Mr. UDALL. Now, our next witness this morning is Mr. W. Allen Sanders, Assistant General Counsel, Legislative Division of the U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. Sanders, we appreciate your presence here this morning and you can introduce the colleagues that accompany you and proceed as you see fit.

We have your statement before the committee.

STATEMENT OF W. ALLEN SANDERS, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE DIVISION, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY DARWIN E. SHARP, MANAGER, MAIL CLASSIFICATION DIVISION, AND IVAN N. HALL, POSTAL REVENUE OFFICER

Mr. SANDERS. We are happy to have the opportunity to appear before you here today. With me is Mr. Darwin E. Sharp, Manager of our Mail Classification Division, and Mr. Ivan N. Hall, Postal Revenue Officer.

I welcome this opportunity to testify on H.R. 3180. Section 1 of the bill would amend section 3210 of title 39, United States Code, which now provides that Members of Congress and certain others, may send as franked mail-(1) matter weighing 4 pounds or less "upon official or departmental business," to a Government official; and (2) "correspondence" weighing 4 ounces or less "upon official business" to any person.

A difficulty of the present law, which H.R. 3180 recognizes and attempts to correct, is that the phrase "official business" is not defined in the statute. The bill proposes to remedy this difficulty by describing specific categories of mail which are frankable, and by listing specific categories which are not frankable. It is our understanding that these lists are intended to be illustrative examples.

While under the present law it is the responsibility of each individual Member of Congress or the Congress itself to determine whether particular mailings are frankable, the Postal Service is sometimes criticized when apparent abuses of the privilege occur. Hence, we would welcome any changes which make administration of the franking privilege more effective. It would appear that the statutory listing of examples of what is and what is not frankable would be helpful to members of Congress by giving them specific guidelines to follow. In this connection, however, the attention of the committee is invited to 39 United States Code 3210 (d) (2) (F) which would provide that franked mail may include: "(F) Mail matter expressing condolences to a person who has suffered a loss or congratulations to a person who has achieved some personal or public distinction."

Although it is not a matter of concern to the Postal Service, we believe it should be pointed out that this provision goes beyond what has been considered as "official business" in the past.

We approve the removal of the weight limitations in present section 3210 of title 39. We have found these exceptional restrictions difficult to administer. It should be understood that the effect of the removal of the special weight restrictions of section 3210 would be that franked mail will be subject to the general size and weight limits prescribed by 39 U.S.C. 3682.

We have one specific amendment to section 1 of the bill to offer as a drafting service to the committee. Our proposed amendment relates to proposed 39 U.S.C. 3210(d) (1) which authorizes Members of the House to use the simplified form of address. The first sentence of that proposed subsection contains confusing language authorizing franked mail to be sent into a congressional district established pursuant to a redistricting which contains "all or any part of the area constituting the congressional district from which he was elected."

When a congressional district is reapportioned, parts of an old district may become parts of several new districts. Accordingly, the language as it is written might be interpreted to authorize a Member to send franked mail into one or more districts which he does not represent. Confusion on this point in the past has resulted in anomalous situations in which two or more incumbent Congressmen sent franked mail into the same areas. It would seem that a simple way to clarify the matter would be to revise the first sentence of proposed 39 U.S.C. 3210(d)(1) to read as follows: "A Member of the House may mail franked mail with a simplified form of address for delivery within that area then currently represented by him in the House."

Any area added to a Member's district by a currently effective redistricting law, of course, would be within the area currently represented by him at the time of mailing.

The second sentence of proposed 39 U.S.C. 3210(d) (1) would prohibit the use of the simplified form of address during the 60 days immediately preceding a primary or general election. It is our understanding that this provision, like all other provisions in the bill, would be policed and enforced under sections 4 and 6 of the bill by the proposed Select Committee on Congressional Mailing Standards rather than by the Postal Service.

In addition, purely as a matter of drafting, it is noted that section 1 of the bill would make 39 U.S.C. 3210 a long and somewhat unwieldy section of codified law. It might make the provision easier to read and understand if it were rewritten as two or more sections.

