[Senate Hearing 106-674]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-674
THE ISSUANCE OF SEMIPOSTAL STAMPS BY THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND
FEDERAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 25, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-647 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
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 V. 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
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Administrive Clerk
------
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEE
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine CARL LEVIN, Michigan
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania MAX CLELAND, Georgia
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Mitchel B. Kugler, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Minority Staff Director
Julie A. Sander, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Cochran.............................................. 1
Senator Levin................................................ 2
Senator Akaka................................................ 4
WITNESSES
Thursday, May 25, 2000
Hon. Dianne Feinstein, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California:.................................................... 5
Hon. Mike DeWine, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio.......... 8
Deborah Willhite, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and
Public Policy, U.S. Postal Service, accompanied by James C.
Tolbert, Jr., Executive Director, Stamp Services, U.S. Postal
Service........................................................ 13
Bernard Ungar, Director, Government Business Operations Issues,
General Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office.... 14
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
DeWine, Hon. Mike:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Ungar, Bernard:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Willhite, Deborah
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 29
APPENDIX
Letters submitted for the Record from:
The Coalition for Safer Crossings, dated February 17, 2000... 53
The American Philatelic Society, dated May 18, 2000.......... 55
The Women's Information Network, dated May 19, 2000.......... 57
Questions for the Record from:
Senator Cochran with responses from Ms. Willhite............. 59
Senator Akaka with responses from Ms. Willhite............... 69
GAO Answers to Questions from Senator Akaka.................. 72
THE ISSUANCE OF SEMIPOSTAL STAMPS BY THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 25, 2000
U.S. Senate
Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room D-342, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Levin, and Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. The Subcommittee will please come to
order.
This morning we are meeting to receive testimony on an
issue regarding specially issued postal stamps that are sold by
the U.S. Postal Service. These are sold with a surcharge that
raises money for special purposes.
The first such semipostal stamp was authorized by Congress
in 1997 when we passed the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, which
directed the Postal Service to develop and issue a semipostal
stamp to help raise funds for breast cancer research. This was
the first postal stamp of this kind ever issued by the U.S.
Postal Service.
The legislation authorizing the selling of these stamps
expires this year in July, and a bill has been introduced and
is pending before this Committee to reauthorize the issuance of
the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another 2 years.
Other bills have also been introduced in Congress to
authorize the Postal Service to develop and issue semipostal
stamps to raise funds for a number of different worthy causes.
One example is a bill to authorize a stamp to raise funds to
support domestic violence prevention; there is another, by
Senator DeWine, to raise funds for organ and tissue donation
awareness; and another to promote railroad crossing safety.
This hearing gives us an opportunity to examine the
effectiveness of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, its
acceptance by the general public, the handling of the
responsibility under the legislation by the Postal Service and
what problems, if any, have developed as a result of that
experience.
And so, we are very pleased to welcome to our Subcommittee
the distinguished Senator from California, Ms. Feinstein, who
was the author of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp bill and has
offered reauthorization legislation, and Senator Mike DeWine of
Ohio, who is the author of the organ and tissue donation
awareness bill.
We are very pleased to have you come to the Subcommittee
this morning and discuss these items of interest to us and the
Congress and the general public, and we invite you to proceed.
We call on Senator Feinstein first.
Oh, excuse me.
Senator Levin. I snuck in.
Senator Cochran. Senator Levin, a distinguished Member of
the Subcommittee has arrived. Senator, you have the floor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
commend you for calling this hearing, welcoming also our good
colleagues to this hearing. This is a very important subject
which we are taking up this morning.
There are many bills now which have been introduced to
authorize semipostal stamps. In addition to the Breast Cancer
Research Stamp, which has already been issued and has been a
success, we have other proposals, including that of our good
friend, Senator DeWine. I looked at the list of other bills
that have now been filed authorizing semipostals. They include
AIDS research, diabetes research, Alzheimer's disease, prostate
cancer, emergency food relief, a World War II Memorial
semipostal, the one this Subcommittee has already taken up for
the highway rail grade crossing safety, and domestic violence.
And, of course, we have the organ and tissue donation
semipostal bill, which Senator DeWine has introduced.
I have been troubled by the principle involved here that
Congress should pick and choose which charities or causes to
authorize semipostals for. I think it puts us in a very
difficult position. It is hard to imagine too many of us voting
against any of the semipostal bills because I think most of us
are involved in probably most of those causes. I have been
extraordinarily involved in the organ and tissue donation
cause, for instance. And there are a number of other causes,
diabetes, for example, where I have been very deeply involved
in trying to obtain funding for those.
I actually voted against the Breast Cancer Research Stamp
obviously not because I oppose funding for that cause, which
Senator Feinstein has championed so beautifully, but because I
just think this is the wrong way for us to be raising funds and
making decisions.
I would vote in a New York minute, as they say, to double
the amount of money for breast cancer research or organ and
tissue donation or a number of these other causes. But to use
this particular method with the Congress picking and choosing
one cause over another, seems to me, creates a lot of problems.
In some cases, the Postal Service may even lose money in the
process. The Postal Service, in terms of costs, could actually
be spending more money than is raised, and then that raises
additional problems as well.
But, Mr. Chairman, this is an important subject. There is a
lot of interest in it. The causes here are clearly worthy. I do
not think there could be any doubt about the worthiness of the
causes, but the question here is whether or not we should be
picking and choosing semipostal stamps to raise funds for these
causes, and that is where I have some difficulty.
One of the bills we will discuss today is that of
Representative McHugh. Rep. McHugh's bill would transfer the
authority to the Postal Service to issue semipostals, and allow
them to make this decision the same way they do on all other
stamps. We have taken the authorization of regular stamps,
commemorative stamps out of the hands of Congress and put it
into Postal Service Advisory Committee because we wanted to
separate stamp selection from politics. That committee has had
some real success. Now, each of us individually and by
resolution make recommendations to the Postal Service for
commemoratives, but we do not make political decisions in the
Congress anymore. We do not mandate the issuance of stamps. It
is a decision of the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee and the
Postal Service to try to separate stamp selection from
political considerations. I think that has been a real advance
for all of us, and the bill which Congressman McHugh has
introduced--seems to me is one approach to this. It would
reauthorize the Breast Cancer Research Stamp because it is
already on the books, but it would leave the future issuance of
semipostals for other causes in the hands of the Citizens'
Stamp Advisory Committee and the Postal Service. I think we
ought to take a close look at that approach.
So, Mr. Chairman, again I think that we are on a subject
here which that is of real importance--and I look forward to
discussing what the best way is to support these very worthy
causes, which all of us support. I thank you for having the
hearing, and I want to thank our two colleagues for their
energies and their efforts on behalf of two causes which I hope
and believe have universal support in the country and in this
Senate.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing. I have a long
history of supporting many of the causes we will discuss today,
including funding for breast cancer research and especially organ
donation. These are important causes and Congress should support their
full funding.
I do not believe, however, that using the U.S. Postal Service's
stamp program is an appropriate means to fund these programs. As we all
know, in the battle over diseases and other causes, there are often
many competing organizations, each promoting issues worthy of our
attention. If we use the Postal Service to raise funds to promote one
worthy cause over another it will ultimately politicize the issuance of
stamps. In 1957, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee (CSAC) was
created to take the stamp program out of the political process.
Last year, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the Look, Listen and
Live Stamp Act. That stamp would require the Postal Service to issue a
semipostal stamp, or a stamp with a tax over the regular rate, to be
earmarked for an organization called Operation Lifesaver, a nonprofit
organization dedicated to highway-rail safety through education.
Operation Lifesaver is, no doubt a very fine organization, but it
is not the only organization dedicated to preventing railroad
casualties. In fact, railroad safety advocates are split over the best
method to prevent rail-related injuries. Over the last several 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 crossing 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.''
So, in the case of this particular semipostal stamp, Congress would
be deciding not only to promote one worthy cause among various causes
with the issuance of the Look, Listen and Live stamp, but to favor one
specific approach and one specific organization over another.
Other than making recommendations or suggestions, Congress should
stay out of the stamp selection process. Before Congress authorized the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp, it deferred to the Citizens' Stamp
Advisory Committee, within the U.S. Postal Service, to review and
select commemorative stamp subjects. Congress may advise the CSAC, and
many of us to write letters or sponsor Sense of the Senate Resolutions
urging CSAC and the Postal Service to issue a specific stamp subject,
but we should leave the final decision on the issuance of stamps and
the subject of stamps to CSAC, otherwise politics will swamp stamp
selection.
