“Preparing for the Quantum Age: When Cryptography Breaks”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                 THE ROUTE FORWARD FOR THE U.S. POSTAL5                   SERVICE: A VIEW FROM STAKEHOLDERS67=======================================================================89                                HEARING1011                               BEFORE THE1213                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT14                                OPERATIONS1516                                OF THE1718                        COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND19                             GOVERNMENT REFORM2021                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2223                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2425                             FIRST SESSION2627                               __________2829                             JUNE 24, 20253031                               __________3233                           Serial No. 119-363435                               __________3637Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform3839[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4041    Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov4243                                __________4445                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4660-815 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254748-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4950              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM5152                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman5354Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Robert Garcia, California, Ranking55Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member56Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of57Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia58Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois59Michael Cloud, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California60Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland61Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Shontel Brown, Ohio62Pete Sessions, Texas                 Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico63Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Maxwell Frost, Florida64Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Summer Lee, Pennsylvania65Pat Fallon, Texas                    Greg Casar, Texas66Byron Donalds, Florida               Jasmine Crockett, Texas67Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Emily Randall, Washington68William Timmons, South Carolina      Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia69Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Yassamin Ansari, Arizona70Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Wesley Bell, Missouri71Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Lateefah Simon, California72Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dave Min, California73Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts74Eric Burlison, Missouri              Rashida Tlaib, Michigan75Eli Crane, Arizona                   Vacancy76Brian Jack, Georgia77John McGuire, Virginia78Brandon Gill, Texas7980                                 ------8182                       Mark Marin, Staff Director83                   James Rust, Deputy Staff Director84                     Mitch Benzine, General Counsel85                      Bill Womack, Senior Advisor86               Lauren Hassett, Professional Staff Member87      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk8889                      Contact Number: 202-225-50749091                  Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director92                      Contact Number: 202-225-505193                                 ------9495                 Subcommittee On Government Operations9697                     Pete Sessions, Texas, Chairman9899Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Kweisi Mfume, Maryland, Ranking100Gary Palmer, Alabama                     Minority Member101Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of102Brian Jack, Georgia                      Columbia103Brandon Gill, Texas                  Maxwell Frost, Florida104                                     Emily Randall, Washington105106                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S107108                              ----------109110                           OPENING STATEMENTS111112                                                                   Page113114Hon. Pete Sessions, U.S. Representative, Chairman................     1115116Hon. Kweisi Mfume, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member...........     2117118                               WITNESSES119120Mr. Jim Cochrane, CEO, Package Shippers Association121Oral Statement...................................................     5122123Mr. Paul Steidler, Senior Fellow, Lexington Institute124Oral Statement...................................................     7125126Mr. Mike Plunkett, CEO and President, Association for Postal127  Commerce128Oral Statement...................................................     8129130Mr. Thomas Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste131Oral Statement...................................................    10132133Dr. Elena Spatoulas Patel, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Marriner134  Eccles Institute for Economics and Quantitative Analysis,135  University of Utah136Oral Statement...................................................    12137Mr. Brian Renfroe (Minority Witness), President, National138  Association of Letter Carriers139Oral Statement...................................................    13140141Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.142  House of Representatives Document Repository at:143  docs.house.gov.144145                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS146147  * Statement for the Record, NAPM; submitted by Rep. Sessions.148149  * Statement for the Record, National Association of Postal150  Supervisors; submitted by Rep. Sessions.151152  * Statement for the Record, Coalition for 21st Century Postal153  Service; submitted by Rep. Sessions.154155  * Statement for the Record, USPS; submitted by Rep. Sessions.156157  * Statement for the Record, Envelope Manufacturers Association;158  submitted by Rep. Sessions.159160  * Statement for the Record, Keep US Posted; submitted by Rep.161  Sessions.162163  * Statement for the Record, National Newspaper Association;164  submitted by Rep. Sessions.165166The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.167168                          ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS169170  * Questions for the Record: Dr. Patel; submitted by Rep.171  Sessions.172173  * Questions for the