Senate Report 106-338 - BREAST CANCER RESEARCH STAMP REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2000

[Senate Report 106-338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
106-338
_______________________________________________________________________

Calendar No. 673

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH STAMP
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2000

__________

R E P O R T

of the

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

to accompany

S. 2386

TO EXTEND THE STAMP OUT BREAST CANCER ACT

July 12, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

_______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2000

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 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
Dan G. Blair, Senior Counsel
Michael L. Loesch, Counsel,
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services
Subcommittee
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Peter A. Ludgin, Minority Professional Staff Member
Nanci E. Langley, Minority Deputy Staff Director,
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services
Subcommittee
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
I. Purpose..........................................................1
II. Background.......................................................1
III. Legislative History..............................................5
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
V. Regulatory Impact Statement......................................5
VI. CBO Cost Estimate................................................6
VII. Additional Views.................................................8
VIII.Changes to Existing Law.........................................11

Calendar No. 673
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-338

======================================================================

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH STAMP REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2000

_______

July 12, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Thompson, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 2386]

The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 2386) to extend the Stamp Out Breast
Cancer Act, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

I. Purpose

The purpose of S. 2386, the ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp
Reauthorization Act of 2000,'' is to extend the ``Stamp Out
Breast Cancer Act,'' P.L. 105-41, for two more years.