We have been waiting for the GAO report to evaluate the costs, the
effectiveness and the appropriateness of semipostal stamps as a means
of fund-raising.
In the Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act, the Postal Service was directed
to deduct from the surcharge revenue the reasonable costs it incurs in
carrying out the Act, including those attributable to printing, sale
and distribution of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, but the Act gave
the Postal Service the authority to define ``reasonable'' through
regulations. According to the GAO report, in the case of the Breast
Cancer Research Stamp, the Postal Service has not yet resolved what
costs it considers ``reasonable,'' and has instead used informal
criteria which the GAO claims the Postal Service has not applied
consistently.
To date, the Postal Service's records show that the bulk of the
costs associated with the Breast Cancer Research Stamp are
approximately $6 million. There are also nearly $350,000 in costs,
identified by the Office of the Inspector General, that the Postal
Service did not identify, and additional items, such as staff-related
expenses and accounting functions, that the Postal Service considered
inconsequential and did not track. Out of all of these costs, the
Postal Service has deducted $482,000 of that total amount from the
surcharge revenue. In the end, the Postal Service will recoup merely a
fraction of the total cost. The Postal Service chose to deduct such a
small amount from the surcharge revenue because it considers the Breast
Cancer Research Stamp a ``blockbuster'' stamp, a commemorative stamp
with mass appeal, one that will be ``highly retained by postal patrons
and not used for postage.'' the Postal Service is therefore able to
recover the costs from the remaining 33 cent portion of the stamp.
The GAO report shows while the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has
been successful, and I applaud the breast cancer research groups and
the Senator from California's commitment to the promotion of this
stamp, but the cost-benefit analysis of one semipostal stamp does not
necessarily apply to another, nor does it make it an appropriate
vehicle for future fund-raising efforts.
All semipostal stamps can not be expected to be ``blockbuster''
stamps. According to the Postal Service, in the last few years, out of
almost 30 stamps issued per year, there are only about 4 or 5
``blockbuster'' stamps each year.
There are now a dozen proposals for various semipostal stamps
introduced in this Congress alone. If these stamps are not
``blockbuster'' stamps and the bulk of the costs are not eaten by the
Postal Service, as happened with the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, the
Postal Service may not be able to turn any money over to the charity or
cause. In fact, the issuance of so many semipostal stamps may cost the
Postal Service a considerable amount of money with no benefit to
charitable causes.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for convening this hearing. I look
forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today.
Senator Cochran. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr.
Akaka, is the Ranking Minority Member of our Subcommittee.
Senator Akaka.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join
you in welcoming our honored guests and distinguished
colleagues.
I am pleased also to have the opportunity today to hear
from the Postal Service on its activities relating to the
Nation's first semipostal stamp, the Breast Cancer Research
Stamp. I also look forward to Mr. Ungar's testimony, who will
review with us GAO's comprehensive report on the Breast Cancer
Research Semipostal and the use of semipostals in other
countries.
I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Feinstein
and Senator DeWine who have taken time from their busy day to
speak on behalf of their bills, S. 2386, which would extend the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act for an
additional 2 years, and S. 2062, which would create a new
semipostal to raise funds for organ and tissue transplants.
As the GAO report found, the public welcomed the ability to
contribute on a voluntary basis to breast cancer research
through the semipostal stamp. Although the stamp has been
successful in terms of money raised, $12.5 million as of March
24, 2000, the report calls attention to uneven accounting
procedures that have clouded the actual additional costs
associated with Breast Cancer Research Semipostals. I know the
Postal Service has responded to GAO's findings and
recommendations and is working on a final cost recovery policy.
Obviously, the issuance of semipostals poses certain problems,
and I am hopeful that today's hearing will answer some of these
concerns and questions.
Again, I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
opportunity and thank you for holding this hearing.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Levin, and Senator Akaka. Thank you all for your comments. I
make these remarks on behalf of my cosponsor, Senator Hutchison
of Texas.
Let me begin by saying this. This stamp, by any standard
you use, has been a success. As of May 19, it has raised $14
million. They have sold 191 million stamps. It has an organized
community of breast cancer research groups and women all across
the United States who support it.
In addition to being a money-making stamp for breast cancer
research, it has also, interestingly enough, served another
purpose. The stamp has brought to the attention of women across
this country, on their letters, the fact that one out of every
eight women in this country will get breast cancer. It has
raised the awareness about mammography and the need to have
mammograms. So, the stamp also has provided good public health
service to people.
Now, that would not be enough if it had not produced money
and run in the black. The Breast Cancer Research Stamp has
substantially run in the black. The GAO is sitting behind me.
They will testify on their report on the stamp
According to the GAO report, the Postal Service compared
the stamp's cost to those of a blockbuster commemorative stamp.
In addition to the normal costs caused by blockbuster stamps,
the Postal Service identified an additional $482,000 of costs
uniquely attributable to this stamp. But if you subtract that,
you'll see the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, by any quotient of
success, has been a success.
Therefore, Senator Hutchison and I implore you to please
renew it for another 2 years.
The stamp was actually suggested by an oncologist from
Sacramento, California, and interestingly enough Sacramento
leads all cities in the purchase of this stamp. His name is Dr.
Ernest Bodai. He came here. He suggested the stamp. He
campaigned for it. He was joined by the breast cancer
community. The stamp was designed by a postal worker who is a
breast cancer survivor. It is a beautiful stamp. It is bought
at Christmas by women, on Mother's Day by women, and all
throughout the year by women and men.
I think one day we will find a cure for breast cancer. This
stamp in a sense has become--you have heard of private
foundations that give money--this is the people's foundation.
This is how people, wanting to make an additional contribution,
can contribute to breast cancer research. They simply go out
and buy these packets. The Postal Service has packaged them in
cellophane in $8 packets. So, people can go out and buy these
packets, give them as gifts, use them on their cards, mail in
their bills with them, and it is a great idea.
And it has proven itself. Fourteen million dollars has been
raised to date, and we feel we are just getting off the ground.
Like any new enterprise, it has got to be capitalized. We have
more than made up for the initial capitalization. Now the
constituency is organized. The stamps are in the post offices.
People are buying them and it has been a success.
I would leave it up to you as to how you want to condition
this in the future. My own view is that what is really
necessary for the stamp to succeed is an aroused and organized
community out there. This exists with respect to breast cancer.
The cause of medical research is universally accepted as a
positive cause.
So, I would say to you in summary, the Breast Cancer
Research Stamp offers a way of heightening the public's
knowledge about a major problem. It is a way of raising money
to solve the major problem. It is a way of groups coming
together around the cause. They use stamps as fund-raising
mechanisms, for example, for breast cancer research. I think
that is good. The stamp is uniquely popular.
So, I would just like to urge that it be authorized for
another 2 years. I believe it will continue to make money, and
second, I believe it will make money even more strongly than it
has in the first 2 years because people are now aware of it,
they are buying, they know where to get it, and so on and so
forth.
I will not take any more time, Mr. Chairman, but I thank
you very much for your consideration. I would ask that my
remarks in their entirety be entered into the record.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, your remarks will be
printed in the record in their entirety.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN
Thank you, Chairman Cochran, Senator Akaka, and other Members of
the Government Affairs Committee for giving me this time to talk about
the Breast Cancer Research Stamp.
The primary objective of my remarks is to ask the Committee to
report out S. 2386, a bill to extend the life of the stamp by 2 years.
Unless the Committee takes action, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp
will expire on July 28, 2000--just 2 months from now.
In 1997, I introduced legislation to create a Breast Cancer
Research Stamp. This idea originated with Dr. Ernie Bodai, a physician
from California. With the help of many Senators and Representatives
from both parties, this idea became law in 1998.
Results of Breast Cancer Research Stamp Program: The Breast Cancer
Research Stamp has generated enthusiasm from postal patrons across the
country. As of May 19, 2000, the U.S. Postal Service has sold 191
million of these semipostal stamps, raising $14 million in surcharge
revenue.
So far, the Postal Service has identified $482,000 in costs
uniquely attributable to the Breast Cancer Research Stamp program.
Thus, the program has generated over $13 million dollars for breast
cancer research. Clearly, the stamp has succeeded as a fundraiser.
It is worth noting that the five post offices with the most Breast
Cancer Research Stamp sales come from regions as diverse as (1)
Turlock, California; (2) Providence, Rhode Island; (3) New York City;
(4) Syracuse, New York; and (5) Boston, Massachusetts.
