The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery:
Issues for Congress

Wendy R. Ginsberg
Analyst in Government Organization and Management
June 9, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40626
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Summary
Since 1863, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has been delivering mail to homes and businesses in
cities. In 1896, USPS extended delivery services to rural locations. Although USPS has
historically delivered mail to most locations six days per week, it was not until 1981 that
Congress statutorily required six-day delivery. Today, USPS delivers mail and parcels to more
than 149 million homes, businesses, government offices, and post office boxes six days per week.
Throughout the Service’s history, however, there have been discussions about reducing the
number of delivery days to conserve fuel and reduce costs.
In FY2008, USPS reported a $2.8 billion dollar loss and a drop in mail volume (9.5 billion fewer
pieces than in 2007, a 4.5% drop in volume). The first quarter of FY2009 showed continued
economic decline, with a $380 million loss over three months. USPS anticipates an even larger
drop in mail volume (10 to 15 billion fewer pieces than in 2008, a 4.9%-7.4% drop in volume) in
FY2009. The bleak economic forecast for USPS prompted its leaders, Congress, and the public to
suggest methods that may increase revenue or reduce expenses. Among these cost-saving
suggestions is reducing the number of delivery days.
At a 2009 congressional hearing Postmaster General John E. Potter stated that six-day delivery
“may simply prove to be unaffordable.” He then “reluctantly” requested that Congress eliminate
the six-day delivery requirement that is placed annually in appropriations laws. Some lawmakers
criticized Mr. Potter’s request, stating that reducing service days could cause even greater
reductions in mail volume and lead to a “death spiral” for USPS. Other lawmakers are uncertain
about the future of six-day mail delivery.
In 2008, two studies were conducted on the possible economic effects of reducing USPS delivery
services. One study, conducted by USPS, estimated the financial savings of a five-day delivery
week at $3.5 billion annually, with no anticipated reduction in sales volume. The other study,
conducted by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), estimated the savings at $1.94 billion
annually, which includes a significant estimated loss of sales volume. One lawmaker stated that
Congress may consider commissioning a third study to more accurately determine how much
money five-day delivery could save USPS.
Other countries’ mail services vary in their delivery schedules. Australia, Sweden, and Canada
offer five-day delivery services. France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom
(UK) have six-day delivery. New Zealand offers some customers a six-day delivery option, but
charges additional fees for weekend deliveries. Significant differences among the various global
postal services may prevent USPS from borrowing operating techniques that have been successful
in other countries.
This report will examine the history of six-day mail delivery and analyze potential effects of
reducing USPS delivery from six to five days. It will then examine legislative options for the
111th Congress.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Contents
History of Six-Day Delivery........................................................................................................ 3
Congressional and USPS History .......................................................................................... 3
The 94th and 95th Congresses ................................................................................................. 4
The 96th and 97th Congresses ................................................................................................. 5
The 1983 Standard ................................................................................................................ 7
The Economics of USPS ............................................................................................................. 7
Standard and First Class Mail................................................................................................ 8
Operating Costs .................................................................................................................. 12
Studies on Six-Day Delivery ..................................................................................................... 14
Congressional Commission on Postal Service...................................................................... 15
The 1980 Task Force........................................................................................................... 16
The President’s Commission on the Postal Service .............................................................. 17
The USPS and Postal Regulatory Commission Studies of 2008 ........................................... 17
The 111th Congress.................................................................................................................... 18
Hearings ............................................................................................................................. 18
Legislation .......................................................................................................................... 20
International Comparisons......................................................................................................... 20
Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 23
Continued Drop in Mail Volume.......................................................................................... 23
Customer Reliance on Six-day Delivery .............................................................................. 24
Which Day Would Be Eliminated? ...................................................................................... 24
U.S. Postal Service and Public Expectations........................................................................ 25

Figures
Figure 1. Volume of Mail by Class, 2002-2008............................................................................ 9
Figure 2. USPS Revenue Percentages by Mail Class, 2008 ........................................................ 10
Figure 3. Composition of Mail by Class, 2008........................................................................... 10
Figure 4. USPS Revenue, 2002-2008 and 2009 Projected .......................................................... 12

Tables
Table 1. Revenue, Operating Costs, and Sales Volume by Mail Class for USPS, 2002-
2008 and 2009 Projected ........................................................................................................ 13
Table 2. Studies That Examined the Possible Transition to Five-Day Delivery at USPS ............. 14
Table 3. Number of Mail Delivery Days Per Week, By Country................................................. 21

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 26
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 26

Congressional Research Service

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

ince 1775, the Postal Service has delivered mail throughout the United States. The Service
began as a conduit for communication between “Congress and the armies” during the
S Revolutionary War.1 In 1863, USPS, pursuant to statute, began delivering mail to certain
addresses in cities if postage was enough to “pay for all expenses of the service.”2 By 1896, the
Postal Service was making deliveries to certain rural and urban homes six days per week. In some
cities, in fact, delivery occurred more than once per day until 1950.3 In other, more remote rural
areas, deliveries continue to occur fewer than six days per week. Today, the U.S. Postal Service
(USPS) delivers to “146 million homes and businesses, six days a week.”4 Throughout the
Service’s history, however, there have been discussions about reducing the number of delivery
days in order to conserve fuel and reduce costs.
In FY2008, USPS reported a $2.8 billion dollar loss and a drop in mail volume (9.5 billion fewer
pieces than in 2007, a 4.5% drop in volume).5 The first quarter of FY2009 indicated continued
economic decline, with a $380 million loss over three months.6 USPS anticipates an even larger
drop in mail volume (10 to 15 billion fewer pieces than in 2008, a 4.9%-7.4% drop in volume)
and revenue in FY2009.7 The bleak economic forecast for USPS has prompted its leaders,
Congress, and the public to suggest methods that may increase revenue or reduce expenses for the
quasi-governmental entity.8 Among these suggestions is to reduce the number of delivery days for
USPS from six to five.
At a January 28, 2009, hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Postmaster General John E. Potter
stated that six-day delivery “may simply prove to be unaffordable.” Potter requested that
Congress eliminate the six-day delivery requirement that annually is placed in appropriations
laws.9 Some lawmakers criticized Mr. Potter’s request, and one Senator stated that reducing
service days could cause even greater reductions in mail volume and lead to a “death spiral” for
USPS.10 At a March 25, 2009, hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and

1 U.S. Postal Service, The United States Postal Service: An American History, 1775-2006, p. 6, at
http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub100.pdf.
2 U.S. Postal Service, “City Delivery,” at http://www.usps.com/postalhistory/_pdf/CityDelivery.pdf.
3 Ibid.
4 U.S. Postal Service, “Grow Your Business: National Postal Forum Debuts Special Session – and Discount – for Small
Businesses,” press release, April 2, 2009, at http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_034.htm.
5 U.S. Postal Service, Form 10-Q, U.S. Postal Service Quarterly Report, February 9, 2009, p. 8, at
http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/FinalQuarterIFY0910Q.pdf.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., p. 24.
8 For information on other actions USPS is taking to cut costs, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal
Service: Deteriorating Postal Finances Require Aggressive Actions to Reduce Costs
, GAO-09-332T, January 28, 2009,
at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09332t.pdf.
9 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, The Impact of the
Economic Crisis on the U.S. Postal Service
, 111th Cong., 1st sess., January 28, 2009, at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=ce8899e6-d08e-4d07-a6df-6aecebc9c12e.
10 Comments of Senator Susan M. Collins, ibid. A similar statement can be found in U.S. Senator Susan Collins,
“Senator Collins Criticizes U.S. Postal Service for Proposing Elimination of Services,” press release, January 28, 2009,
http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=22d3f0b2-
802a-23ad-47be-7a88b075995c&Region_id=&Issue_id=&CFID=15709811&CFTOKEN=35683692.
Congressional Research Service
1