II. Background

S. 2386 would amend the ``Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act'' by
extending the Act for two years.
The ``Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act'' directed the United
States Postal Service to issue a special postage stamp,
commonly referred to as a semipostal stamp, at a rate not to
exceed 25 percent above the price of the first-class stamp,
with the additional revenues, less administrative costs, being
contributed to the National Institutes of Health and the
Department of Defense for breast cancer research. The United
States Postal Service Board of Governors established the price
of the stamp at 40 cents.
The Breast Cancer Research Stamp (BCRS), originally issued
on July 29, 1998, raised money for breast cancer research and
brought heightened awareness to the disease. Breast cancer is
the most common form of cancer in women in the United States.
According to the National Cancer Institute, about one in eight
women will develop breast cancer during her lifetime. The BCRS
was intended to provide additional funding for breast cancer
research, while giving postal patrons an opportunity to
contribute to the fight against breast cancer. As mandated, the
BCRS is to be available for sale through July 28, 2000. As of
May 19, 2000, the Postal Service had sold over 200 million
stamps and had raised more than $14 million for breast cancer
research.
S. 2386 was addressed by the Subcommittee on International
Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services during a hearing
on May 25, 2000, entitled ``The Issuance of Semipostal Stamps
by the United States Postal Service.'' The witnesses for this
hearing were the Honorable Mike DeWine, U.S. Senator, the
Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, Ms. Deborah Willhite,
United States Postal Service, and Mr. Bernard Ungar, U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO).Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
submitted a written statement in support of his legislation, S. 2044,
authorizing a semipostal stamp to fund domestic violence prevention
programs at the Department of Justice.
Senator Feinstein, who introduced the original legislation
creating the BCRS, spoke in support of extending the original
Act. Senator Feinstein testified that the ``BCRS serves as a
reminder for people to get mammograms and other preventative
screenings.'' She further said that the ``BCRS is an example of
a government and public partnership that has worked. * * * The
bottom line is that every dollar we continue to raise will save
lives.''
One of the primary cosponsors of S. 2386 is Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison. Senator Hutchison said in a public statement
upon the bill's introduction, ``I believe the fight against
breast cancer can be won if we muster enough resources. This
postage stamp will raise additional money to help do that.
Every time this stamp is used, we send a strong message in the
fight against breast cancer.''
Senator DeWine testified before the Subcommittee in favor
of his legislation, S. 2062, which authorizes the creation of
an organ and tissue donation semipostal stamp. He also
recommended that Congress require the Postal Service to issue
one or two semipostal stamps each year for important causes. He
said his recommendation was premised on the assumption that the
Postal Service is fairly compensated for the costs it incurs
and that a fair and consistently applied formula for cost
recovery is established.
Deborah Willhite, Senior Vice President for Government
Relations and Public Policy, testified on behalf of the Postal
Service. She said the Postal Service is currently working to
formulate final regulations on the BCRS cost recovery policy.
The final cost data analysis will be provided to the
Congressional oversight committees within 60 days after the end
of the sales period. While the BCRS has generated funding for
research, the Postal Service has several concerns about issuing
additional semipostal stamps. The first of these concerns is
that the Postal Service's involvement in fund raising through
the sale of semipostals is an activity that falls outside of
the scope of its mission, as defined by the Postal
Reorganization Act. The second major concern is that the
success of the BCRS does not guarantee the success of others.
Rather, the Postal Service believes it would be very difficult
to duplicate the success. If the current level of success is
not reached with other stamps, only modest revenue may be
generated while postal revenue expenditures would still be
substantial. The third concern raised by Ms. Willhite is the
dilemma of deciding which causes to support with semipostal
stamps. In addition, collectors who wish to include all new
stamp issues in their sets are forced to pay the extra fee that
goes with semipostal stamps. This is viewed by many as an
indirect ``stamp tax.''
Bernard Ungar, Director, Government Business Operations
Issues, testified on behalf of the GAO. The GAO had issued a
report in April 2000 entitled ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp:
Millions Raised for Research, but Better Cost Recovery Criteria
Needed (GAO/GGD-00-80)'' discussing the issuance of the BCRS.
In that report, GAO focused on how the Postal Service
identified and allocated the costs it incurred in developing
and marketing the BCRS and the issues associated with
effectiveness.
In his testimony, Mr. Ungar referenced the report and the
principal findings that the public and a majority of the key
stakeholders they spoke with believe it was appropriate to use
semipostal stamps for fundraising. Mr. Ungar testified that the
BCRS has been a successful and effective fundraiser in that the
stamp was a voluntary, convenient, and effective way of raising
millions of dollars for breast cancer research.
However, Mr. Ungar testified that it was not clear exactly
how much it cost to develop and sell the BCRS because there
were costs that the Postal Service did not track. These costs
were not tracked because the Postal Service deemed them to be
inconsequential or immaterial. Mr. Ungar said the Postal
Service reported that the bulk of its costs to develop and sell
the stamp through December 31, 1999, were $5.9 million. The
Postal Service said that these costs would have been incurred
with any blockbuster commemorative stamp issue and have been
recovered through the 33 cents that constitutes the First-Class
postage portion of the stamp.
In March, the Postal Service Office of Inspector General
identified $836,000 in costs that it believed were attributable
to the BCRS and not previously identified by the Postal
Service. The Postal Service has agreed that $488,000 of these
costs were incurred exclusively on behalf of the stamp program,
and included them in its reported $5.9 million in program
costs. In addition, the Postal Service has not established
regulations setting forth its criteria for determining the
reasonable costs to be recouped from the surcharge revenue
generated by the stamp. This makes it difficult for Congress,
the GAO, and others to evaluate how effective the Postal
Service has been in implementing its legislative mandate to
recoup reasonable costs.
The GAO report relayed some stakeholder concerns that
Congress might substitute revenues from the BCRS for
appropriations for breast cancer research, especially
appropriations to the Department of Defense. Further, concerns
were expressed that the BCRS might be more of a symbolic
gesture, on Congress' part, than an all-out commitment to fund
whatever research is needed to eradicate breast cancer in the
shortest time possible.
The report concluded that the public and most key
stakeholders GAO spoke with believed that it was appropriate to
use semipostals issued by the USPS to raise funds for nonpostal
purposes. This sentiment was shared by breast cancer awareness
organizations including the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer
Foundation.
Prior to the issuance of the BCRS, the Postal Service had
never issued semipostal stamps. However, foreign postal
administrations have used them for many years. According to the
GAO, approximately 50 countries issued semipostals at some time
during the 1990s. Of those countries, 17 issued semipostals on
a routine basis. The semipostal surcharge revenues raised by
those countries went to such beneficiaries as The Red Cross,
the Olympics, social and cultural programs, child welfare, and
the promotion of philately (stamp collecting).
The Committee notes that legislation authorizing additional
semipostal stamps has been introduced since the BCRS was first
authorized in 1997. Last year, the Committee reported S. 712,
legislation authorizing a semipostal stamp to fund highway-rail
grade crossing safety. In addition, S. 2062, a bill to
authorize a semipostal stamp to fund organ and tissue
donationawareness, and S. 2044, a bill to authorize a semipostal stamp
to fund domestic violence prevention programs, were referenced by their
respective sponsors in testimony before the Subcommittee on
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services during its
hearing on semipostal stamps. Further, S. 2739 was introduced on June
15, 2000 which authorizes a semipostal stamp to provide funding for the
establishment of the World War II Memorial.
Given the proliferation of legislative proposals for the
issuance of such stamps, concerns have been expressed that the
Postal Service may be required to issue multiple semipostal
stamps should these various bills be enacted. Further, some of
the proposed subjects may not have broad appeal and, therefore,
may not be financially viable. The Postal Service has expressed
that such actions could have a negative impact on the Service.
One idea suggested for Committee consideration as a means
of handling future semipostal stamp proposals is to grant the
Postal Service broad authority to issue semipostal stamps of
its own choosing. Concerns have been raised about this concept
and whether it is appropriate for the Postal Service to
exercise what is essentially a political decision, which rests
with Congress. The Committee recognizes there is debate
regarding the issuance of future semipostal stamps, and
believes further review and discussion on this topic is
necessary before additional semipostal stamps are authorized by
the Congress.
Chairman Thompson summarized the reservations of many
Senators who have expressed concerns with requiring the Postal
Service to issue semipostal stamps in remarks he made when the
original Act was debated on the Senate floor:

