We recognize that there is some doubt whether the Commission has the legal authority to require the Postal Service to file periodic reports, since the Postal Reorganization Act does not explicitly grant this power. Congressional clarification is therefore desirable. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS In order to enable the parties to obtain needed information easily and quickly, the Congress should amend the Postal Reorganization Act as follows. SEC. Title 39, United States Code, is amended by redesignating section 3604 as 3607 and by inserting immediately after section 3603 the following new section: " S 3604. Periodic and special reports." "(a) The Postal Service shall file with the Postal "(b) It shall be unlawful for any employee of, or "(c) The Commission may investigate any facts, con- "(d) Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged or about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of the provisions of this section or of "(e) The District Courts of the United States shall POSTAL RATE COMMISSION COMMENTS The Commission states that while it "strongly favors the GAO's conclusions with respect to periodic reporting legislation," it believes that "the authority to require such reporting already exists" in view of the Commission's general powers to "establish procedures *** and take any other action they deem necessary and proper to carry out their functions and obligations." (39 U.S.C. Section 3603.) While we respect this advocacy position of the Commission, we believe, and the Commission concurs, that its statutory outlines on this point should be further delineated. (See p. 41.) POSTAL SERVICE COMMENTS The Postal Service, in commenting on our report, stated that the Commission and the Postal Service have established a periodic reporting system through a rulemaking process and, therefore, no reason exists for legislative action. The Service, however, believes that periodic reporting will not reduce the number of interrogatories and thereby shorten the hearing process. In addition, the Service stated that we should have made an attempt to evaluate the reasonableness and relevance of the data requests made by the Commission and the intervenors and the cost of developing such data. As previously stated, we believe there is some doubt whether the Commission has the authority to require periodic reporting. In addition, the Postal Service while now cooperating with the Commission in establishing a periodic reporting system, has given no indication that it has reversed its position that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to impose such a reporting system. Therefore the need to provide clear authority for periodic reporting exists. With respect to reducing the number of interrogatories, we believe that it is logical to assume that basic ratemaking data, available for public inspection, separate and apart from any proceeding pending before the Commission would have the effect of reducing to some extent the number of interrogatories in a proceeding. Concerning the relevancy and cost of data requests, the Postal Service can appeal to the courts in any case where it feels a request is unreasonable. We see no value, at this point, in our commenting on past requests where reasonableness and relevance was determined by the administrative law judge. (See p. 51.) NEED FOR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS Large numbers of interrogatories can be expected in each ratemaking proceeding particularly before the establishment of an effective periodic reporting system. In order that proceedings may be expeditiously concluded, it is essential that the parties promptly answer interrogatories--written questions--addressed to them. The interrogatories are part of the procedure called "discovery" whereby the parties are allowed to elicit information from each other, before the hearing begins as well as while it is going on, to assist them in preparing their own cases and rebutting the arguments of opposing parties. The present Commission rule regarding the failure of a party to comply with rules of discovery is inadequate. We note that the Commission's Rules of Practice does provide in part that: "Presiding officers shall have the authority, However, this is but a paraphrase of the authority given The Commission and the Service disagree as to the present existence of subpoena ing authority by the Commission. The importance of this issue in the presence of disagreement over what information the Commission can rightfully demand is obvious. We believe that the Commission, like other regulatory agencies, should have such authority, regardless of whether its role is narrowly or broadly defined. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS In order that all the information necessary for the Commission to make an equitable decision in its proceedings will be made available, the Congress should amend the Postal Reorganization Act by adding the following section to Title 39, U.S. Code: "S 3605. Attendance of witnesses; production of "(a) Such attendance of witnesses and the production of "(b) In cases of contumacy by, or refusal to obey jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding both. "(c) The testimony of any witness may be taken POSTAL RATE COMMISSION COMMENTS A majority of the Commissioners endorse the proposal to provide specific subpoena power. Nevertheless, although the Commission agrees that the Postal Reorganization Act does not expressly confer authority on the Commission to issue subpoenas, it states that it "would expect to contend successfully for the enforcement of a subpoena on the grounds that its issuance was statutorily authorized both by the Act's general powers provision (39 U.S.C. Section 3603) and an expressed authorization (which arguably encompasses issuance of subpoenas), found in Section 3624 (b)(3) of the Act that 'the Commission may (without limitation) adopt rules which provide for * * * discovery both from the Postal Service and the parties to the proceedings. |