The stamp's impact, however, goes beyond dollars and cents. Each
stamp sold adds to public awareness about the toll of the disease. The
Breast Cancer Research Stamp serves as a reminder for people to get
mammograms and other preventive screenings. Moreover, the stamp has
given ordinary citizens a convenient means to contribute in the fight
against breast cancer.
GAO Report: Since the Breast Cancer Research Stamp is the first
semipostal stamp sold by the U.S. Postal Service, it has received
intense scrutiny.
On April 28, 2000, the General Accounting Office (GAO) concluded an
exhaustive review of the stamp program. GAO conducted dozens of
interviews, and investigated every facet of the program's operations.
In the report, the GAO stated that ``on the basis of the collective
results of all the measures we used to evaluate effectiveness, we
believe the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been an effective fund-
raiser.'' The report also goes on to assert that ``the Breast Cancer
Research Stamp has been successful.''
Seventy-one percent of the members of the public surveyed by the
GAO had positive views of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, and thought
the Postal Service should continue to sell semipostal stamps.
Why the Stamp Should Be Reauthorized: The Breast Cancer Research
Stamp deserves reauthorization. The program is working, and it
continues to fill a compelling need. Breast cancer is considered the
most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in every major ethnic group
in the United States. More than two million women are living with
breast cancer in America today, yet one million of them have not been
diagnosed.
Breast cancer is still the No. 1 cancer killer of women between the
ages of 15 and 54. The disease claims another woman's life every 15
minutes in the United States.
More and more people today are becoming cancer survivors rather
than cancer victims thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research.
According to the American Association of Cancer Research, eight million
people are alive today as a result of cancer research. The bottom line
is that every dollar we continue to raise will save lives.
Reauthorization Bill has Strong Bipartisan Support: S. 2386,
legislation I have introduced with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to
reauthorize the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has 57 cosponsors, and
enjoys broad, bipartisan support.
S. 2386, the Breast Cancer Research Stamp Reauthorization Act of
2000, would permit the sale of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 2
additional years. The stamp would continue to cost 40 cents and sell as
a first-class stamp. The extra money collected will be directed to
breast cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and the
Department of Defense.
The legislation is a straightforward extension of the current
Breast Cancer Research Stamp program. It simply extends its life by 2
years. It has no gimmicks or changes.
Numerous organizations support the reauthorization of the stamp,
including the American Cancer Society, the American Medical
Association, the American Association of Health Plans, the Susan G.
Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Y-Me National Breast Cancer
Organization, the Women's Information Network--Against Breast Cancer,
and many others.
Conclusion: I would like to close with the following message. The
Breast Cancer Research Stamp is an example of a government and public
partnership that has worked. It lets ordinary Americans join in the
ongoing struggle against cancer. I urge you to help me in saving this
successful program from a premature end.
The Committee has my thanks for being willing to consider my views.
Senator Cochran. We thank you very much for your assistance
and the information you have provided to the hearing.
Senator DeWine.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OHIO
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
holding this hearing today. I appreciate the Subcommittee's
time, Senator Levin, and Senator Akaka.
I would like to talk about two things. One, I would like to
talk about S. 2062, which is the bill that Senator Durbin,
Senator Cleland, Senator Lieberman, and I have introduced with
others. Then I would like to talk about some of the issues that
Senator Levin has raised, that you have raised, and that
Senator Akaka has raised about the whole issue of semipostal
stamps and how we should approach the issuance of such stamps.
I think there are some very good questions that we, as a
Congress, have to look at.
The issuance of an organ and tissue semipostal stamp will
increase public awareness about the importance of organ and
tissue donation, and this in turn, Mr. Chairman, will help save
lives. As you know the National Transplant Waiting List, the
list for those needing organs, grows by one person every 16
minutes. Right now in this country, 68,000 people are on that
list.
Most distressing about all this, though, is that we have
the technology and the ability to save the lives of those on
the transplant waiting list, but we simply lack the organs. The
reality is that many people on that list will die waiting for
an organ. We lack organs, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, because most Americans are simply unaware of the
lifesaving difference they can make by choosing to become organ
donors. We lack organs because too many family members, when
faced with the most difficult time in their life, the sudden
loss of a loved one, do not know what to say when the doctor
comes out and says, can we use your brother's, your sister's,
your daughter's, or your son's organs to be transplanted? Most
people have never thought about it, Mr. Chairman.
What this stamp would do is bring public awareness to this
issue. Senator Feinstein, whose bill I happen to support, has
talked about a constituency that supports breast cancer
research. Mr. Chairman, there is a broad constituency ready to
buy this organ donation stamp and to help spread the word. It
is a constituency and a group that is growing and growing by
the day. They are organized and they have done a fantastic job.
Mr. Chairman, one way to remedy this organ shortage, as I
have said, is through the creation of a new organ and tissue
donation semipostal stamp which would by itself increase public
awareness as it moves through the mail. The new stamp we have
proposed would sell for up to 25 percent above the value of a
first-class stamp, regardless of the price of the first-class
stamp itself, and the revenue generated over and above the
value of the stamp would go to the Department of Health and
Human Services to help fund organ donor awareness programs.
Many of these programs already exist. They are out there to
spread the word, to increase organ and tissue donation
awareness.
This stamp, an organ and tissue donation stamp, was issued
as a commemorative stamp, and in the very short period of time
that it has been available on the market, it has sold 47
million stamps. It has only been on the market a short period
of time when you consider the fact that within 5 months of
issuance the postage rate increased, and people have had to buy
that stamp and then add an additional 1 cent stamp. But I think
it demonstrated clearly the constituency for a stamp like this.
If we are going to issue another stamp to bring the public
awareness to this issue again, it has to be in this manner
because the Postal Service's policy is not to reissue
commemorative stamps.
Let me, though, turn now away from my bill to some of the
specific questions that I think this Subcommittee has to look
at, and that is the whole issue of the semipostal stamps. I
believe that these stamps can be a great tool for informing the
public about important issues. Senator Feinstein has done a
wonderful job just describing how successful her stamp program
has been for breast cancer research, and I will not go through
those details. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe
that this is a way that the general public, stamp by stamp,
person by person, in a very grassroots way, a very real way
that everybody in this country can participate in, can help a
given cause.
I understand that this Committee is now looking at a number
of different bills, and the tendency might be to say, let us
just throw up our hands and let us say, look, we really do not
want to be in this business. We really do not want to do this.
Let us just not do anything. Let us not reissue the Breast
Cancer Research Stamp. Let us not look at any of these other
stamps. Let us just stop it because we really cannot, for all
the reasons that Senator Levin has mentioned, choose between
causes.
I think that inaction would be wrong, and I think it would
be a mistake. I think that this is something that clearly the
Postal Service can handle. They can handle it by maybe changing
some of their procedures, some of the problems they had with
the last semipostal stamp. But they went through a learning
process. They can handle this.
The sale of semipostal stamps can generate a significant
amount of money for a good cause and can enlist the direct
participation on a grassroots level, like nothing else can,
from every average American, from a little 5-year-old who walks
in with his mom and dad to buy a stamp, to an 85-year-old man
or woman who is sending out Christmas cards. Everyone can
participate.
I do not know how you make the decision about which stamps
to approve. Senator Levin has talked about maybe turning it
over to the Postal Service. That certainly is one way of doing
it, with certain standard criteria to be established either by
the Postal Service or by this Congress. I am comfortable with
that.
I am also comfortable, Mr. Chairman, with this Committee
making the decision, to decide upon a yearly basis to issue one
or two stamps, and if the stamp that I have proposed happens to
make it, I will be very, very happy. I think that it is
something that will save lives. I think it will have a direct
impact. If it is not, I would hope that you would choose some
stamps and set some policy to establish a process for the
authorization of semipostal stamps.
I just think it is a very positive thing. It is something
that the people in this country can participate in, and I think
it would be a shame if we turned our back on this and said,
well, because of some of the difficulties in making the
selection or because of some of the difficulties in
administering this, we just do not want to do it. I think it is
an opportunity. We should not let the opportunity go. We can
issue one or two stamps a year. We can provide a great deal of
money for a good cause and we can help people participate in
that cause.
