Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1003 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
THE
HONORABLE JOHN M. MCHUGH
CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
POSTAL SERVICE
BEFORE THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT
REFORM COMMITTEE
POSTAL SERVICE
SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - H.R. 22 HEARING
BODY:
Good Morning. The Subcommittee's first meeting in the 106th Congress will
come to order. I welcome all of my colleagues. I take it as a positive sign that
on both sides of the aisle, all Members chose to return to the Subcommittee, and
the only Member we lost, Mr. Sessions, was a result of his new position on the
Rules Committee.
The Subcommittee has existed for four years, and in that
time we have researched, analyzed, developed, proposed, and revised a bill to
fundamentally modernize our nation's postal laws for the first time since 1970.
My guiding principle has been to do it right, not quickly. Indeed, throughout
this 4 year process, we have attempted to ensure that the public and all postal
stakeholders have had repeated opportunities to provide input on the original
legislation and the subsequent revisions. H.R. 22, the Postal Modernization Act
of 1999, is the exact same bill that passed our Subcommittee in a bipartisan
manner at the end of the 105th Congress. Although H.R. 22 is now a well-refined
bill with a long history of numerous hearings and public commentary behind it,
we continue the open and methodical process today with the first of two
comprehensive heatings on the current version.
Our first witness will be the
Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer of the U.S.
Postal Service, William Henderson. It was his predecessor's
call for reform of the current regulatory system four years
agothat was probably the most important factor in starting the Subcommittee on
this joumey. This past Christmas Eve, and then again just two and a half weeks
ago, the Postmaster General provided us with suggested amendments that address
the remaining areas of concern for the Postal Service with the current version
of the bill. I very much welcome his constructive engagement in this endeavor,
and look forward to exploring some of the specifics of his proposals this
morning.
Our second panel will be comprised of the five Postal Rate
Commissioners, led by the Chairman, Edward Gleiman. In addition to welcoming
back Chairman Gleiman and Vice Chairman LeBlanc, this is the Subcommittee's
first opportunity to also hear from the three newest Commissioners, Commissioner
Omas, Commissioner Goldway, and Commissioner Covington. In the past four years,
the entire Postal Rate Commission - in particular Chairman Gleiman - has been an
invaluable parmer in many of the Subcommittee's efforts. Time and again the
Commission has provided its expertise in helping us improve and strengthen H.R.
22. And again today we welcome the Commission's comments, insights, and
suggestions.
Our third and fourth panels will be comprised of the Postal
Service's three management associations and four major unions. While H.R. 22
reflects a comprehensive and balanced - and I want to emphasize the word
"balanced" - approach toward addressing the needs and concerns of all interested
parties, primary among these interests are the loyal, dedicated, and hardworking
employees of the U.S. Postal Service. The current version of H.R. 22 reflects
the many suggestions that the employees have put forth.When they have raised
serious and legitimate concerns, we have responded with appropriate
modifications: whether it was redesigning a price cap system to specifically
recognize wages and benefits, and respect the collective bargaining process;
modifying the scope of the monopoly to maintain its wide coverage; moving the
universal service study solely in the purview of the Postal Service; changing
the labor-management relations study from an outside commission to a process
where all parties have a voice; dropping some provisions such as the mailbox
demonstration project or the appeals of MSPB decisions; or adding a labor
representative to the Board. I look forward to continuing this dialogue with the
employee groups when they testify today.
The details of H.R. 22 have been
before us for quite some time, and I won't review them here. The purpose of H.R.
22 is twofold: to give the Postal Service greater freedom and enhanced tools to
compete while establishing new rules to ensure fair competition and protect the
public interest.
Although it is obvious to those who understand H.R. 22, I
must clear the air regarding what appears to be some confusion about this bill,
even by a witness in one of the later panels. As the Postmaster General will
point out in his testimony, a price cap replaces cost-of- service regulation
with an incentive based regulatory system. However, because a few provisions of
H.R. 22 are adapted from the Federal Communications Commission's experience with
incentive regulation, some have suggested that this bill is the same thing as
telecom reform, or the break-up of AT&T, or even equivalent to deregulation
generally such as in aviation. The comparisonhas been made, in my opinion, to
subtly suggest that the negative effects of those efforts will result from
modernizing our nation's postal laws. I believe the analogy is illogical and
inaccurate.
H.R. 22 is not about "breaking up" the Postal Service, as the
court system required of AT&T, nor is it about trying to force competition
into the postal and delivery sector, as Congress attempted to do when it
deregulated the airlines and telecom. The postal system is already fiercely
competitive. H.R. 22 simply recognizes that we will doom the Postal Service to
failure unless we act to update our nation's laws so that the Service can adapt,
compete, grow, and survive in carrying out its universal service mission well
into the 21 st century.
And it will take some time for the Postal Service to
adapt. H.R. 22, if enacted today, would set in motion a series of reforms that
will probably not be fully implemented until some time in 2007, the end of the
first five-year rate cycle. Those who support amendments or alternatives to H.R.
22 must keep such time frames in mind. Reasoned and gradual change is the friend
of all who wish to see a healthy and efficient postal system in the next
century.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 12, 1999