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Government Reform, Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
Columbia, Potter again requested that Congress eliminate the six-day mail delivery requirement.11
Two studies of the possible economic effects of reducing USPS delivery were conducted in
2008.12 One study, conducted by USPS, estimated the financial savings of a five-day delivery
week at $3.5 billion annually, with no anticipated reduction in sales volume. The other study, by
the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC),13 estimated the savings at $1.93 billion annually, and
includes an expected loss of $580 million in sales volume. Representative Stephen F. Lynch
stated at a May 20, 2009, hearing that Congress may consider commissioning a third study that
would more conclusively determine how much money USPS could save if it moved to five-day
delivery.14
Other countries have varied mail delivery schedules. Royal Mail, which delivers mail in the
United Kingdom (UK) six days per week, reportedly contemplated eliminating Saturday delivery
in 2008 because of economic concerns.15 Royal Mail, however, continues to deliver six days per
week. Canada Post offers letter-carrier services five days per week, and does not deliver mail or
parcels on most Saturdays.16 Canada Post, which receives no national appropriation, paid the
Canadian government $720 million ($670 million USD) in taxes in 2008 and generated $54
million (roughly $46 million USD) in profit after taxes.17 New Zealand Post offers six-day mail
delivery services to some customers, but not to customers living in rural areas. Customers who
use Saturday delivery must pay an additional fee.18 Parcels are not delivered on Saturdays in New
Zealand. A sampling of various countries’ mail delivery practices found that some countries
deliver mail five days per week (Australia and Sweden) while others deliver mail six days per
week (France, Germany, and The Netherlands). Significant differences among the various mail
services, however, may prevent USPS from borrowing techniques that were successful in other
countries. The United States, for example, is much larger geographically than most of the other
countries. Also, union contracts may prohibit USPS from adopting certain practices that could cut
costs.
This report examines the history of six-day delivery at USPS and outlines potential effects of
reducing delivery service. It then analyzes legislative options for the 111th Congress.

11 Statement of Postmaster General John E. Potter in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia, Restoring the Financial
Stability of the U.S. Postal Service: What Needs to Be Done?
, 111th Cong., 1st sess., March 25, 2009, at
http://federalworkforce.oversight.house.gov/documents/20090325092625.pdf.
12 U.S. Postal Service, Report on Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, October 2008, p. 55, at
http://www.usps.com/postallaw/_pdf/USPSUSOReport.pdf; and U.S. Postal Regulatory Commission, Report on
Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly
(Washington: PRC, December 19, 2008), pp. 123-124, at
http://www.prc.gov/prc-docs/home/whatsnew/USO%20Report.pdf.
13 The Postal Regulatory Commission is an independent agency created by Congress that has regulatory oversight over
the Postal Service.
14 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post
Office, and the District of Columbia, Nip and Tuck: The Impact of Current Cost Cutting Efforts on Postal Service
Operations and Network
, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 20, 2009, at http://federalworkforce.oversight.house.gov/
documents/20090520142353.pdf.
15 Harry Wallop, “Royal Mail Cuts May End Saturday Post,” The Telegraph, May 10, 2008.
16 Information provided by telephone to author by Canada Post on April 28, 2009.
17 Canada Post, About Us: Fast Facts, at http://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/aboutus/corporate/fastfacts.jsf.
18 New Zealand Post, Sending Letters Around New Zealand, at http://www.nzpost.co.nz/Cultures/en-NZ/OnlineTools/
Ratefinder/LettersNZ.
Congressional Research Service
2

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

History of Six-Day Delivery
Currently, all but 25,000 of USPS’s 135 million residential mail recipients receive six-day mail
delivery.19 The history of six-day delivery, however, is not well documented. Delivery to homes
and businesses in cities was instituted, pursuant to statute, in 1863.20 In some cities, deliveries
occurred several times per day, until most cities eliminated multiple deliveries in 1950.21 Certain
rural homes and businesses received deliveries starting in 1896. In some remote, rural areas—like
homes at the bottom of the Grand Canyon—six-day delivery still does not occur.22 Based on a
review of legislative and postal history, it appears that six-day delivery was not legally required
until FY1981, when Congress placed language requiring six-day delivery in USPS’s
appropriation.23
Congressional and USPS History
The first statute governing general postal delivery was enacted in 1863 when Congress passed a
law that authorized the Postmaster General “to make delivery, within any prescribed postal
district, of mail matter by letter-carrier, as frequently as the public convenience in such district
shall require, and shall make all proper regulations for that purpose.”24
According to USPS, prior to 1863, postage payments did not include home or office delivery and
included only “the delivery of mail from Post Office to Post Office.” 25 Patrons, however, “could
pay an extra two-cent fee for letter delivery” to private homes and businesses.26 Private delivery
firms also delivered items to homes or businesses.
By 1888, however, mail carriers “were instructed to deliver letters frequently and promptly—
generally twice a day to homes and up to four times a day to businesses.… The second residential
delivery was discontinued on April 17, 1950, in most cities.”27 Current USPS policies limit
deliveries to one per day in all locations.28 USPS initiated rural home delivery on October 1,
1896, with deliveries to homes in Charles Town, Halltown, and Uvilla, West Virginia. With the
advent of rural delivery, the Postal Service grew at a rapid pace and began to resemble the
modern-day USPS.

19 “25,009 of the approximately 135 million [USPS] residential delivery points receive delivery 3 days per week
because they are exceptionally difficult to serve, such as those at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.” U.S. Postal
Regulatory Commission, Report on the Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly.
20 U.S. Postal Service, “City Delivery.”
21 Ibid.
22 Mules deliver mail to homes at the bottom of the Grand Canyon five days per week. Information provided
electronically to the author by USPS on June 3, 2009.
23 P.L. 96-499; 94 Stat. 2607.
24 12 Stat. 701, Sec. 12.
25 U.S. Postal Service, “City Delivery.”
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid, p. 2.
28 U.S. Postal Service, “Deliveries Per Day,” at http://www.usps.com/postalhistory/_pdf/DeliveriesperDay.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

The 94th and 95th Congresses
Representative Tom Corcoran stated at a congressional hearing that the Postal Service took its
first formal step toward eliminating one delivery day per week in 1976 when it conducted a study
to examine the possible effects of such delivery reduction.29 That study, according to Corcoran,
was completed, but a formal proposal stemming from the study was not drafted. Instead, in 1977,
the congressionally created Commission on Postal Service (created in 1975) submitted to
Congress and the President a report that discussed the possibility of transitioning to five-day
delivery. The members of the congressional commission were divided on whether to recommend
eliminating a day of Postal Service delivery. The commission’s final report said that five of the
seven commissioners reluctantly recommended the reduction in delivery, but did not say which
day of the week would be the optimal day off.
While the Commission would prefer not to recommend a reduction in delivery standards, the
alternative of increased postal costs and rates causing volume declines is less acceptable.
The other alternative is to increase the public service appropriation to provide six-day
delivery. A majority of the Commission does not favor this course. We find that six-day
delivery, although convenient, is not considered essential by a great majority of our citizens
when compared with the costs of providing that service.30
According to the New York Times, the Postal Service had already been reducing a variety of
services and deliveries in early 1976 to cut rising costs.31 The New York Times reported that
Representative James M. Hanley, then-chairman of the House Postal Service Subcommittee,
called for “a moratorium on service cutbacks and rural office closings that were meant to save
money.”32 According to the article, Postmaster General Benjamin F. Bailar agreed to stop the
service cutbacks.
On July 12, 1977, Representative Charles H. Wilson introduced a resolution (H.Con.Res. 277)
that stated the Postal Service should not reduce its service delivery days. 33 On August 4, 1977,
the House Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service recommended the passage of the
resolution. On September 26, 1977, the resolution passed the House by a vote of 377 to 9.
H.Con.Res. 277 was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which took no
further action on the bill.34
On September 27, 1977, Representative John B. Breckenridge released a statement criticizing the
delivery cut, claiming it would “likely affect the people in rural American more than any other
group of postal customers” and “would eventually result in less delivery routes and less

29 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Six-Day Mail Delivery, Hearing, 95th Cong., 2nd
sess., January 12, 1978 (Washington: GPO, 1978), p. 405.
30 Commission on Postal Service, Report on the Commission on Postal Service, Volume 1 (Washington, DC: GPO,
April 1977), p. 50.
31 Ernest Holsendolph, “Postal Service is Warned Mail Cuts Jeopardize Aid,” The New York Times, March 27, 1976, p.
A1.
32 Ibid.
33 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Saturday Mail Delivery, H.Con.Res. 277, 95th
Cong., 1st sess., August 4, 1977, 95-568 (Washington: GPO, 1977).
34 Several identical versions of the resolution were introduced in the 95th Congress. H.Con.Res. 237 was selected
because it was the first resolution introduced.
Congressional Research Service
4