I have a written statement I would like to submit for the
record. I thank the Chair and I thank the Members of the
Subcommittee.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator DeWine. Your
full statement will be printed in the record.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DeWINE
Thank you, Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Akaka, for inviting
me here today to testify. I would like to take this opportunity to
encourage all the Members of the Subcommittee to support the bill that
Senators Durbin, Cleland, and I have introduced to authorize the
creation of an organ and tissue donation semipostal stamp. I would like
to discuss the merits of this particular stamp and then talk about the
importance of semipostal stamps in general.
The issuance of an organ and tissue semipostal stamp will increase
public awareness of the importance of organ and tissue donation--and
this, in turn, will help save lives. As you may know, the National
Transplant Waiting List--the list for those needing organs--grows by
one person every 16 minutes. Right now, over 68,000 people are on that
list.
Perhaps most distressing about all of this is that we have the
technology and ability to save the lives of those on the transplant
waiting list--but we simply lack the organs. We lack organs because
most Americans simply are unaware of the life-giving difference they
can make by choosing to become organ donors. We lack organs because too
many family members, when faced with the sudden death of a loved one,
don't know what to say when asked to donate that loved one's organs. If
more families would discuss this before tragedy strikes, I am convinced
that this vast majority of people would say ``yes'' to organ donation.
One way to remedy this organ shortage is through the creation of a
new organ and tissue donation semipostal stamp, which would, by itself,
increase public awareness and also generate considerable revenue
through its sale. The new stamp we have proposed would sell for up to
25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp, regardless of the
price of the first-class stamp itself. And, the revenue generated over
and above the value of first-class postage--known as surcharge
revenue--would go to the Department of Health and Human Services to
help fund programs that increase organ and tissue donation awareness.
Let me now turn from my specific bill to a general discussion about
semipostal stamps. These stamps can be a great tool for informing the
public about important issues. Just look at the example of the Breast
Cancer Research Stamp. This stamp has been an extreme success. The U.S.
Postal Service estimates that due to its great demand, the Breast
Cancer Research Stamp already has generated $12.9 million in surcharge
revenue, with $10.4 million being transferred to the National
Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense for breast cancer
research. This has been a tremendous success and I am confident that
other semipostal stamps can do equally well. These stamps are a
valuable, simple, easy, grassroots way for Americans to support very
important causes. They offer Americans a great opportunity to
participate in the promotion of issues they care passionately about.
So that we may move forward on the creation of other semipostal
stamps, the U.S. Postal Service simply needs to apply consistent
criteria to determine how they can recoup any ``reasonable'' costs
associated with the designing, printing, marketing, advertising, and
distributing of such stamps. The last thing we should do is let
``process'' concerns stand in the way of creating stamps that have
proven to be successful both in raising public awareness and in
generating much-needed research and awareness dollars.
But, I do recognize that organ and tissue donation is not the only
important issue that merits the creation of a semipostal stamp. There
are a lot of competing proposals out there. What is important here
isn't so much whether the Committee decides to issue any specific
semipostal stamp, but that it decides to establish a fair process for
authorizing one or two semipostal stamps each year for important
causes.
I strongly recommend that Congress acts to require the Postal
Service to issue one or two semipostal stamps each year. We should not
let bureaucratic concerns undermine the importance of creating
semipostal stamps. As long as the Postal Service is fairly compensated
for the costs they incur and a fair and consistently applied formal
cost recovery process is established, we should move forward with
authorizing additional semipostal stamps.
Senator Cochran. We appreciate very much your taking time
to be with us. Actually, this hearing was at your request, I
think, for favorable consideration of your amendment on another
bill that was being considered by the Senate. We suggested a
hearing on the subject to look at the ramifications of
continuing to approve or reauthorize the semipostal stamp that
we already had. So, you have been the catalyst for focusing
attention on this issue at this time.
Senator Frist has a piece of legislation I think you were
going to add this as an amendment to. That is still a
possibility because that legislation has not moved through the
Senate yet, as I understand it. Is that correct?
Senator DeWine. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. So, this is a timely hearing. I know you
have other responsibilities. We all have to go over and vote in
just a little bit on some amendments on the Senate floor, so we
will have to take a break.
I do not have any specific questions, except to thank you,
as I did Senator Feinstein, for being available to us and
helping us understand the proposals that you have authored.
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Let me add my thanks to Senator DeWine for
his typically thoughtful approach to an issue.
I do not know if you have had a chance to review the Postal
Service's position on this. The Postmaster General has taken
the position that the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, the
semipostal stamp, should not be followed by any additional
semipostals for reasons that he sets forth in his letter to us.
Have you had a chance to look at the Postal Service's
opposition to any additional semipostals?
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, I have a summary and I have
not looked at the full testimony in detail, but I would have a
comment, based on the summary at least if, Senator Levin and
Mr. Chairman, you would permit me.
Senator Levin. Sure.
Senator DeWine. I do not want to be disrespectful to the
Postal Service. I think we should take into consideration what
they have to say, but I think ultimately it is Congress'
decision. This is a public policy issue. I would have expected,
quite candidly, that the Postal Service would oppose this. This
is asking them to do something that they look at as not in
their purview, something that they have not done in the past.
It is probably an inconvenience, maybe a little hassle. But I
think that it is our decision, as a Congress, to make.
And I think that we need to look and see how difficult it
is for them to do this. Maybe they had some difficulties the
first time. The GAO has outlined some things that the Postal
Service should probably change in the future. But, you know,
they can do it. They are doing a good job. The Postal Service
is more efficient today than it has ever been in the history of
this country, contrary to what we sometimes hear when mail does
not get delivered. They are doing a good job. There is no
reason they cannot handle this on a limited basis, one stamp
every year or whatever you all decide to do. They can do it. It
is just something that they can get done.
And they can charge a reasonable surcharge. They can figure
out what their costs are. Maybe we need to do a better job
figuring out what their actual costs are, and when we authorize
a semipostal stamp, know how many that the Postal Service has
to sell before they are really going to make a profit.
Obviously, when you pick the semipostal stamp, it does have to
be something where there is a constituency, where you clearly
have a pretty good idea you are not going to lose any money.
But, Senator Levin, I just think that it is our job to make
that decision. I would have expected them--and I mean no
disrespect at all--to look up and say, look, this is not our
job. We are not in the charity business. I just think they can
do it and I think it is something they can do without a great
deal of hassle. And it is something that will contribute to the
common good, and I think we ought to make the decision for them
to do it.
Senator Levin. By the way, I do not think there is any
doubt that the Postal Service would agree this is our decision,
that we can issue semipostals if we want to. That is not the
basis of their opposition. The basis of their opposition is
mainly the picking and choosing issue, the politicization of
charitable selection.
Senator DeWine. And I understand that, but Congress can
pick and choose which semipostal to authorize.
Senator Levin. Is there not a constituency for AIDS
research, diabetes research, Alzheimer's disease, prostate
cancer research, and the World War II Memorial?
Senator DeWine. Senator Levin, absolutely.
Senator Levin. Would you not agree these have strong
constituencies?
Senator DeWine. Absolutely. Let me just say, as I said, I
am comfortable with you turning it over to a commission that
you want to establish. I am comfortable with you turning it
over to the Postal Service. I am comfortable with Congress
making the decision.
My guess is--and I will be willing to bet--if you took
every bill and every constituency and put them in a room and,
say, there are 20 or 30 or 50 or 100, and you said to them, OK,
here is the deal--we can either not authorize any semipostal
stamp at all or we can pick one a year. What do you want us to
do? To a person, to a man, to a woman, they would say pick one.
Because these are not people who are saying ours is better or
more important. These are people who say ours is important, and
I have been touched by it and I lost a mom or a dad to this and
it is important. But if it is a question of not doing it at all
or doing it and making some rational choice--and that is what
all of us in public policy get paid to do is make tough choices
every day--I think every one in that group, if there is 100,
would say do it. Make a choice--99 lose, 1 wins--do it.
Senator Levin. There is a second issue, though, which you
have pointed out and that is, the way in which who makes the
choice and whether we ought to leave this decision to a stamp
advisory group that is a little more separated from politics.
By the way, there is no doubt in my mind at all that the
cause that is reflected in your stamp is an incredibly
important cause.
Senator DeWine. Right, and I know you have been involved
directly.
Senator Levin. I walk around with a driver's license that
says, if I am killed in an automobile accident, take any organ
which is available. There is no doubt that this is an extremely
important cause. And I want to commend you and many of our
colleagues for the involvement in that cause and so many other
causes that many of us are involved in. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
Senator DeWine for his statement.