Section 2 of the bill would contract the present overly broad provisions of section 3212 of title 39, dealing with franked mailings of the Congressional Record, by prohibiting franked mailings of excerpts from the Congressional Record unless such excerpts are themselves mailable as franked mail because they qualify as "official business." Section 3 of the bill

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt the witness a moment?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Henderson is recognized.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Derwinski has asked that I accompany him to the Rules Committee in just a few minutes. I would like to ask one question of the counsel.

On the second paragraph of this page you said:

Any area added to a member's district by a currently effective redistricting law, of course, would be within the area currently represented by him at the time of the mailing.

I'm not sure I understand that statement. Do I understand that if I represented, say, six counties; by way of redistricting I lost two of those counties on the eastern edge of the district and picked up two counties on the western edge of the district, that I then represent all of the counties involved, the eight? The two I lost, the two I picked up?

Mr. SANDERS. No, sir; of course, there are different types of redistricting laws-but if we are talking about one which becomes effective immediately during the time when the Congressman is sitting, then under our proposal he would be permitted to use a simplified form of address for the area he then represented at that time.

Mr. HENDERSON. What do you mean by law that immediately becomes effective? You can't represent an area unless you have been elected in that area is the problem that I see.

Mr. UDALL. This is a very broad misunderstanding and I was going to challenge his suggestion. I wrestled with this in drafting this bill. There is an assumption around that a congressional district is a political entity like a county or school district or something of this kind that has legislative and tax-raising power and all the rest.

There is no such thing as a congressional district as a political entity. The Congress says that North Carolina gets 11 Congressmen. You divide up that State at the moment of the election, so each one will have the same number of voters and from that time on you represent the House of Representatives from North Carolina. You don't own a district. And it doesn't continue to be your district because the county in which you claim is your home is still left in that and three more are added and two more taken off.

Mr. HENDERSON. I agree with the chairman there. Then franking privileges are available for Members anywhere in the 50 States.

Mr. UDALL. Oh, yes. Only different postal patrons; so-called mass mailings. That is where the question comes up and when it is changed. Mr. SANDERS. I would agree with the chairman and except for this provision there is no limit on the use of the frank. A Member can use a frank anywhere in the United States on official business but as I understand it you are attempting to write legislation to limit mass mailings to a Member's district on the grounds that it's proper or appropriate for a Member to use the simplified form of address to correspond with those people in his district, those that he normally refers to as his constituents. Then it seems to me it should be pointed out that there has been confusion in the past when-

Mr. UDALL. There is a great deal of confusion but let me tell you how we try to meet it. You can have all kinds of conflict about what district you now represent. We had situations last year in which I was elected from this county but this county has not been taken out of my district and Dave Henderson in my same State has been given that county in his new district.

I say I represent the district and use the frank. Now he says he now represents the district The only thing you can agree on-which is objective is the district from which you were elected. That is why we proceed from that basis to give you postal patron privileges there and then onto that such areas as may have been added to that district from which you were elected by subsequent court action or redistricting. I think that is the only safe, legal approach you can take.

Mr. HENDERSON. If counsel will allow, you might like to comment later but I would like you to be aware of one other thing I think is important since the courts have gotten into this.

The thing which necessitated the redistricting we all hear so much about, is the Court's enunciation of the one man-one vote principle. If you take what I understand that Court decision to mean, it related to the way Members of Congress were elected. Arguments have been

made that these are the people whom you represent. This is, I think, contrary to the theory the chairman so well enunciated and with which I agree, but it would seem to me if the Court is consistent in this one man-one vote requirement as it relates to the franking privilege, this one man who is going to make a decision on who he votes for should be entitled to all of the mail or the positions of the candidates for office on which he is going to be voting. If you really believe in this one man-one vote theory, it seems to me if an incumbent congressional candidate is going to have a right to mail to constituents or to prospective voters, then the privilege ought to extend to all of those who would be voting on him.