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

employment for rural carriers and other delivery employees at a time when unemployment is a
national problem.”35
A series of congressional hearings were held on six-day delivery from November 1977 through
March 1978. According to Representative Patricia Schroeder, who opened the hearings, the Postal
Service prompted the hearings by proposing a cut back in delivery service.36 Although the Postal
Service had made no formal indication that it supported the elimination of one service day, one
Member of Congress said that “statements made by postal officials indicate[d] they [were]
leaning toward making such a recommendation.”37
In all, Congress held 12 hearings in as many cities with more than 500 testimonies offered
between November and March. Those who testified included Members of Congress, union
representatives, editors and publishers, the general public, and representatives of the aging. Most
of those who testified did not support a reduction in Postal Service deliveries, finding such cuts a
“disservice”38 that could result in “possible delay in the receipt of welfare, social security, pension
checks, and so forth—the kind of mail that people receive … on weekends and through Saturday
mail.”39
In addition to concerns about mail delivery in general, much of the testimony framed the debate
over six-day delivery as a tension innately embedded in the mission of the Postal Service: is it a
profit-driven organization, or a public service? Representative Timothy E. Wirth stated at one
hearing that the six-day service was a “social value,” and that cutting a day of service at a time
when people were “losing some of their faith in what government can do for them” would
exacerbate their disillusionment.40
Thirteen bills were introduced in the 95th Congress (1977-1978) that would have affected Postal
Service delivery, but none were reported from committee.41
The 96th and 97th Congresses
In 1980, the House Committee on the Budget was expected to propose an $836 million reduction
in Postal Service appropriations for FY1981.42 According to Representative James M. Hanley, the
chairman of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the reduction in
appropriations would have eliminated “all of the public service appropriations” and other

35 The Honorable John B. Breckingridge, “Statement on the Proposed Five Day Home Delivery,” press release,
September 27, 1977. For a copy of the statement, contact the author.
36 The hearings were a collection of relatively small, informal hearings held around the country.
37 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Six-day Mail Delivery, p. 137.
38 Testimony of Melvin Schwartz, representative of Ads Advertising and Mail Service, ibid., p. 79.
39 Testimony of Joseph Sawyer, President of the Board of Directors of the Wynnefield Residents Association, ibid., p.
154.
40 Testimony of Representative Timothy E. Wirth, ibid., p. 5.
41 H.R. 5549; H.R. 6690; H.R. 7297; H.R. 7569; H.R. 7612; H.R. 7921; H.R. 7943; H.R. 8048; H.R. 8235; H.R. 8445;
H.R. 8609; H.R. 9043; and S. 651.
42 Testimony of Representative James M. Hanley, chairman of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Implications of Proposed Reductions in Postal Service
Appropriations
, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., April 17, 1980, S.Hrg. 96-80 (Washington: GPO, 1980), p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
5

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

subsidies for the Postal Service.43 At a March 26, 1980, hearing before the House Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service, then-Postmaster General William F. Bolger stated that eliminating
Saturday delivery was one option the Postal Service was considering to ensure its economic
stability in the face of the budget cuts. Bolger estimated the service reduction could result in the
elimination of 15,000 to 20,000 Postal Service jobs, but would save the Service about $588
million.44
The Washington Post quoted Bolger as saying the service cuts could be the “only one workable
alternative” for the Service as a result of anticipated cuts in federal subsidies.45 Congressional
Quarterly
reported that in response to the possible service day elimination, Postal Service
employees teamed with companies who would be affected by the change to form an ad hoc
coalition to lobby Members of Congress to block the service cut.46
Five bills related to Postal Service delivery days were introduced during the 96th Congress.47 Four
of the bills were not reported from committee;48 one bill, H.R. 79, passed the House and was
referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. No further action was taken on H.R.
79. In addition, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act included a provision affecting mail delivery. The
act (P.L. 96-499; 94 Stat. 2607), which was signed into law on December 5, 1980, included a
requirement that the Postal Service “take no action to reduce or to plan to reduce … the number
of days each week for regular mail delivery.” The statute expired on October 1, 1981. As noted
earlier, based on a review of legislative history, P.L. 96-499 appears to mark the first time
Congress required six-day delivery in statute.
In the 97th Congress, five other bills related to Postal Service delivery were introduced, but none
were reported from committee.49 In addition, the House-passed Treasury, Postal Service and
General Government Appropriation Act, FY1982 (H.R. 4121) contained a provision prohibiting
the Postal Service from using federal funds to implement a reduction in service. However, the bill
did not pass the Senate, and the continuing resolution Congress enacted (P.L. 97-92) to provide
the necessary funding for that year contains no explicit language that would have prohibited
USPS from reducing the number of delivery days.
While no six-day delivery requirement appears to be continued in appropriations legislation for
FY1982, a six-day delivery requirement was placed in appropriations legislation for FY1983. The
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 1983 (P.L. 97-377; 96 Stat. 1830) required the Postal

43 Ibid., p. 30.
44 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Implications of Proposed Reductions in Postal
Service Appropriations
, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., March 26, 1980, S.Hrg. 96-80 (Washington: GPO, 1980), p. 5. Bolger
estimated the savings for the first full year of implementation would be $683 million, but the Postal Service would have
to pay out one-time costs and unemployment benefits that would cut into the financial savings.
45 “Bolger Says Lower U.S. Postal Subsidies Likely to Mean 5-Day-a-Week Deliveries,” The Washington Post, April
2, 1980, p. 7. See also Direct Mail/Marketing Association, Inc.; and Peter C. Stuart, “Axing Saturday Mail Won’t Be
Easy,” The Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 1980, p. 3.
46 “Postal Workers, Business Organizing In Effort to Save Saturday Mail Delivery,” Congressional Quarterly, April
12, 1980, pp. 953-954.
47 H.R. 79; H.R. 2833; H.R. 7337; H.R. 7622; and H.R. 7876.
48 H.R. 2833; H.R. 7337; H.R. 7622; H.R. 7765; and H.R. 7876.
49 H.R. 172; H.R. 1275; H.R. 1997; H.R. 2492; and H.R. 3969. H.R. 3969 is not directly related to six-day delivery.
The bill would have required mail delivery to individual homes in certain housing developments where USPS instead
may deliver to centralized locations.
Congressional Research Service
6

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Service to “continue six-day delivery of mail and rural delivery of mail … at the 1982 level.” Six-
day delivery was assured through the end of FY1983.
The 1983 Standard
Since 1984, Congress annually has placed language in appropriations legislation requiring the
Postal Service to provide “six-day delivery … at the 1983 level.”50 Why Congress cites 1983 as
the touchstone year for USPS delivery service is uncertain. It is also unclear what 1983 delivery
levels are. The Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), an independent agency that exercises
regulatory oversight, wrote in a December 2008 report that its “meaning and application are
problematic”51 because “several interpretations [of the mandate] are possible.”52
For example, the rider could be interpreted to mean that all cities, towns, and rural areas that
received 6-day delivery at any time during 1983 must continue to receive 6-day delivery and
that cities, towns, and rural areas that did not receive 6-day delivery in 1983 or were served
for the first time after 1983 do not have the receive 6-day delivery service today. Another
possible interpretation is that the same percentage of customers that received 6-day delivery
in 1983 should continue to receive 6-day delivery today. As a result of demographic changes,
under either interpretation, the actual addresses receiving 6-day delivery service could be
substantially different today than it was in 1983.53
In 2008, the ambiguity of the delivery provision led the PRC to conclude that “the Postal Service
exercises considerable flexibility in determining how it delivers the mail.”54 USPS stated in its
own 2008 report on its service obligations that it would like Congress to remove the six-day
service provision requirement to allow “flexibility to meet future needs for delivery frequency, in
accordance with a careful balancing of various considerations.”55
The Economics of USPS
The U.S. Postal Service generates nearly all of its funding—about $74.8 billion annually—by
charging users of the mail for the costs of its services.56 Congress does provide an annual
appropriation of approximately $100 million to compensate USPS for revenue it forgoes in
providing free mailing privileges to the blind and overseas voters, and for other purposes.57 Over
the past eight years, USPS has experienced a significant shift in the composition of its mail