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Akaka. I thank you very much.
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator DeWine, again for your
help with our effort here this morning.
Our next panel of witnesses will include Deborah Willhite,
who is Senior Vice President for Government Relations and
Public Policy of the U.S. Postal Service, and Bernard Ungar,
who is Director of Government Business Operations Issues of the
U.S. General Accounting Office. We welcome you to the hearing,
and we invite you to introduce those who are accompanying you
today. Ms. Willhite, we will proceed to hear from you first.
TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH WILLHITE,\1\ SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE,
ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES C. TOLBERT, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STAMP
SERVICES, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Ms. Willhite. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Joining me today
is James Tolbert. He is the Executive Director of our stamp
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Willhite with attachments appear
in the Appendix on page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are honored to represent the Postal Service today. The
Postmaster General is unfortunately out of town and could not
join us. He sends his greetings to you, Senator Levin, and
Senator Akaka.
The Postal Service has submitted testimony that I would
like printed for the record, and I will just give you a brief
background on what our position is.
We have enjoyed the success of the Breast Cancer Research
Stamp and believe that we have had a great community of support
and it has been very successful in the cause that the Congress
set for us. But we do not believe that we should continue to
print semipostal stamps.
We are working to finalize the regulations and have been
working with GAO and the Office of the Inspector General to
make sure that we do the cost accounting that has been in
question for everyone.
But we think that there is a dilemma for us to continue to
do semipostal stamps.
First of all, it is not part of our core mission. Fund
raising is not part of our core mission, and it does distract
from it to some degree.
Second, the choice of stamps and the causes, which has
already been alluded to this morning by the other Senators and
yourselves, is a very difficult one and we do not believe we
are in the position to make those decisions. And if you did
decide to move on to having semipostals directed to the Postal
Service in the future, we would hope that Congress would make
those choices.
Finally, the philatelic community has been very averse to
the issuance of semipostal stamps. They believe that it is a
tax on their particular hobby and it dilutes the quality of the
stamp program.
For those reasons, we would officially be against any
future semipostal stamps, but of course, if Congress directs us
to do anything, we will do it to the best of our abilities and
be as successful as possible. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Ms. Willhite. Mr. Ungar.
TESTIMONY OF BERNARD UNGAR,\1\ DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
OPERATIONS ISSUES, GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Ungar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Levin, and
Senator Akaka. We are certainly pleased to be here today to
discuss our review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ungar appears in the Appendix on
page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am accompanied on my right by Gerald Barnes, our
Assistant Director, who is responsible for overseeing our work
here, and also by our two team members, Roger Lively and
Charles Wicker. I also have with me one of our other Assistant
Directors, John Baldwin, who has overseen our work in the past
on commemorative coins which have some relationship and
similarity to semipostal stamps.
I would like to summarize the work that we had done that
was mandated by statute, as well as point out a few of the
lessons we learned from our prior work on the commemorative
coin program.
The Stamp Out Breast Cancer Act required GAO to address
three issues, which we have done. The first one was the
appropriateness of using the stamp as a fund raiser. The key
effort that we undertook in this regard was to sponsor a study
of the American public, adults 18 years or older, about a year
after the stamp was issued, and basically about 70 percent of
the public would say that it is appropriate for the government
or the Postal Service to use semipostal stamps to raise funds.
In other words, they believe that this was an appropriate
function to be performed.
Most of the stakeholders that we interviewed regarding the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp believed that it was an
appropriate function for the Postal Service to undertake. As
you know, the Postal Service was not among that group; nor were
stamp collectors. We certainly do agree with the Postal Service
that using a stamp as a fund raiser is not within its basic
mission, and it would need specific, separate authorizing
legislation in order for it to do so under law.
Interestingly, the stamp collectors were quite concerned
about this, initially. However, in commenting on our draft
report, they pointed out that if a mechanism or selection
process could be established which they considered to be fair,
and a relatively small number of semipostal stamp issues could
be selected at any given time, they would not be as opposed to
semipostals.
The second issue that we addressed was the effectiveness of
the semipostal as a fund raiser. Here we looked at three
criteria:
First, did the semipostal raise money for breast cancer
research? Obviously, it raised a substantial amount of money.
It raised over $10 million as of the time that we had issued
our report and, as you heard, the semipostal is expected to
raise about $14 million in total. So, it certainly raised a
substantial amount of money that has been given or will be
given to the National Institutes of Health and the Department
of Defense.
Second, was the semipostal a convenient mechanism for the
public to contribute? Here again we found it was. It was to be
available in all post offices, some postal vending machines and
some special events. In addition, about 68 percent of the
public believed that the use of a stamp is a convenient way for
them to contribute to a designated cause.
Third, was the semipostal voluntary? Obviously, it is
because people have other stamps to choose from if they do not
want to purchase a semipostal stamp.
Another issue that we addressed was the most problematic,
and that is the monetary resources used to develop and sell the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp and the reasonable costs
associated with that stamp that were to be recouped from the
surcharge revenue. Here we broke that down into two components.
First, how much did it cost the Postal Service to do this?
Unfortunately, the total cost is not known because the Postal
Service did not establish a separate accounting system or
modify its existing accounting systems to completely capture
all the costs. This is not necessarily a major issue or problem
in our view because the Breast Cancer Research Stamp was
considered to be a one-shot deal, and it would have cost the
Postal Service a great deal of money to establish a separate
accounting system or make substantial modifications to existing
accounting systems. So, that in and of itself, the fact that it
did not do that was not a major problem.
The Postal Service did identify 18 categories of costs
which it did track. So, I think that was certainly a positive
thing that the Postal Service did. And through that mechanism,
the Postal Service identified about $5.9 million in costs
through December 1999 that it had incurred.
Now, that was not all the costs. The Inspector General
identified about $348,000 in additional costs which it believed
should be reported as program costs, although the Postal
Service disagreed with that. And I do not believe it has been
resolved. Maybe it has by now. It had not been resolved as of
the time that we issued our report. There are different
philosophies of how one counts costs here, and I think it
depends upon one's philosophical approach as to how one would
come out on that.
Of the $5.9 million that the Postal Service did identify
and agree to as being costs, about $482,000 was the amount that
the Postal Service identified that it thought should be
recaptured from the surcharge revenue, meaning that these were
the costs it believed were uniquely attributable to this stamp.
And the remaining $5.4 million of its costs, the Postal Service
believed, was recaptured by the basic 33-cent cost that you
would normally pay for a regular stamp.
The real issue that we had here was that the law required
the Postal Service to issue regulations defining the criteria
that it was to use to determine the amount of cost it would
recapture before turning over the revenue to DOD and NIH.
Unfortunately, the Postal Service did not issue those
regulations. During the course of our review, it had what we
would consider or call an evolving set of criteria. In other
words, it changed its criteria for recapturing costs several
times. It was a little difficult for us to nail down the
criteria that was used. So, we did recommend that the Postal
Service promptly issue these regulations that would specify the
criteria it was to use. It has agreed to do that and I believe
plans to do that by July 28, 2000.
In addition, we recommended that the Postal Service provide
data and analysis to show how it is recapturing some of these
$5.4 million in the basic 33 cent cost of the stamp. In other
words, it was not clear to us how the Postal Service was
recapturing this $5.4 million. We are not saying it was not
recapturing it. It just never provided the data that would show
us what portion of that 33 cents covers the development and
selling costs of the stamp. So, we just did not see that. We
think it would be important for everybody involved in this
issue to be able to see that and be able to feel comfortable
that, yes, these costs are being recaptured, that people who do
not choose to buy this stamp are not subsidizing the stamp.
In addition, we pointed out that if Congress has some
concern about how the Postal Service is defining reasonable
costs, then it might want to specify in legislation either the
criteria that are to be used or the specific costs that are to
be recaptured.
Finally, I would just like to mention a couple of key
points that we learned from our previous work on commemorative
coins, which is a similar type of issue. The U.S. Mint coin
program goes back quite a while and we reported in 1996 that
the Mint had actually lost money on some commemorative coins,
and there were a number of reasons for that.
First, the Mint sponsored a lot of commemorative coins,
some of which were not popular and did not sell well.
Second, there were too many commemorative coins on the
market at one time. They literally saturated the market and the
coin collectors just did not want to buy that many
commemorative coins at the same time.
Third, the Mint was turning over the revenues from
commemorative coins, in effect, before it knew whether it made
money or not. So, it was actually turning money over to the
sponsors of these coins or the beneficiaries of these coins and
actually losing money at the same time.
