[Senate Hearing 110-938]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-938
NOMINATION OF NANCI E. LANGLEY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON THE
NOMINATION OF NANCI E. LANGLEY TO BE COMMISSIONER, POSTAL REGULATORY
COMMISSION
__________
APRIL 23, 2008
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-749 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Kristine V. Lam, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Jennifer L. Tarr, Minority Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Patricia R. Hogan, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Carper............................................... 1
Senator Akaka................................................ 2
WITNESS
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Nanci E. Langley, to be Commissioner, Postal Regulatory
Commission:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Biographical and professional information.................... 17
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 25
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 38
NOMINATION OF NANCI E. LANGLEY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in
Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
Carper, presiding.
Present: Senators Carper and Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. The Committee will come to order, and I am
pleased to serve as Chairman today alongside my friend and
colleague, Senator Akaka, as the Committee considers the
nomination of Nanci Langley to be Commissioner on the Postal
Regulatory Commission. Welcome.
Ms. Langley. Thank you.
Senator Carper. You look familiar. [Laughter.]
I am not sure why. We are glad you are here with us today.
Ms. Langley, your nomination comes at a difficult and
challenging time for the Postal Service, although they have had
plenty of challenging times before. Recently, in the last 7
years that I have served in the Senate, the economic slowdown
that we have found ourselves in today has hurt a number of
families and businesses, but it has hit the Postal Service
early and hard. I described in a recent meeting with the
Postmaster General, the Postal Service is a little bit like the
canary in the coal mine in terms of feeling of the economic
slowdown early
We actually heard some testimony in our Subcommittee about
the Postal Service potentially being on track, for the first
time in many years, to suffer significant losses, maybe as high
as in the billions of dollars. But hopefully that is not going
to be the case.
There is always the chance that some of the mail volume
that the Postal Service has lost as a result of the slowing
economy could be lost for good, although we hope not. The
number of communications options available to postal customers
and available to all of us continues to increase and to grow
easier to use as well.
But having said all that, I think this is also a time of
great opportunity for the Postal Service. The Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act, a bill that you have played
a key role in helping us to get enacted, along with my
colleague, Senator Akaka, and others, has been the law of our
land for more than a year now, and we are starting to see, I
believe, some real benefits that flow from it as a result.
The Postal Service is set to change prices this spring
using the streamlined cap-based rate system called for in the
Act, and it is my hope that the Postal Service can use this new
rate system in the coming years to offer customers some level
of predictability and to be more competitive in the advertising
and the mailing markets.
We also have a new set of service standards for most postal
products that I trust will make the Postal Service more
relevant and more valuable to customers that now have a lot of
other communications options.
All this makes it vitally important that we have strong,
experienced leadership, not just at the Postal Service, but at
the Postal Regulatory Commission, too.
The Commission can play a key role in helping the Postal
Service through the challenges that it faces in the years to
come. In some ways, they can do this by standing back and
letting the Postal Service take advantage of the commercial
opportunities that the Congress has given it.
The Commission must also ensure that the Postal Service is
acting in compliance with the law and fulfilling its service
obligations.
I look forward to hearing how you, Ms. Langley, can help
the Commission fulfill the important role it has under the new
law we worked so hard together to make reality.
At this point in time, I want to yield to my friend and
colleague, Senator Akaka, to actually introduce you to a room
where you need little introduction. But I am anxious to hear
what he has to say, nonetheless. Senator Akaka, you are on.
Take it away.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
really a great pleasure to be serving with you and to be with
you on this Committee. I want to say aloha and good afternoon
to everyone here as well. I am delighted to be at this hearing
to consider the nomination of Nanci Langley to be a
Commissioner on the Postal Regulatory Commission.
It is my distinct pleasure this afternoon to introduce
Nanci Langley, whom I have had the privilege of knowing for the
last 18 years. Although I say ``introduce,'' Nanci is by no
means a stranger to this Committee. She served in my personal
office for 10 years, handling an array of issues, and until
recently served on this Committee as the Deputy Staff Director
of what is now the Oversight of Government Management
Subcommittee.