50 See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Title V, P.L. 110-161; 121 Stat. 1844 (2007).
51 Ibid, p. 20.
52 U.S. Postal Service, Report on Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, (Washington, DC: USPS,
October 2008), p. 29.
53 Ibid., pg. 29, footnote 8.
54 Ibid., pg. 29.
55 U.S. Postal Service, Report on Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, p. 21.
56 United States Postal Service, Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service 2008 (Washington, DC: USPS, 2008), p. 3.
57 See CRS Report RL34523, Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2009 Appropriations,
coordinated by Garrett Hatch. Free mailing privileges do not extend to Congress. Instead, Congress pays the Postal
Service for franked and other congressional mail by way of an annual appropriation for the legislative branch. For more
information on franking, see CRS Report RS22771, Congressional Franking Privilege: Background and Current
Legislation
, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
Congressional Research Service
7

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

volume. The largest product profit margin is created by First Class Mail sales, which have been in
decline since 2000. USPS, therefore, has to rely more heavily on Standard Mail sales, which
consist mainly of advertising mail.
Standard and First Class Mail
In 2008, 49% of all mail volume was Standard Mail, a USPS classification for items that weigh
fewer than 16 ounces, and includes printed matter, flyers, circulars, advertising, newsletters,
bulletins, catalogs, and small parcels.58 Any item can be delivered as First Class Mail, which is
more expensive to send than Standard Mail. Certain items must be mailed First Class—including
handwritten or typewritten material, bills, statements of account or invoices, credit cards, personal
correspondence, personalized business correspondence, and all matter sealed against inspection.59
First Class Mail comprised 45% of all mail volume.
As stated earlier, since 2000, First Class Mail volume has steadily declined. In 2005, for the first
time in USPS history, the amount of Standard Mail exceeded that of First Class Mail (see Figure
1
). Because it is sold at a higher price and costs roughly the same for USPS to deliver,60 First
Class Mail provides the Postal Service with a higher profit per piece of mail.

58 U.S. Postal Service, “Business Mail 101, Classes of Mail: Standard Mail,” at http://www.usps.com/businessmail101/
classes/standard.htm.
59 USPS, Domestic Mail Manual, 133 Prices and Eligibility, Section 3.0, at http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/133.htm.
60 First Class Mail can cost more to deliver if USPS must forward the mail to a different address if, for example, a
resident has moved.
Congressional Research Service
8

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Figure 1. Volume of Mail by Class, 2002-2008
120,000
Standard Mail Sales
100,000
First Class Mail
Sales

80,000
)
me
s
lu
n
o

60,000
Vo
s

Milli
le
(In
Sa
40,000
20,000
Other Sales
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Source: CRS calculations using data from U.S. Postal Service, Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service (Washington:
USPS, 2004-2008).
Note: “Other Mail” includes additional USPS mail categories, including Priority Mail, Express Mail, international
mail, and package services.
Both First Class Mail and Standard Mail declined in volume between 2007 and 2008 (Figure 1).
First Class Mail volume dropped by 4.6 billion pieces, and Standard Mail dropped by 4.432
billion pieces between 2007 and 2008.61 In 2008, Standard Mail generated 28% ($20.6 billion) of
USPS’s total revenue (Figure 2), and made up 49% of the 203 billion mail pieces delivered
(Figure 3).

61 U.S. Postal Service, Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service (Washington, USPS, 2008), p. 31.
Congressional Research Service
9

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Figure 2. USPS Revenue Percentages by Mail Class, 2008
Other
22%
First
Class Mail
Standard
51%
Mail
28%

Source: Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service (Washington, USPS, 2008). Numbers may not add to 100%
because of rounding.
Figure 3. Composition of Mail by Class, 2008
Other
6%
First Class
Mail
Standard
45%
Mail
49%

Source: Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service (Washington, USPS, 2008).
The USPS annual report’s financial projections anticipate a revenue increase of 1%-2% for
FY2009, but a 3%-4% decrease in volume. The revenue increase was expected because of
“anticipated price increases.”62 Although USPS anticipated that Standard Mail sales and revenue
would continue to grow,63 the first two quarters of 2009 show a loss of Standard Mail volume.

62 Ibid., p. 44.
63 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling Initiatives and Possible
Opportunities for Improvement
, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June 2008.
Congressional Research Service
10

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Sales of Standard Mail have dropped 19.8% (5 billion pieces) in the second quarter of 2009 when
compared to the same quarter in 2008.64 New financial projections estimate USPS will process
between 20 and 25 billion fewer pieces of mail in FY2009 than it did in FY2008 and revenues
will drop $6 million from the previous year.65 Furthermore, USPS does not anticipate mail
volume increases in 2010.66 Continued reduction in Standard Mail volume—for example, volume
losses caused by the enactment of Do Not Mail initiatives or a decline in advertising sales
prompted by the economic downturn—could lead to greater revenue losses for USPS.67
As the volume of First Class Mail has dropped, USPS has increased the postage rate. However, as
Figure 4 shows, revenue for First Class Mail remained relatively constant.68 Meanwhile USPS’s
annual operating costs have increased. Standard Mail revenue, on the other hand, grew from more
than $15.8 billion in FY2002 to nearly $20.6 billion in FY2008.69 Figure 4 also shows USPS
projections for FY2009 in which costs are reduced by $5.9 billion, but revenues decline by $6
billion, leaving the Service with a budget shortfall nearly identical to that of FY2008.


64 U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Quarterly Financial Report Index, Form 10-Q, quarterly period
ended March 31, 2009, p. 17.
65 Ibid., pp. 24-25
66 Ibid., p. 23.
67 According to congressional testimony by USPS Postmaster General John E. Potter, the current economic slump in
the global and national economies has “made [USPS] far more sensitive to downturns in the economic cycle, as
advertising spending is extremely vulnerable to periods of retrenchment.” Testimony of U.S. Postmaster General John
E. Potter in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act
, hearing on the implementation of P.L. 109-435, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., March 5,
2008.
68 First Class mail revenue remained relatively constant through FY2008. In the first two quarters of FY2009, however,
USPS announced a decrease of $762 million prompted by a reduction of volume of 7.2 billion pieces of mail when
compared to the same quarter in FY2008. See U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Quarterly Financial
Report Index, Form 10-Q
, quarterly period ended March 31, 2009.
69 As noted earlier, revenues from Standard Mail have decreased in FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
11

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Figure 4. USPS Revenue, 2002-2008 and 2009 Projected
$90
$80
Total Costs
Total Revenue
$70
$60
Projected

rs $50
ns
lla
lio
Do $40
First Class Mail Revenue
Bil
of
$30
$20
Standard Mail Revenue
$10
Other Revenue
$0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009

Source: CRS calculations using data from U.S. Postal Service, Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service (Washington:
USPS, 2004-2008). Projected revenues come from U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Quarterly
Financial Report Index, Form 10-Q, quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, p. 25.
Note: “Other” includes USPS revenue from the sales of Priority Mail, Express Mail, international mail, and
package services.
Operating Costs
As USPS operating costs have increased steadily, revenue has not kept pace (Table 1). In 2008,
USPS experienced a $2.8 billion loss in revenue—$2.6 billion less than the $5.3 billion loss for
2007.
Congressional Research Service
12

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Table 1. Revenue, Operating Costs, and Sales Volume
by Mail Class for USPS, 2002-2008 and 2009 Projected
(in millions)
Projected

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
Revenue








First
Class
Mail
$36,483 $37,048 $36,377 $36,062 $37,605 $38,405 $38,179
N/A
Standard
Mail
$15,819 $17,231 $18,123 $18,953 $19,876 $20,779 $20,586
N/A
Other
$14,161 $14,250 $14,496 $14,892 $15,734 $16,435 $16,167
N/A
Total Operating
$66,463 $68,529 $68,996 $69,907 $72,650 $74,778 $74,932
$68,932
Revenue
Operating Costs
$65,234 $63,902 $65,851 $68,281 $71,681 $80,105 $77,738
$71,838
(Loss) Income from
$1,229 $4,627 $3,145 $1,626 $969 ($5,327) ($2,806) ($2,906)
Operations
Sales Volume








