, Montana, saying the
downtown has just changed, it's not what it was, because they
moved the post office away from downtown, built a new one on
the edge of town. And they didn't have to do that, they didn't
tell us in advance. We didn't know anything about it until it
was done.
So I just want to emphasize the main point that the Senator
from Alaska made. People should be involved in the
determination of remodeling and location of their post offices.
They shouldn't have the final say, they shouldn't have the
total say, and they don't want the final say or the total say.
They just want to be considered, to be able to have significant
say in the future of their downtown.
Now, we all know that sometimes there is tax policy which
adversely affects downtown America. Sometimes it's other
actions that affect downtown America. Well, we certainly
shouldn't have a Postal Service adversely affecting downtown
America. Because a lot of communities, as you well know, Mr.
Chairman, are fighting to keep their local business district,
their shopping centers there. And I am not saying that the
local business district should always win as opposed to the
mall people. I am just saying that the community itself ought
to have a say in what the determination is.
We brought this bill up, Mr. Chairman, on the Treasury
Postal Service, post office appropriations bill. And on a
tabling motion, the tabling motion to delete this provision,
lost 21 to 76. There is strong, overwhelming support for this
provision. It is therefore in the conference, but the conferees
took it out, against the wishes of two-thirds, three-quarters,
virtually, of members of the Senate.
There may be some ways to work with this bill, tweak it a
little bit here and there, and Senator Stevens raised a point
about delay. We are more than willing to work with the
Subcommittee to try to find a way to deal with his concerns.
But the main point I make is, it's a no-brainer. Local
folks should have the ability to have a legitimate say in their
downtowns. And certainly a local post office is part of that.
The relocation or remodeling of a post office is part of that
determination
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Akaka, do you have any questions of these
witnesses?
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Cochran. Let me thank you for suggesting that the
hearing be held. At the time we agreed to have the hearing, we
decided we would make the subject of the hearing not only the
legislation which you have introduced, but the guidelines that
have been promulgated by the Postal Service. Last year the
Postal Service began to implement new regulations on this
subject. Today we have a panel of witnesses to explain those
regulations, how they are being followed, and what the effect
of this legislation would be on the regulations and the
communities where post offices are located.
We appreciate your input and your presence here. Thank you
very much.
Senator Baucus. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I think I can
speak for my good friend from Vermont here and say that the
regulations, it's good to have regulations, but they can always
be changed. I just think that people have a right by law to
have some reasonable say. Not total, not absolute, not
unnecessarily delay the process, but by law, have the right to
determine reasonably their downtowns.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. If our panel of witnesses that I announced
at the beginning of the hearing would please come forward, we
will start with Howard Foust, who is President of the National
Association of Postmasters of the United States, Retired. Then
we will hear from Richard Moe, President of the National Trust
for Historic Preservation. Then the Hon. Edward J. Derwinski,
who is Legislative Consultant to the National League of
Postmasters. And then Rudolph Umscheid, Vice President of
Facilities for the U.S. Postal Service. He is accompanied by
Fred Hintenach, Manager, Retail Operations Support, U.S. Postal
Services.
Welcome, and we ask you, Mr. Foust, to please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD FOUST,\1\ PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF POSTMASTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, RETIRED
Mr. Foust. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Akaka. I
appreciate being here today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Foust, with a list of closed or
suspended post offices, appears in the Appendix on page 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am Howard Foust, President of the National Association of
Postmasters of the United States, Postmasters Retired, NAPUS.
Prior to retiring, I served as postmaster of Plain City, Ohio,
for 28 years. NAPUS represents more than 43,000 active and
retired postmasters throughout the Nation. Thank you for giving
us the opportunity to share our views regarding postal
closures.
Furthermore, postmasters want to thank you for highlighting
S. 556, the Post Office Community Partnership Act. The measures
introduced by Senator Baucus and Senator Jeffords would help to
address a serious threat to the future of small and rural
communities throughout the United States. It is important to
recall that last year, the Senate passed by voice vote a
provision similar to S. 556.
Mr. Chairman, while postmasters recognize that demographic
changes often necessitate operational modification for certain
communities, NAPUS opposes the arbitrary, closing,
consolidating and suspension of post offices. To investigate
the soundness of such action, NAPUS created the Committee for
the Preservation of a Historic Universal Postal Service. It is
a delegation composed of knowledgeable retired postmasters.
The committee monitors the action of the Postal Service
managers to make sure that the proper procedures are followed
regarding post office closings, including suspension and
consolidation. At the conclusion of its investigation, the
group reports its findings to the NAPUS national office and
shares the results with the Postal Service.
While this unofficial procedure is helpful, NAPUS believes
that the most effective way to curtain unwarranted suspensions
is through enactment of S. 556. Mr. Chairman, approximately 500
post offices are presently under temporary emergency
suspension. Two hundred and twenty of these post offices have
been temporarily suspended for more than 5 years. That does not
sound like temporary to me.
NAPUS believes that the Postal Service has no intention of
ever reopening most of these facilities. Citizens and
businesses and local officials of the communities affected by
suspension have concluded that the Postal Service has elected
to circumvent the Postal Reorganization Act procedure for
closing a post office by using the suspension ploy. The Postal
Service should have followed the Postal Reorganization Act
stipulated procedure regarding closures.
I would like to focus on a provision of S. 556 that would
help to safeguard postal services throughout the Nation by
putting the brake on misuse of suspensions. That is, section
2(b)(12) of the bill would ensure that if a post office is
closed, it is closed for the right reason, and that proper
procedures are followed. In sum, S. 556 would prevent the
Postal Service from misusing the right to suspend postal
services, limit such action to real emergencies and guarantee
that such actions are temporary.
Let me explain what is supposed to occur when the Postal
Service must temporarily suspend a postal operation at a
particular office. The Postal Service must first declare that
an emergency exists and that it is a threat to the health and
welfare and safety of postal employees or customers or security
of the mail. Such situations include natural disasters or lease
termination.
Then the district manager is required to notify the postal
headquarters of the suspension and must notify customers of the
reason of the suspension, as well as an alternative location to
receive postal services. Within 6 months, the district manager
must decide whether to reopen the post office or begin a study
to decide whether to permanently close it.
However, postal regulations do not establish a time limit
for the completion of such a study. As a consequence, the
Postal Service may institute a temporary suspension of postal
service without a time limit. S. 556 helps to protect small
communities from the misguided decisions by postal officials
from initiating so-called temporary emergency suspension of
post office operations. By limiting the temporary suspension to
180 days, this would help guarantee that the temporary
suspensions are truly temporary, and are a result of an
emergency situation.
As I stated earlier, the current law provides a specific
procedure through the Postal Rate Commission should the Postal
Service decide to close a specific post office. Yet no such
procedure is required to invoke a temporary emergency
suspension. As a result, the Postal Service has found that it
is much easier to suspend an office rather than close it. S.
556 helps to remedy the misuse of Postal Service suspension
power.
The expiration of a post office lease and the retirement of
a local postmaster is a predictable event. Six months is enough
time to locate a suitable site to replace the former one.