Record: Mr. Renfroe; submitted by Rep.174  Sessions.175176                 THE ROUTE FORWARD FOR THE U.S. POSTAL177                   SERVICE: A VIEW FROM STAKEHOLDERS178179                              ----------180181                         TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025182183                     U.S. House of Representatives184185              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform186187                 Subcommittee On Government Operations188189                                                   Washington, D.C.190191    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m.,192Room HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Pete Sessions,193[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.194    Present: Representatives Sessions, Comer, Foxx, Palmer,195Burchett, Jack, Mfume, Norton, Frost, and Randall.196    [Audio malfunction]197198          OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETE SESSIONS,199200                   REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS201202    Mr. Sessions. The United States Postal Service is working203well and properly. The United States Postal Service has a204number of important attributes about it. One of them is it205resides in the Constitution of the United States. Second, it206resides in law that has been provided and taken care of. But207Number three, it has to meet the needs of the American people208on an evolving basis.209    For the past few years, we have been dealing with a Postal210Service that, in coming out of COVID, has had a number of facts211and factors that have influenced not only how it looks, but the212service that it provides to people. As I became Chairman of213Government Operations for Government Reform and Oversight214[sic], I became acutely aware of the operations of the Postal215Service that were moving down a pathway which was begun and led216by the then-postmaster.217    That postmaster, while he is no longer in service to this218Nation, had a vision and a plan that, in my opinion, was not as219well understood by employees or by the American public. And220yet, he openly was willing to say, trust me, we are going to221get there. And at some point, I believe that it became222important that the American people and the industry, some $40223billion worth of industry behind it, needed to understand not224only where it was headed but how it was going to get where it225was going.226    In December, a full year ago, I landed in Houston, Texas,227to take part in an exercise whereby part of what the plan was,228was to move from flat paper or envelopes to boxes that would be229handled by the Postal Service. They were evolving their230business. As it turned out, there was some 4-month delay in the231practice of the Postal Service in the Houston general area. As232I went to Sugar Land, Texas, to look at the operation, there233were essentially some 100 or more 18-wheeler loads of boxes,234letters, envelopes, mail that were stacked up. And the workers235from the Postal Service were taking these off literally one at236a time to go out of a mound that would have completely filled237this room.238    That was apparent to me that it was a plan by which a239process that I call ready, fire, aim. And it was taking place240across the country. We engaged the Postal Service. I will admit241they were highly professional. They were very concerned about242their obligation to the customer, and they felt like that they243were doing as best as they could, given the circumstances.244    Over the past year, we have continued to engage the Postal245Service and their operations, and now we find ourselves where246this Administration has accepted the resignation of the247Postmaster General. I thank him for his service. He and I were248friends, and we are still friends. But this is an operation249that must find itself moving forward where more than just a few250people understand what might be the direction. And there are251lots of questions that abound in that effort. And those are252things that, while we think we have some ideas about, we will253engage the Administration, the new Postmaster General, on those254ideas.255    Today, we have gathered together groups of people that have256specific ideas, ideas about the Postal Service, what they257should look like, how they should operate, and where we might258have ideas before we actually engage what is the new Postmaster259General.260    So, I want to thank the panel that is here today. I will261announce who you are in just a minute. But I will tell you that262the gentleman to my immediate right, Mr. Mfume, as the Ranking263Member for this same Subcommittee, he and I work well together.264He and I have attempted across government to look at the265operation of government, the needs of the American people, and266perhaps more importantly, tried to work together on answers267that would lend themself to making, as I say as an Eagle Scout,268making our campsite better than the way we found it. It is269still upon us to listen to experts, to listen to people not270only in the post office and around the post office but also in271what I call the free enterprise system.272    So, Mr. Mfume, thank you for being here today. The273gentleman is recognized for any opening statement the gentleman274chooses to make.275276       OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER KWEISI MFUME,277                  REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND278279    Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good280afternoon. Good afternoon to all of our guests. Thank you for281being here and making time.282    I just have a brief statement. I am anxious to hear the283testimony of all the persons before us, and I am anxious also284to explore this topic for as long as we can.285    I know that we have got a vote coming up. There is a286privileged motion on the Floor, which I am told will be287overriding the regular business, so we may very well be called288over there in about 15 to 20 minutes, and then, of course,289coming back here.290    But I want to thank you for calling this hearing on this291important topic. I appreciate your interest, as always, in292bringing us together for a thoughtful conversation about how293the Postal Service can chart, quite frankly, a better path for294the future under new leadership.295    The Postal Service has an immense duty, as we all know,296dating back to its creation because it powers communities and297businesses; it keeps Americans healthy; it reinforces298democracy; and it bridges geographical, economic, and cultural299divides. Importantly, its universal service obligation ensures,300as we all know, that we have equitable access to prompt,301reliable, and efficient mail services, whether you, as some of302my constituents do, live in a county or in the city of303Baltimore. Maryland is like any other state. Our