It was in that capacity that Nanci was my senior adviser on
government management, Federal workers, and, importantly, the
Postal Service. She was instrumental in working for years to
ensure that my concerns--financial transparency and workers'
rights--were addressed in what became the recently enacted
postal reform legislation.
As the former Chair of the Postal Subcommittee, I can think
of no one who is more qualified to be nominated to this
position and serve as a Commissioner than Nanci Langley. She is
well known and respected by the entire mailing community,
having worked closely with the Postal Service, mailers, and
employees for many years.
Being from my home State of Hawaii, thousands of miles away
from the Mainland, let alone Washington, DC., she has a unique
appreciation for just how important a role the mail system
plays in everyday life. Her family was well aware of this. For
48 years, her parents owned a chain of clothing stores which
relied on the Postal Service to receive timely deliveries of
merchandise.
Nanci came to work for me when I came to the Senate after
the passing of my predecessor and colleague, Senator Spark
Matsunaga. When I asked her to join my staff, little did she
know that today she would be well known amongst the postal
community as one of the foremost experts in the city on postal
affairs.
Not only does Nanci understand the needs of the Postal
Service, more importantly she knows well and cares about the
tens of thousands of employees that work at the Postal Service
every day. It is this appreciation, which I share, that guides
in balancing the needs of consumers, the Postal Service, and
its employees.
The Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission
(PRC), in particular, have recently undergone tremendous
changes. These changes have created challenges and also
opportunities. Consumers are now assured more regular,
predictable rate increases as well as increased transparency in
postal finances, due in large part to Ms. Langley's hard work
in crafting the postal reform legislation. As a testament to
her expertise, after passing the postal reform legislation,
which expanded the role of the Postal Regulatory Commission,
she was tapped by PRC, headed by another former staffer of this
Committee, Chairman Dan Blair, to run the Public and
Governmental Affairs team.
Since assuming that role, I can tell you that she has been
as tenacious and outstanding as ever in balancing the needs of
the postal community. While I was saddened by her departure
from my office, I knew it was a tremendous opportunity, and now
we see it has led to an even bigger role at the PRC.
I will not belabor her qualifications for this position,
which I think few have questioned. However, I do want to pass
on my full faith in her abilities and to you, Ms. Langley, I
want to extend, as I have for years, my deepest ``aloha'' and
``mahalo,'' which is thank you, for your years of dedicated
service not only to me but to the people of Hawaii, the Federal
workforce, and the mailing community of this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Committee can move this
nomination quickly.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Akaka. How do you say
``thank you''? Is it ``maloha''?
Senator Akaka. ``Mahalo.''
Senator Carper. ``Mahalo.'' Thank you for that opening
statement, for introducing Ms. Langley to us, and for your
willingness to share her, not just with the folks that you
serve in Hawaii, but with the whole country.
I believe Ms. Langley has filed responses to a biographical
and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions
submitted by the Committee, and had her financial statements
reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. I won't question
you about how much fun it was to go through just filling out
all the paperwork that we deal with. I remember once when I was
nominated by President Clinton to serve on the Amtrak Board of
Directors--I was governor at the time--a job I very much wanted
to have, an extra job plus my regular day job. But after going
through all this stuff, filling out the questionnaires and the
financial statements, I said, ``I am not sure this is really
worth it for a job that does not pay anything.'' But I ended up
doing it, and it was worth it. Thanks for going through all
that.
Without objection, the information that you have compiled
and submitted to the Office of Government Ethics will be made a
part of our hearing record. The financial data, however, will
remain on file and available for public inspection in our
Committee's offices.
I believe the Committee rules require that all witnesses at
nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, and you
have had an opportunity, as someone who has worked in these
halls in the past, seeing any number of people stand and take
an oath. Did you ever think that you would be taking the oath
yourself and repeating this?
Ms. Langley. Never.
Senator Carper. All right. You can probably do it by heart.
I am going to ask you, if you don't mind, just to stand and
raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will
give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Langley. I do.