Furthermore, the decision of the Postal Service to disregard
the maintenance of older post offices and leaving the physical
plant in disrepair should not be misused as a basis for
suspension.
In rural and suburban communities around the Nation,
postmasters serve a vital link between the Federal Government
and citizens and small businesses. The suspension of full
service postal operations disrupts the vital link and
interferes with the communication and commerce within these
much overlooked areas of the country.
In conclusion, a 1997 General Accounting Office report
established that post offices under emergency temporary
suspension affect customers in much the same way as post
offices that are officially closed, and that the service from
those offices are also no longer available. NAPUS believes that
the law should reorganize these back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a list of all the offices
that have been closed back from 1982, and I would like to
submit them for part of the record, sir.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much for that information.
We will make that list a part of the record. We appreciate your
being here. I know you were postmaster of Plain City, Ohio in
1966, when you were appointed. You have served as an officer in
your association for a good number of years. And we appreciate
your being here.
Mr. Foust. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Moe is representing the National Trust
for Historic Preservation. I know you have a fairly lengthy
statement, and I would encourage you to make summary comments
from that. We will print the entire statement in the record. We
are glad you are here. It is good to see you. You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD MOE,\1\ PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Moe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you very much
for holding this hearing on this very important issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Moe appears in the Appendix on
page 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me just say that we at the National Trust have a very
high regard for the Postal Service for many reasons. Among
them, they are the stewards of more than 850 historic
structures. They have more historic structures in their
inventory than any other Federal entity, except the Interior
Department. And for the most part, they are very good stewards
of those structures.
This is a complicated issue. I don't think there is a
simple solution to it. But I would like to comment on several
aspects of it. I would like to make two very simple points, Mr.
Chairman. One, the importance of downtowns to communities and
the role that post offices play in strengthening downtowns, and
two, the distinction that's been made at the Postal Service
between closings and relocations. Because I think that really
gets to the heart of this matter.
The National Trust has been involved in trying to sustain
the viability of downtowns for a long time through our Main
Street Program, which you may be familiar with. Over 20 years,
we have been involved in 1,500 communities all over the
country, working with businessmen and businesswomen to
strengthen the viability and the economic strength of
downtowns.
We have learned a lot about downtowns in that process, what
makes them work and what hurts them. One of the things that
really is essential to a strong and viable downtown, we've
found, is a post office. Because a post office is more than
just a simple economic facility. It is also a social gathering
place in many cases, it's the glue that holds a community
together. Small businessmen rely on it very heavily.
Senator Jeffords made a reference to a study we did in Iowa
a few years ago, which did show that 80 percent of the people
coming downtown did so in large part to visit the post office.
It's really a magnet that brings people to the downtown and
that holds people together.
So we feel very strongly that downtowns cannot survive,
first of all, communities cannot survive without strong
downtowns, and downtowns cannot survive without a post office.
It is unlike any other institution or entity that you will find
in a downtown. It plays a unique role in every community.
I think that is manifested by the very large number of
calls and letters that you are getting and that we are getting
and that really brought this issue to the fore.
When a post office leaves the downtown, economic
deterioration almost inevitably follows. In many cases, you can
mark the beginning of the deterioration of a downtown from the
time that the post office closed and left.
Let me just comment briefly, if I may, on the distinction
that's been made in the practice of the Postal Service between
closings and relocations. The 1976 Act deals with closings and
consolidations, and I think does so in a pretty thoughtful way.
There are procedures and safeguards and consultative
requirements built into that 1976 Act that I think have worked
pretty well for the most part. But that only applies to
instances in which post offices are being closed.
The Postal Service chosen not to apply those same
procedures and safeguards to instances where they want to
relocate the post office from the downtown to an outlying area,
even though the impact on the downtown is the same--the post
office is gone. My very simple point here is that the
safeguards and procedures that are now applied to closings
should be applied at least to relocations, because they have
the same devastating impact on downtown. And as the two
Senators mentioned, the community has a huge stake in these
decisions. And the community ought to have a chance to
participate in these decisions.
It was only after this issue became public and after there
were a number of articles printed on it and television stories
broadcast that the Postal Service started to address it. It was
only after the legislation, S. 556, was introduced in the last
Congress that the Postal Service issued guidelines and
promulgated regulations. That's a step in the right direction,
and I commend them for it.
But it doesn't go anywhere near as far as it should. And it
doesn't go as far as the Congress went in 1976 in dealing with
the closings. We would strongly urge that you take steps to
remedy the gap that now exists in the law between closings and
relocations.
What happens here is that the Postal Service often makes
these decisions about relocations in private. And even now,
under the new regulations, they only give the community 7 days
to react, it is my understanding. A very short period of time,
but it's a fait accompli. It's very hard for communities, many
of whom want to offer free land or offer whatever help they can
to keep the post offices downtown, to do so in that constrained
time period.
So I would again urge that you take a look at this and try
to use the framework of the legislation that's been introduced
and which is supported, I should say, by the National
Association of Governors, by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and
by the U.S. League of Cities, virtually everybody who is
focused on the viability of communities which are suffering
from a lot of threats these days to try to keep communities
strong. Everybody who's looked at it knows that the role of a
post office is essential.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Moe. We appreciate your
testimony.
Our next witness is the Hon. Edward Derwinski. I am pleased
to be able to welcome my friend Ed Derwinski to the
Subcommittee. When I was elected to Congress in 1972, he was
serving as a member of Congress from Illinois, and was a
prominent member of the committee that had jurisdiction over
the Postal Service and the workings of the delivery of the
mail. I came to know him and appreciate him and respect him
from the beginning. He has continued to do well in public life,
serving as a member of the Cabinet, as Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. We appreciate your taking time to come be with us
today. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI,\1\ LEGISLATIVE
CONSULTANT, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF POSTMASTERS
Mr. Derwinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Derwinski appears in the Appendix
on page 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a very brief statement which I would ask to be
inserted into the record on the position of the National League
of Postmasters.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it will be.
Mr. Derwinski. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I remember
when you and Senator Akaka arrived in the House of
Representatives as youngsters. I have witnessed in both cases a
remarkable career you've had. You can imagine the feeling of
awe I have appearing before you this afternoon. [Laughter.]
I will be brief and just make one or two points. First, the
National League of Postmasters supports the efforts of the
Postal Service to solve these problems within their current
jurisdiction and regulations. We believe that they can do it.
We believe that, as the gentleman to my right noted, that they
became much more concerned with this problem when this
legislation was introduced. I think it is possible for Senator
Baucus and Congressman Blumenauer in the House to take the same
position that Senator Aiken took at the time during the Vietnam
War, when he suggested to President Johnson that we just
declare that we had won and we're coming home.
By making the Post Office more aware of the concern of the
Congress because of questions raised by constituents in
communities, the Post Office has responded. And we in the
National League of Postmasters want to cooperate with their
positive efforts. Mr. Umscheid has a very impressive testimony
for you, and I would highly commend it to you.