First
Class
Mail
102,379 99,059 97,926 98,071 97,617 95,898 91,697
N/A
Standard Mail
87,231
90,492
95,640
100,942 102,460 103,516
99,084
N/A
Other

13,212 12,634 12,616 12,730 13,061 12,820 11,922
N/A
Total
Sales
Volume
202,822 202,185 206,106 211,743 213,138 212,234 202,703 177,703
-
182,703
Source: Annual Report of the U.S. Postal Service (Washington: USPS 2004-2008). Projected revenues come from
U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Quarterly Financial Report Index, Form 10-Q, quarterly period ended
March 31, 2009, pp. 24-25.
Note: Other includes USPS revenue related to Priority Mail, Express Mail, international mail, and package
services.
A June 3, 2008, GAO report found USPS’s $5.3 billion shortfall in FY2007 was largely caused by
advance payments into a fund for future retiree health benefits.70 At a March 5, 2008,
congressional oversight hearing, USPS Postmaster General John Potter stated that the service was
already attempting to cut costs by reducing “expenditures for supplies, services and other non-
personnel expenses.”71 USPS employees are not receiving as much overtime pay, and the service
is “selling unused or under-utilized postal facilities.”72
According to Postmaster General Potter, USPS has reduced annual costs by $1 billion since 2002,
significantly reduced the workforce through attrition, held off on construction of a variety of new

70 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Postal Service: Mail-Related Recycling Initiatives and Possible
Opportunities for Improvement, GAO Report GAO-08-599, June 2008, p. 1.
71 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Postal Accountability
Enhancement Act
, hearing on the implementation of P.L. 109-435, 110th Cong, 2nd sess., (Washington: GPO, March 5,
2008). According USPS, 150,000 employees have been offered early retirement options (more than 20% of the total
USPS workforce). See U.S. Postal Service, “Postal Service Continues Aggressive Steps to Cut Costs,” press release
March 20, 2009, at http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_028.htm.
72 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
13

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

facilities, and frozen salaries for those in the Service’s executive ranks. In addition, Potter stated
that he is in the process of reducing executive level employees by 15%.73
Despite these reductions, in FY2008, USPS reported a $2.8 billion dollar loss and a drop in mail
volume of 9.5 billion pieces.74 The first quarter of FY2009 showed continued economic erosion,
with a $380 million loss over three months.75 USPS anticipates an even larger drop in mail
volume (10 to 15 billion fewer pieces than in FY2008, a 4.9%-7.4% drop in volume) and revenue
in FY2009.76 As noted earlier, in the second quarter of FY2009, both volume and revenue
dropped when compared with the same quarter in FY2008. Despite a rise in the prices of products
and services of 2.9% (on average), revenues dropped 10.5% from the same three-month period in
FY2008.77 Sales of First Class Mail and Standard Mail were down 7.2 billion pieces in the second
quarter of FY2009 when compared to the same time in FY2008.78
Budget shortfalls, declining sales volume, and vacillating fuel prices have prompted USPS to
discuss ways to close the budget gap. Among these options was reducing the number of delivery
days, which has proven to be controversial.
Studies on Six-Day Delivery
Since 1976, Congress, the Postal Service, and other entities have conducted studies on the
possible effects of changing USPS delivery days. The studies have a variety of conclusions, but
all find that USPS would save considerable money if delivery were reduced to five days. Table 2
includes five studies that examined the possibility of USPS transitioning to five-day delivery.
Table 2. Studies That Examined the Possible Transition to Five-Day Delivery at USPS
Estimated Money Saved if
USPS Moved to Five-Day
Report
Year Delivery
Key Points and Study Limitations
Report of the
1977 More
than
$400
million annually
• Did not factor in a possible loss in
Congressional
sales volume
Commission on Postal
Service
• Did not factor in a possible
reduction in workforce

73 Testimony of John E. Potter in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International
Security, Impact of the Financial Crisis on the U.S. Postal Service, 111th Cong., 1st sess., January 28, 2009, at
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=ce8899e6-d08e-4d07-a6df-
6aecebc9c12e.
74 U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Postal Service Quarterly Financial Report Index, Form 10-Q, February 9, 2009, p. 8.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid., p. 24.
77 U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Postal Service Quarterly Financial Report Index, Form 10-Q, p. 17.
78 Ibid., p. 18.
Congressional Research Service
14

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Estimated Money Saved if
USPS Moved to Five-Day
Report
Year Delivery
Key Points and Study Limitations
Report of the 1980 Task
1980 $588
million in the first full year of
• Acknowledged, but did not
Force
implementation, and up to $1
calculate a loss in sales volume
billion annually in future years
• Had concerns about how five-day
delivery would affect speed of
service on remaining delivery days
• Did not factor in a possible
reduction in workforce
Report of the President’s
2003 Up
to
$1.9
billion annually
• Did not factor in a possible loss in
Commission on Postal
sales volume
Service
• Did not factor in a possible
reduction in workforce
• Stated that if mail volume continues
to decline, eliminating a delivery
day should be reconsidered
USPS Report on Universal
2008 $3.5
billion annually
• Acknowledged, but did not factor
Postal Service and the
in a loss in sales volume
Postal Monopoly
• Did not factor in a possible
reduction in workforce
PRC Universal Service
2008 $1.93
billion annually
• Anticipated $1.57 billion in reduced
Obligation Report
volume if a delivery day were
eliminated
• Did not factor in a possible
reduction in workforce
Source: U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear
Proliferation, and Federal Services, Evaluation of the Report of the Commission on Postal Service, 95th Cong., 2nd sess.,
May 2, 1977, S.Hrg. 94-180 (Washington: GPO, 1977); Five-Day Delivery Task Force Report/Operations, May 19,
1980; Report of the President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service, Embracing the Future: Making
Touch Choices to Preserve Universal Mail Service, Washington, DC, July 31, 2003; U.S. Postal Service, Report on the
Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, October 2008; and U.S. Postal Regulatory Commission, Report on
the Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, December 19, 2008. Key points and limitations are determined
by CRS analysis.
Notes: Dollar values are not modified to reflect inflation.
Congressional Commission on Postal Service
On September 24, 1976, an act (P.L. 94-421; 90 Stat. 1307) creating the Commission on Postal
Service to examine the Postal Service and offer possible solutions to its economic woes was
signed into law. At a multi-day hearing of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Federal Services in May and June of 1977,
several members of the commission discussed their findings. According to the committee’s
chairman, Gaylord Freeman, the Postal Service was struggling to keep up with rising labor costs.
The commission suggested four possible actions that could help USPS remain financially stable:
1. Increase the Postal Service efficiency, if possible
2. Substantially increase postal rates
Congressional Research Service
15

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

3. Substantially increase appropriations
4. Reduce the levels of service79
Freeman went on to call six-day delivery an “extravagance” that is “taken for granted,” noting
that “the average family no longer expects its groceries, its milk, or its medical services to be
delivered to the home.”80 Freeman continued, “[i]f the costs of delivery of the mail were charged
directly to the recipient, the public would probably not care to pay for the elaborate delivery
system which it now enjoys.81 The committee estimated that eliminating six-day service in rural
areas would save USPS more than $400 million annually.82
The committee’s vice chairman, James Rademacher, disagreed with the commission’s
recommendation to eliminate six-day delivery. Instead, he said that the commission’s study only
examined what the Postal Service would save, and did not acknowledge that the change in
delivery services could affect senior citizens relying on the delivery of their Social Security
checks or farmers who need agricultural projections that are sent through the mail.83 Rademacher
also noted that moving to five-day delivery could jeopardize the job security of more than 20,000
Postal Service letter carriers, and possibly more than 90,000 postal employees overall.84
The 1980 Task Force
On March 25, 1980, Postmaster General William F. Bolger established a task force to analyze the
possible effects of moving from a six- to a five-day delivery schedule. The task force conducted a
study, which consisted of telephone interviews of 320 major mailers and 13 selected industries
and government agencies. It found that moving to five-day delivery could save $588 million in
the first full year of implementation.85 The savings were estimated to “exceed $1 billion annually
in future years.”86
With the cost savings, however, were predicted increases in other stresses for the Postal Service,
like loss of patrons to private mailing services or adverse effects on “the levels of service
provided to mail on the remaining delivery days.”87 In spite of the projected cost and fuel savings,
the task force stopped short of endorsing a reduction in delivery service, saying “[t]he potential
cost reduction is extremely attractive; but it is clear that the risks to service and future postal
revenues are high.”88