interest here304is just as important.305    With Mr. David Steiner starting his tenure next month as306the 76th Postmaster General, this is our first hearing on the307Postal Service since the departure of former Postmaster General308Louis DeJoy, and I hope that Mr. Steiner heeds the call that309comes out of this hearing that many of us continue to echo over310and over again, that his Number one obligation is to protect311the service that millions of Americans rely on to send and312receive critical items, everything from financial statements313and mail-in ballots to lifesaving medicines and personal314letters. In doing so, it is my strong opinion that he must315defend also against any threats to the service's independence316and ensure that the Postal Service remains a public good.317    President Trump has repeatedly questioned the independence318of the Postal Service and, in my opinion, wrongly suggested319that its privatization or its merging with the Commerce320Department is a good thing. I think not. And despite the Postal321Service being a self-supporting independent agency, I do not322think it is in our best interest to cripple it any more than it323has been crippled. It has been pulling itself up for several324years now. Some of us agree with the process and some of the325things that are part and parcel of it, some of us have not, but326it is clear that it has got to remain independent in that327regard and, in my opinion, never merged and never made to be a328private entity.329    So, to be clear, unilateral restructuring efforts would not330only be, in my opinion, again, illegal, but could jeopardize331the delivery of critical items, especially in rural communities332and hard-to-reach areas where Postal Service serves as a333lifeline to so many Americans. And, by the way, let us not334forget that our Nation's first Postmaster General, Benjamin335Franklin, advocated for the privacy of the mail but never the336privatization of the mail.337    So, a commitment to security and privacy that our former338Postmaster General upheld after refusing so many attempts many,339many, many years ago to thwart his efforts are somehow compared340to what we see today by efforts to allow DOGE officials that341have no experience with the Postal Service, no idea, in my342opinion, of its significance to Americans, and no real343willingness to look for a solution. We have got to fight the344efforts by those persons that want to, again, change it in345somehow or another and risk what we have seen so far.346    Now, are there problems? There are. I mean, there are347postmen out there who are still being set upon by criminals,348who are being shot at, who have been stabbed, who have been349robbed, who find themselves holding on with dear life to arrow350keys, to protect those keys so that those individuals cannot go351in and rob boxes of mail and hurt people in the process by352stealing.353    There are real issues in terms of converting the fleet that354the Postal Service uses. We have debated that back and forth355over and over again. And there are real issues in terms of356delivery. What is going to be the standard delivery time, and357what happens with respect to first-class mail and parcels? And358do we have real goals going forward for the future in terms of359making this service even better? That is what I have been360asking a lot of people, and a lot of people have been asking361me, then why are we paying more money for the same service? And362some cynically say, why are we paying more money for an even363worse service?364    So, the Postal Service, I think, clearly has to be365efficient, reliable, and stable. How we get there is not any366one person's fanciful idea. I cannot pull an answer out of the367sky and guarantee its success. But I think in having forums368like this and discussions like this where we recognize369everybody is not on the same page but where we are committed to370making sure that everybody helps push toward a consensus is371probably the best thing that we can do going forward as we try372to remedy those frustrations and make it clear that the Postal373Service in the United States is not for sale and will not be374sidelined and will not be weakened.375    So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity again to376join with you as we try to find some answers to so many things377that beset us. And again, I am glad that so many people have378turned out to offer testimony today.379    And with that, I yield back.380    Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you381very much. Mr. Steiner, I am sure, will want an opportunity, as382a savvy professional who has been in the industry, to hear some383of the ideas that we will hear today.384    And with that, I want to welcome the witnesses that we have385today. I would like to give a brief introduction if I can.386    Paul Steidler is a Senior Fellow at Lexington Institute.387Mr. Steidler, thank you very much. Jim Cochrane is CEO of the388Package Shippers Association. Mike Plunkett is a CEO and389president of the Association for Postal Commerce. Tom Schatz is390the president of Citizens Against Government Waste. Elena391Spatoulas Patel is an assistant professor at the Marriner392Eccles Institute for Economics and Quantitative Analysis at the393University of Utah. And Brian Renfroe is president of the394National Association of Letter Carriers. We look forward to395hearing from each of you today.396    And pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), each of the witnesses397will please stand and raise their right hand to be sworn.398    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you399are about give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but400the truth, so help you, God?401    [Chorus of ayes.]402    Mr. Sessions. Let the record reflect and show that the403witnesses, each of them, have answered in the affirmative.404Thank you very much. You may now take a seat.405    Please do recognize that the distinguished gentleman from406Maryland alluded to a vote that is expected to be called in a407few minutes. It is my idea that we will work through each of408these opening statements. We will then head off. We will do, I409think there are three votes, which means you will get a longer410bathroom break, and then we will reappear about 10 minutes that411I will announce after the last vote.412    I now would recognize Mr. Cochrane for his opening413statement. The esteemed gentleman is recognized.414415                   STATEMENT OF JIM COCHRANE416417               CEO, PACKAGE SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION418419    Mr. Cochrane. Good afternoon, Chairman Sessions, Ranking420Member Mfume, and distinguished Committee Members. It is an421honor to speak with you about the future of the Postal Service.422    For 250 years, the Postal Service has been connecting423communities, facilitating commerce, and