[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 57 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E593-E594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            H.R. 4335, THE POSTAL SERVICE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 19, 2012

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on March 29, I introduced H.R. 4335, the 
Postal Service Accountability Act.
  My bill would empower the independent postal regulator, the Postal 
Regulatory Commission, PRC, to block postal closures where the Postal 
Service, USPS, does not give sufficient attention to the undue burden a 
closure would have on a community.
  Under current law, when the Postal Service is considering closing a 
post office, the affected public must be notified. The Postal Service 
opens a 60 day comment period, which includes a public meeting to allow 
local citizens a chance to voice their concerns. Once the public 
comment period closes, should the Postal Service decide to close a post 
office, the public has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Postal 
Regulatory Commission.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the PRC may fault 
the USPS' decision to close a post office only if the PRC finds the 
decision to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
otherwise not in accordance with the law; without observance of 
procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial evidence on 
the record. The PRC may require the USPS to reconsider its decision, 
but the ultimate authority to close a post office rests with the USPS.
  My bill would give the PRC a binding authority to block a post office 
closure. It would require the Postal Service to consider the economic 
impact of a closure on a community, and empower the PRC to set aside a 
determination that is unsupported by substantial evidence regarding 
projected savings, mail delivery services, and community and worker 
impact. In addition, the Postal Service would be required to perform an 
after-the-fact review one year after a closure and make public its 
findings to ensure mail delivery services have been maintained.
  My bill also would apply the revised appeals process to postal 
sorting facilities. Currently, there is no appeals process for mail 
processing facilities.
  As well, my measure would prevent the Postal Service from proceeding 
with a closure without the written concurrence of three commissioners, 
halting the dubious practice of affirming closures by tie votes.
  These are modest and practical changes designed to ensure that the 
Postal Service approaches these closures with an open mind and listens 
respectfully and attentively to community opinion. At issue is the 
basic right of citizens of a community to be heard. It will help to 
guard against the bureaucratic mentality, which too often takes root in 
executive agencies, that agency officials know best. We must ensure 
that the Postal Service's actions are grounded in the best interests of 
the people it was created to serve.
  In July 2011, when the Postal Service announced its Retail Access 
Optimization Initiative and its intention to study nearly 3,700 post 
offices nationwide for closure, including 85 in southern West Virginia, 
the Postal Service was already pursuing a host of closure studies for 
separate post offices, as well as the consolidation of postal sorting 
facilities, including eighteen post offices and three processing 
facilities in southern West Virginia.
  Under the law, the Postal Service is required to consider the impact 
of a post office closure on a community, on the affected postal 
workers, and on mail delivery services. Federal law requires the USPS 
to ``provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services 
to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not 
self-sustaining.''
  And, yet, there have been serious doubts raised about the Postal 
Service's adherence to these requirements. In its advisory opinion on 
the Postal Service's RA0I proposal, the PRC found that the Postal 
Service was unable to provide the data necessary to confirm its cost 
savings projections associated with the post offices proposed for 
closure. The Commission also expressed concerns about ensuring that 
alternatives are available to meet the needs of affected communities 
prior to a postal facility closure decision.
  In a concurring opinion, the PRC chairman strongly rebuked the Postal 
Service's closure process, noting: ``The Commission has recently heard 
appeals on more than 60 individual post office closings. The records in 
these cases reveal a pattern of inaccurate and overly optimistic 
economic savings calculations and of careless disregard of community 
concerns. While the facts of those cases were not considered by the 
Commission in its Advisory Opinion, they nevertheless demonstrate an 
ongoing institutional bias within the Postal Service that presumes 
closing small post offices automatically provides cost savings and 
network efficiencies.''
  The PRC's findings echo what I am hearing anecdotally from my 
constituents--that the public comment process is a perfunctory 
exercise--just for show--as the Postal Service