We're always concerned, representing as we do the
postmasters, that consolidations and closings reach the heart
of the Postal Service. Their mission is to serve every
American, universal mail service. That's a dedication, and
that's a dedication that's shown, I believe, in the adjustments
they have properly made.
I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, I have to again admit
my age, but prior to you and Senator Akaka arriving in the
House, we passed the monumental Postal Reform Act of 1969, the
basic law was known at the time as the Udall-Derwinski
amendment. Our late colleague, Mo Udall, and I sponsored that
bill.
The basic intent of that bill was to remove the dead hand
of politics from the Postal Service. We did so, I think,
effectively. Thirty years later, that is still the case. But
the dead hand of politics I refer to included direct
involvement of the Congress in site selection and post office
locations. I think as a young Congressman, here you are, you
have a new community, they are building, they want a new post
office, you are pleased to help. Then you get caught in a
battle between two aldermen and the board, both of whom happen
to be realtors and both happen to have different locations. It
was a lose-lose situation.
The same at that point, if you also would recall,
postmasters were appointed by Congressmen. You had a dozen or
so applicants. You made one friend when you finally made your
choice, and a dozen enemies. A lose-lose situation.
And we recognized at the time, Postmaster General Blunt was
the man that took the bull by the horns and said, let's get out
of politics. I'll leave the Cabinet and let the Post Office
serve the public in the best administrative manner possible,
without this unfortunate interference, this historic
interference from Congress. In fact, at the time, postal
workers led the drive for the periodic wage increases of
Federal employees. Congress subsequently set up the procedure
where now cost of living figures are used to give the annual
pay adjustments. Much better system than we had when it was
politicized.
So I have to tell you quite honestly, when I look at this
bill, I think it starts that dangerous road down to eventual
Congressional involvement in site selection of postal
facilities. And that was really abused. It was a terrible
system. That's why I would recommend that we congratulate
Senator Baucus and Congressman Blumenauer, they have achieved
their purposes, they have scared the living bejesus out of the
Postal Service. [Laughter.]
Mr. Derwinski. Mr. Umscheid has lost his hair. [Laughter.]
He is the responsible officer. And I think that they should
keep their Post Office feet to the fire, hold this bill ready
and if they are unhappy with the services rendered by the Post
Office, they can come and present it to you. But I think
they've won the battle. And in winning the battle, they make it
unnecessary to tamper with the very effective U.S. Postal
Service that our citizens enjoy.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Derwinski, for
your always enjoyable presentations, no matter what the
subject. You are certainly a person who has the experience and
the credentials to speak on this subject.
As you were talking about the challenge of naming
postmasters, I recalled what former Congressman John Bell
Williams, who was a predecessor, he had the seat in Congress
that I held, told me. He said it was one of the best pieces of
legislation that he remembered the Congress passing. Because
his experience had been that of the 12 candidates for
postmaster, you would get 11 enemies and 1 ingrate. So he
changed it a little bit from what you said. [Laughter.]
Rudolph Umscheid is Vice President of Facilities, U.S.
Postal Service. You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF RUDOLPH K. UMSCHEID,\1\ VICE PRESIDENT,
FACILITIES, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY FRED HINTENACH,
MANAGER, RETAIL OPERATIONS SUPPORT, U.S. POSTAL SERVICES
Mr. Umscheid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. I clearly
recognize that this is an extremely important issue. It's
important to the Postal Service, it's important to its
employees. It's particularly important to the employees who
have to live and work in our infrastructure. I know that it is
also extremely important to the citizens of this great country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Umscheid, with a list of closed
or suspended post offices, appears in the Appendix on page 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I understand the concerns that gave rise to the
proposed legislation, I would like to share with the
Subcommittee why the Postal Service feels that it will be
detrimental to the Postal Service and to the communities we
serve and will greatly curtail our ability to provide the
necessary infrastructure.
The Postal Service is one of the Nation's largest owners
and managers of real estate, with over 37,000 buildings
containing 310 million square feet of space. Our facilities
handle 630 million pieces of mail every day. Mail volume has
doubled in 20 years. In fact, for the first time in history, we
will handle over 200 billion pieces of mail this year.
This volume growth, coupled with the population growth,
strains the capacity of our facilities. Even in areas of little
or no growth, we must address issues relating to deteriorating
conditions from decades of use, as well as the need to upgrade
offices when employee safety and accessibility and other
problems are identified.
In an attempt to keep pace with this need, we have an
annual construction budget of $1.5 billion to $2 billion, which
is a significant investment in the communities throughout the
Nation. We complete more than 20,000 repair and alteration
projects, conclude some 8,000 lease transactions and deliver
some 800 new or replacement facilities each year. The Postal
Service recognizes the pivotal role our postal facilities play
in towns and cities across the country, and we understand why
our customers feel that their local post office is an integral
part of their community.
We are very sensitive to these concerns and want to ensure
that those served by a postal facility have input into the
decisions that could affect their community.
We believe that we have improved our performance in this
area during the past 2 years. First, with the revised policy in
1997 and then with formal regulations, which were published in
the Federal Register and took effect in 1998. Do we have a
perfect record? No, we do not. I think as Senator Baucus
pointed out, Livingston was clearly a black eye in the process.
But unfortunately, it occurred.
But I think our record overall is a good one, one that is
better than the isolated press clippings or anecdotal stories
might indicate.
Our regulations require that we meet with local officials
and hold a public meeting at the start of our process before
any decision has been made. We explain how our process works,
including the time frame of comments, decisions and appeals,
using the community regulations handbook during discussions.
With our local officials there is a convenient brochure which
discusses our partnering concept to hand out at all public
hearings, so that our customers understand how they can
participate.
Our first priority is to remain in existing locations. In
fact, since September 1997, we have completed over 200 projects
in which we have either expanded the existing post office or
moved the carrier operation to another location, thus keeping
the retail in its existing location. We have 250 similar
projects in progress, and over 150 are in the initial planning
phase.
If it is not feasible to expand an existing facility, our
second alternative is to remain in the same vicinity. If no
buildings or sites are available, only then will we seek
alternatives that may be out of the downtown area. We also keep
this community informed at every step of the process, and
anyone not satisfied with the process can appeal to me.
In the years since these regulations have been in effect, I
have received fewer than 30 appeals. I get personally involved
in these cases, and take my responsibilities very seriously. I
believe I understand the balance of serving our community yet
trying to preserve our operational capabilities.
Some involve a disappointed owner of a site not selected.
Some involve a wide difference in opinion within the community
as to the best location. Even with our preference for keeping
the facilities in or near their existing locations, there are
some members of the community who simply want the post office
to be near their homes where they shop on a daily basis, so
that they can combine trips.
In several appeals, I have been able to work with the local
community to find a suitable solution acceptable to everybody.
Such solutions are not easy, nor are they fast. In one
particular situation, working with the mayor of Ashboro, North
Carolina, we eventually were able to identify and assemble a
site consisting of eight separate parcels. In brief, we
successfully partnered with the community to achieve the right
solution.
And in sum, I have upheld the original decision the Postal
Service had made as being the right decision, because nothing
else would resolve the facility problem. There are instances
where we have worked for 20 years to find a site, and have yet
to implement a badly needed facility.