delivering vital424information. I retired from the Postal Service after 43 years425of service. The last 25, I was focused on the shipping426business. I have an extensive knowledge of the shipping427marketplace, e-commerce trends, ongoing technological advances428in this space, and I leverage the opportunities created by e-429commerce to drive revenue growth and profitability while at the430Post Office.431    Currently, I am the CEO of the Package Shippers432Association, a trade association with over 70 years of helping433shippers work with the Postal Service. My members represent a434significant majority of all the packages delivered in the435United States.436    The Delivering for America plan, despite its stated goals,437is pushing the Postal Service further away from its core438mission of providing reliable, affordable, universal service.439The current trajectory of the plan is failing to deliver440promised financial results. While acknowledging the good441intentions behind DFA, the plan is failing to meet the needs of442the American people.443    One mistake of the Delivering for America plan is this444insourcing of workload, approaching a shipper using the Postal445Service on a private e-commerce platform and moving them to a446postal solution with lower pricing. The Postal Service reducing447prices on existing packages that they deliver is irrational.448Poaching customers from business partners is just bad business.449    The Delivering for America plan appears to prioritize450significant upgrades to processing facilities. In the long451term, they are overbuilding processing facilities and in light452of future volume forecasts instead of investing in modernizing453the Postal Service last-mile capabilities. The last-mile454network delivers to 166 million doors six days a week. It is a455national treasure, and it should be protected and cherished.456    The Delivering for America plan has created a widespread457degradation of package delivery service performance. The458changes unfortunately disproportionately affect rural459communities and those in remote areas of the country. The460Postal Service is often the only viable option for daily461package delivery. And the delivery of packages six days a week462must be at the center of all strategies for competing in the463future marketplace.464    Slower service in rural communities widens the digital and465economic divide and undermines the universal service466obligation. When service deteriorates, customers seek467alternatives, and there are a lot of them out there, leading to468reduced shipping volume and further revenue losses.469    The DFA plan to achieve financial solvency is deeply470flawed, resulting in revenue loss, increased operational costs,471and misplaced investments. There remains insufficient472transparency regarding the detailed financial models and473assumptions underpinning the projected savings and revenue474increases from the Delivering for America plan. A new vision475must be implemented to quickly reverse the negative financial476results.477    To truly revitalize the Postal Service and ensure long-term478viability, we must acknowledge the limitations of a purely479government approach. A critical component of any new strategy480must include public-private partnerships, particularly in the481area where the private sector excels. The Delivering for482America plan has been focused on middle-mile capabilities,483which is the transportation of mail and packages between484processing facilities. Partnering with established private485carriers for middle-mile transportation could significantly486reduce costs, improve transit times, and enhance overall487network fluidity. This would allow the Postal Service to focus488on its core strength, universal access and last-mile delivery,489while benefiting from the optimized infrastructure and490expertise of the private sector.491    The pace of technological innovation in logistics is492relentless. From software to advanced robotics, sophisticated493tracking systems, analytics, private sector logistic firms494invest billions of dollars to deploy cutting-edge technology.495The reality is the Postal Service is struggling to keep pace. A496public-private partnership could facilitate the adoption of497best-in-class private sector technologies, enabling the Postal498Service to modernize, enhance customer experience, and improve499efficiency without the need to independently develop and fund500the necessary technological advances.501    It is time to focus efforts on the following. We really502need to reverse the negative changes in delivery standard503created by the Regional Transportation Optimization, a systemic504slowdown of pickup and delivery at post office, especially in505rural communities around the country. Explore new revenue506streams by leveraging its unique network for last-mile507delivery, and return to innovating and partnering with e-508commerce platforms to generate increased revenue. Actively seek509collaboration with the private sector, particularly for middle-510mile logistics, software development, and cutting-edge511technology.512    In closing, I would like to welcome Postmaster General,513David Steiner, for his new role. I look forward to working with514him to grow the Postal Service in the shipping industry. I515still bleed postal blue, and I want the Postal Service to516remain a vital part of the American economy. The Postal Service517is not merely a government agency, it is a vital public518service, and the American people deserve a world-class Postal519Service.520    Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you521today, and I will take any questions you might have.522    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Cochrane, thank you very much. Mr.523Steidler, we are prepared for your opening statement. The524gentleman is recognized.525526                   STATEMENT OF PAUL STEIDLER527528               SENIOR FELLOW, LEXINGTON INSTITUTE529530    Mr. Steidler. Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and531Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to532participate in this important hearing. My name is Paul533Steidler, and I am a Senior Fellow with the Lexington534Institute, a conservative public policy thinktank in Arlington,535where I have covered the Postal Service since 2017.536    My message today encompasses three points. First, the state537of the U.S. Postal Service is dismal and needs prompt,538dramatic, and holistic reform internally at USPS and from539Congress. By any basic metric, it poorly serves the American540people and has fundamentally declined in recent years.541    Second, while the core mission of delivering mail and542packages at USPS remains and will remain important in543perpetuity, USPS needs to be right-sized, that is, become a544smaller and more efficient organization. The push by many to545get USPS into new business lines where the primary motivation546often seems to be to keep and expand government jobs, will do547far more harm than good.548    Third, the governance structure of USPS, specifically the549U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors, is broken and cannot be550repaired. It needs to be replaced.551    Let me briefly review where things stand. In recent years,552mail delivery times, which were already slower than in the5531970s, have gotten even longer. USPS claimed that within554October 2021, degradation in service standards, allowing 39555percent of mail to be delivered a day later, there would be556greater predictability in mail delivery. USPS never met those557standards, and what has followed is not only gradual delays,558but at times weeklong delays, as the Wall Street Journal and559numerous other media outlets have documented.560    Mail price increases have exceeded the rate of inflation,561which hit its highest mark in 40 years. On July 13, the price562of a forever stamp will rise another seven percent to 78 cents.563    Financial losses and liabilities at USPS have ballooned. A564notable exception is an accounting blip on USPS' net income565from the 2022 Postal Service Reform Act in which Congress566provided it with $107 billion in financial benefits. Total567direct government assistance to USPS since 2020 is $120568billion. Yet, at the end of Fiscal Year 2024, USPS reported in569its 10-K a negative net worth of $32.6 billion. The Postal570Service Reform Act, signed by President Biden on April 6, 2022,571provided this $107 billion in taxpayer assistance by forgiving572defaults on retiree healthcare payments and transferring some573USPS obligations to the already heavily burdened Medicare574system.575    Yet despite all this, USPS will run out of cash sometime576before the 2028 election. USPS assured Congress through its5772021 Delivering for America strategic plan that if it passed578the Postal Service Reform Act and other modest steps were579taken, it would be break-even in Fiscal Year 2023. It never580came close to hitting those numbers. It is disappointing that581the nine outside members of the Board of Governors of the582Postal Service, with the exception of Governor Ron Stroman, did583not speak out or raise concerns about these developments.584Postmaster General DeJoy had a well-intentioned, bold, and585expensive plan that envisioned the Postal Service building out586extensive infrastructure. It simply has not worked and should587be halted. Instead, when Postmaster DeJoy announced his588resignation, the board said it would continue on with this589plan.590    Basic reform steps, in addition to changing the governance591structure, reducing staff, and ending the Delivering for592America strategic plan, include investing USPS' $249 billion in593pension assets and its $25 billion in retiree health benefit594funds into a plain vanilla stock-and bond portfolio instead of595strictly in government bonds. USPS employees' funds would be596invested similar to how teachers' and state government workers'597retirement plans work. USPS' Inspector General reported that,598had this done previously, the Postal Service would have $1.2599trillion in additional investment gains.600    Systematically assess the use of robotics and AI to improve601operational efficiencies, as logistics and warehouse companies602are widely doing.603    Implement defined contribution retirement plans for new604employees to begin reducing long-term liabilities.605    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look606forward to your questions.607    Mr. Sessions. Thank you.608    Mr. Plunkett, we are going to have you give your opening609statement, and then we will move to suspend until we have a610chance to do the votes, then we will be back.611    The gentleman, Mr. Plunkett, is recognized.612613                   STATEMENT OF MIKE PLUNKETT614615       CEO AND PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION FOR POSTAL COMMERCE616617    Mr. Plunkett. Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and618Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to619speak with you today about the current state of the postal620system and on ensuring its continued viability.621    I will say this is not my first time appearing before this622Committee, but it is the first time since the untimely passing623of Congressman Gerry Connolly, a tireless champion on postal624issues. I was fortunate to have met the former Chairman [sic]625on several occasions outside of the hearing room, and as a 30-626year resident of Fairfax County, have personally benefited from627his service both as my representative and a county executive in628Fairfax. On behalf of our members and the industry that owes629him a debt of gratitude, I want to express my deepest630sympathies to his family and to his colleagues.631    Less than a month from today, the Postal Service will632celebrate the 200th anniversary of its origin at the633Continental Congress. Well into its third century, the Postal634Service remains a beloved public institution and a critical635component of the Nation's economic infrastructure. The Postal636Service has thrived for so long not just because the Founders637recognized the value of a universal communications network, but638because it has adjusted as the needs of its customers have639evolved over time.640    As we convene today, the need for the Postal Service to641adapt is as acute as ever. The Postal Service is on track to642lose nearly $10 billion this year with declining package and643mail volume and severe productivity and service challenges. Not644just the national treasure is at risk, the Postal Service is645also the center of a mailing industry that accounts for nearly646$2 trillion in annual revenue and employs more than seven647million Americans providing jobs in every state.648    The companies that I represent rely on the Postal Service649to deliver magazines, prescription medications, bills and650statements, catalogs, and essential business communications.651Collectively, they account for billions of dollars in postage652that funds universal postal service in this country. We depend653on reliable, economical mail delivery and are invested in the654long-term preservation and success of the Postal Service.655    But under the Delivering for America plan, our members have656suffered unprecedented rate increases and service degradation657as the Postal Service records staggering losses and squanders658mailer-funded capital on excess package processing capacity,659even as Congress has provided billions of dollars in financial660relief.661    Fundamentally, the Delivering for America plan has elevated662a narrowly defined measure of financial success for the agency663above the interest of its customers and stakeholders. In a664desperate effort to increase revenues, the Postal Service has665exploited its mail monopolies to fund