Senator Carper. That is good. OK.
Senator Akaka, if you would like to lead off with
questions--I have a whole lot of questions. I really want to
grill this witness. [Laughter.]
But I am told by my staff director, John Kilvington, that I
need to ask three questions first, and then if you would like
to take over, I will ask a number of additional questions after
that.
It is required, I think by Committee rules, to ask these
three questions, and I will start--Mr. Kilvington says you
might have an opening statement. Is that possible?
Ms. Langley. It is possible. It is probable. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Well, then, go ahead. We would love to have
your opening statement, and then I will ask those questions,
and then yield to Senator Akaka. Go ahead.
Ms. Langley. I will try to be brief.
Senator Carper. No. Take your time. I want to hear this.
[Laughter.]
TESTIMONY OF NANCI E. LANGLEY,\1\ TO BE COMMISSIONER, POSTAL
REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Langley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As someone who sat
behind Senator Akaka for so many years on the dais in front of
me, I am humbled and I am pleased to be here today. I wish to
thank the President for nominating me as a Commissioner of the
Postal Regulatory Commission, and I am grateful to the Senate
Majority Leader, Harry Reid, for recommending me to the
President. And I am especially grateful to you, Senator Akaka,
for your long advocacy on my behalf and your gracious words
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Langley appears in the Appendix
on page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am honored to be accompanied by Dan Blair, whom Senator
Akaka mentioned, a former staffer on this Committee, but, more
importantly, Chairman of the Regulatory Commission. He is here
with Vice Chairman Mark Acton and Commissioner Tony Hammond.
Commissioner Ruth Goldway is in California with her family
observing Passover. And I am equally pleased that two former
PRC Chairmen, George Omas and Ed Gleiman, are here as well. And
I would also like to acknowledge the many friends and
colleagues who are wishing me good luck today.
And, last, but most importantly, I would like to introduce
my husband of nearly 30 years, William Selander, who, for more
than two decades as a Senate spouse, rarely complained about
missed meals and having to take vacations during Senate recess.
Senator Carper. Rarely complained?
Ms. Langley. I said rarely, yes. Rarely. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Where is he?
Ms. Langley. Right behind me.
Senator Carper. Welcome. How are you? He has your back.
Ms. Langley. Yes, he has my back.
Senator Carper. Just like you had Senator Akaka's for all
those years.
Ms. Langley. Absolutely.
Senator Carper. Good.
Ms. Langley. But I do continue to be Bill's biggest fan,
and I thank him for all his support.
I am fortunate to have worked for two fine Senators from my
home State of Hawaii, the late Senator Spark Matsunaga and
Senator Akaka, who has been both my mentor and my role model
for over 17 years. I thank you, Senator Akaka, for all the
experience and opportunities you have afforded to me. And
although I have left your Subcommittee, I know that I am in
your heart, as all the people of Hawaii are in your heart.
And having spent so many years helping to draft, negotiate,
and enact the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA),
I am pleased that I am now inplementing the Act as part of the
senior team at the Postal Regulatory Commission. If confirmed,
it will be my privilege to continue my public service as a
member of the Commission.
In closing, as I looked around the room before I sat down,
I know that bringing to fruition the PAEA was not done in
isolation. The mailing community, from union and association
members to business mailers, to individual citizens, moved this
effort forward because of their collective desire to sustain
the Postal Service. The American people have Members of
Congress, especially Senator Carper, Senator Akaka, Senator
Collins, and Senator Lieberman, to thank for their tireless
efforts. Ensuring a fair balance between the flexibilities
granted to the Postal Service by the new law, with the
accountability and transparency provided by the Commission,
will be my goal if confirmed as Commissioner. I have the
greatest respect for the four Commissioners who are now
carrying out these duties.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka. I also thank
your wonderful staff who helped me through this nomination
process: John Kilvington, Larry Novey, Chris Barkley, Brooke
Hayes, Evan Cash, Kristine Lam, and Jennifer Tarr. They have
all been wonderful, as well as Jennifer Tyree, and Rick
Kessler, my former staff director. Thank you so much. That
concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Senator Carper. Thank you for that really wonderful
statement.