We also are working on a number of efforts to improve how
we work with the communities and how we can remain in the
downtown area. We have developed a training program for our
real estate specialists, only 105 across the entire country, to
improve their skills at public meetings. We want to be better
listeners, provide complete information, answer questions in a
forthright manner, engage the citizens in a positive manner. We
have prepared and issued samples of all notices and
correspondence relating to this process, so that our real
estate professionals follow the policy.
In an effort to improve the likelihood that we can find
alternative space in the general vicinity of existing offices,
we have relaxed our requirements for parking in downtown areas.
We can sometimes reduce our interior space requirements in
those communities that we are not expected to experience high
growth. We work with the communities on those exterior designs
of the facility, so that it blends in with the character of the
community and with the State historic preservation office
suggestions. And when we renovate or expand older facilities,
there is no such thing as a cookie cutter design. My office
also follows up on press clippings that may indicate that there
is a problem or controversy brewing.
With that background, I'd like to turn to the proposed
legislation. While it is well intended in that it certainly
emphasizes input from those served by a postal facility, we
believe that it does not serve the public or our employees.
First, in S. 556, post office relocation or new
construction, which are replacements of the existing office,
are treated in the same manner as a post office closing or
consolidations, where there will be a postal facility in a zip
code area. The very deliberate and lengthy process used when we
consider closing a postal facility takes on average 2 years
from the time we begin the process until a final decision is
made. And sometimes longer if the Postal Rate Commission sends
it back for additional data.
The legislation proposes a process for a relocation or new
construction that would take up to 18 months or longer for a
decision before a site could even be purchased or any
construction could begin. This is unacceptable when we are
unable to continue leasing the current facility or when an
existing facility is in poor condition, which can pose serious
safety concerns to our employees and customers.
It also poses a problem when a severe space shortage
exists, which can cause safety and other service problems or
prevent the installation of modern equipment. In addition, it
is unlikely that we will be able to control a proposed site for
a relocated post office or new construction for that period of
time. Thus, even after gaining approval, we might have to start
all over again to try and find a new site.
Second, we do not feel that it is prudent to legislate
processes requiring judgment decisions. In many cases, we deal
with communities that cannot reach a consensus on where a
facility should be located. The legislation requires that
consideration be given to the community input, but does not
allow us to go with the majority input.
The legislation states that all reasonable alternatives
must be fully evaluated, yet reasonable means different things
to different people. In effect, the legislation is simply
inviting controversy and a lengthy review, not by the
communities served, but by the Postal Rate Commission.
Third, our regulations provide for more input and
discussions with the community, and it takes place at the start
of the process. Conversely, the legislation proposes that we
get public comments after we announce our decision and hold a
community meeting only if asked. This does not foster the
partnership we are trying to create.
Fourth, anyone can appeal our decision to the Postal Rate
Commission, even competitors who reside in the community. It
does not matter if local officials in 99.9 percent of the
community endorse our decision, an appeal can go forward,
delaying a much-needed project for an extended period. In
brief, the process will lend itself to abuse.
Fifth, over the past decade, we have modified our community
relations policies, strengthening the requirements each time,
but also making changes as we gained experience and saw what
worked best, providing notification cards to all customers or
holding community meetings, deciding when to hold a public
hearing, establishing a period of time between actions in the
process and providing appeal rights. A legislative process will
not allow these types of evolving improvements to be easily
incorporated into our procedures.
Finally, the bill would require the Postal Service to
comply with all local zoning and building codes. In the past
year or so, we have increased our efforts to work with local
zoning boards and city offices. We now voluntarily comply with
zoning with few isolated exceptions.
In addition, we have a longstanding requirement to
construct our facilities to the more stringent of local and
national codes. However, some building codes, such as those
requiring public bathrooms in public lobbies, fire sprinklers
and handicapped accessibility to our inspection service lookout
galleries, pose undue hardships to the Postal Service. In fact,
some code requirements could increase our space needs, such as
added parking, to an extent that we could not locate in a
downtown area. We need the flexibility to resolve issues with
the local community.
In summary, we have made great strides in working with
these communities on our facility decisions, and I believe our
recent record is a very positive one, with few exceptions. The
proposed legislation will cause us undue delays, resolving
facility issues which add costs to the process, significant
costs, I might add. In addition, it will delay projects to such
an extent that we will not be able to make the same level of
investments in these facilities each year.
This in turn will affect the communities and hundreds of
small businesses that perform hundreds of millions of dollars
of construction work for us. It will also allow safety problems
to linger.
The Postal Service feels very strongly, and I cannot
emphasize this enough, that the legislation would have a
devastating impact on our ability to provide much-needed
facilities to everyone we serve, everywhere, every day, at a
reasonable price.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
your patience.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Umscheid, for
your testimony and also for your explanation of the new
regulations that have been implemented by the Postal Service.
I have a copy of what appears to be a second edition. Is
this the latest edition issued May 1999? \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The latest version of the amendment of the bill appears in the
Appendix on page 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Umscheid. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Cochran. And the first was issued back in October,
I believe, of 1998?
Mr. Umscheid. Yes, sir.
Senator Cochran. The impact of these regulations must have
by now been assessed by you and your office. How would you rate
the regulations in terms of improving community relations for
the U.S. Postal Service? Has this had any noticeable impact on
how the relationships are now defined between the Postal
Service and local towns and cities?
Mr. Umscheid. Absolutely, from my direct participation,
this has significantly enhanced our ability to communicate and
allow the citizens of a community to participate in the
decision-making process. I have been involved in projects all
over the country, have gone to small-town America and
participated with the mayors.
Yes, it has taken us more time. It used to be that on
average it would take us 6 to 8 months to identify sites in
communities to acquire for new facilities. Now it takes longer,
possibly 2 or 3 months longer. But at the end of the process,
we feel that we have generally secured a consensus. Not always.
Sometimes we simply have to walk away and say, there isn't a
solution, and we can't force feed a solution. We need to move
on, because we need new facilities.
Senator Cochran. What about the suggestion that some have
made that you have a tendency now to close the downtown post
offices and buy property out on the outskirts of town? Is this
commonplace, or is there an effort by the Postal Service to
preserve downtown facilities where you can? I know there's an
executive order that applies to other Federal agencies which
states that when appropriate and prudent, you should consider
locating facilities in downtown or historic districts before
considering other locations.
Mr. Umscheid. As I had mentioned, it is our first priority
to locate a facility downtown. We are very sensitive to the
issues of trying to preserve historic buildings, whether it be
our new postal museum in Georgetown or investing $30 million in
the main post office in the Bronx. It is absolutely essential
that we remain downtown.
Now, again, sometimes we encounter great difficulty in
trying to find the appropriate site. Sometimes we are willing
to pay premiums to secure the downtown location. In other
instances, when those premiums get to be three and four times
the fair market value of the property, we have to defer a
decision. But contrary to what might have been the preference
of our operating folks who would prefer a location more
accessible to highways and transportation, the emphasis today
is to remain downtown.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Moe, I know that the emphasis in your
organization is to preserve historic properties. Do you think
these regulations provide some new opportunities for meaningful
community input and input from organizations such as yours into
decisions about the location and relocation of post offices?