79 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and
Federal Services, Evaluation of the Report of the Commission on Postal Service, 95th Cong., 2nd sess., May 2, 1977,
S.Hrg. 94-180 (Washington: GPO, 1977), p. 4.
80 Ibid., p. 5.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid., p. 8.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid., p. 9. The number of jobs lost were estimated over several years and would not be attributed to one year of
Postal Service delivery reduction.
85 Five-Day Delivery Task Force Report/Operations, May 19, 1980. For a copy of the report, contact the author.
86 Ibid., p. 8.
87 Ibid., p. 8.
88 Ibid., p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
16

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

The task force recommended a 12- to 18-month planning period if any action to move to five-day
delivery was to be made. No such planning period occurred. In addition, the task force suggested
that if five-day delivery were to occur, Saturday should be the eliminated day because it “will not
greatly affect the majority of … business mailers.”89
The President’s Commission on the Postal Service
In 2003, the President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service, created by President
George W. Bush, anticipated an “unstable financial outlook” for USPS.90 The commission,
however, adamantly rejected any action that would reduce delivery days to five.
The Commission firmly recommends continuing the Postal Service’s current Monday
through Saturday delivery regimen. While the Postal Service could save as much as $1.9
billion (less than 3% of its annual budget) by reducing its delivery schedule by one day a
week, its value to the nation’s economy would suffer. Beyond the universal reach of the
nation’s postal network, the regularity of pick-up and delivery is an essential element of its
worth in the current climate. Elimination of Saturday delivery, for example, could make the
mail less attractive to business mailers and advertisers who depend upon reaching their target
audience on that day. In addition, given the volume of mail the nation sends each day,
scaling back to a five-day delivery regimen could create difficult logistics, mail flow, and
storage problems.91
While the report advised continuing six-day service, the commission noted that increasing use of
electronic mail was leading to “a reduction in the demand for mail services” that could lead to a
“relaxation of the six-day delivery requirement” in the future.92
The report concluded that “[i]f that time does arrive, the Commission believes that the Postal
Service should have flexibility to adapt with the changing postal needs of the nation.”93
The USPS and Postal Regulatory Commission Studies of 2008
In 2008, two studies on USPS delivery obligations were conducted—one by the PRC and another
by USPS.94 The USPS study determined that the elimination of a delivery day could save the
Service $3.5 billion per year.95 The PRC study estimated the savings at $1.93 billion. The lower
total estimated savings of the PRC study was anticipated because of an expected loss in sales
volume.

89 Ibid., p. 7.
90 Report of the President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service, Embracing the Future: Making Touch
Choices to Preserve Universal Mail Service
(Washington, DC: GPO July 31, 2003), p. vii, at http://treas.gov/offices/
domestic-finance/usps/pdf/freport.pdf.
91 Ibid., p. 28.
92 Ibid., p. 29.
93 Ibid.
94 U.S. Postal Service, Report on the Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly; and U.S. Postal Regulatory
Commission, Report on the Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly.
95 This study did not consider any fluctuation in fuel costs, nor did it include possible volume reductions prompted by
the reduction in service days.
Congressional Research Service
17

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

The USPS study does not state whether it endorses continuation of six-day delivery. The PRC
study, however, did state a need for USPS to have flexibility in determining is delivery
obligations.
Delivery mode could be explicitly defined to protect the public interest by ensuring a
uniform level of service across the Nation. However, the Postal Service has throughout its
history used flexibility in delivery mode to accommodate budgetary restrictions. Any
determination by Congress of delivery mode should balance the public interest in a universal
standard of delivery against the need for the Postal Service to be flexible to contain costs.96
The 111th Congress
Hearings
Early in the 111th Congress, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal
Services, and International Security, held a hearing entitled “The Impact of the Economic Crisis
on the U.S. Postal Service.” At that hearing, Postmaster General John E. Potter “reluctantly”
requested “that Congress remove the annual appropriation bill rider, first added in 1983, that
requires the Postal Service to deliver mail six days each week.”97
[I]t is possible that the cost of six-day delivery may simply prove to be unaffordable. If that
should occur, it could become necessary to temporarily reduce mail delivery to only five
days a week. We would do this by suspending delivery on the lightest volume days. … Any
such action would be taken under the direction of our Board of Governors and only when
absolutely warranted by financial circumstances. Were we to do so, we would make every
effort to maximize the benefits to our customers while minimizing any disruption to our
mailers.98
During the question-and-answer period at the hearing, Potter said that USPS would not likely
have six-day delivery in the future because of changes in mail volume, much of which is related
to increasing use of electronic mail services.
PRC Chairman Dan G. Blair also addressed the possibility of eliminating six-day delivery at the
hearing, calling such action a “double-edged sword.” He noted that moving to a five-day delivery
schedule could save billions of dollars annually for the Postal Service, but he was unsure whether
the move would “exacerbate the already declining mail volumes.”99 Blair said that even if
Congress removed the six-day delivery provision from appropriations legislation, existing statutes
would require USPS to gain approval from the PRC in order to change the delivery schedule. He

96 U.S. Postal Regulatory Commission, Report on Universal Postal Service and the Postal Monopoly, p. 184.
97 Statement of U.S. Postmaster General John E. Potter in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal
Services, and International Security, Impact of the Financial Crisis on the U.S. Postal Service, 111th Cong., 1st sess.,
January 28, 2009, at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=ce8899e6-
d08e-4d07-a6df-6aecebc9c12e.
98 Ibid.
99 Testimony of Dan G. Blair, ibid., at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/BlairStatementt.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

also said that if USPS sought PRC approval, the commission would collect public comments
before rendering a determination.
At the hearing, Senator Susan Collins stated that service cutbacks would lead to “an even bigger
drop” in mail volume that could lead to a “death spiral” for USPS.100
On March 25, 2009, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia held a hearing
on the financial stability of the U.S. Postal Service. At the hearing, Potter again asked for
flexibility for USPS to determine its delivery days.101 Carolyn Gallagher, chairperson of the USPS
Board of Directors, concurred.
Adjusting our delivery network makes good business sense given the falling demand for our
products and services. On a daily basis, the Postal Service is delivering fewer pieces of mail
to each address we serve. The reality is that the reduced volume no longer produces enough
revenue to pay for the cost of six-day delivery to the 150 million households and businesses
that make up our delivery network.102
Phillip Herr, director of physical infrastructure issues at GAO, testified at the hearing that USPS
had “provided little information on where it would reduce delivery frequency, and the potential
impact on cost, mail volume, revenue, and mail users.”103
Because the number of delivery days is fundamental to universal service, Congress should
have more complete information before it considers any statutory changes in this area. A
mechanism to obtain such information would be for USPS to request an advisory opinion
from PRC, which would lead to a public proceeding that could generate information on
USPS’s request and stakeholder input.104
At a May 20, 2009, hearing before the House Committee on Government Oversight’s
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, the Postal Service and the District of Columbia, Herr
reiterated the need for Congress to have a more thorough analysis of the effects of delivery
reduction, adding that five-day delivery “could affect time-sensitive payments, correspondence,
advertising, or packages.”105

100 Comments of Senator Susan M. Collins, ibid. A similar statement can be found in U.S. Senator Susan Collins,
“Senator Collins Criticizes U.S. Postal Service for Proposing Elimination of Services,” press release, January 28, 2009,
http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=22d3f0b2-
802a-23ad-47be-7a88b075995c&Region_id=&Issue_id=&CFID=15709811&CFTOKEN=35683692.
101 Testimony of John E. Potter in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia, Restoring the Financial Stability of the
U.S. Postal Service
, March 25, 2009, 111th Cong., 1st sess., at http://federalworkforce.oversight.house.gov/documents/
20090325092625.pdf.
102 Testimony of Carolyn Gallagher, ibid., at http://federalworkforce.oversight.house.gov/documents/
20090325091804.pdf.
103 Testimony of Phillip Herr, ibid., at http://federalworkforce.oversight.house.gov/documents/20090325092707.pdf.
104 Ibid.
105 Testimony of Phillip Herr, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee
on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia, Nip and Tuck: The Impact of Current Cost Cutting
Efforts on Postal Service Operations and Network
, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 20, 2009, at
http://federalworkforce.oversight.house.gov/documents/20090520142743.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