Again, as I was trying to say before you interrupted with
that opening statement, I was trying to get to some of these
questions. There are three questions that I think we are
required by Committee rules to ask, and I will ask those, and
then depending on how you answer those questions, we will turn
it over to Senator Akaka.
First, is there anything that you are aware of in your
background that might present a conflict of interest with the
duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
Ms. Langley. No.
Senator Carper. Do you know of anything, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Ms. Langley. No, I do not.
Senator Carper. So far, so good. Do you agree, without
reservation, to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and
testify before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if
you are confirmed?
Ms. Langley. I do.
Senator Carper. And I have a fourth question, but I am
going to hold off on that, and I am going to ask Senator Akaka
if he would like to go ahead and open the questioning. Ask as
many questions for as long as you want, and when you have
exhausted your list, I will ask a few of my own. Thank you.
Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to ask Ms. Langley this question. She has the
background for it. This question has to do with the Pacific.
Ms. Langley, when the Postal Service was crafting new
service delivery standards, I urged them to ensure that
standards to non-contiguous States were accurate and that they
be constantly improved. However, I remain concerned that some
of these standards, especially to Guam and Hawaii, may not
fully reflect--and let me underscore this--the actual time, the
actual time from mailbox to mailbox. And I am concerned about
the delivery time between Guam and Hawaii and notice the
standard is that it would take one day by boat from Hawaii to
Guam.
Do you plan to work closely with the Postal Service to
ensure that this issue remains a priority to be addressed?
Ms. Langley. Yes. If confirmed, I can assure you that
service standards and performance measurements for non-
contiguous areas, including the State of Hawaii, as well as the
territories, will be a top priority of mine. The Commission on
its own, without my prompting, actually pressed the Postal
Service quite a bit on the delivery standards for Hawaii.
Particularly Hawaii and Alaska, there was a lack of
understanding why it would take 4 days from the West Coast to
Hawaii or to Alaska, when the current service standards were
already 3 days.
Your concerns that were expressed to the Postal Service, as
well as the PRC's concerns, had a great deal of impact because
it ended up rolling back those service standards to what the
norm is now, and that is 3 days. As far as 1 day between Guam,
we know that it is absolutely unfeasible to get a ship between
Guam and Hawaii in that time frame. So I can assure you again,
this will be a priority.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for leaving the Committee now. I
have to chair another committee in a few minutes. So thank you
very much, Ms. Langley. I wish you well.
Ms. Langley. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. With much aloha and, again, we will try to
move as quickly as we can on my part, and I am sure the
Chairman's part as well, to have you confirmed.
Ms. Langley. Aloha pumehana.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Akaka, thank you so much.
Ms. Langley, I served in the U.S. House of Representatives
with Senator Akaka, then-Congressman Akaka. I never served with
his predecessor in the Senate. Tell us a little bit about him.
Ms. Langley. Senator Matsunaga came to the House, I think,
in the early 1970s and then came to the Senate in the late
1970s and served--he was Chairman of the Taxation Subcommittee
on the Finance Committee for a number of years and really
pushed alternative energy. That was one of his key concerns,
knowing Hawaii was out in the middle of the Pacific, finding a
viable business besides agriculture, and it was actually a good
thing to do because the pineapple and sugar cane industry has
really closed up in the State. But he was constantly looking
for ways to use the byproducts of sugar cane and pineapple.
Senator Carper. He was ahead of his time.
Ms. Langley. He was ahead of his time. He also passed
legislation to establish the Institute of Peace in the United
States.
Senator Carper. Really.
Ms. Langley. And to establish the position of Poet Laureate
at the Library of Congress. So the United States, like many
other countries, now has a Poet Laureate. He was a very fine
man.
Senator Carper. Good. You mentioned in your statement that
Senator Akaka has been--you said a role model and a mentor to
you, and he is, I think of all the Senators, maybe the most
beloved Senator of all. People just love working with him,
serving with him, and I think he is a role model and mentor for
many of us.