It (the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Act) will create
a precedent for congressional authorization for the
issuance of many other fundraising postal stamps for
many other worthy causes. As all Members are aware, the
Postal Service has plenty of challenges on which it
should concentrate. Not all costs of undertaking this
new program are quantifiable, and we will be
distracting the Postal Service from its responsibility
of providing the best delivery service at the lowest
price * * *. If Congress believes additional funds
should be spent for this or another purpose, Congress
should appropriate the funds directly. That is our
responsibility. [143 Cong. Rec. S8040 (daily ed. July
24, 1997)].

III. Legislative History

S. 2386 was introduced on April 11, 2000 by Senator
Feinstein, for herself, and Senators Hutchison, Baucus,
Murkowski, Cleland, Durbin, Landrieu, Smith of Oregon,
Lautenberg, Johnson, Kennedy, Edwards, Campbell, Abraham,
Kerry, Feingold, Santorum, Leahy, Inhofe, Wellstone, Bingaman,
Moynihan, Hatch, Snowe, Hagel, Biden, Mack, Grassley, Ashcroft,
Bryan, Murray, Boxer, Mikulski, Reid, Breaux, Dodd, Lieberman,
Kerrey, Daschle, Jeffords, Roth, Voinovich, Warner, Burns,
Conrad, Schumer, Graham, Torricelli, L. Chafee, Helms, Thomas,
Gramm, Sarbanes, Specter, Harkin, Domenici, McCain, Inouye,
Enzi, DeWine, Collins, and Robb. It currently has 62
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs on April 11, 2000. S. 2386 was then
referred to the Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation and Federal Services on May 1, 2000.
While the Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services did not hold a hearing to
specifically address S. 2386, a broader based hearing on the
subject of semipostal stamps entitled ``The Issuance of
Semipostal Stamps by the United States Postal Service'' was
held on May 25, 2000. The Subcommittee subsequently reported
the legislation by polling letter to the full Committee on June
9, 2000.
The Committee on Governmental Affairs held a business
meeting on June 14, 2000 at which S. 2386 was considered.
Following discussion on the bill, the Committee ordered S. 2386
to be favorably reported without amendment by a voice vote.
Committee members present for the vote were Senators Stevens,
Collins, Voinovich, Cochran, Lieberman, Akaka, Torricelli,
Cleland and Thompson.

IV. Section-By-Section Analysis

Section 1. Provides the citation, ``Breast Cancer Research
Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000.''
Section 2. Would amend Section 414(g) of title 39, United
States Code, by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``4-year.''

V. Regulatory Impact Statement

Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill evaluate
``the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out
this bill.''
Enactment of this legislation will have no significant
regulatory impact. S. 2386 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act and would impose no costs on the budgets of state,
local, or tribal governments.

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2000.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2386, the Breast
Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

S. 2386--Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000

Summary: The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act (Public Law 105-
41) established a special postage stamp for first-class mail.
The United States Postal Service set the price of this stamp at
40 cents, 7 cents above the regular rate of 33 cents. Amounts
collected from the special stamp above the regular postal rate
are later transferred to the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) and the Department of Defense (DoD) to spend for breast
cancer research (after accounting for the Postal Service's
administrative costs). S. 2386 would extend this program for
two years beyond its expiration date of July 28, 2000.
Over the 2000-2005 period, CBO estimates that enacting S.
2386 would result in a negligible net effect on direct
spending. Because enactment of the bill would affect direct
spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. S. 2386
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would
not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 2386 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 050
(national defense), 370 (commerce and housing credit), and 550
(health).

