At first glance it would seem the height of presumption for the Mailhandlers’ Union to attempt to instruct Senator Susan Collins, the self-proclaimed author of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), on the legislative history of that law. But that’s exactly what the union did in comments filed yesterday with the Postal Regulatory Commission.

The mailhandlers point out that the exigency language Senator Collins included in her original Senate bill never made it into the law that was finally passed and signed into law in 2006. Collins had called for any exigent increases to be based on “unexpected and extraordinary circumstances”. When it came time to reconcile her bill with the House version, the requirement had been lowered to circumstances “either extraordinary or exceptional.” The change eliminated the requirement that the circumstances had to be unforeseen, and made the requirement an either/or proposition- the circumstance didn’t have to be both extraordinary and exceptional- just one or the other. The mailhandlers point out that all of the history Senator Collins presented to the PRC referred to the earlier more restrictive language, not the lower standard that was actually enacted.

The union also notes that the drop in mail volume caused by the “Great Recession” was actually greater than that caused by the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax scares- the two events usually mentioned as the type of events that would unquestionably have justified an exigent increase.

Here is the text of the union’s main argument:

A careful examination of the submission filed by Senator Collins shows that it is based on a misunderstanding of the legislative record. To begin with, each and every citation or quotation contained in Senator Collins’ submission is taken from documents or materials that were created prior to the development of the legislative compromise that now appears in the PAEA. Thus, the letter from Senator Collins quotes from the 2003 report of the Presidential Commission on the United States Postal Service, from a 2004 postal reform bill (S. 2468), from 2004 testimony presented by then-PRC Chairman George Omas, from the 2004 Senate Committee Report (rate authority to be used only for “unexpected and extraordinary circumstances” and thus when rapid changes are needed “in the event of a national emergency”), and from 2005 testimony from the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (in favor of establishing “a very high bar” for above-CPI rate increases, consistent with then-existing Senate language). These citations are relevant – if they are relevant at all – only if the Commission wants to understand or interpret the restrictive standard only contained in the Senate bill, S. 662 (during the period from 2004 through September 2006), before that standard was rejected by the entire Congress which enacted the PAEA in December 2006. Stated another way, the citations and quotations that Senator Collins offers to support her personal recollections of the standard for above-CPI rate increases actually establish precisely the opposite – that is, they establish what was not included in the actual language of the final version of Section 3622(d)(1)(E) that eventually was enacted as part of the PAEA. The Senate version of S. 662 from 2004, 2005, and the first part of 2006 was rejected by Congress, and in its stead Congress adopted the more flexible standard of “either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.”

The submission from Senator Collins also mischaracterizes what occurred during the Congressional debate in 2006, during the 109th Congress. It repeatedly but erroneously states that Congress “adopted the Senate’s more stringent . . . standard,” and that Congressional action resulted in “the adoption of the Senate exigent rate case standard.” Again, with all respect, these descriptions merely reflect the Senator’s recollections of the record, and are not accurate. When Congress adopted the PAEA, it adopted compromise language that not only incorporated the House-backed standard, but also substituted a considerably more lenient version of the Senate-backed requirement, providing for above-CPI rate increases if the circumstances facing the Postal Service were “either extraordinary or exceptional.”

At bottom, the letter submitted by Senator Collins asserts that, as the “author of the exigent rate authority,” Senator Collins can “attest that the provision was not intended to be used under the current circumstances.” With respect, the “exigent” language was the result of a process that included many Members of Congress in both Houses of Congress. For the reasons already explained, the language originally contained in S. 662 and supported by Senator Collins was not adopted by Congress, and does not appear in Section 3622(d)(1)(E) of the PAEA.

Read the full text.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 19th, 2010 at 7:33 am and is filed under Politics, postal, postal reform, PRC. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.