It is just an extension of the Court's philosophy in that landmark decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UDALL The attack the bill takes says:

A Member of the House may mail franked mail with a simplified form of address for delivery

"(A) within that area constituting the congressional district from which he was elected; and

"(B) on and after the effective date of a redistricting of congressional districts in his State, within any additional area of each congressional district established pursuant to such redistricting and containing all or part of the area constituting the congressional district from which he was elected."

That's the basis you always go back to.

Mr. HENDERSON. Then may I ask the counsel if he agrees that this language would clarify any questions such as have arisen in the past in the postal system?

Mr. SANDERS. We, the Postal Service, have no objection to the language in the bill. We simply are trying to point out some of these difficulties. The only difficulty I can see with the language is, as I understand it, that it says a Congressman can mail in any district which contains any part of his old district.

Now, you can draw these lines in a number of ways but we visualize situations where that would give a Congressman the right to mail throughout the State because the way it was redistricted a part of his old district becomes part of every other district.

Mr. UDALL. If that's the case, then it won't occur very often and he ought to have the right to mail it for that temporary period of time.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, our counsel, staff counsel, advises that this language was in the postal regulation. Did you have any difficulty with it when it was in your regulation?

Mr. SANDERS. Well, the language in the bill is not precisely what is in the postal regulations. What we say in our postal regulations, as I recall, is that a Congressman could mail into the district that he was elected to represent plus any area that was added to his district by redistricting, and we did have considerable difficulty with determining even what that language means. This language, if I interpret it correctly, does go beyond our present regulations.

Mr. UDALL. Three-fourths of the time there is no problem. The districting is quite simple; you add a county here and take one there. It's only these odd and unusual cases where they chop up the whole State in a crazy pattern that a pattern exists until the next election.

The best way is to take the original district from which you were elected and so long as any part of that area is in any part of any district you can frank both the old and the new. We leave the old in for the simple reason that you may have promised when you sent out a questionnaire, for example, you would let the people know how it came out. In the meantime, part of that area has been removed from your district and you ought to have the right to go back and finish the job.

Mr. WILSON. Realistically, I can't visualize a situation like Mr. Udall just stated. Why should a Member send a questionnaire on a mass-mailing basis to his old district which he no longer represents? Now, in my case, there was no incumbent to represent most of my old district. Therefore, I was still faced with the responsibility of servicing the people in my former district. I had to use the frank for official mail within that district but I also had a duty to serve the new area once a redistricting bill became effective. However, I had no need to send a mass-mailing into my old district.

Mr. SANDERS. The Postal Service certainly has no objection to the language in the bill. We are simply trying to point out

Mr. UDALL. Your suggestions are helpful and we are soliciting the broadest range of suggestions and we will see our base and correct all mistakes and while I don't agree with this particular one, some of your others are very good.

Mr. SANDERS. Section 3 of the bill would incorporate in H.R. 3180, the provisions of H.R. 6, which would enact permanent legislation extending the frank to surviving spouses of former Presidents. Our separate report, of which a copy is attached to this testimony, supporting the enactment of H. R. 6, has been filed with the committee. There is, however, a distinction between the frank of former Presidents, and the frank of Members of Congress which should be pointed out to the committee.

Although there is no express restriction in the statute, the frank of Members of Congress-which was created long before the existence of airmail-historically has been considered to be limited to surface mail. As you know, sections 42a, 42c, and 42d of title 2, United States Code, provide an allowance to Members of Congress and certain other congressional officials for the purchase of airmail and special delivery stamps.

However, the present provisions of 39 United States Code 3214 granting the franking privilege to former Presidents, and the special enactments granting the franking privilege to the widows of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, have been interpreted to authorize the use of airmail even though the frank of Members of Congress is limited to surface mail. See section 137.72 of the Postal Service Manual. Accordingly, we assume that H.R. 3180 is intended to preserve this historical distinction, even though the literal language of the bill does not make such a distinction.

Sections 4 and 6 of the bill, as previously mentioned, would create a Select Committee on Congressional Mailing Standards whose duty it would be to police and enforce the use of the franking privilege. It has long been the position of the Postal Service that it is the responsibility of each individual Member of Congress or the Congress itself to determine whether a Member is using his frank properly.