Those were some of the key things that we wanted to point
out. We would certainly be happy to address any questions that
you might have.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
efforts to acquaint us with the findings of your report and
also the opinions and views of the Postal Service on this
semipostal stamp issue.
Let me ask a question, Ms. Willhite, about the
commemorative stamps that the Postal Service issues. Now, we do
not, as a Congress, authorize any specific commemorative stamp
to be issued by the Postal Service. The Congress recognizes the
Postal Service as an independent service, and those decisions
are made by the Postal Service. Tell us how that process works
and whether or not that would offer a way to select stamps that
are specially issued with a surcharge as well?
Ms. Willhite. The Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee was
set up in 1957 to advise the Postmaster General on the stamps
to be issued several years in advance. It has criteria that it
has set down through its processes. One of the different rules
states that no person can be on a stamp until they have been
dead for 10 years, except for Presidents. And they have other
criteria to try to keep the stamp program collectible,
commemorative, reflecting the culture and the history of the
country, and those sorts of things.
One of their criteria is also that they will not authorize
any semipostal stamps because they have a commitment to the
philatelic community. So, they have historically been on record
as being against semipostal stamps as a part of the
commemorative stamp program.
They do, as Senator Levin pointed out, put a layer between
the political and marketing pressures that would be on the
Postal Service and act as a filter. They get some 50,000
requests for different stamp issuances every year that they
select from and suggest stamp programs 2 to 3 years out so that
we have adequate time to get economies of scale in printing and
that sort of thing.
Senator Cochran. How many commemorative stamps are normally
issued in a year?
Ms. Willhite. Normally 35 to 40.
Senator Cochran. And how many regular kinds of stamps do
you also issue?
Ms. Willhite. Ten to 15 definitive stamps. Definitive
stamps are the ones that are in the booklets, in the machines.
I always bring up the berries.
Mr. Tolbert. The work horses.
Ms. Willhite. They are the work horses. The flag stamps,
those that are renewed year after year.
Senator Cochran. What kind of expense is attributable to
the issuance of commemorative stamps? Do you keep up with that
in any way in terms of costs?
Mr. Tolbert. Mr. Chairman, relative to the commemorative
stamp program, what we do is track the costs of printing
stamps, all the costs in terms of the retail vending
applications that take place, and much of the same costs that
are right now being tracked by the semipostal that the Postal
Service has been able to identify and track within a reasonable
and short window of time since the launch of the semipostal
stamp.
So, basically we are able to track the costs of design,
costs of the process of the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee,
the costs of printing those stamps, any marketing initiatives
associated with that particular stamp, whether it is promotion
or the price associated with that stamp, as well as what we
project in terms of consumer demand against the stamp.
Senator Cochran. There was some question the GAO had about
the efficacy or reliability of your cost analysis in the case
of the semipostal stamp for breast cancer research. What is
your reaction to that suggestion? Are you comfortable with the
fact that you identified the costs and that it is a reliable
figure so that we could assume that those funds that are said
to have been cleared, the difference between the gross receipts
and the net, would be fairly accurate?
Ms. Willhite. In the course of the GAO study and the Office
of the Inspector General analysis of the program, we have come
to some moderation of what we thought we should be assigning
costs to. This has been a learning process. It has been an
evolving process. But we are comfortable with where we are on
the stamps' attributable costs at this point in time.
Senator Cochran. And the bottom line conclusion is that the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp did generate substantial funds for
breast cancer research. It was successful in that regard. There
is no question about that. Is that correct?
Ms. Willhite. It has been incredibly successful. It has had
a wide community of support. Senator Feinstein, Senator
Hutchison--the members have continued to propel it forward. It
has been a very unique grassroots movement. Not many subjects
that you would put on a stamp could have the broad support that
the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has enjoyed. Just this past
Mother's Day, there was a huge initiative to sell the stamps.
We are getting ready to have the Race for the Cure here in
Washington, and again they will promote the stamp as part of
the Race for the Cure. So, it continues to have a very big
grassroots support behind it.
Senator Cochran. Senator Levin, I am going to stop my
questioning at this point and let you ask whatever questions
you would like. We probably are going to have to go over and
vote pretty quickly. So, we will recess and go over and vote
when the second bells ring.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is a huge community, and properly so, in support of
breast cancer research. There's also very strong community
support and very well organized for a number of other important
causes, including organ and tissue donation, and AIDS research.
Is there any doubt in your mind that there is a very strong,
organized community in support of funds for AIDS research? I am
part of that community supporting funds and I feel its
strength. Diabetes research I am personally familiar with--very
actively involved in seeking funds for diabetes research. Is
there not a strong community support for diabetes research? Are
you able to say that one of these commemoritves is not as
strong as another?
Ms. Willhite. The breast cancer community uniquely
surrounded the stamp from conception and continues through this
day and has been very, very unified in including the stamp as a
part of all their activities and promotion. I do not know
whether the AIDS community or the diabetes community would have
the same outpouring.
Senator Levin. You just do not know that.
Ms. Willhite. We just do not know.
Senator Levin. All right, but it could be.
Ms. Willhite. It could be.
Senator Levin. The same with prostate cancer, it could be,
could it not?
Ms. Willhite. It could be, yes, sir.
Senator Levin. This Committee has approved already another
semipostal stamp. And let it be clear to everybody we are not
talking about whether a stamp be issued as a commemorative
stamp. It is the surcharge which is the issue here. I think
there has been a little confusion about that. There is no doubt
that stamps have a huge educational value, but that is a
separate issue and it is apart from the surcharge question.
We approved a stamp recently, a semipostal stamp that will
generate funds for Operation Lifesaver, a nonprofit
organization dedicated to highway rail grade crossing safety.
Now, I voted against that semipostal even though it was the
Majority Leader's bill, who we all have tremendous respect for.
I am just as much, I hope in favor of railway crossing safety
as anybody else, but I just think when we start walking down
that road, that we are going to find ourselves in an impossible
position I am afraid of saying that diabetes comes ahead of
Alzheimer's or after Alzheimer's or one railway crossing
approach comes ahead of another.
I got a letter from another group on railway crossings, and
I am going to ask that it be made part of the record, Mr.
Chairman. Is that OK?\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter of the Coalition for Safer Crossings appears in the
Appendix on page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Cochran. Absolutely.
Senator Levin. This letter is from the Coalition for Safer
Crossings, and the group says the following: This person, the
president of the organization, opposes the stamp that we
approved for the railway crossing safety cause. This person
says. ``I personally find Operation Lifesaver spin on education
appalling.'' That is the group that was going to get the funds,
a nonprofit, but private group that was going to get the funds.
``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. I fought to close the crossing
where Eric was killed and since helped many families after the
loss of a loved one through my organization, the Coalition for
Safer Crossings.''
``I personally and professionally oppose the measure that
the Senate passed. When I was in high school I received the
same driver safety training regarding grade crossing safety''
as his best friend Eric did, he writes. ``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.''
In other words, this group favors putting in lights and
gates at crossings, very much opposing the semipostal stamp we
approved because that money was allocated to another group
which favors education. I very much worry about the Congress
making these kinds of decisions.
And by the way, before the Postal Service created a
Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee to take this process out of
politics, here are some of the stamps that were issued when
political pressures were brought to bear: A stamp honoring the
steel industry, the trucking industry, the railroad engineers,
American bankers, the American turners, the poultry industry--
and I have got to be careful here because I know I am getting
close to home. [Laughter.]
Now, I love every one of those groups, just for the record.
[Laughter.]
I just want the record to be absolutely clear. I favor
their work. I am all for them but I just think we have got to
try to separate these crucial decisions on where funds go from
a political process. I am afraid that once we go down the road
that we have started, unless we get a barrier there of some
kind of a mechanism to shield this from a political process, we
will be making the wrong decisions. Is it education relative to
railway crossings or is it lights and gates relative to railway
crossings or neither? And by the way, I have to tell you, I
would put diabetes, Alzheimer's, AIDS, and a number of other
causes ahead of that one, although that is an important cause.
But that is not really what I think the Congress is all about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The Subcommittee will stand in recess. We
will return as soon as possible from our voting on the floor.
[Recess.]
Senator Cochran. The Subcommittee will please come to
order. Thank you for your patience during the votes that we had
to cast on the floor of the Senate.
We have an opportunity now to complete our hearing and we
appreciate very much the Postal Service representative, Ms.