Mr. Moe. Mr. Chairman, I think they are definitely a step
in the right direction. And I was very pleased to hear Mr.
Umscheid outline the priorities of the Postal Service in this
area.
The problem is that the regulations are applied very
unevenly across the board. Maybe that's because they're new. In
many cases, it's the first instinct of the Postal Service to
leave the downtown and not to look for an alternative site or
even to look to see whether a remodeling or an addition would
work.
We have a very recent example of this in the town of
Demopoulous, Alabama, which you may be familiar with, a town of
about 7,500, a very historic town. They have a 1912 post
office, a beautiful building. The Postal Service announced in
early September that they were going to move outside of town,
close the post office and build a new facility on U.S. 80. They
held a hearing. Hundreds of people turned out at the hearing,
over 1,000 people signed a petition. The town of Demopoulous is
absolutely united that they should keep the postal facility
downtown. And they are now eagerly awaiting the decision of the
Postal Service on that question.
But it is a very short time frame. There was almost no time
for the community to react and to come up with alternative
suggestions. That's the problem with the regulations.
As I said earlier, what I think is needed here is a process
at least as good as that which the Congress provided in the
1976 Act for closings. That process should be applied also to
relocations, in my view.
Senator Cochran. I notice that in our notes here it says
the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal
agencies to consider the impact of actions on structures
included in the National Register. Does this apply to the
Postal Service?
Mr. Moe. Unfortunately it does not. And under S. 556, it
would. And we think it should, for the very same reason that
the Congress determined that it should apply to other Federal
facilities.
Senator Cochran. Have you had any experience working with
the Postal Service in terms of assessing the impact of public
comment such as the one you described in Demopoulous? That has
not yet been decided, as I understand.
Mr. Moe. That has not yet been decided as far as I know.
Senator Cochran. Do you know of any other instances where
you've had people come to a public meeting under these
regulations and where they've had an impact on a decision by
the Postal Service?
Mr. Moe. Yes, and I think it's been a very mixed record,
very uneven. The example that Senator Baucus referred to in
Livingston, Montana, several years ago, I think that was
resolved by leaving the retail facility downtown and moving the
distribution and sorting facility outside of town, which is
sometimes an appropriate decision. There's not a one-size-fits-
all solution to these things. It depends upon the community,
obviously.
But I think in many instances, the Postal Service has tried
to be accommodating to local concerns. But they don't have the
tools to do it, and they don't really have the guidance to do
it fully yet.
Senator Cochran. My understanding, too, is that there is a
difference in the law, Mr. Umscheid, between closing a post
office and relocating or expanding a post office. Is it true
that under the new regulations, local customers who want to be
heard on the subject of an expansion or relocation can appeal
to your office, to postal headquarters in Washington? If there
is a closing, however, under law, there's a right to appeal to
the Postal Rate Commission?
Mr. Umscheid. That is correct. The closing is a very
protracted process requiring many operational considerations
and impact on the community. Mr. Hintenach, who is our manager
of retail and who ultimately has the responsibility for that,
can better articulate how that is dealt with very differently
from what I do on the implementation of replacement facilities.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Hintenach, would you like to respond
and explain the differences between a relocation and a closing?
How do you determine which is which?
Mr. Hintenach. The regulations are very specific, and I
think as Mr. Umscheid mentioned in his remarks, that a post
office closing--we are not leaving service, we are still
providing service to the community. But we no longer have a
physical presence. It's a much different situation.
And the law was enacted, I believe it was in 1976, that
provided a series of events that started with a study,
community meetings, posting to the community that a decision
has been made to close the post office, then certain appeal
rights to the Postal Rate Commission. Quite frankly, I think
that's a very good process for that purpose, because that is
when the Postal Service is looking at no longer having a
physical presence in the community. It takes a very long time,
and if you look at some of the GAO studies that were done in
1997, it took about 4 years average to review, which was too
long, and we've cut that back to about 2 years.
I'd also like to add at this point that in March 1998, we
placed a moratorium on post office closings. That was a result
of a number of things, and I'd just like to give you a real
quick history here. In 1992, we started to have a very large
number of retirements of small postmasters. It was a time when
early benefits were offered if people retired, and we had a lot
of retirements.
We started to computerize our systems at the same time, and
also found that we had a large number of offices that had not
followed the process. And we started to implement that. And as
a result, we had a number of closings; the number actually
jumped up significantly. We started to clean those up and they
started to jump even a little more. Then when GAO did their
study in 1997, which said we were doing a very good job of
following the process, but in fact we weren't being timely
enough. That's when it was taking quite a bit of time to go
through these.
Thus we picked up the pace again and the numbers went up
further. And all of a sudden, everybody was saying, boy, look,
we're closing a large number of post offices in this country.
Believe me, the post offices are very important to us, we have
a wonderful group of postmasters who do an excellent job of
serving the company. We stood back, we were starting to get
questions from this legislative side of the House, we were
getting questions from our postmaster organizations, and the
Postmaster General decided, let's put a moratorium on.
As recently as this morning, we met with the postmaster
organizations and agreed that we were very confident we could
come up with a process, and even looked at improving the
involvement of the postmaster organizations in looking at post
office closings. So we are taking this very seriously on the
impact on the community and the impact of the service provided
and on our postmasters. But it's a much different process, I
believe, when you leave a community physically than if you
relocate or want to do a remodeling.
Senator Cochran. We just came across the other day in our
office a situation where a Mississippi delta post office that
we thought had been closed had actually not been closed. It had
been put under what was called an emergency suspension. I had
never heard of that, because I'm not an expert. I am learning a
little bit more about these terms now.
But we found out that it's been under emergency suspension
since November 1996. And a suspicion arises, that this is
classified in a way that prevents, in effect, anybody from
appealing to the Postal Rate Commission? If you closed it, you
would have had to go through this step by step procedure under
law. But if you just suspend its operation on the basis of an
emergency or call it that, you don't have to go through that.
Who's to know whether it's really been closed or is really
just suspended?
Mr. Hintenach. Well, the process is such that, an emergency
suspension you should not have existing for years and years and
years. And we found some of that, and that was one of the
things in the mid-1990's that we started to clean up. The 1996
emergency suspension you are probably talking about is now
being looked at, in regard to the post office moratorium, we
are taking a look at that to see the validity.
But the key thing is, there is a process by law that we
must follow and we will follow it in every case. Even if we
missed one from 1982, we will go back and follow that process
to make sure we follow the process of the law. An emergency
suspension occurs while we are doing the study, and the study
can often take 18, 24, or 36 months, depending on community
involvement, the discussions you have, the alternatives you
look at, and possible appeal to the Postal Rate Commission.
Senator Cochran. Just for the record, I hope you will
supply for us, for the hearing record, how many post offices
are currently in emergency suspension status and how many have
been in this status for more than a year.
