[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 54 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4363-S4365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 2035. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to establish 
guidelines for the relocation, closing, or consolidation of post 
offices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


           the community and postal participation act of 1998

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community 
and Postal Participation Act of 1998. This legislation aims to preserve 
the fabric of downtown American communities by giving citizens a say in 
Postal Service decisions to close, relocate or consolidate post 
offices.
  Mr. President, the Postal Service is near and dear to the people of 
the United States. Since its establishment over 200 years ago with 
Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General, the Postal Service 
has dutifully delivered the mail to generations of Americans. In many 
towns across the U.S., the post office is still the center of the 
community, the very anchor of what we fondly refer to as ``small-town 
America.'' Nowhere is that more true than in my own state of Montana. 
In Livingston, people meet to collect their mail and talk about what 
flies are hatching on the Yellowstone River. In Red Lodge, folks come 
together at the post office not only to collect their mail but to 
discuss last weekend's track meet. And in Plains, Montana, the place 
where people receive their mail is as important a meeting-spot as it 
was when the first post office opened there more than 115 years ago.
  But sadly, Mr. President, America has seen a rash of post office 
closings, relocations and consolidations in recent years. From 
California to Connecticut, Montana to Maine, the Postal Service has 
proposed closing post offices located in the very heart of their 
communities. When the post office goes, often the central business 
district goes with it. And, more important, the local gathering place 
disappears.
  Mr. President, today Senator Jeffords and I are introducing 
legislation to change that. With passage of the Community and Postal 
Participation Act, downtown communities will have an increased say in 
their future. They will have input into Postal Service decisions that 
affect their communities, and they will be allowed the chance to offer 
alternatives to Postal Service changes. Under current law, communities 
have little say when the USPS decides to pull up stakes. Our bill would 
change that by: allowing those served by a post office to receive at 
least 60 days' notice before the USPS decides to relocate, close or 
consolidate a post office; giving those affected by the closing a 
chance to respond to the proposed changes by offering an alternative to 
the USPS proposals; providing for a public hearing before a final 
determination is made; allowing those affected by the relocation, 
closing or consolidation to appeal to the Postal Rate Commission (PRC); 
and requiring the USPS to comply with applicable zoning, planning or 
land use laws.
  Mr. President, I believe that with mutual cooperation, the interests 
of communities and the Postal Service can be served. The nature--indeed 
the very name--of this legislation is participation. I am confident 
that with its passage our communities and this important American 
institution may begin a new era of cooperation for the good of all 
involved. And we can put the community back in the Postal Service.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join Senator Jeffords and I 
in passing this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2035

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Community and Postal 
     Participation Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. GUIDELINES FOR RELOCATION, CLOSING, OR CONSOLIDATION 
                   OF POST OFFICES.

       Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b)(1) Before making a determination under subsection 
     (a)(3) as to the necessity for the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation of any post office, the Postal Service shall 
     provide adequate notice to persons served by that post office 
     of the intention of the Postal Service to relocate, close, or 
     consolidate that post office not later than 60 days before 
     the proposed date of that relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation.
       ``(2)(A) The notification under paragraph (1) shall be in 
     writing, hand delivered or delivered by mail to persons 
     served by that post office, and published in 1 or more 
     newspapers of general circulation within the zip codes served 
     by that post office.
       ``(B) The notification under paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(i) an identification of the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation of the post office involved;
       ``(ii) a summary of the reasons for the relocation, 
     closing, or consolidation; and
       ``(iii) the proposed date for the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation.
       ``(3) Any person served by the post office that is the 
     subject of a notification under paragraph (1) may offer an 
     alternative relocation, consolidation, or closing proposal 
     during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     notice is provided under paragraph (1).
       ``(4)(A) At the end of the period specified in paragraph 
     (3), the Postal Service shall make a determination under 
     subsection (a)(3). Before making a final determination, the 
     Postal Service shall conduct a hearing, and persons served by 
     the post office that is the subject of a notice under 
     paragraph (1) may present oral or written testimony with 
     respect to the relocation, closing, or consolidation of the 
     post office.
       ``(B) In making a determination as to whether or not to 
     relocate, close, or consolidate a post office, the Postal 
     Service shall consider--
       ``(i) the extent to which the post office is part of a core 
     downtown business area;
       ``(ii) any potential effect of the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation on the community served by the post office;
       ``(iii) whether the community served by the post office 
     opposes a relocation, closing, or consolidation;

[[Page S4364]]