Willhite, and Mr. Ungar from the General Accounting Office
being here to help us understand the implications of this
legislation on the issuance of semipostal stamps by the U.S.
Postal Service.
Mr. Ungar, you mentioned in your statement that you believe
there are similarities between the semipostal stamp program and
the commemorative coin program. That is the program operated by
the U.S. Mint. As I understand it, GAO examined the
commemorative coin program and found as the number of
commemorative coins increased, the sales for each coin
decreased. Would you elaborate on this for us and tell us
whether you believe the success of any future semipostal stamp
would be affected if more than one semipostal stamp were
authorized by Congress?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, it is impossible
to predict precisely what would happen, but it certainly was
the case several years ago, before the commemorative coin
program was restructured and reformed, that there were several
commemorative coins on the market at the same time, and an
analysis that we did showed that the sales were not as high
when you had more than one commemorative coin on the market and
that a number of coins did lose money.
Now, there is a slight difference in the program. Typically
commemorative coins sold at a much higher value than the face
value. In other words, there was a higher surcharge placed on
the coin than typically I would think you would have on a
semipostal. Nonetheless, I think the experience would point out
that at some point you need to be careful. The Postal Service
or the Congress might need to really weigh this dilemma of how
many different semipostal stamp issues would the public be
willing to buy at any one given point in time. I think that
would be a fair characterization.
Senator Cochran. Let me ask you whether or not you think
the stamp surcharge is about the right amount in terms of what
the traffic will bear or what the public is willing to pay as
an extra surcharge. If they raise it too high, it will diminish
the attractiveness of the stamp I would expect. Do you think it
is priced about right, or was that part of your analysis?
Mr. Ungar. No, Mr. Chairman, we really did not look
directly at that. We did get some information on foreign postal
administrations' semipostals. Some foreign semiposstals carried
more surcharge than others. The proper amount of the surcharge
would probably be a topic that market research could address. I
think if the surcharge was too high, it certainly could affect
the number of stamps that are purchased. It is just something I
think that would be worthwhile to look into if the Congress is
going to authorize either the Postal Service to have additional
semipostals or you are going to do it directly.
Senator Cochran. Ms. Willhite, what is your reaction to
this comparison between commemorative coins that the U.S. Mint
has for sale and semipostal stamps? Is there any relevance
between the two that we should understand?
Ms. Willhite. Yes, sir. We would think that if we had
semipostal stamps essentially competing with one another at the
Postal Service for sale, that it would diminish the focus on
the stamp that would be--if we had another stamp right now
being sold against the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, it would
probably diminish the Breast Cancer Research Stamp sales and
probably not boost the sales of the others.
Also on the subject of the amount of costs for the stamp,
we did look into the market research when we came out with the
Breast Cancer Research Stamp and found that 35 cents or 40
cents would be what the public would prefer. They seem to like
rounded, even amounts on the stamp prices. And we went with 40
cents so that we could continue to contribute as much as
possible off of the stamp as the rate went up. Therefore, the
stamp remained a viable tool under the criteria that it raise
money with the stamp price increase from 32 to 33 cents. So, we
think that that is important also.
Senator Cochran. What changes, if any, would the Postal
Service have to make in its operation if Congress were to issue
more semipostal stamps to be sold? Would this affect you in
terms of the accounting system that you have or the staffing
that the Postal Service would have to have to handle this
responsibility?
Ms. Willhite. Yes, sir. And I will let Mr. Tolbert comment
on this also because he is in charge of the stamp program and
would have to put that structure in place.
We have absorbed most of the staffing for the Breast Cancer
Research Stamp through our existing resources, thinking that it
was a once-in-a-lifetime type occurrence. We did not set up a
whole new accounting procedure. We did not set up staffing just
for that stamp. If we were going to have an ongoing semipostal
stamp program, like our commemorative stamp program and
definitive stamp program, we would dedicate financing and
accounting and staffing to assure its ongoing success. It would
not be easily absorbed on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Tolbert.
Mr. Tolbert. Sure. Just to extend off of that, Mr.
Chairman, it would seem to me that as part of the semipostal
proposed legislation, it would require us to set up a separate
tracking system and a costing system to track every element
associated with a semipostal stamp issuance. So, as a result of
that right now, as Ms. Willhite indicated, some of the actions
and activities associated with the commemorative stamp program/
semipostal were integrated into our work efforts. But when we
start talking about design, subject, research, and some of the
other activities associated with it, it would seem to me we
would have to clearly establish a separate track to account for
all costs, whether it is institutional or whether it is
attributable cost to that semipostal.
Senator Cochran. While it is not the subject of our
specific hearing, we are looking at bills that Senators have
introduced, and there are several statements we are going to
put in the record. For example, a statement from Senator
Campbell who has introduced semipostal stamp legislation.
Senator Lott's bill was already discussed to some extent by
Senator Levin. We have received letters from people commenting
about the issue. So, we are going to add to the record comments
on these specific proposals.
The American Philatelic Society--when I was doing this, it
was called stamp collecting. I do not know how it got so fancy.
[Laughter.]
The Women's Information Network--we have a letter and we
will include that as well.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letters from the American Philatelic Society and the
Women's Information Network appear in the Appendix on pages 55 and 57
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there is also the House bill that has been mentioned.
Congressman McHugh is chairman of the companion subcommittee
over on the House side, and he has introduced a bill that will
reauthorize the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, but create at the
same time an alternative mechanism for passing on future
requests for this kind of specially issued stamp.
What, if any, would your observations be, Mr. Ungar--I am
going to ask both of you--and Ms. Willhite, on that as an
alternative to the individually authorized special stamps?
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, we specifically did not look into
that. Obviously, it would be an alternative that you would want
to consider. On the commemorative coin program, there is an
advisory committee that has been set up but the actual
decisions there as to what coins will be minted are up to the
Congress and specific legislation must be enacted; so, the
committee is purely advisory to the Congress.
I guess in this case, the Congress would authorize the
Postal Service or a committee to make those decisions in terms
of what stamps would be produced and sold. I think one issue
there might be the criteria that might be used in making that
kind of a choice, if the Congress were to delegate that
function.
Senator Cochran. Ms. Willhite, what is your response?
Ms. Willhite. We have looked at Congressman McHugh's bill
and there are elements of it that we support. Again, we believe
that it would be the role of Congress to choose the subject
matter of any stamp that was not a part of the commemorative or
definitive series.
Also, Senator, we believe that we would want to have some
input on the timing of the stamps. We now have a lead-in time
in our commemorative program of up to 2 years in development
and 3 to 5 years in the actual roll-out of a stamp. If we were
going to have a new semipostal stamp every 6 months, it would
be very difficult for us to do that in a cost effective way.
So, any legislation that would impact the development of a
semipostal act, we would like to talk about some of the
technicalities of stamp production that might make it a more
successful bill.
Senator Cochran. Well, judging from your comments and also
the GAO, there is more to this than just meets the eye, rather
than to just gloss it over with that kind of analogy or
metaphor.
The obligation of this Subcommittee is to carefully
consider and review in a thoughtful way the proposals, and I am
confident that we will bring that kind of consideration to
these proposals that are before the Committee.
There are a number of other questions that we have that we
think we should ask and have answers for the record so that we
will have a body of facts and information that will enable us
to make a decision about whether to report out the bill or not.
I am going to yield to my good friend from Michigan for any
additional questions he has and then I am going to submit the
others that I have here for the record, along with those that I
mentioned. We have statements that will be included. Senator
Campbell has introduced this legislation that I mentioned and
his has to do with violence against women, domestic violence,
and to raise the awareness and funds for dealing with that. We
want to have a statement that he has prepared included in the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Campbell follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, for
holding this hearing today on the issuance of semipostals by the U.S.
Postal Service. I am pleased to take this opportunity to testify about
my legislation, S. 2044, the Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2000.
S. 2044 has 13 bipartisan cosponsors and I thank my colleagues for
their support.
The Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2000 will allow postal
patrons to easily contribute to the fight against domestic violence
through the voluntary purchase of certain specially issued U.S. Postal
stamps, generally referred to as semipostals. Proceeds raised from the
stamps would fund domestic violence programs nationwide.
