I am pleased that we are holding today's hearing in order to provide our colleagues, the senior Senators from Montana and Vermont, the Postal Service, and other interested parties an opportunity to discuss S. 556, the Post Office and Community Partnership Act of 1999. We are all familiar with the legislative history of this bill, which is nearly identical to an amendment included in the Senate's fiscal year 1999 Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill. That amendment, like S. 556, would establish guidelines for the relocation, closing, or consolidation of post offices. Although the amendment was not included in the final appropriations legislation, there was overwhelming support for its inclusion.
The Postal Service estimates that seven million customers a day transact business at post offices. Moreover, we expect timely delivery of the mail six days a week--and the Postal Service does not disappoint us. Given the regularity of mail delivery and the number of Americans visiting post offices daily, it is no wonder that we have come to view our local post office as a touchstone of our community. Like their larger counterparts, many small towns developed around a post office where the postmaster served as the town's only link to the federal government.
Throughout the country, there are a number of small post offices where annual postal revenue is lower than annual operating costs. This imbalance impacts overall revenue within the Postal Service. However, in order to protect small post offices, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 prohibited closing a small facility solely for operating at a deficit. Congress further amended the Act in 1976 by placing a temporary moratorium on additional closings and prohibited closing facilities serving 35 or more families. Although the moratorium was temporary, the amendments established specific guidelines by which the Postal Service must review the impact a closing would have on a community, the employees of the facility, and economic savings realized from a closure. Added to these guidelines are the new 1998 regulations, which we will discuss today that establish procedures by which the Service notifies local citizens and public officials of facility projects and solicits and considers community concerns before making final decisions relating to expansion, relocation, or new construction.
It is my hope that today's hearing will shed light on how the Postal Service decides to close a post office, what guidelines the Service must follow in carrying out that determination, and what rights do communities have in the decision-making process. I will also want to review how contract stations are impacted by these regulations.
I am interested to learn how S. 556 would assist downtown post offices and preserve historical buildings and what differences there are between that bill and the year-old regulations issued by the Postal Service. I am pleased that we have with us today in addition to Senator Baucus and Senator Jeffords, the president of the National Association of Postmasters, Postmasters Retired, the president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and my former colleague Congressman Derwinski, representing the National League of Postmasters.
As the Postal Service meets the challenges of the 21st century, it must not lose sight of the its responsibility to the needs of all customers–especially those living in small towns and rural communities. The Postal Service should be proud of its accomplishments, but I do not want the Service to forget small town America that has given so much to our country. I look forward to working with you all to find a fair resolution to the issues we will discuss today.