[[Page E594]]

bulldozes ahead closing valued postal facilities for very little, if 
any, economic savings. This sentiment has become so frequent that it 
prompted me to contact the Postmaster General last October to question 
whether the public comment process is truly accomplishing its purpose, 
which is to give the public an opportunity to convey its views to the 
Postal Service and to give the Postal Service the opportunity to adjust 
its actions accordingly.
  Within a two-month period last fall, the USPS Appalachian District 
scheduled more than 40 public meetings in southern West Virginia, 
raising doubts that the Postal Service can appropriately manage the 
public feedback received from each meeting and prepare for continued 
mail delivery should a closure occur.
  In one case, residents said that their post office was closed before 
rural delivery was fully established. In other instances, public 
meetings have been scheduled at inconvenient times, like Halloween 
night, limiting public participation.
  In 2009, as part of a separate closure process, the Postal Service 
issued an emergency suspension of the Hacker Valley Post Office in 
Webster County, West Virginia. I said at the time that the action was 
unwarranted and I was later validated in my concerns by the Postal 
Regulatory Commission. In response, the Postal Service offered to 
solicit for a Contract Postal Unit, CPU, in Hacker Valley, which would 
be operated by a supplier under contract with the Postal Service to 
provide retail postal services. After soliciting bids in March 2011, 
postal officials abruptly ended the process, requiring me to contact 
the Postal Service to remedy the matter, which it did.
  What happened in Hacker Valley underscores the need to keep a close 
eye on the Postal Service's proposed closures. I am convinced that 
legitimate safety and convenience concerns of residents and businesses 
are not being sufficiently addressed--that many post offices' fates are 
predetermined and that the public comment process, in too many 
instances, has become a perfunctory step in the closure process, 
instead of being used to truly assess legitimate safety and convenience 
issues, and to take steps to minimize the adverse impact on the 
community.
  I also question the criteria used to select post offices for a 
closure study, noting the conflict with the Postal Service's statutory 
charter that requires the Postal Service to provide ``a maximum degree 
of effective and regular postal services'' to rural communities where 
post offices are not self-sustaining, explicitly prohibiting small post 
offices from being closed solely for operating at a deficit.
  Despite this requirement, the Postal Service has utilized computer-
driven criteria in identifying retail facilities for closure. Three of 
the four criteria are financially based and clearly target small 
facilities that are not heavy revenue producers. As such, it is not 
surprising that there is a concentration of closings in rural areas, 
where computer-driven criteria cannot fully reflect the importance of a 
post office.
  Clearly, the Postal Service has a responsibility to ensure its long-
term fiscal solvency, but that must not happen at the expense of its 
public service obligations in ensuring universal mail services.
  The Postal Service is not FedEx or UPS, which can pick and choose 
between profitable and unprofitable markets. Nowhere does the law waive 
the Postal Service's public service obligations if deficits run high. 
The Postal Service needs to look at other ways to become more 
profitable and competitive by improving and modernizing its services 
rather than cutting off rural customers.
  Rural customers, more so than their urban counterparts, rely on the 
Postal Service for basic mail necessities--for sending bills and 
receiving checks, newspaper deliveries, and small businesses reaching 
customers--especially in areas where internet access is limited.
  These closures will disrupt local economies and the lives of 
residents and businesses--from seniors who depend on the delivery of 
life-sustaining mail-order drugs, to the communities where the post 
office is the heart of the neighborhood--and there needs to be a better 
mechanism in place to ensure not only that public concerns are being 
addressed, but also that the public feels as though it is being heard. 
Some may want to view the Postal Service solely as a business, but it 
is still a public institution and it must remain responsive and 
accountable to the people.
  The Congress must take action to reinforce the point, empowering an 
independent regulator to watch over the Postal Service to guard against 
overly optimistic savings projections and insufficient attention to 
community needs in the closure process.
  I previously urged the Postmaster General to place a moratorium on 
postal closures until a practical and realistic plan for managing and 
responding to public concerns is provided to the American public. 
Subsequently, the Postal Service announced that it would delay any 
closings or consolidations until May 15, 2012. I recently wrote to the 
Postmaster General to ask that he extend the May 15 moratorium until 
the Congress has completed action on postal reform legislation.
  In the coming weeks, the House is expected to consider such 
legislation. While I am opposed to the Committee reported bill in its 
current form, especially with regard to its eliminating six-day 
delivery and potentially expediting the closure process, I am hopeful 
that the House will consider and pass legislation that will help ensure 
that our small, rural postal facilities are not made to bear the brunt 
of the Postal Service's nationwide budgetary challenges. I urge the 
House leadership to act expeditiously.

                          ____________________