In what ways have you learned from him? I am sure he has
learned from you as well. But give us some examples of how he
has mentored you and the lessons that you take from that time
that you worked for him and what you have taken with you to the
Commission.
Ms. Langley. Well, he truely believes in finding consensus.
He has taught me that whenever you are faced with a situation
with two opposing sides and the two sides cannot come together,
there must be a way of bringing people together. And I know
with the PAEA, there were differences of opinion as to what to
do with the workers' compensation.
Senator Carper. I remember that.
Ms. Langley. And with a lot of patience, we were able to
work out an agreement that, while it may not be totally
acceptable to everybody, it allowed the bill to move forward
and allowed Senator Akaka to proudly cosponsor the bill. So I
think that is a good example.
Senator Carper. That is a good one. Well, what do you think
are some of the biggest issues today that are, first of all,
facing the Postal Service but also facing the Commission? And
if you are confirmed, are there any particular issues that you
want to focus your time and attention on?
Ms. Langley. Well, I think you mentioned the economy, and
that is certainly a huge challenge to the Postal Service today.
So there is the double whammy, so to speak, of the economy and
the diversion of hard-copy mail to digital technology, and this
is a short- and long-term challenge. And First-Class mail and
standard mail are very susceptible to the impact of the
economy. The downturn in the housing and credit markets is
certainly affecting the Postal Service. And the Postmaster
General mentioned that the last time that he was before the
Committee that the economy is of great concern.
As far as the Commission, I think the challenge has been
implementing the various requirements of the PAEA in a rather
compressed time frame. But I believe the Commission has done an
excellent job and having the new ratemaking system in effect 8
months early has allowed the Postal Service to move forward and
use the flexibilities granted under the new law.
Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
Ms. Langley. And do you want me to answer--I forgot to
answer your question about what I would do.
Senator Carper. Yes. What would you do?
Ms. Langley. I think that accurate, timely data is very
important, and Senator Akaka mentioned the financial
transparency issue. So compliance with Section 404 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley requirements as well as SEC-like reporting
requirements, are going to go a long way to boost financial
transparency and accountability. So that would be an area that
I would continue to be interested in, as well as making sure
that the non-contiguous areas along with rural areas and
economically disadvantaged areas are served well by any changes
in service standards.
Senator Carper. All right. Fair enough.
The Postal Service has now submitted and received
Commission approval for the first price increases under the new
ratemaking system, as you know. New prices both for market-
dominant products and for competitive products will go into
effect, I believe, in less than a month.
What is your view on how the process has worked so far?
And, second, what is your own philosophy on how the Commission
should approach your pricing changes proposed by the Postal
Service?
Ms. Langley. Well, I think the first effort was a good
first effort. The market-dominant review found that there were
no increases that exceeded inflation at the class level and
that workshare discounts in general did not exceed avoided
costs. There were some areas where the workshare discounts did
exceed 100 percent of avoided costs, and with all but one
exception, the Commission approved those. The Postal Service
provided the appropriate detail that is required by the law,
but the one that was returned to the Postal Service was
reviewed again by the Service and returned in a timely manner.
But the entire process underscores the need for timely and
reliable data. That has been the mantra from the PRC for many
years. And there is more visibility now because of the reliance
on the Postal Regulatory Commission to provide this
accountability and transparency through the initial review. We
have a 34-day review of the market-dominant increases, and then
there is an annual compliance determination, and we completed
the first annual compliance determination. And that lengthy
report goes into great detail on the operations of the Postal
Service as well as how well service standards are working.
And as far as my approach, I think the premise of the PAEA
to provide the Postal Service with flexibility to set rates and
classify products is going to work well. I am very hopeful that
the system that was set up by the law and actually effectuated
by the Commission through its ratemaking process will work
well.
Senator Carper. Well, I am glad to hear that you feel that
way.