At that same hearing, Committee Chairman Stephen F. Lynch stated that “[t]he only way” the
committee would “embrace” a move to five-day delivery would be when “we have no other
choice, and we're getting to that point.”106 Representative Jason Chaffetz echoed Mr. Lynch’s
hesitance to move to five-day delivery, but added he would consider a mixture of public funding
and delivery reduction that could help USPS’s economic condition.
At the hearing, William Galligan, vice president of operations at USPS, said that a move to five-
day delivery was inevitable and “an appropriate response to sobering realities.” Later Galligan
added that there simply was not enough demand for six-day mail delivery to continue.107
Legislation
On February 13, 2009, Representative Sam Graves introduced H.Res. 173 that, if passed, would
express that it is the sense of the House that six-day mail delivery continue:
Whereas Social Security is the primary or sole source of income for many senior citizens,
and any delay in the delivery of their Social Security checks would make it difficult for them
to purchase even essential items, such as food and medicine; and
Whereas reducing mail delivery service to 5 days a week would inevitably cause not only
delays in the delivery of mail, but higher postal costs, due to the many hours of additional
overtime that the Postal Service would require in order to handle the resulting back-up of
mail; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Postal
Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation of its 6-day mail
delivery service.
International Comparisons
Other countries’ mail services have a variety of delivery schedules. Royal Mail, which delivers
mail in the United Kingdom (UK), reportedly contemplated eliminating Saturday delivery in
2008 because of economic concerns.108 Despite these concerns, Royal Mail, which maintains six-
day delivery, generated £177 million (roughly $260 million USD) in profit in the first half of
2008.109 This profit margin was aided by a £150 million (roughly $233 million USD) “Social
Network Payment” from the national government that is used to continue services at Post Office
branches that do not generate a profit. In addition, Royal Mail has also moved from full-time to
part-time employment for many workers, streamlined spending on information technology, and
added new products.110

106 Statement of Representative Stephen F. Lynch, ibid.
107 Testimony of William Galligan, ibid.
108 Harry Wallop, “Royal Mail Cuts May End Saturday Post,” The Telegraph, May 10, 2008.
109 Royal Mail Holdings Plc, Trading Update for the Half Year Ended 28 September 2008, p. 1, at
ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rmg/200809_Trading_Statement.pdf.
110 Ibid., p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
20

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Unlike Royal Mail, Canada Post offers letter carrier services five days per week and does not
deliver mail or parcels on most Saturdays.111 Canada Post is a Crown Corporation that is owned
by the government but free from many federal regulations. The entity, however, must report
operations and revenues to an appointed minister.112 Canada Post, which receives no national
appropriation, paid the Canadian government $720 million ($670 million USD) in taxes in 2008
and generated $54 million (roughly $46 million USD) in profit after taxes.113 Unlike USPS,
however, Canada Mail contracts out much of its rural delivery service. Table 3 includes the mail
services of a selected group of countries around the world and shows how many days per week
they make deliveries as well as offers additional information about the service’s structure and
operations.
Table 3. Number of Mail Delivery Days Per Week, By Country
(in 2009)
Number of Delivery Days Per
Country
Week
Structure and Operations
Australia (Australia Post)
5
Quasi-governmental entity, known as
a Government Business Enterprise,
that is governed by a variety of
statutes.
Canada (Canada Post)
5
Canada Post is quasi-governmental
entity, known as a Crown
Corporation, that is owned by the
government, but free from certain
governmental regulations.
France (La Poste)
6
La Poste is a state-owned company.
It eliminated Sunday delivery in 1941.
Germany (Deutsche Post DHL)
6
Deutsche Post DHL is a private
company, which owns DHL—one of
the largest global private mail and
package delivery companies.
Deutsche Post offers Saturday
delivery for an additional fee.
The Netherlands (TNT)
6
TNT is a private entity that is the
largest mail carrier in The
Netherlands, but also operates
globally.
New Zealand (New Zealand Post)
5 (in certain areas)
New Zealand Post is a state-owned
enterprise. Customers outside of
rural areas can pay extra for
Saturday deliveries, but parcels
cannot be mailed on Saturdays to
any location.

111 Information provided by telephone to author by Canada Post on April 28, 2009. Saturday services are offered in late
November and throughout December when the holiday season prompts greater use of the Post’s delivery services.
Additionally, some Canada Post offices and service windows are open on Saturdays if they are located within
businesses that have Saturday hours, like a pharmacy.
112 Canada Post, About Us: Corporate Governance, at http://canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/aboutus/corporate/governance/
default.jsf.
113 Canada Post, About Us: Fast Facts, at http://www.canadapost.ca/cpo/mc/aboutus/corporate/fastfacts.jsf.
Congressional Research Service
21

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Number of Delivery Days Per
Country
Week
Structure and Operations
Sweden (Posten)
5
In 2008, Posten—formerly a
government –owned company—
merged with Post Danmark (of
Denmark) and CVC Capital
Partners (a private entity). The
merger makes the two governments
and the private entity shared
owners.
United Kingdom (Royal Mail)
6
Royal Mail is a public limited
company that is wholly owned by
the government. Standard Parcels
are not delivered on Saturdays.
Source: U.S. Postal Service, A Strategic Review of Progressive Postal Administrations: Competition, Commercialization,
and Deregulation, February, 1995. Available in U.S. Congress, joint hearing between the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs’ Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service and the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight’s Subcommittee on Postal Service, United States Postal Service Reform: The
International Experience, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., January 25, 1996, S.Hrg. 104-442 (Washington: GPO, 1996).
Information on 2009 comes from a variety of sources. Australia Post provided the information electronically to
the author on May 12, 2009. Canada Post provided information to the author by telephone on April 28, 2009. La
Poste, which serves France, provides information at http://www.laposte.com/parcels-and-express?lang=en. TNT,
which is The Netherlands largest deliverer of mail, provided information to the author electronically on May 13,
2009. Deutsche Post DHL provided information electronical y to the author on May 13, 2009. Information on
New Zealand Post is available at http://www.nzpost.co.nz/Cultures/en-NZ/OnlineTools/Ratefinder/LettersNZ.
The Swedish Post Group provided information electronical y to the author on May 12,2009. information on the
merger with Post Danmark and CVC Capital Partners can be found at http://www.cvc.com/Content/En/
MediaCentre/PressRelease.aspx?PRID=144. Royal Mail provides information at http://www.royalmail.com/portal/
rm/jump2?catId=400028&mediaId=400030&keyname=2CLASS and http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/jump2?
catId=400028&mediaId=400029&keyname=1CLASS.
On January 25, 1996, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs’ Subcommittee on Post
Office and Civil Service and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight’s
Subcommittee on Postal Service held a joint hearing.114 At the hearing, USPS unveiled a study on
mail delivery services around the world.
Michael E. Motley, associate director of government business operation issues at the General
Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office), testified that Canada Post
offered the United States its best case study comparison “because of its proximity to the United
States and its similarities in geographic size, business environment, and market-oriented
economic systems.”115 Despite the similarities between Canada Post and USPS, however, Motley
said “Canada Post has about 6 percent of the U.S. Postal Service’s mail volume and about 6
percent of its number of employees.”116 Motley stated that the vast size and volume differences
between the United States and the other countries could make successful actions taken in other
countries impossible to implement in the United States. Motley added, however, that “issues

114 U.S. Congress, joint hearing between the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs’ Subcommittee on Post
Office and Civil Service and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight’s Subcommittee on Postal
Service, United States Postal Service Reform: The International Experience, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., January 25, 1996,
S.Hrg. 104-442 (Washington: GPO, 1996).
115 Testimony of Michael E. Motley, ibid. Also available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96060t.pdf.
116 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
22