       ``(iv) any potential effect of the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation on employees of the Postal Service employed at 
     the post office;
       ``(v) whether the relocation, closing, or consolidation of 
     the post office is consistent with the policy of the 
     Government under section 101(b) that requires the Postal 
     Service to provide a maximum degree of effective and regular 
     postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns 
     in which post offices are not self-sustaining;
       ``(vi) the quantified long-term economic saving to the 
     Postal Service resulting from the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation;
       ``(vii) whether postal officials engaged in negotiations 
     with persons served by the post office concerning the 
     proposed relocation, closing, or consolidation;
       ``(viii) whether management of the post office contributed 
     to a desire to relocate;
       ``(ix)(I) the adequacy of the existing post office; and
       ``(II) whether all reasonable alternatives to relocation, 
     closing, or consolidation have been explored; and
       ``(x) any other factor that the Postal Service determines 
     to be necessary for making a determination whether to 
     relocate, close, or consolidate that post office.
       ``(5)(A) Any determination of the Postal Service to 
     relocate, close, or consolidate a post office shall be in 
     writing and shall include the findings of the Postal Service 
     with respect to the considerations required to be made under 
     paragraph (4).
       ``(B) The Postal Service shall respond to all of the 
     alternative proposals described in paragraph (3) in a 
     consolidated report that includes--
       ``(i) the determination and findings under subparagraph 
     (A); and
       ``(ii) each alternative proposal and a response by the 
     Postal Service.
       ``(C) The Postal Service shall make available to the public 
     a copy of the report prepared under subparagraph (B) at the 
     post office that is the subject of the report.
       ``(6)(A) The Postal Service shall take no action to 
     relocate, close, or consolidate a post office until the 
     applicable date described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) The applicable date specified in this subparagraph 
     is--
       ``(i) if no appeal is made under paragraph (7), the end of 
     the 60-day period specified in that paragraph; or
       ``(ii) if an appeal is made under paragraph (7), the date 
     on which a determination is made by the Commission under 
     paragraph 7(A), but not later than 120 days after the date on 
     which the appeal is made.
       ``(7)(A) A determination of the Postal Service to relocate, 
     close, or consolidate any post office may be appealed by any 
     person served by that post office to the Postal Rate 
     Commission during the 60-day period beginning on the date on 
     which the report is made available under paragraph (5). The 
     Commission shall review the determination on the basis of the 
     record before the Postal Service in the making of the 
     determination. The Commission shall make a determination 
     based on that review not later than 120 days after appeal is 
     made under this paragraph.
       ``(B) The Commission shall set aside any determination, 
     findings, and conclusions of the Postal Service that the 
     Commission finds to be--
       ``(i) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with the law;
       ``(ii) without observance of procedure required by law; or
       ``(iii) unsupported by substantial evidence on the record.
       ``(C) The Commission may affirm the determination of the 
     Postal Service that is the subject of an appeal under 
     subparagraph (A) or order that the entire matter that is the 
     subject of that appeal be returned for further consideration, 
     but the Commission may not modify the determination of the 
     Postal Service. The Commission may suspend the effectiveness 
     of the determination of the Postal Service until the final 
     disposition of the appeal.
       ``(D) The provisions of sections 556 and 557, and chapter 7 
     of title 5 shall not apply to any review carried out by the 
     Commission under this paragraph.
       ``(E) A determination made by the Commission shall not be 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(8) In any case in which a community has in effect 
     procedures to address the relocation, closing, or 
     consolidation of buildings in the community, and the public 
     participation requirements of those procedures are more 
     stringent than those provided in this subsection, the Postal 
     Service shall apply those procedures to the relocation, 
     consolidation, or closing of a post office in that community 
     in lieu of applying the procedures established in this 
     subsection.
       ``(9) In making a determination to relocate, close, or 
     consolidate any post office, the Postal Service shall comply 
     with any applicable zoning, planning, or land use laws 
     (including building codes and other related laws of State or 
     local public entities, including any zoning authority with 
     jurisdiction over the area in which the post office is 
     located).
       ``(10) The relocation, closing, or consolidation of any 
     post office under this subsection shall be conducted in 
     accordance with section 110 of the National Historic 
     Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470h-2).''.

     SEC. 3. POLICY STATEMENT.