Consider the following: A woman is battered every 15 seconds in the
United States. According to the Justice Department, four million
American women were victims of violent crime last year. Two-thirds of
these women were victimized by someone they knew. In fact, 30 percent
of female murder victims are killed by current or former partners. In
Colorado alone, the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence
reported 59 domestic violence related deaths in 1998. We can and must
make every effort to change that. But, before we can eliminate the
incidence of domestic violence we must acknowledge the problem and
identify the resources needed to combat the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I believe S. 2044 represents an innovative way to
generate money and raise awareness for the fight against domestic
violence. As you know, a recent GAO report calls the Breast Cancer
Research Stamp an effective fundraiser. According to preliminary
reports, more than 164 million stamps have been sold nationally,
raising $12 million for breast cancer research. My bill is modeled
after the Breast Cancer Research Stamp legislation, and I am confident
it will be just as successful.
Specifically, under the Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2000,
the Postal Service would establish a special rate of postage for first-
class mail, not to exceed 25 percent of the first-class rate, as an
alternative to the regular first-class postage. The additional sum
would be contributed to domestic violence programs. The rate would be
determined in part, by the Postal Service to cover administrative
costs, and the remainder by the Governors of the Postal Service. All of
the funds raised would go to the Department of Justice to support local
domestic violence initiatives across the country.
In a country as blessed as America, the horrid truth is more women
are injured by domestic violence each year than by automobile and
cancer deaths--combined. We can no longer ignore this fact for our
denial is but a small step from tacit approval. The funds raised by
this stamp will represent another positive step forward in addressing
this national concern, and I urge the Committee to act favorably on
this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Senator Levin.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Willhite, first let me ask you a question about the
advertising and promotion costs for regular commemorative
stamps. My understanding is that the entire annual budget to
promote stamps and postal products is $1 million. Is that
correct?
Ms. Willhite. I am going to let Mr. Tolbert, who actually
runs the budget, get into the nitty-gritty with you, Senator.
Mr. Tolbert. Senator, relative to the advertising and
promotion, it is not specifically for a stamp. There are
philatelic products which we produce, which you just
referenced, and we have basically, from a costing standpoint I
would say, for fiscal year 2000 allocated approximately $1
million against costs for philatelic products.
Senator Levin. Does that include stamps, the promotion of
stamps?
Mr. Tolbert. Yes, to some degree, because the product is an
extension of the stamp. Yes.
Senator Levin. According to this memo from Terry McCaffrey,
manager of Stamp Development, to Tom Edwards, it says that the
annual budget is approximately $1 million to promote the entire
annual program, which is what I think you are saying as well.
Ms. Willhite. Yes.
Mr. Tolbert. Yes.
Senator Levin. Now, on this one stamp, on the Breast Cancer
Research Stamp, is it not accurate that there was $1.5 million
spent in advertising and promotion?
Mr. Tolbert. Yes, there was in terms of tracking against
the semipostal. Just to extend off that for a second, as well
as part of, I believe, the Office of the Inspector General's
report, there was a difference in the Postal Service and their
audit relative to the advertising promotion which, for example,
the billboards in Times Square--those were billboards that were
part of the overall program, but one of the spots was allocated
to promote the Breast Cancer Research Stamp.
Senator Levin. Well, if your total budget for promotion and
advertising for your entire program, including commemorative
stamps, is $1 million, and you have spent $1.5 million on one
stamp, then that is clearly a lot different from what you
ordinarily would spend to promote a commemorative stamp. It is
a lot more than you have ever spent, I guess, to promote one
stamp. Is that not true?
Mr. Tolbert. I would say yes, there was a lot more spent
against the semipostal as it relates to the advertising and
promotion.
Senator Levin. OK, but none of that $1.5 million was used
as part of your reasonable costs for reimbursement. Is that
correct, Mr. Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, sir. The Postal Service did not recoup that
money from the surcharge revenues, at least as of yet, and I
think the Postal Service did not plan to do that. We would
certainly suggest that the Postal Service might want to
reconsider its decision.
The concern that we would have is that, while statutorily
the Postal Service does have a lot of discretion here, I think
the issue is a precedent. This stamp obviously, was quite
successful. If the Postal Service should, unfortunately, have a
situation in the future where a semipostal stamp is not so
successful and does incur a substantial amount of incremental
costs like advertising, it could find itself in a loss
position. So, I think it might be wise, if the semipostal
program is going to continue, that this type of issue really be
reassessed.
Senator Levin. Why were the promotion and advertising costs
for this commemorative not attributed to this commemorative,
particularly in light of the fact that they exceeded the entire
budget of the entire Postal Service to promote all
commemoratives for the entire year or your entire program?
Should that not have been attributed to this program? Mr.
Tolbert or whoever does the attribution here?
Mr. Tolbert. Yes.
Senator Levin. No, I am sorry. I was not sure whether you
make the policy decision or not. If you do, let me address it
to you.
Should the cost of the $1.5 million, or part of that, not
have been attributed to this stamp as one of the costs to be
deducted from the surcharge revenues?
Mr. Tolbert. Yes, sir.
Senator Levin. But it has not yet been done.
Mr. Tolbert. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Levin. By the way, I am not trying to reduce the
amount of money that goes to breast cancer research. If you put
an amendment on that floor right now asking me would I add $6
million to breast cancer research, you would get an aye from
me. OK? So, that is not the issue. The issue here is what we
are getting into, what is the road we are walking down, and how
are we going to figure this out.
What would be the estimated costs of the Look, Listen and
Live Stamp, Mr. Tolbert? Could you give us that? The bill that
has passed the Subcommittee and now the full Committee. Have
you made an estimate as to what that would cost?
Mr. Tolbert. I have not, no.
Senator Levin. Let us assume that the costs on that were $3
million or $2 million, but that the surcharge produced less
than that so that there was actually a deficit. Mr. Tolbert,
what then happens? With that stamp, a private foundation is
supposed to get the money. It is not even a governmental
research program. Would the private foundation then reimburse
the government for the loss to the government? Is that part of
the program?
Ms. Willhite. Under the legislation, if it was the same
legislation of the Breast Cancer Research Stamp, if we could
not get back our reasonable costs, we would not be able to give
any money to the program. I do not know that we would be able
to actually charge the program, but it would mean that the
stamp would not provide any money to the program.
Senator Levin. Well, thank you all. I think there are a lot
of questions that this hearing has brought up. I hope, Mr.
Chairman, that one of the things we will really look at and ask
the Postal Service to review is this other approach where the
Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee or a similar group can
fairly and objectively apply criteria without political
influence.
If we are going to have more semipostals after the Breast
Cancer Research Stamp, those decisions ought to be made by an
independent, objective citizens group working with the Postal
Service--applying fair criteria so everybody knows exactly what
those criteria are.
I hope that we would get a Postal Service response to the
bill that authorizes the Postal Service to issue semipostals.
If you have not already given us a response to Congressman
McHugh's bill, could you give us your response?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Let me ask you one final question. This breast cancer
research authorization expires in July. So, if the Congress
does not act, how do you phase this out? Is it just ended if
somebody comes up to the window and wants to buy a Breast
Cancer Research Stamp, can they still do that? Do they pay a
surcharge? Will it be an automatic commemorative, or if we do
not authorize it, what happens?
Ms. Willhite. If it is not reauthorized, sir, we will take
it off the market. We have a very defined time table for
removing stamps from the post offices, and that pull-out
process would actually--we would do our first Postal Bulletin
notice June 15, that the stamp was going to expire July 28,
2000, so that we would make sure that all of our clerks and
postmasters knew that the stamp was no longer authorized for
sale.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Levin. May I have one comment, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Cochran. Sure, Senator Levin, go ahead.
Senator Levin. I think the question of reauthorizing an
existing semipostal is a different issue from whether there be
additional semipostals. At least in my mind it is. We have got
the costs already sunk into this and spent. We have got stamps
I presume printed. I think there are still, what, 10 million or
15 million or whatever number.
Mr. Tolbert. Seventeen point five.
Senator Levin. Seventeen point five are already printed.
So, I think that is a different issue than whether or not we
authorize additional semipostals. At least in my mind it is.
So, my doubts about semipostals in principle are real, but
I put that in a different category from the reauthorization of
something which already exists and where we have already spent
money. I do hope, though, that if we are going to reauthorize,
that we would look at this other possibility of having the
decisions made on semipostals being made by this group that
distances this from political forces which otherwise, it seems
to me, are unleashed to nobody's benefit.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Ungar and Mr. Barnes from the GAO and Ms.
Willhite and Mr. Tolbert. We appreciate your cooperation and
your good assistance to our Subcommittee.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5647.044