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

surrounding the extent and quality of universal mail service, e.g., delivery to all communities 6
days a week, could surface in this country as they have in some other countries.”117
Analysis
Arguably, USPS remains a vital asset for communication across the United States. The Service
delivers mail to millions of homes six days per week. With current economic hardships and a
reduction in volume of more lucrative USPS products, the Service is struggling economically.
One option to reduce the economic stresses on USPS is to reduce service delivery from six days
per week to five days per week.
Despite repeated requests to eliminate the six-day delivery requirement, USPS officials have said
that reducing the number of delivery days is not their preferred option to bridge the revenue
shortage.118 Among the cost-cutting options preferred by USPS are obtaining flexibility from
Congress to pay less into the fund for future retiree benefits (H.R. 22 offers this as an option),
obtaining flexibility from Congress to raise the price of stamps and other services higher than
currently permitted by law, closing less-used post offices and distribution facilities, and obtaining
additional appropriations from Congress. Although there are a variety of options USPS could
pursue to reduce costs or increase revenue, this report addresses only the possible transition from
six- to five-day service.
Moving to five-day delivery is estimated to save USPS between $1.94 and $3.5 billion per year.
The difference in total estimated savings would depend on how much mail volume would drop as
a result of the service delivery reduction. The $1.94 billion in estimated cost savings for
eliminating a delivery day is $860 million less than the budget shortfall for FY2008 ($2.8 billion).
In the U.S. Postal Service Quarterly Financial Report Index, USPS stated that it does “not
anticipate being able to realize any savings in 2009 if five-day delivery were instituted, but the
service “would capture savings in future years.”119 A reduction in delivery days alone, therefore,
may not be sufficient to bridge existing or anticipated future budget gaps at USPS.
Continued Drop in Mail Volume
In 1977, the President’s Commission on Postal Service did not endorse a move to five-day
delivery, but stated that the possibility of such a transition should be revisited if mail volume
continued to shrink. A primary concern related to a move to five-day delivery has been the ability
of the Postal Service to provide services of the same quality on a five-day schedule that is

117 U.S. Congress, joint hearing between the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs’ Subcommittee on Post Office
and Civil Service and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight’s Subcommittee on Postal Service,
United States Postal Service Reform: The International Experience, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., January 25, 1996, S.Hrg.
104-442 (Washington: GPO, 1996), p. 257.
118 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Impact of the Financial
Crisis on the U.S. Postal Service
, testimony of John E. Potter, 111th Cong., 1st sess., January 28, 2009, at
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Detail&HearingID=ce8899e6-d08e-4d07-a6df-
6aecebc9c12e.
119 U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Quarterly Financial Report Index, Form 10-Q, quarterly period
ended March 31, 2009, p. 26.
Congressional Research Service
23

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

currently offered on a six-day schedule. Mail volume has dropped significantly in recent years,
largely because of electronic mail and electronic bill-paying options. Mail volume is expected to
continue its decline. Congress may choose to revisit the need for six-day delivery if the decline
does continue. With a decline in volume comes a decline in the number of mail pieces delivered
on each of the six delivery days. With mail volume in decline, concerns about overwhelming
volumes of mail needing delivery on the five remaining delivery days may be mitigated.
Customer Reliance on Six-day Delivery
Congress may choose to remove the six-day delivery provision from appropriation legislation and
grant USPS greater flexibility to eliminate delivery days if the Service finds such action to be
beneficial economically. Such flexibility would save USPS money in employee pay and fuel
costs.120 The action, however, may prompt fewer people to use USPS services and instead to opt
for private companies to deliver their mail. In addition, certain mail customers rely on six-day
delivery to receive vital mail or packages, like baby formula, social security checks, or climate
predictions. Slower receipt of such items may cause additional stresses to populations that are
already vulnerable, like the aged, the poor, or those who live in remote areas.
A January 30, 2009 Washington Post Article, reported that William Burrus, president of the
American Postal Workers Union, said the union would “vigorously resist any legislative attempt
to slash the number of days of delivery.” Mr. Burrus reportedly said that a five-day delivery
schedule “would stretch to three days when the additional day is combined with Sunday and a
Monday holiday. Such delays will drive essential mail to private carriers, who will continue to
deliver seven days a week.” 121
Congress could consider eliminating a delivery day while maintaining Saturday window service
at USPS post offices. If a postal patron needed to receive mail or a package on a day without
delivery service, USPS might be able to provide such services at a USPS location. This option
may be difficult for USPS because employees who work in post offices must have access to a
variety of mail and parcels that would normally be delivered to a patron’s home, office, post
office box, or other location. In addition, postal customers who, for medical or other reasons, are
unable to leave their homes would not be able to access postal services. Window service,
however, might assuage concerns from most customers who would seek access to mail or parcels
that normally would have been delivered on the sixth delivery day.
Which Day Would Be Eliminated?
If Congress decided to reduce the number of USPS delivery days, it may then choose to
determine which day of service should be eliminated. Previous studies have recommended the
elimination of Saturday delivery because it was the most cost effective option.122 Many
businesses that are closed on Saturdays would be unaffected by the elimination of Saturday
delivery. USPS has also stated that elimination of Wednesday delivery could be a possibility.123 If

120 USPS spent nearly $2.4 billion on fuel and oil in FY2008. U.S. Postal Service, “Make/Model and Component Cost
Report, National Summary for Quarter 4, FY08, September 2008,” Report AEL302P12, September 2008.
121 Joe Davidson, “Five-Day Mail Delivery? Not So Fast,” The Washington Post, January 30, 2009, p. D3.
122 Five-Day Delivery Task Force Report/Operations, May 19, 1980. For a copy of the report, contact the author.
123 Wednesday could be selected an a non-delivery day because its removal from the USPS work week because it is in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Saturday delivery were eliminated, on weeks that have Monday holidays, deliveries would not
occur for four consecutive days. Alternatively, as noted in the 1980 Task Force study, if
Wednesday delivery were eliminated, many businesses that would not be affected by the
elimination of Saturday delivery would be affected by the change.124
Congress could choose to adopt delivery practices similar to Canada Post, and have six-day
delivery only at specified, mail-heavy times of the year. Congress could opt to delegate authority
to USPS to shift from six- to five-day delivery as mail volume fluctuates throughout the year.
This option would allow USPS the ability to adjust to macroeconomic and seasonal influences
that affect mail volume. This delegation of authority, however, may cause confusion for USPS
customers who may be unaware of service changes and who rely on consistent USPS delivery
services.
Congress could grant USPS flexibility to charge more for Saturday delivery services, as is done in
New Zealand. Such action may allow USPS to operate on with a streamlined weekend staff,
thereby eliminating work hours and saving overhead costs. This option, however, could
negatively affect poorer populations that rely on Saturday delivery for prescriptions, monthly
stipends, or other mail or parcels. Many of the other methods foreign countries have used to
bridge their mail services’ economic gaps—like contracting out carrier service—would be
difficult to apply in the United States. Union contracts, geographic vastness, and other variables
may make USPS’s economic situation unique.
U.S. Postal Service and Public Expectations
A January 2009 Gallop/USA Today poll found that 57% of 1,027 people surveyed said they
would prefer to see a reduction in USPS services, like Saturday delivery, in lieu of other measures
such as increasing government funding (27% favored) or significant increases in stamp prices
(14% favored).125
Congress may determine that mail delivery is deeply embedded in America’s history. USPS
customers expect timely, consistent, and reliable delivery. Providing USPS with the flexibility to
vary its delivery schedule may confuse or frustrate customers who think of mail delivery as a
necessary public good. Such aggravation may prompt patrons to reflect negatively on the abilities
of the federal government to provide services to the public.
Congress may choose to continue placing the six-day delivery provision in appropriations
legislation. If six-day delivery continues, USPS would have to find other ways to increase
revenue or reduce delivery costs in order to bridge USPS’s recurring budget shortfall.

(...continued)
the middle of the week. As noted earlier, removing delivery on Saturday would cause some weeks with holidays on
Monday to have four consecutive days without mail delivery (Saturday through Monday).
124 Ibid.
125 Survey by USA Today and Gallup Organization, January 30-February 1, 2009. Retrieved April 23, 2009 from the
iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. Three percent of
respondents did not have an opinion. Numbers do not equal 100% due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
25

The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress

Author Contact Information

Wendy R. Ginsberg

Analyst in Government Organization and
Management
wginsberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-3933

Acknowledgments
Pamela Hairston and Jerry Mansfield, information research specialists, provided research that contributed
to the thorough history and current status of six-day delivery at USPS. Patricia Sue McClaughry, senior
graphics specialist, assisted in creating the graphs.



Congressional Research Service
26