Off-Budget Effects

Net Impact on the Postal Service:
Estimated Budget Authority............................ -1 -2 1 2 0 0
Estimated Outlays..................................... -1 -2 1 2 0 0

On-Budget Effects

Net Impact on NIH and DoD:
Estimated Budget Authority............................ 0 -2 -2 1 2 1
Estimated Outlays..................................... 0 -2 -2 1 2 1

Total Changes

Estimated Budget Authority............................ -1 -4 -1 3 2 1
Estimated Outlays..................................... -1 -4 -1 3 2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: Since the program's inception in July
1998, sales of the stamps have resulted in collections of about
$15 million for breast cancer research. CBO estimates that
enacting S. 2386 would increase such collections by the Postal
Service by about $1 million in fiscal year 2000, $5 million in
2001, and $4 million in 2002. After covering its administrative
costs, the Postal Service would transfer the collections to NIH
and DoD in April and November of each year. Thus, the net
impact on the Postal Service over the 2000-2005 period would be
zero. Postal Service spending and receipts are defined as off-
budget.
We estimate that enacting S. 2386 would increase NIH and
DoD collections by $3 million in 2001, $5 million in 2002, and
$2 million in 2003. Spending of these collections by those two
agencies would be about $1 million in fiscal year 2001, $3
million a year in 2002 and 2003, $2 million in 2004, and about
$1 million in 2005. Thus, the changes in spending would sum to
the changes in collections but outlays would lag behind
collections. CBO estimates that the change in net outlays for
NIH and DoD over the 2000-2005 period would be near zero.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. Because
cash flows of the Postal Service are categorized as off-budget,
only the transfer and spending of these funds by NIH and DoD
under S. 2386 would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.
Over the 2000-2005 period, such spending would sum to near
zero. The bill's pay-as-you-go effects are summarized in the
following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays................. 0 -2 -2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
Changes in receipts................ Not applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2386
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state,
local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Grabowicz. Impact
on State, local, and tribal governments: Shelley Finlayson.
Impact on the private sector: John Harris.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