ill-advised forays into666competitive market spaces where its presence is unnecessary667and, in fact, unwelcome.668    We are encouraged by the selection of David Steiner as the669next Postmaster General and hope that his background and670experiences can help revive the Postal Service's fortunes. Our671members are ready to work with Mr. Steiner and his team to672restore what is still a tremendous communication delivery673channel with opportunities to increase the value that it674provides to U.S. residents and businesses.675    That is why we are concerned that, under interim676leadership, the Postal Service continues to pursue the failed677Delivering for America agenda. Just last week, the Postal678Service signed a new labor agreement, the second since the679departure of the previous Postmaster General. If the incoming680PMG is to have any chance of success, the Postal Service must681immediately pause implementation of Delivering for America,682including any insourcing efforts and freezing of discretionary683capital spending.684    More concerning still, in three weeks, the Postal Service685is poised to increase rates substantially, with many commercial686mail rates increasing by more than ten percent. The volume687losses from such massive rate hikes will be compounded by688reduced work-sharing incentives that will cause some postal689facilities to be inundated with volume for which they are not690prepared.691    Expecting that the postal network could be gridlocked by692mid-July, we communicated our concerns to the Postal Service's693Governors, suggesting that rate increases ought to be694postponed. A copy of that letter is attached to my written695statement. We have not received a response, so we urge Congress696to remind the Governors that their duty is not to the697Delivering for America plan, but to the mailing and shipping698public.699    As I conclude, I want to make clear the decline of the700Postal Service is neither inevitable nor necessary. Mail701remains an unrivaled channel for businesses to communicate with702key segments of their customer base. My members believe in and703want to grow mail. The Postal Service's last-mile delivery704network is unmatched in its ability to connect all Americans705and to remain an important fixture in American life for decades706to come.707    For the incoming PMG to have a chance of righting the ship,708it is important that Congress and the Administration take all709available steps to provide necessary support by, A, impressing710on the Governors the need for a strategic pause in the711Delivering for America plan; B, filling vacancies on the Postal712Service's Board of Governors; and C, advancing legislation to713address long-term structural issues that threaten the health of714the postal system.715    The Postal Service and mail can have a long and prosperous716future. For that to happen, Congress, the executive branch, and717postal stakeholders need to work together. I congratulate the718House Oversight Committee for recognizing the need to begin an719essential dialog and commit the resources of our association720and its members to support the Committee's efforts to improve721our Nation's postal system. Thank you.722    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Plunkett, thank you very much.723    Pursuant to the previous order, the Subcommittee stands in724recess, subject to the call of the Chair. We will convene 10725minutes after the conclusion of the vote series.726    [Recess.]727    The Subcommittee will come to order, and thank you very728much for allowing us to attend the votes, a first series and729then a second, a third vote, a fourth vote, I guess it was, and730we have been advised that there may be another vote in order.731    But Mr. Schatz, I am delighted that you are here, and we732are going to proceed with testimony. The distinguished733gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.734735                   STATEMENT OF THOMAS SCHATZ736737          PRESIDENT, CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE738739    Mr. Schatz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking740Member Mfume. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before741you today on the future of the U.S. Postal Service on behalf of742the more than one million members and supporters of Citizens743Against Government Waste and taxpayers across the country,744consumers, businesses who rely on the Postal Service every day.745    Citizens Against Government Waste was founded in 1984 by J.746Peter Grace and Jack Anderson following the release of the747report of President Ronald Reagan's Private Sector Survey on748Cost Control, also known as the Grace Commission, as well as749other waste-cutting proposals. To date, the CAGW has helped750save more than $2.4 trillion through the implementation of751Grace Commission and other waste-cutting recommendations.752    The Grace Commission report on boards and commissions and753banking businesses had 39 recommendations on the Postal Service754addressing delivery, excess property labor costs, personnel,755processing, and procurement. CAGW and our lobbying on the756Council for Citizens Against Government Waste have made757recommendations for reform on the Postal Service to the House758and Senate, as well as in numerous blog posts, op-eds, and759press releases.760    The CAGW supported H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act761of 2021, noting in a letter to Congress in February 2022 that,762while the legislation did not address excess facilities, labor763costs, and increased work sharing, it codified an integrated764delivery network of packages and mail together six days a week.765The letter cited the Postal Regulatory Commission's estimated766$15 billion annual cost of separate networks, along with new767vehicles and tens of thousands of new employees, making it far768more likely that the USPS would never become profitable and769there would have to be a taxpayer bailout. The letter also770supported the legislation's very important prohibition against771non-postal commercial businesses, including financial services.772    Unfortunately, promised improvements in the Postal773Service's financial condition and core functions have not been774delivered in large part due to the failed Delivering for775America plan, which several witnesses have already discussed.776It has fallen short of its goals, and repeated financial losses777have continued, including $9.