[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7969-S7970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                        STAMP OUT BREAST CANCER

 Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, As chairman of the Governmental 
Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and 
Federal Services, which has jurisdiction over postal matters, I would 
like to comment on Representative Molinari's Stamp Out Breast Cancer 
Act, H.R. 1585, passed by the House on July 22, 1997. This bill is 
similar to the Feinstein amendment included as part of the Senate's 
fiscal year 1998 Treasury/Postal appropriations bill, S. 1023, in that 
it would raise money for breast cancer research through a new, 
specially designed postage stamp--generally referred to as a 
semipostal--which would be purchased on a voluntary basis and as an 
alternative to regular first-class postage.
  H.R. 1585 differs from the Feinstein amendment in three respects. The 
rate of this semipostal would be determined in part, by the Postal 
Service to cover administrative costs and the remainder by the 
governors of the Postal Service to direct research. The total cost 
would not exceed the current cost plus 25 percent. In addition, 
following the 2-year period beginning on the date which the stamp would 
be publicly available, the General Accounting Office would report to 
Congress with an evaluation of the effectiveness and appropriateness of 
this method of fundraising and a description of the resources required 
to carry out this bill. Finally, the Postal Service would have the 
authority to decide when the stamp would be available to the public and 
would have up until 12 months after the date of enactment to make it 
available.
  Though this is a well-intentioned bill, and breast cancer research is 
a highly worthwhile cause, the idea of using the Postal Service as a 
fundraising organization for social issues is just plain wrong. If we 
start here, where do we stop? The list of diseases is endless. 
Requiring the Postal Service

[[Page S7970]]

to issue a semipostal stamp for breast cancer would place the Postal 
Service and Congress in the very difficult position of determining 
which worthy organizations should receive Federal assistance in 
fundraising and which should not.
  The concept of semipostals has been around for years. Some nations 
issue them, however most do not. The European experience with this kind 
of stamp has shown that they are rarely as beneficial to the designated 
organization as would be expected. Consider the example set by our 
neighbor Canada. In 1975, the Canadian Postal Corporation issued a 
series of semipostal stamps to provide supplementary revenue for the 
Canadian Olympic Committee. It was reported that while the program 
received exceptionally good promotional and advertising support, it 
fell short of its intended revenue objective. Demand for the 
semipostals throughout Canada was reportedly insubstantial. The 
program--viewed as a failure--concluded in 1976. More recently, the 
Canada Post issued a semipostal to support literacy. With a surcharge 
of 5-cents per stamp, it raised only $252,000. After raising only a 
modest amount of money, combined with a tremendous administrative 
expense, Canada Post says they will not issue another semipostal.
  There is a strong U.S. tradition of private fundraising for 
charities. Such a stamp would effectively use the United States Postal 
Service as a fundraiser, a role it has never before taken on. The 
Postal Service's job--and expertise--is mail delivery. Congress should 
be mindful that the postage stamp pays strictly for postal operations. 
It is not a fee for anything but delivering the mail and the cost of 
running the service. In fact, section 3622 of the Postal Reorganization 
Act of 1970 precludes charging rates in excess of those required to 
offset the Postal Service's costs of providing a particular service. In 
other words, the Postal Service does not have the authority to put a 
surcharge on a postage rate that is cost and overhead driven. There is 
simply no legitimate connection between the desire to raise money for a 
cause, and maintenance of the Postal Service's mission of providing 
universal service at a universal rate.
  The goals of H.R. 1585 are laudatory. But, Mr. President, as I 
previously indicated during Senate consideration of the Feinstein 
semipostal amendment, the Postal Service should not be doing 
fundraising.

                          ____________________