Are there some things that you have seen over the last year
or so since we enacted the legislation with the Postal Service
and the Commission endeavoring to meet the requirements under
the law? Do you see any things that are not working so well
that are a cause for concern that maybe we should be mindful
of?
Ms. Langley. I think the only thing that I would be
concerned with, and I think because of the communication, the
good ongoing communication that is going back and forth between
the Postal Service, is making sure that the data is available.
We are still working with the Postal Service many times on how
to present the data, and with the compliance determination
there will be a rulemaking that will set out guidelines as to
what should be submitted and in what form. But it is a new
process and the whole system is evolutionary, which I believe
it needs time just to work out the different kinks that may be
in the system.
Senator Carper. All right. Good enough.
You talked earlier in your testimony about the economic
slowdown, and I alluded to it as well, and that has hit the
Postal Service hard. We were talking with the Postmaster
General, and it is strange that sometimes when companies feel
that we might be slipping into a recession, rather than
advertising more or marketing more, they advertise less. It is
sort of counterintuitive, but it happens time after time. I
think it has happened this time, too, and as a result, some of
the reduction in advertising has had an effect, and fewer
catalogues are going out, thinner catalogues going out as well.
And this problem I think is compounded by the fact that at
least some--not all, but at least some of the postal customers
are leaving the mail or are maybe considering leaving the
Postal Service in favor of other forms of communication. There
certainly are others to lure them away.
How can the Commission itself help the Postal Service to do
what it needs to do to get past these challenges and past these
difficulties and maintain the level of service that our public
depends on?
Ms. Langley. Well, I think the law is very clear that there
is now a profit-making system that is available to the Postal
Service, and the Postal Service needs to be innovative. They
need to think outside the box, if you will, in what is an
increasingly difficult economic climate. But there are simple
things that they are doing which I think demonstrates the
innovation that is needed to really keep them going.
Senator Carper. Do you want to mention a couple of those?
Ms. Langley. Yes. The efforts they are undertaking in the
area of recycling, it does not bring a lot of revenue----
Senator Carper. You are addressing the Co-Chairman of the
Senate Recycling Caucus, so this is music to my ears.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Langley. That is wonderful.
Senator Carper. Take as much time as you need.
Ms. Langley. OK. [Laughter.]
The Postal Service obviously moves a lot of paper goods and
material that is recyclable. So taking the opportunities to get
involved in recycling I think is beneficial.
They have also recently moved ahead with having a new
larger size flat rate box, flat rate priority box, so they are
beginning to look at different areas in which they can grow
revenue or volume. And where the PRC comes into account is
through its regulations to move these requests from the Postal
Service in an expeditious manner. And the competitive products
area is an area where there portends a lot of innovation and a
lot of activity.
Another opportunity is with competitive negotiated service
agreements (NSAs), and they have not brought one forward, but
there are opportunities there as well.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Yesterday was Earth Day, and I reminded my colleagues at
our caucus luncheon and gave them a little pep talk on
recycling, encouraged them to--in the words of one of my old
ministers who liked to say people would rather see a sermon
than hear one--I was encouraging my colleagues to set a good
example in recycling. We recycle here in the Senate, I think,
on any given day roughly 3 tons of recyclables, including paper
and beverage containers, toner cartridges, batteries, and
cardboard. About 3 tons a day. This year we will be up over, I
think, a thousand tons from the Senate. And for every 1 ton of
aluminum cans that we recycle, we save about 400 gallons of
oil. For every 1 ton of recycled paper products that we use, we
avoid chopping down 17 trees; we preserve about 3\1/2\ cubic
feet of landfill per year, and just do some good things.
While I have your attention, one of my favorite recycling
``gee whiz'' statistics is that we throw away enough aluminum
cans in this country in a year, just in landfills, to rebuild
the entire domestic U.S. airline fleet every 3 months. And for
every--gosh, I could go on and on.
In any event, I am pleased to hear that the Postal Service
is focusing on recycling, and I am glad you are giving them
some encouragement.