Mr. Hintenach. I would be glad to provide that. In fact,
that's the same list that Mr. Foust is referring to,\1\ because
we have shared it with them. So we will get you that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ List referred to appears in the Appendix on page 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Cochran. OK, thank you very much. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Foust, you have a proud background with the Postal
Service. You proudly served the Village of Plain City, Ohio, as
its postmaster for three decades.
In your experience as a small town postmaster, would you
share with us what it was like to serve a community with
approximately 2,500 people?
Mr. Foust. Yes, sir, I would be glad to. You serve with
pride every day. Absolutely. You put that flag up and you take
the flag down, you come in on Christmas morning and sort the
packages out and call the people and say, hey, this looks like
it might have a package for Christmas. Those are the kinds of
things you do in a small community yet. See, I was born and
raised there. I knew everybody.
That's maybe one of the things, we have that fault with the
Postal Service now, we have people that live a good many miles
away and they are not really involved in their community. But I
sure was involved with my community, and I take exception to
the fact that we may have taken out the politics, but we still
may have politics, a little different kind of politics, maybe
kind of cronyism, which is even worse. Before you know, if your
gang was in, you were in, if you weren't, you were out. But now
you don't know exactly who you are supposed to catering to.
I would like to elaborate a little bit if I could, talk
about the meeting we had this morning. I really believe that
this Blumenauer bill and this S. 556 has kind of got somebody's
attention. Not ours. We sent a list back in May 1998 and the
Postmasters Retired took this over, because we had the time to
go to see these offices and knock on the doors and know the
older postmasters that were there and get their input. And we
did that, all over the country. We've got a committee of 10
retired postmasters that are all in the different areas of the
Postal Service, and they've got people that report to them,
that go out to these offices.
We got this list in 1994. Now all of a sudden, we're just
now beginning to get something done. The reports were sent back
in early July 1998, to get something done. It would just kind
of stall.
My biggest problem, I think, with the whole procedure is
over possibly 500 post offices on suspension, is there is a
process in the Postal Reorganization Act that says what you
will do with the thing. And it seemed to me like what they may
be doing is if you just put it in temporary suspension, the
people that are fussing with the Postal Service, if you wait
long enough, they'll forget about it and then maybe we can go
ahead and close it.
And that's not the way to do business. Just because we only
have 2,500 people in Plain City doesn't mean we shouldn't have
the same respect that Columbus, Ohio, does. And that's my
comments, Senator. If that answers your question, maybe more
than you wanted to know.
Senator Akaka. I wanted to hear from a person like you, and
you must know that what you just said will be included in the
record. Certainly it will be helpful.
Mr. Foust, how does the Committee for the Preservation of
an Historic Universal Postal Service function?
Mr. Foust. It is a committee of retired postmasters of the
International Association of Postmasters of the United States.
And really, postmasters retired that still have post office in
our blood. You just don't stop it today. I don't know why I'm
still doing it. But things just aren't like they ought to be,
and somebody has to stand up and say something. You have these
meetings with communities, and most people won't say anything.
But the way we started this committee is so we could have
people available to go out and inspect the facilities and see
what is available or not available. And many times probably 80
percent of it we've said, these post offices probably ought to
be closed, and sent that information to the Postal Service. But
sometimes we find that if they wait long enough, people just
forget about it, and maybe just close all of them.
Senator Akaka. Was NAPUS involved in the drafting of new
regulations, do you know?
Mr. Foust. Well, they are working on it now. Like I said,
this is what was in the meeting this morning, in trying to come
up with some regulations. One of the things they were concerned
about was that the retired postmasters really shouldn't have
any input. I really think we're citizens, at least we could
tell them what we see. Possibly the postal employees don't have
the time, and yet they are overlooked by somebody that's got a
vested interest.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Derwinski, was your group involved in
that?
Mr. Derwinski. Oh, yes, our president was there all
morning. I think, Senator, if you'll let me make an
oversimplified comment, naturally, you hear about all the
defects of the Postal Service. You don't hear about the
effectiveness day after day, the millions and millions of
pieces of mail that are handled. The U.S. Postal Service, with
all of its headaches and the arrows that it takes, is the
finest example of postal service in the world. And we take the
position at the National League of Postmasters that we're part
of a team. And we want to improve it. We don't operate from an
adversarial relationship, we operate from a positive teamwork
relationship. And we have found the postal officials, when we
break through their bureaucracy and their little clusters, they
want to help.
Sometime a few months ago, there was a, I don't recall,
maybe it was a Gallup poll, they took a poll that showed that
the Federal entity with the highest rating of public approval
was the U.S. Postal Service. And that's just a fact. But what
you hear are the necessary gripes. You don't hear about the
daily effectiveness.
Senator Cochran. Senator, we just have received word, we
have a vote on the Floor, 4 minutes are remaining for us to
record our vote, so we'd better go over there.
We have a couple more questions, if you wouldn't mind
staying. We will be back in about 10 minutes. Thank you. We
will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Cochran. The Subcommittee will please come to
order.
When we recessed to go vote, Senator Akaka was engaged in
asking questions of the panel. I think we shall continue with
Senator Akaka's questions. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to say that Senator Edwards wanted to come to
this hearing, Mr. Chairman, to discuss a matter of importance
to North Carolina. That was the closing of a remote coding
center in Lumberton. He is concerned about the loss of jobs
associated with the closing and the effect that this will have
on the community.
Unfortunately, he is unable to attend this hearing, but the
Postal Service can expect written follow-up questions to be
posed by Senator Edwards.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Questions and answers submitted by Senator Edwards appears in
the Appendix on page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to ask that a letter from Representative
Blumenauer \2\ supporting S. 556, the companion bill to his
legislation, be included in the record, along with Senator
Levin's statement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The letter from Representative Blumenauer is included with the
Senator Jefford's prepared statement that appears in the Appendix on
page 43.
\3\ The prepared statement of Senator Levin appears in the Appendix
on page 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Cochran. Without objection, that will be included
in the record.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Umscheid, the regulations issued in 1998 providing
community input into the decision making process are just that,
regulations that may be changed at any time. How do we ensure
that there is a permanent process in place without legislating
these guarantees to the public?
Mr. Umscheid. Interesting question. I'm not so sure I quite
know how do we guarantee that we will continue to adhere to the
process. I think the best way is that we continue to be
terribly responsive to public opinion. Clearly, as issues are
in effect brought forward to you and to Congressional folks and
to our attention, then we respond.
I think that clearly, the Postal Service has become a very
customer-focused organization. And it certainly is not in our
best interests to alienate anybody in the community, because
they are our customers. And clearly, there are some delicate
tradeoffs about trying to find the best location versus meeting
our operating capabilities, our preferences.
I want to comment just briefly on the Demopoulous, Alabama
situation that Mr. Moe made reference to. I saw it in his
prepared statement. I think that is the classic example wherein
the anecdotal story is placing us in a very unfavorable light.
We conducted a community process. And contrary to Mr. Moe's
statement, there is no time limit. We are not obligated at the
end of 7 days that we are going to immediately conduct a public
meeting and make a decision.