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2024.778    With the new Postmaster General, David Steiner, coming into779office soon, it is a momentous time as the Postal Service will780celebrate its 250th anniversary in July, but also a perilous781time, given its financial condition. The Government782Accountability Office has had the USPS on its high-risk list783since 2009, which was the last time there was a quarterly784profit of any kind, and called its business model785unsustainable.786    In my June 16, 2020, op-ed in The Hill, I made several787suggestions for Mr. Steiner, which I also propose to the788Subcommittee today. First, the USPS should make its top789priority the continued delivery of mail and packages together790six days a week to every address everywhere across America. No791single company or group of companies matches the last-mile792delivery that has always been made by the Postal Service.793    Second, the Postal Service should increase its work with794the private sector on processing, logistics, and transportation795of mail and packages close to their final destinations. To796achieve these overriding objectives and get the Postal Service797back on the right track quickly, Mr. Steiner should immediately798pause implementation of the DFA and make the following three799changes.800    First, there should be an immediate moratorium on spending801billions of dollars on new processing facilities which are802unaffordable and duplicate existing efficient private sector803operations.804    Second, there should be an immediate hiring freeze for all805non-delivery positions, meaning exempting letter carriers,806especially as mail volume continues to decline. Labor807constitutes 80 percent of Postal Service costs, and rather than808trimming the number of employees, Postmaster General DeJoy809converted 195,000 positions from part-time to full-time.810    Third, the misnamed Regional Transportation Optimization811Initiative should be terminated. The USPS is cutting in half812the number of times it goes to more than 24,000 post offices,813mostly in rural areas, to pick up mail and packages. In January8142025, the PRC Advisory Opinion determined that the RTO had a815negative impact on service, overstated its savings, and will816fail to create a more efficient network.817    For the sake of households and businesses across the818country, the Delivering for America Plan must be halted and819replaced with policies that will allow the Postal Service to820revitalize its sagging fiscal outlook and continuing to connect821communities with affordable and efficient delivery of mail and822packages. That would be something to celebrate on its 250th823anniversary next month, as well as America's anniversary in824July 2026.825    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you826today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.827    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Schatz, thank you very much, not only for828your testimony, but the specific enumeration that which you829believe.830    Dr. Patel, you are recognized.831832           STATEMENT OF ELENA SPATOULAS PATEL, PH.D.833834         ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, MARRINER ECCLES INSTITUTE835836            FOR ECONOMICS AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS,837838                       UNIVERSITY OF UTAH839840    Dr. Patel. Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and841Members of the Subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to842testify today, and thank you for your attention on a topic that843affects every household, business, and community in the844country.845    I am Elena Patel. I have a Ph.D. in economics from the846University of Michigan, and I am an assistant professor in the847Marriner Eccles Institute for Economics at the University of848Utah.849    I have studied postal markets both in the government and850academia for more than a decade. Importantly, this testimony851and these opinions are mine, and they do not reflect the views852or positions of the University of Utah.853    At the start, I want to say something quite clearly. I854think the Postal Service serves the American public by855providing universal mail delivery, but its funding model is856broken. Congress can fix this by providing stable funding to857preserve this essential public service for the long run.858    Some basic facts are also important. The Postal Service is859the largest mail provider around the world, connecting 166860million addresses across 3.8 million square miles. Its861universal reach is not a convenience. It is a critical862infrastructure. Mail delivery binds the Nation together, much863like our roads and power grids, and by law, the Postal Service864must do so affordably, reliably, and equitably, regardless of865where people live or how much they earn.866    This commitment, as we have talked about, is867operationalized through the Universal Service Obligation, which868requires 6-day delivery, uniform pricing, and a vast post869office network that serves every community in the country.870These obligations exist, whether they are profitable or not,871and this is because they are rooted in the belief that872everybody should have access to communication, commerce, and873government services.874    Unfortunately, its funding model is antiquated and875insufficient. USPS is expected to operate without taxpayer876funding, relying on mail and package revenue to sustain a877universal delivery network. But first-class mail, the product878that once funded this entire system, has been in long-term879decline for nearly two decades, thanks to the rise of digital880communication. Volumes have fallen 60 percent since 2009 and881are projected to fall another 28 percent over the next decade.882    Meanwhile, the cost of fulfilling the USO remain high and883are growing. In just the last year, the Postal Service has884added more than two million delivery points to its network,885thanks to the robust growth of the American economy. Yet, the886Postal Service has persistently struggled financially, losing887nearly $2 billion from its core operations last year. This is888much more a structural problem than a managerial one, and889privatization will not solve it. In fact, it would make things890worse.891    Private firms already operate in the most profitable parts892of the market. A private operator would have no incentive to893serve every address, offer uniform pricing, or maintain894unprofitable routes. And countries that have privatized their895postal systems have not been spared the same financial and896operational challenges. In fact, in many ways their problems897have been more severe.898    What we need instead is a model that funds the public899obligations that we have asked the Postal Service to meet. The900Postal Regulatory Commission already estimates the cost of the901universal service obligation roughly $6.3 billion in 2024.902Congress could provide a direct appropriation to match that903cost, just as many European governments do.904    Importantly, safeguards already exist to ensure that this905public support would be used only for universal service and not906to subsidize package delivery or distort competition. These907safeguards have been in place since the 2006 Postal Enhancement908and Accountability Act, and the Postal