You mentioned NSAs with individual customers, and I want to
come back and just focus on that just a little bit more, if we
could. As you know, those negotiated service agreements with
individual customers have been talked about for some time as a
tool that the Postal Service can use to find efficiencies and
to bring along some additional businesses. And I know you have
spoken about this to some extent, but let's just dwell on it a
little bit more. Are you convinced that the Postal Service has
taken full advantage of its opportunities in this area?
Ms. Langley. I think they could take more advantage.
Senator Carper. If you were giving them friendly advice,
what kind of friendly advice would you extend to them, the
Postal Service?
Ms. Langley. Continue talking to individual customers and,
again, be innovative, think of new ways that you can work with
your customers. The law clearly provides for new opportunities,
and this is especially true, as I mentioned, in the competitive
product area.
The Commission's regulations mirror the law which ensures
that NSA must either have a positive net effect on income or a
positive effect on operational improvements, so long as no
other competitor is harmed.
The one area that continues to be problematic is that NSAs
are not always providing value to the Postal Service. Our just
completed compliance determination found that current NSAs have
provided a net $2.5 million, and that is not a great deal of
money. And so, more work needs to be done by the Postal Service
to make sure that NSAs are mutually beneficial to the Postal
Service as well as the partner.
Senator Carper. All right. Good. Thanks.
The postal reform bill includes a mechanism within it
whereby members of the public can file a complaint, as you
know, with the Commission if they feel that the Postal Service
is in some way violating the law. In addition, I think the
Commission has a number of tools that it can use to compel the
Postal Service to be in compliance or even, I think, to punish
the Postal Service for some of the transgressions that it might
commit.
How do you think the Commission should handle this process?
Ms. Langley. Well, on the compliance process, we have an
existing compliance system, and it will be enhanced through new
rulemaking activity, probably in a short time. Under the PAEA,
the PRC is required within 90 days to make a determination on
any complaint that is filed to decide whether or not it merits
consideration.
I believe the complaint system will work well. It has
worked well in the past. I think it will be more accessible to
individual citizens and certainly accessible to mailers who may
have concerns.
On the issue of subpoena, the Commission for years has been
seeking subpoena authority. Subpoena authority many times is
just that: It is authority. It is the threat of having a
subpoena, the threat of being able to use a subpoena in order
to get the information or the data that is necessary. It has
not always been easy to get some information from the Postal
Service. The Postal Service realizes now that the Commission
has subpoena authority. The Commission has authority to levy
fines, and it has authority to require corrective action, if
necessary.
My personal view is I would rather talk to the Postal
Service first to see whether or not issues can be resolved
rather than just wielding a subpoena when we have not spoken to
the Service.
Senator Carper. I think you spoke to this in part, but I am
going to ask this question anyway just to make sure I know what
your views are. Under what circumstances do you think that the
Commissioners should use the tools available to them under the
law to ensure that the Postal Service is in compliance with the
law? And if you want to give some examples, feel free.
Ms. Langley. Well, I think there needs to be judicious use
of any of these tools. But I do think that if there is
continued disregard of a Commission directive, for example if
the Commission asks for information regarding a certain product
and the information does not come forth, then there may be a
discussion that the Commissioners would have to hold among
themselves. But I think that would be an instance where if
requested and information is not forthcoming what would be the
next step.
Senator Carper. All right. The Postal Service has proposed,
as you know, a set of service standards for its market-dominant
products. How do you think the Postal Service should be using
these standards? And what role do you hope to see the
Commission take in ensuring that they are enforced?
Ms. Langley. The law is quite clear that the Postal Service
has to consult with the PRC on the establishment of the initial
service standards. That was done. The Postal Service issued
those standards in December of this past year, and service
standards are a key element in a rate cap regime. There is
always the concern that a business that is guided by a rate cap
could reduce the level of service in order to stay under a cap.
And certainly this is an area that the Commission, in my mind,
should keep a vigil eye on because you do not want to see
service reduced in order to just stay under the cap.