A meeting was held there. There was no reference made that
we would move outside of the downtown area. In fact,
ultimately, I suspected a decision will be made that we will
stay there and we will have a split operation. A split
operation means that we will have the retail, full service
capabilities in the downtown. We will simply relocate our
carriers to a location out of the core district, obviously in a
building that's a more industrial type building that allows for
trucks and our delivery vehicles and our mail processing
equipment.
Even when we adhere to a process, we have a situation, and
I believe Mr. Moe's statements were very misleading. There will
be controversy. And in many instances, if there is more than
one meeting required, we hold those meetings. We want to reach
a consensus to the very best of our ability.
Unfortunately, we have a few instances like this. Bear in
mind, I ask you to consider, we are delivering 1,000
facilities. One or 10 or 20 or 30, yes, get to be very
controversial. But it's still a very, very small percentage.
And others, yes, they may be difficult. But any that are
referred to either Congressional delegation or directly to my
attention, the Postmaster General, believe me, when they go to
the Postmaster General, I hear about them immediately, and I
respond.
But I respond to all of them. They are terribly important.
I was terribly concerned about Mr. Moe's statement that in fact
we were deviating from the process. We are not.
Senator Akaka. Since he talked about Alabama, let me talk
about Hawaii. My State of Hawaii is served in some areas by
contract service stations. Are customers notified when there is
a switch from full service to contract service, and if so, how
is this carried out?
Mr. Hintenach. Senator, let me try one little clarification
here. There are contract stations and there are contract post
offices. Often times a contract post office is put in to
replace a post office that is no longer in the community.
Contract stations, which is an internal term, are part of an
existing post office. But in order to provide the community
with better access, we might establish a contract station
underneath an existing contract--and I'm not sure, Senator,
which you have. You may have both.
Senator Akaka. I think we have both. My question was,
whether they were notified in case there is a switch in these
services.
Mr. Hintenach. The community, if we would substitute a
community post office for a post office, the community is
notified, because we have to follow the law and the procedures
of the law to close a post office. It might be replaced with a
community post office. We don't do very many of those.
Senator Akaka. And is there a special way that you carry
this out?
Mr. Hintenach. We follow the same process of the post
office closing, with doing a study. We determine the needs,
we'll make a decision to eliminate the post office and we would
tell the customers that their service is being replaced by a
community post office, and they would also have appeal rights
to the Postal Rate Commission.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Umscheid, Hurricane Floyd recently
devastated parts of North Carolina, including many rural areas,
much like Hurricane Iniki that occurred on the island of Kauai
nearly 10 years ago now. What happens to post offices during a
time of natural disaster?
Mr. Umscheid. We did lose several post offices. I think in
certain instances we also had vehicles that were containing
mail that were underwater. We do use modular units that we are
able to ship in. We continue to find ways to deliver the mail,
and I'm sure both of these gentlemen know this much better than
I do, the unusual and extraordinary measures that they go
through to continue to deliver the mail.
But we then go back in, as soon as conditions permit, and
we replace them. If there is emergency funding, when the
hurricane came through, even prior to it having passed through
the area, we have already made provisions with contracting
organizations who are prepared to go in at the earliest
possible moment to replace what is absolutely necessary to get
us back providing the service that's important. We don't close
any as a result of that. It causes a terrible hardship on a lot
of folks, but hopefully in the end, we even have a better
facility.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Derwinski, your involvement in reshaping
the Postal Service is well known. I know you've worked in the
area of postal service while you were in the House as well. I
think the modern Postal Service reflects, thinking about you,
your commitment to take politics out of the mix.
I appreciated your comments today and heard your cautions.
Given your support of the new regulations, would you add
anything to these new rules?
Mr. Derwinski. Yes. I'm sure that further prodding by not
just the postmaster groups but, for example, the unions, letter
carriers, supervisors unions, all the interested employees as
well as customer groups, could further convince the Postal
Service to streamline, somewhat streamline and say, be a bit
more consistent. I think they were a little reluctant to get
where they are. But now that they're there, we're convinced
they are going to do a much better job.
Call it proper the same function you serve when you
maintain legislative oversight over any entity. We hope to have
that kind of positive pressure and presence felt by the Postal
Service.
Senator Akaka. I always cherish your wisdom in many of
these things. As I say, Ed, I look upon you as one that has
really reshaped the Postal Service over these many years.
Mr. Moe, I appreciate your being here today, and I applaud
the Trust for leading the way for over 50 years in helping to
preserve our national heritage. In your testimony, you make a
strong case for ensuring that downtown communities, many with
historic buildings, be preserved. I can see from your testimony
that the Postal Service has a key role in maintaining a town's
vitality.
S. 556 would bring the Postal Service under local zoning
laws. I know that you believe the Postal Service's exemption
from local zoning and planning laws has harmed communities.
Would you give us an example of this?
Mr. Moe. Senator Akaka, I don't have specific examples. But
I was pleased to hear the Postal Service representatives say
that they do comply with local zoning requirements in the vast
majority of instances. I am not expert in this area, so I don't
know the precise exceptions that they make.
But let me make another point, if I may. They made the
distinction earlier between closings and relocations, and I
understand the distinction they are making. But the impact on
the historic resources that are left downtown when a post
office leaves downtown is exactly the same. And it's usually
devastating.
Mr. Umscheid. Senator, if I might, could I comment on the
zoning issue?
Senator Akaka. Mr. Umscheid.
Mr. Umscheid. I will give you an example where we did not
comply with zoning, or the intent of the zoning. We had a
situation where we were in a leased facility next to Lincoln
Center in New York City. It's called Ansonia Station. It serves
tens of thousands of people. We parlayed our leased interest in
the building and sold it to a developer who built a new
building, very expensive high-rise. Out of that, we had to move
for an extended period of time, 4 or 5 years, while they were
going through the process.
We moved out, and then we moved back in to a brand new
facility that served our long-term needs. When the developer
built the building, it was always understood clearly by
everybody that we would move back. When it came time to move
back and to put our facility in, certain neighbors in very
expensive condominiums objected to our presence.
Now, I would say it was maybe less than prudent for the
deputy mayor and other folks to say, we approve it from a
zoning standpoint. They encouraged us that they would support
us if we would exert our Federal prerogative to proceed and say
that we were exempt from zoning to go back. Because it was just
for the expediency.
In my 5 years, I can tell you that there is--I can't think
of another example where we have deviated from zoning. Bear in
mind that most of our facilities are leased, of that 35,000 or
so, 29,000 are leased, smaller post offices. And the owners of
those leased facilities have to go through zoning.
Stonybrook, Long Island is a very controversial one. It's
in a leased facility. The owner is going through the process to
secure the zoning rights to expand the post office, then we
still have a decision to make, because the community still
would prefer to have us preserve the green area. So do we
consider split operations?
Those are the kinds of dilemmas that we're sort of thrust
in. Frankly, I would look for ways to get some wisdom to find
solutions to those problems.
But zoning, from my perspective and my 5 years of
experience, is not a problem.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, you have given me so much
time. I have other questions, but I'll put them into the
record.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator.