       Section 101(g) of title 39, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``In addition to taking 
     into consideration the matters referred to in the preceding 
     sentence, with respect to the creation of any new postal 
     facility, the Postal Service shall consider the potential 
     effects of that facility on the community to be served by 
     that facility and the service provided by any facility in 
     operation at the time that a determination is made whether to 
     plan or build that facility.''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that my 
colleague Senator Baucus and I are introducing titled the, ``Community 
And Postal Participation Act of 1998'' (CAPPA).
  Coming from a small town in Vermont, I understand the importance 
downtowns or village centers play in the identity and longevity of a 
community. Downtowns are where people go to socialize, shop, learn what 
their elected representatives are doing, and gather to celebrate 
holidays with their neighbors.
  One of the focal points of any downtown area is the community's post 
office. Post offices have been part of downtowns and village centers as 
long as most cities and towns have existed. These post offices are 
often located in historic buildings and have provided towns with a 
sense of continuity as their communities have changed over time. The 
removal of this focal point can quickly lead to the disappearance of 
continuity and spirit of a community and then the community itself.
  Mr. President, this legislation will enable the inhabitants of small 
villages and large towns to have a say when the Postal Service decides 
that their local post office will be closed, relocated, or 
consolidated. Some of my colleagues may ask why this legislation is 
necessary. A few stories from my home state of Vermont will answer this 
question and hopefully lead to quick passage of this important 
legislation.
  A few years ago the general store on the green in 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 project, plans were so far along--the 
new building had actually been constructed based on the promise of the 
post office as the anchor tenant--that there was no time to fully 
investigate in-town alternatives. One elderly resident wrote that in 
contrast to families now being able to walk to the post office, ``we 
certainly won't be walking along the busy Route 106 two miles or more 
to get our mail.'' The State Historic Preservation Officer commented 
that as people meet neighbors at the post office, the threads of 
community are woven and reinforced. ``It may be intangible, but its 
real, and such interaction is critically important to the preservation 
of the spirit and physical fabric of small village centers like 
Perkinsville.''
  In 1988, the post office in the Stockbridge Vermont General Store 
needed to expand. The store owner tried to find money to rehabilitate 
an 1811 barn next to the store to provide the needed space, but was not 
successful. In 1990, the post office moved into a new facility located 
on the outskirts of Stockbridge on a previously undeveloped section of 
land at the intersection of two highways. People can no longer walk to 
the post office as they once were able to do when it was located in the 
village center. The relocation of the Stockbridge post office 
unfortunately removed one of the anchors of the community.

  These are not isolated examples. I ask unanimous consent that a 
description of Postal Service activities related to the relocation of 
post offices in the Vermont towns of Fairfax, Ascutney, Taftsville, and 
Huntington be included for the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Vermont


                          Fairfax and Ascutney

       Formerly located in an historic building at the center of 
     Fairfax village, the Postal Service sought larger quarters 
     and moved out of town to a new development known as the 
     ``Fairfax Commons Shopping Center.'' Could the facility have 
     been accommodated in the village center? Possibly, if the 
     Postal Service had worked with the community, but no such 
     steps were taken.
       In Ascutney, the Postal Service may vacate its existing 
     site on the village's Main Street to move around the corner 
     toward Exit 8 of the Interstate, to a new building which will 
     share the same floor plan as the Fairfax shopping center 
     facility. Prescription of stock requirements and layouts

[[Page S4365]]

     leaves little room for creative adaptation of spaces in 
     existing buildings in existing village centers.


                               Taftsville

       When the Postal Service advertised to lease a new, larger 
     space for the Taftsville Post Office, housed for 65 years in 
     the general store, people in town voiced their opposition. 
     One resident wrote a letter to the Editor of the New York 
     Times that focused attention on the issue. In a compromise 
     praised by locals, an addition to the rear of the store was 
     built to house expanded postal facilities. Village residents 
     care about preserving village post offices as centers of 
     community life, and will work to find solutions, if given the 
     chance.


                               Huntington

       Development plans were well underway to move the post 
     office out of Huntington village to a new building before the 
     general public was aware of the proposal. When residents 
     found out, many voiced objection and they identified a 
     larger, historic building in the village that could serve the 
     Postal Service's need for expanded space. Plans are now being 
     developed to help fund the purchase and rehab of the building 
     for post office and other commercial use. Residents note that 
     lack of early notification polarized the community and slowed 
     progress of the proposed in-town solution.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, post office relocations are not only 
occurring in Vermont, but all across the country. My colleagues will 
quickly discover similar examples in their own states where the removal 
of the post office has harmed the economic vitality of the downtown 
area, deprived citizens without cars of access, and contributed to 
urban sprawl.
  The basic premise for this legislation is to give the individuals in 
a community a voice in the process of a proposed relocation, closing or 
consolidation of a post office. This community voice has been lacking 
in the current process. This bill does not give the citizenry the 
ultimate veto power over a relocation, closing or consolidation. 
Instead, the bill sets up a process that makes sure community voices 
and concerns are heard and taken into account by the Postal Service.
  Additionally, this act will require the Postal Service to abide by 
local zoning laws and the historic preservation rules regarding federal 
buildings. Because it is a federal entity, the Postal Service has the 
ability to override local zoning requirements. In some cases this has 
lead to disruption of traffic patterns, a rejection of local safety 
standards, and concerns about environmental damage from problems such 
as storm water management.
  Mr. President, post offices in Vermont and across the nation are 
centers of social and business interaction. In communities where post 
offices are located on village greens or in downtowns, they become 
integral to these communities' identities. I believe that this 
legislation will strengthen the federal-local ties of the Postal 
Service, help preserve our downtowns, and combat the problem of sprawl. 
I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and I in support of this 
important legislation.

                          ____________________