It has been nearly two years since I last used this space to report on the nation's continuing postal problem. Since then, some progress has been made on legislation to deal with that problem, though it has not shown up in your mail service. Now even the legislative progress has been halted by White House intervention. Last June a bill was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to make the postal system once again viable and effective. Its authors are James M. Hanley of New York and Charles H. Wilson of California, who over the years have taken a great deal of testimony and initiated considerable research in order to write this new bill. In October 1977 the bill was cleared by the House postal committee by a vote of 19 to 4. Almost all observers believed it would win the same kind of overwhelming approval in the full House.

Then on Jan. 17 President Carter stepped into the legislative process. He asked House Speaker Tip O'Neill to delay consideration of a rule that would allow the postal bill to come to the floor for a vote. This is a highly unusual attempt by the White House to prevent congressional deliberation of an important national question.

It is also unusual that the chairmen of two congressional subcommittees would find it necessary to address a letter to the President of their own party, taking strong issue with him. The fact that they have done so reveals what a wide gulf there is between the Congress and the President and his staff on a matter that touches the lives of virtually every citizen.

President Carter would apparently like to avoid responsibility for the Postal Service. The thrust of the Hanley-Wilson bill, which he is moving to kill without a vote, would indeed return management of the Postal Service to presidential responsibility. It is the sense of Congress that the public service commitments of the postal system should be continued without interruption and that these services should be financed by tax dollars.

Because the Hanley-Wilson letter is so unusual and important, I believe TIME readers should have the benefit of knowing about it in detail. Therefore, we are presenting it in its entirety for your information:

January 23,1978 President Jimmy Carter The White House

Dear Mr. President:

During your State of the Union message you spoke of ending "crisis management" in the Federal government.

We agree with you, which makes it doubly difficult to understand your acceptance of crisis management in the Postal Service and your failure to endorse Congressional efforts to resolve postal problems.

Certainly the pressure of various conflicting interests and priorities makes decision-making a difficult task.

Unfortunately, however, it is clear that, perhaps mistakenly in an effort to achieve other goals, you have now abandoned your campaign promise to support meaningful postal reform legislation.

We are referring, of course, to your effort to persuade Speaker O'Neill to kill H.R. 7700, the postal reform bill which we have sponsored.

It is common knowledge that the U.S. Postal Service is faced with many serious problems which jeopardize its future as a viable organization. These problems give rise to a number of public policy issues which must be given attention by the Congress.

Clearly, the American people want, and should continue to have, a reliable nationwide postal system in the years to come.

You demonstrated a deep concern in this regard in October 1976, when you castigated "the Republican experiment in postal management." At that time you deplored a series of service cuts and observed that "all the while, the President has failed to act. He has ignored the mounting evidence that service is deteriorating."

"Over the last five years the Postal Service," you wrote, "has been a classic illustration of wasteful, imprudent and inefficient management."

"We must recognize," you concluded, "that the Postal Service represents an essential public service for many people in our country. The ability to communicate through the mails must not only be sustained, but also improved. This I pledge to do."

After many years of careful study, legislation has been developed in a positive manner which would address just the problems which you referred to in your campaign statement and provide some answers. This legislation is H.R. 7700, which was approved by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee by an overwhelming vote of 19-4.

As you know, this bill would increase public accountability for postal decision-making and guarantee that a reasonable level of postal service will be maintained. Both of these goals are strongly supported by a large majority of the Congress, and indeed, of the public.

Strong examples are the overwhelming vote of 399-14 in 1976 on a resolution which supported a moratorium on postal rate increases, service cuts, and post office closings, and the vote of 377-9 last year on a resolution opposing the cessation of Saturday deliveries.

We know that you were committed to cooperation on this important legislative issue, and were gratified for the opportunity to speak personally with you several months ago at the White House.

Unfortunately, the truth is that throughout the consideration of this proposal in Subcommittee and Committee over the past year there has been a serious lack of continuing communication between the Administration and the developers of the legislation. Perhaps this is understandable in view of the inexperience of some of the new, young Administration staff people who have been responsible for liaison on this issue.

Frankly, however, as experienced legislators, we must say that this situation has been unprecedented, even during Republican Administrations.

In September, after delaying our final consideration of the bill for a considerable time to accommodate Administration spokesmen, the OMB testified in opposition to several major aspects of the bill. Since then, there has been no attempt to tell us what the Administration is for.

In addition to the remarkable lack of communication, there is much misinformation about the cost of H.R. 7700. You have been quoted as stating that the bill would cost $3 to $5 billion a year and with the implication that this exaggerated amount will be automatically apportioned forever. This is simply not true. The major increase in public service authorizations would cost from $1.6 billion in Fiscal Year 1979 and $1.88 billion in Fiscal Year 1980--but only if you and the Congress deem that a complete appropriation should be recommended. Other parts of the bill add some minor costs, but the public is not served by misleading cost estimates. We have asked for a justification of your staffs cost estimates, but have not yet received any.

Further, it is important to keep public service costs in a proper perspective. The Postal Service provides a vital service to all the public and to our nation's commercial institutions. Recent modifications to the Social Security law alone will lead to over $227 billion in additional taxes over the next ten years, and total taxes for that system will be almost $1.9 trillion for the same period. In other words, the H.R. 7700 appropriation, if it were continued at the projected Fiscal Year 1980 rate for ten years, would total only about 8% of the new tax increases for Social Security. The additional annual cost for taxes as a result of the new provisions of this law will reach $42.8 billion in 1987.

At any rate, a great deal of work has gone into H.R. 7700, and it represents the ideal vehicle for correcting the glaring deficiencies in current postal operations. It would be tragic if this legislative effort was doomed by the unnecessary failure of a Democratic President to communicate with House Members who have been his strong supporters.

Unquestionably, the basic goals of H.R. 7700 have very broad support within the Congress. Indeed, when the bill is considered by the House it will no doubt be passed overwhelmingly. We would hope that the Administration will henceforth choose to revise its ill-considered position and instead take a constructive role in the development of the bill by opening up meaningful lines of communication with appropriate members of Congress, and by offering positive alternatives to any specific provisions of the bill which you oppose.

We can assure you that you will find us open and willing to make every effort to resolve whatever differences exist in philosophies about the nature of postal reform.

Very truly yours,

James M. Hanley

Chairman, Postal Operations & Services

Charles H. Wilson

Chairman, Postal Personnel & Modernization

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.