I have a couple of items to raise that are related to
facilities in my State that I want to bring to your attention.
One has to do with the contract postal unit in a mall, called
Metro Center Mall in Jackson, Mississippi. It is supervised by
a post office, Westman Plaza Post Office, in Jackson. Some
constituents called the office the other day complaining about
the closing of the contract postal unit, although I don't know
they knew what it was, it was just a post office facility.
We checked into the thing to find out what was going on,
and learned that whoever had the contract had abandoned the
contract or had ceased operation. The postal officials had not
been able to find anybody else who wanted to do it, or who
could carry out the responsibilities of that unit.
What applies there? It occurs to me this is something to
raise here, because if we adopted this legislation, for
example, what would you have to go through with a contract
postal unit? Does that fit within the terms of S. 556? If not,
how do your regulations apply to a contract postal facility?
What do we tell the people down there who are disturbed about
the fact that that post office is closed?
Mr. Hintenach. I don't think that the bill applies to the
contract postal units, the way I read the bill. Oftentimes what
we do with a contract postal unit, we try to find someone
immediately to take over that contract, especially if it's
providing a lot of service to people. Sometimes you can't find
an operator. The local postmaster or the local district will
work to try to find somebody to the best of their ability to do
that.
Most of the time we're successful, Senator. Because a lot
of businesses like to have a contract postal unit, because it
also helps them draw some traffic in while they are doing
postal business. The process would be that for the customers to
let the post office know that this is something they
desperately need for their support.
Usually we find other operators. In this case, it sounds
like there's been some difficulty. I'll be glad to look into
that for you.
Senator Cochran. Yes. That would be great to know.
Also another example, at Mississippi State University, I'm
told they are trying to develop a project which includes the
construction of a new student union facility. They have two
postal facilities on the university campus, I'm told. What they
would like to do is combine them at the university in this one
facility, an expanded post office facility to be located in the
student union building.
The project obviously would be a very important and needed
improvement on the university campus, and local postal
officials are reviewing the proposal and exploring the options
with the university.
I'm curious to know how your community regulations apply to
this project? Are you involved in following the regulations
here? If you don't know, would you check to be sure that they
are followed?
Mr. Hintenach. I'll be glad to look into it. Because it
depends on the circumstances. We have contract locations on
campuses, we have our own operations on campuses. In this case,
it sounds like we have our own operation in some part of that
campus.
And oftentimes what we find is the local university will
work very closely with the local postal officials and find a
solution. I will be glad to look into this for you, also,
Senator.
Senator Cochran. It's called Mississippi State University.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hintenach. Thank you. Alumnus?
Senator Cochran. No, but my grandfather was. I went to
another university.
We've also had letters and statement submitted to the
Subcommittee on the subject of today's hearing--a letter from
Postmaster General William Henderson, a statement from Senator
Richard Shelby, and a letter from Vincent Palladino, President
of the National Association of Postal Supervisors.\1\ Without
objection, these comments will all be made a part of the
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A letter from Postmaster Henderson with attachments, prepared
statement from Senator Shelby, and a letter from Vincent Palladino,
submitted for the record appear in the Appendix on pages 100, 107, and
108, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also aware that Senators Baucus and Jeffords may have
additional materials to submit for the record, and that
Senators who are Members of this Subcommittee may have
statements or questions to submit for the hearing record. We
hope that if questions are received, you will be able to
respond to them within a reasonable time. And we will keep the
record open for all statements and questions to be submitted,
and the responses to questions for the record.
Let me thank all of you for being here today. This has been
an excellent hearing, we've learned a lot. We appreciate your
assistance in our effort to understand better the new
regulations and the proposals for legislation on this subject.
The Subcommittee will stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR MR. UMSCHEID FROM SENATOR EDWARDS
Question 1: The USPS Remote Encoding Center (REC) in Lumberton,
North Carolina is slated to close in July 2000. This means that 193
people in Lumberton will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate in
Robeson County is more than double the average rate for the entire
State. It is my understanding that Lumberton was selected to be a REC
location partially because of the region's economic hardship. Why then
was the Lumberton facility selected to close in one of the first couple
of rounds? Please describe the specific factors that were considered by
USPS in making this decision.
Answer: Lumberton was initially selected as a REC location in
1992 when RECs were operated by private contractors. When the
Lumberton REC was converted to a Postal run operation in July
1995, the Postal Service decided that leaving the REC site in
Lumberton was a good business decision and a good decision for
the Lumberton community. In fact, it was decided to expand the
operation from what existed during the contractor operated
phase. The decision to close Lumberton in July 2000 was a
business decision based on several factors. The Lumberton REC
does not have the capacity to support absorbing workload from
other RECs which is a prime consideration for selecting RECs to
remain open. Further, the operating costs in Lumberton rank
among the highest of all RECs in the country.
Question 2: Please describe the specific steps USPS took to inform
the Lumberton community that the REC was temporary and could close at
any time prior to the expiration of the 10 year lease.
Answer: The issue of the Lumberton REC being temporary in
nature was discussed with the Lumberton community during
negotiations for the building lease. As was the case in all
other REC locations, discussions concerning lease negotiations
were the first discussions with the local community regarding
our intentions.
Question 3: Was an incentive package agreed to by USPS and local
government officials to encourage construction of the REC in Lumberton?
If so, what were the terms that were agreed to?
Answer: Yes, an incentive package was agreed upon between the
Postal Service and the Community of Lumberton. Incentives
offered from the city and county included $350,000 to
supplement the rental rate,$30,000 for employees training, and
a 10 percent reduction to the electricity usage for 24 months.
It should be noted that incentives similar to those in
Lumberton were negotiated in 24 other REC communities.
Question 4: I understand that 87 of the individuals who will be
laid off as ``career'' Postal employees. Will USPS guarantee that they
will be offered other positions within USPS? And if so, is it possible
that the employees may have to relocate? I also understand that
approximately 106 individuals are transitional employees. What steps
will USPS take to help these employees obtain alternative employment?
Answer: The career employees at the Lumberton REC will be
offered other positions in the Postal Service. It is likely
that some of these career employees will have to relocate. The
Postal Service will work closely with local employment agencies
to assist the transitional employees in finding non Postal
employment. The Postal Service will establish an Out-Placement
Center at the REC to assist these employees.
Question 5: Has a decision been made to close other RECs within
North Carolina? If so, when will these facilities be closed?
Answer: The Postal Service has announced the closing of 28
Remote Encoding Centers nationally. No other North Carolina
sites are included in these 28.
Question 6: Is USPS planning on locating any other postal
facilities in the Lumberton area?
Answer: At this time the Postal Service is not planning on
locating any other Postal facilities in the Lumberton, NC area.
Question 7: Has USPS made any attempt to encourage other businesses
to utilize the facility once USPS leaves?
Answer: Yes, the Postal Service is working with the local
community leaders in Lumberton. We have agreed to leave a
significant amount of office equipment on site in Lumberton as
an enticement for other businesses to utilize the facility
after we leave.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1701.076
-