VII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR LEVIN

The Committee Report notes that the Breast Cancer Research
Stamp is the first semipostal stamp in our nation's history but
does not mention that it is also the first time Congress has
mandated the issuance of any stamp in the last 40 years.
Congress traditionally defers to the Postal Service and its
advisory committee, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee
(CSAC), to select subjects for commemorative stamps. CSAC was
created in 1957 to take politics out of the stamp selection
process. According to the Postal Service, CSAC provides ``a
breadth of judgment and depth of experience in various areas
that influence subject matter, character and beauty of postage
stamps.'' CSAC's 15 committee members review and select stamp
subjects that are interesting, educational, and that meet the
corporate goals of the Postal Service.
CSAC screens over 50,000 letters of recommendations for
stamps annually and evaluates the merits of each proposal
before making its recommendations to the Postmaster General.
Each year, CSAC members make many tough choices--choosing only
a small number of subjects for their commemorative stamp
program out of thousands. Congress advises CSAC on stamp
subjects by writing letters or sponsoring Sense of Congress
resolutions, but, until now, Congress has left the final
decisionmaking on stamp issuance to the Postal Service, after
receiving recommendations from CSAC.
The authority to determine subjects for stamps, including
semipostals, should remain with the Postal Service and the
Postal Service only. The Postal Service is best equipped to
balance the competing concerns to determine which stamps will
have broad national interest and will meet the needs of the
mailing public, free from politics. Other than making
recommendations or suggestions, it is best that Congress stay
out of the stamp selection process.
At the markup of the Stamp Out Breast Cancer
Reauthorization Act, I had planned to offer an amendment to
treat future semipostal stamp selection in a similar manner as
commemorative stamp selection, by authorizing the Postal
Service to issue semipostals. My amendment would authorize the
Postal Service to establish a committee similar to CSAC, or use
CSAC itself to determine which semipostal stamps would have
broad appeal to the public, and which of those stamps would
generate sufficient revenue to offset costs.
The Committee Report states that, ``concerns have been
raised about this concept (my amendment) and whether it is
appropriate for the Postal Service to exercise what is
essentially a political decision, which rests with Congress.''
The suggestion that stamp selection is political is
inconsistent with the lessons learned from the history of the
Postal Service. Stamp selection has been apolitical for the
last four decades and has been successfully achieved.
Now, there are more than a dozen proposals pending in
Congress calling for a special semipostal to fund a charitable
cause or organization. Semipostal stamp selection is in the
process of becoming highly politicized with each group lobbying
Members of Congress to introduce stamp legislation for their
particular cause or charity. These stamp proposals generally
promote causes worthy of attention, but the Committee is right
to note that ``some of the proposed subjects may not have broad
appeal; and therefore, may not be financially viable.''
For example, one semipostal stamp proposal that has already
been approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee is the
Look, Listen, and Live Stamp Act. That stamp would require the
Postal Service to issue a semipostal stamp for an organization
called Operation Lifesaver, a nonprofit organization dedicated
to highway-rail safety through education. Operation Lifesaver
is undoubtedly a fine organization, but it is not the only
organization committed to preventing railroad casualties. In
fact, advocates are split on the issue of grade crossings
safety and the best method to prevent rail-related injuries.
Operation Lifesaver, for example, emphasizes safety through
education while other railway safety advocates promote safety
by funding automatic lights and gates at crossings.
Over the last months, railroad safety organizations have
contacted my office to represent their strong disagreement with
the Look, Listen, and Live Stamp, primarily because of the
emphasis that Operation Lifesaver puts on education, and
education only.
Scott Gauvin, President of Coalition for Safer Crossings,
wrote: ``I personally find Operation Lifesaver spin on
education appalling. Three and a half years ago I lost a very
dear and close friend of mine at an unprotected crossing in
southwestern Illinois. Eric was nineteen. . . . When I was in
high school I received the same driver safety training
regarding grade crossings safety as my best friend Eric did.
Eric is now gone. The funds from this proposed stamp would not
have helped him. Now if this stamp would have been around prior
to 1996 and funds were allocated to the State of Illinois for
hardware and a set of automatic lights and gates were installed
at this crossing in question I wouldn't be writing you this
letter today. I hope you understand the difference.''
In the case of this particular semipostal, Congress would
not only be deciding to promote one worthy cause over another,
Congress would be deciding to promote one specific organization
over another--an organization that does not have the full
support of the railroad safety community. This particular stamp
is an example of a stamp that may not be ``financially
viable,'' and yet, the full Committee has already reported this
proposal favorably.
Rather than using political criteria to choose one worthy
cause over another, or in some cases, one organization over
another, we should authorize the Postal Service, who with their
expertise, can conduct cost-benefit analyses to determine which
of the several semipostal stamp proposals will be effective,
appropriate and profitable.
At the May 25, 2000, subcommittee hearing on the ``Issuance
of Semipostal Stamps by the United States Postal Service,''
Bernard Ungar of the GAO recommended that Congress review the
problems with the U.S. Mint's commemorative coin program. Mr.
Ungar pointed out that semipostals and commemorative coins are
very similar, in that both are authorized by Congress and
produced by government agencies, and both are used to raise
money for a special purpose or a sponsoring group.
According to Mr. Ungar, Congress can apply two major
lessons learned by the pitfalls of the U.S. Mint's
commemorative coin program to the future issuance of
semipostals. The GAO's previously released report on the Mint
program concluded that, ``as the number of commemorative coin
programs authorized proliferated, the market became saturated
and sales declined.'' He stated, ``As we noted in our report on
the BCRS [Breast Cancer Research Stamp], there has already been
a proliferation of semipostal bills in Congress since the act
creating BCRS. Passage of several of these bills creating
semipostals with similar sales time frames might saturate the
market and strain, if not overwhelm, the Service's capacity to
effectively develop, distribute, and market these
semipostals.'' Furthermore, Mr. Ungar noted that, ``* * * just
as some commemorative coins failed to sell well because of
themes lacking broad market appeal, semipostals with limited
public appeal and marketability might also fare poorly.'' In
these situations, if sales are not sufficient to cover costs,
the Postal Service will record a loss.
Congress should not go down that path. Giving authority to
issue semipostal stamps to the Postal Service will result in a
more limited but more successful semipostal stamp program.

Carl Levin.

VII. Changes To Existing Law

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 2386 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is
shown in roman):

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 39--POSTAL SERVICE

CHAPTER 4--GENERAL AUTHORITY

SEC. 414. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMPS.

* * * * * * *

(g) This section shall cease to be effective at the end of
the [2-year] 4-year period beginning on the date on which
special postage stamps under this section are first made
available to the public.