The Postal Escalator Pitch

The Postal Escalator Pitch
By Bob Levi
NAPS Director of Legislative & Political Affairs

Within the U.S. Capitol complex, there is a short escalator connecting the basement of the Rayburn House Office Building with the trolley to the Capitol. It was reported to me by a NAPS member attending the recent Legislative Training Seminar (LTS) that she spotted a member of Congress she knew by sight and caught his attention while he was descending to the trolley and she was ascending to catch a bite at the Rayburn House Cafeteria.

As they passed each other on the escalator, she remarked to him across the space dividing them how important the Postal Service is to his community and he needed to help sustain it. The congressman looked back at her, got off the escalator, turned around and ascended in her direction to continue the discussion near the top of the escalator. The five second pitch led to a meaningful and constructive six minute conversation. Only in the Capitol? Not really.

This type of brief encounter — whether in the U.S. Capitol or along Main Street, USA — has a meaningful impact on congressional relationships and, more importantly, on postal policy. Short engagements often result in longer discussions.

The NAPS members who attended our March legislative conference have effectively mastered the skills essential to promote postal sustainability and legislation to enhance the work life of postal supervisors, managers and postmasters — whether by sharpening their escalator pitch or fashioning an expert postal narrative.

One of my most enjoyable experiences at LTS is the seminar I conduct for first time attendees. It must be a popular event because the audience is not limited to legislative novices, but also includes a fair number of legislative conference veterans. A seminar highlight is the participation of a legislative staff member who is joined by a couple of experienced NAPS citizen lobbyists who take part in a lobbying exercise.

The attendees benefit by experiencing a real life lobbying encounter. A recounting of the recent seminar appears on page 52.

You can visualize our success in reaching Congress evidenced by the sheer volume of meetings that took place during NAPS’ lobbying days on Capitol Hill. A mere sampling of these interactions are depicted starting on page 60.

About a week after LTS, I began reviewing the Lobbying Reports filed by conference attendees. Of course, NAPS members advanced our legislative priorities. At the same time, members of Congress and their legislative staffs raised a series of issues, most prominently among them their view that postal performance has a lot to be desired, as well as their concern about the future of the Postal Service.

Both issues are not mutually exclusive. They reflect a strong and continued belief that the Postal Service remains an essential component of our national infrastructure. As such, postal stakeholders and Congress need to collaborate on ways to sustain and improve the federal agency. We are not unique in this undertaking. Online, I recently viewed a March 24 hearing conducted by the British Parliament’s Committee on Business and Trade. In a misguided effort to improve the Royal Mail’s operations and finances, Great Britain privatized its postal operation about 15 years ago; postage rates rose and performance declined.

The parliamentary committee heard from its employees, the owner of the private postal service provider and its regulator. Many of the issues our Postal Service confront are shared by Britain’s privatized postal operator. What was particularly noteworthy was the discussion among committee members and the postal operator about declining service, particularly the slower speed and escalating postage of mail transiting the United Kingdom. Committee members expressed deep concern about the late delivery of 220 million letters and the potential impact such tardiness would have on missed medical appointments and the risk that paper ballots may be delivered late for May elections across England, Scotland and Wales.

In fact, the British postal regulator recently fined Royal Mail for poor performance. (Our Postal Regulatory Commission has no such authority.) Also striking was the intense discussion between the postal regulator and the committee about the operator’s obligation to provide universal service.

There appears to be serious consideration about narrowing the Royal Post’s universal service obligation due to shrinking mail volume and the increasing financial pressure on the postal operator to meet its existing obligation. For example, the private postal operator argued the universal service obligation should adopt alternate day deliveries instead of six day delivery.

Moreover, the British postal regulator seems to be supportive of revised service targets integral to the universal service obligation with the intention to “normalize” service reductions. Indeed, the British postal proceedings are eerily similar to what could be anticipated in the United States unless Congress acts.

NAPS is taking a serious look at section 2401 of Title 39 that authorizes a “public service” appropriation for the Postal Service — an appropriation the agency has failed to request for more than 40 years. In addition, it is likely the scope of the public service obligation warrants revision as the result of shrinking mail volume, yet the increasing number of delivery points.

Fulfilling its vital mission to ensure that no American is left in a postal desert, NAPS will be working with Congress to ensure our essential Postal Service will not race to the bottom as have our European counterparts. This is our postal escalator pitch.

I have received a number of calls relating to the April 9 USPS Board of Governors’ decision to temporarily suspend the agency’s FERS contributions. It is important to note this is not the first time the Postal Service has taken such an action.

For example, in 2011, the agency suspended the employer share due to OPM’s projected overfunding of the pension plan. Lost amidst the attention to the BOG action is the more consequential action taken by the Postal Regulatory Commission on April 9 relating to the Postal Service’s amortization payments of postal pensions.

A portion of postage is obligated by PRC rules to cover the USPS’ annual pension amortization payments. On April 9, through a regulatory order, the PRC waived this obligation through 2030, unless extended or shortened by the PRC as the result of the USPS’ financial condition at the time. The PRC waiver provides $2.4 billion liquidity for FY26 and about $3 billion per year through 2030 — totaling about $15 billion in financial breathing room.

The BOG action relates to the FY27 employee share contributions — not amortization payments. The temporary suspension of USPS employer contributions would free up about $2.5 billion this year. The agency does not indicate for how long it would suspend its employer share.

It is important to note that neither the suspension of the employer share nor the PRC’s five year waiver would impact FERS benefits. It would, however, impact the USPS pension liability.