So I believe that the PRC has an important role in
monitoring service performance. Also, the Postal Service is
required by the law to consult with the Commission on the
establishment of performance measures and goals, and that is
ongoing right now. So there is definitely a critical role for
the Commission, and the annual compliance determination also
has a section that is devoted strictly to service standards.
The current compliance determination does not include a lot of
data on service standards because at the present time, only a
little under, I believe, 20 percent of mail is actually
measured for service. But measuring service is critical,
particularly when we are talking about regularity and
predictability of mail.
Senator Carper. As I recall, the Postal Service is required
to submit a report, I think it is later this year, in which
they will lay out their strategy for managing their facilities
network, and include in that report any plans they may have for
removing excess capacity.
What role should the Commission play in developing and also
in monitoring the implementation of this strategy?
Ms. Langley. Well, once more, I believe Congress wisely
ensured that the Postal Service consult with the Commission on
its June 2008 report that is due to Congress on facilities. And
as part of this report, we have already made mention to the
Postal Service in the past two hearings, that the Service needs
to keep interested Members of Congress, stakeholders, and the
public, as well as employees, informed about any decisions that
they will be making. So this is an area where the Commission, I
believe, is performing good service.
Another thing is that the Commission in 2006 reviewed
realignment plans and found that the Postal Service's plans for
making the public aware of its activities was not as good as it
should be. This determination was handed down at the end of
2006. The Commission has also met with the GAO to have the
benefit of their observations in this area as well.
One thing that is important to remember is that the service
standards set in December 2007 are based on current facility
capability, and so any realignment or reorganization of these
facilities may or may not meet the service standards that were
set forth at the end of the year. And that is where the
performance measurement and performance goals are very
important.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
Among the laws that exist in this land are laws that we
never passed here in Congress. One of them is Murphy's Law.
Another is the law of unintended consequences. When you look at
the law that we worked on and finally enacted a year or so ago
affecting our Postal Service--I asked you earlier what you
thought was working well, and then I asked you if there were
some areas where you had some concerns.
Are there any unintended consequences that you have seen
grow out of the legislation that we have passed that we should
be mindful of?
Ms. Langley. There is an interesting consequence that the
law requires the Postal Service within 90 days of the end of
its fiscal year to file its compliance report with the
Commission, and then the Commission has 90 days from that to
issue its annual compliance determination. And because the law
requires the Postal Service to have predictable schedules of
rate increases, it turns out that when we are doing the
compliance determination, we are also looking at the market-
dominant and the competitive products rate cases at the same
time.
So it really shows how great the Commission is because we
are able to do it. But balancing a small staff and limited
resources has been an interesting project. But I do not believe
I would classify it as unintended. It just turned out to be
that way.
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you.
Each of the Members of the Committee, aside from Senator
Akaka, have joined together and asked me to ask on their behalf
one last question, and that is, if you could not have been from
Hawaii, grown up in Hawaii, maybe lived in any other State----
[Laughter.]
And been able to work on the staff of a Senator, what other
State would have been your second choice?
Ms. Langley. The chairman of the Commission says Missouri.
Senator Carper. You can answer that one for the record.
Ms. Langley. No. It is well known that I enjoy going over
the Delaware bridge and seeing the factories, and John
Kilvington has promised a tour of the factories.
Senator Carper. Well, that is good.
Ms. Langley. So I find Delaware actually a very interesting
and exciting place.
Senator Carper. I could not agree more. [Laughter.]
A wonderful answer, I thought. I will share that with my
colleagues after the vote.
Well, we thank you for your service to our country. We
thank your family, your husband for sharing you with the rest
of us, and your parents for raising you and instilling these
values in you as they have. We appreciate your statement today
and your responses to our questions.
We are going to leave the record open until noon tomorrow
for the submission of any additional statements or questions
that my colleagues might have.
Do you have anything else you would like to say before we
close the hearing?
Ms. Langley. No, other than thank you for making this
rather nervous experience very nice.
Senator Carper. You are quite welcome. Thank you for
allowing us to all be here.
And with that having been said, I think the hearing is
adjourned. Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]