Regulatory Commission is909well positioned to continue to uphold these standards.910    The Postal Service can and should modernize, but it must do911so in a way that protects universal access. This requires912public investment in infrastructure, in innovation, and in the913work force that makes this system run. The Postal Service has914connected Americans for nearly 250 years. In an increasingly915fragmented and digital world, that connective role is more916important than ever. We should treat it not as a failing917business, but as a public institution, one that delivers value918far beyond what shows up on a balance sheet.919    Thank you. I look forward to taking your questions.920    Mr. Sessions. Dr. Patel, thank you very much.921    Mr. Renfroe, we are delighted that you are here. The922gentleman is now recognized.923924         STATEMENT OF BRIAN RENFROE (MINORITY WITNESS)925926       PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS927928    Mr. Renfroe. Thank you, Chairman Sessions and Ranking929Member Mfume, for the opportunity to bring the voice of the930Nation's 295,000 active and retired city letter carriers who931work at the center of our Nation's $1.9 trillion mailing932industry.933    Unfortunately, I have to begin with a solemn note. On934Saturday, June 21, Jacob Taylor, a letter carrier in Dallas,935Texas, died while doing his job. And while the circumstances of936his death are still under review, it is of course a937heartbreaking loss that serves once again as another jarring938reminder of the on-the-job hazards that letter carriers face939every day such as crime, assaults, extreme heat, dealing with940problems with infrastructure such as outdated postal vehicles,941and other factors.942    If the American people's mail and packages are to be943protected, the people who deliver them must first be better944protected. I urge this Subcommittee and all of Congress to do945everything in their power to work with us to mitigate these946risks by passing the bipartisan Protect Our Letter Carriers947Act, which has been introduced in both the House and the Senate948earlier this year.949    One month from now, the Postal Service will celebrate its950250th anniversary. It is older than the country itself.951Chairman Sessions mentioned in his opening, it is also rooted952in the Constitution, and it is as essential as it has ever been953to keep Americans connected.954    The Postal Service has a long and successful history of955reinventing itself. We are in the middle of its latest956transformation under the Delivering for America plan. While it957certainly is far from a perfect plan, it includes much-needed958modernization of the processing and delivery network that was959built decades ago for a much different mail mix than we handle960today.961    In addition, leadership at the Postal Service throughout962the late 2000s and 2010s slashed mail processing capacity963rather than modifying and modernizing it. Modernization is long964overdue.965    One of the primary challenges of such a transformation is966maintaining and improving service while you modify a massive967network. Service delays and disruptions are unacceptable, and968more must be done to address these issues that continue and969persist in some locations. But changes are necessary for the970Postal Service to provide and improve the service that the971people of our country need.972    Some will suggest and have suggested radical changes,973downsizing, returning to failed initiatives from the past that974benefited seemingly everyone but the Postal Service, or even975privatization of the services that we provide. As a letter976carrier who knows the Postal Service inside and out, I promise977you none of that is the solution. That mentality does not serve978169 million homes and businesses every single day.979    When Congress seeks to make changes or understand the980operations of the Postal Service, I urge you to come to us, the981people who work within the system every day and are invested in982the service that we provide to the American people.983    In recent years, Congress has provided some help in our984efforts to stabilize the Postal Service finances through985bipartisan legislation, but two financial changes are still986needed. First, the Administration should do what the Biden987Administration failed to do and address the long overdue988misallocation of pension liabilities between the current self-989sustaining Postal Service and the pre-1971 taxpayer-funded Post990Office Department. This accounting error has placed, by even991conservative estimates, at least $90 billion in unjust992financial obligations on the Postal Service.993    Second, Congress should pass legislation to allow the994Postal Service to properly invest the hundreds of billions of995dollars already set aside for retirement costs in higher996yielding financial assets. These changes are practical, and997they are fiscally responsible.998    While my union has reservations about the Postal Service999Board of Governors' selection of David Steiner for Postmaster1000General, this is larger than one individual or one leader.1001Guaranteeing that the Postal Service remains an independent,1002non-taxpayer-funded, non-partisan agency is key. We fulfill a1003universal service obligation that no other shipper does, could,1004or would fulfill.1005    If Congress wants to help the Postal Service, I urge you to1006do everything possible to protect letter carriers and all1007postal employees, implement these necessary financial changes,1008and guarantee the Postal Service remains an independent, non-1009taxpayer-funded, public service as it has for the last 551010years.1011    Thank you once again for inviting me to testify. I look1012forward to answering your questions.1013    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Renfroe, thank you very much. And to the1014panel, thank you for your thoughtful issues and ideas. We felt1015like it was important, both Mr. Mfume and myself. We have1016opinions also, but we tend to listen a lot to each other and1017tend to have not minor discussions. I think there are1018discussions that need to go places, but we have been trying to1019give unto the Postal Service and this Administration an1020opportunity to lead some way by showing that they had a plan,1021an opportunity to better it themselves.1022    At this point, and I would say this, Mr. Plunkett, you1023indicated one of the most important things is to pause1024Delivering for America, and you have an opinion about that. How1025long, if we were to pause, or seemingly, if someone did say we1026are going to pause that, what is the effort that then should1027take place, and how long should you wait? Because I think it1028has been discussed. This is a large industry. There are a lot1029of people who just cannot sit around and wait, but need to do1030the right thing. So, can you describe that scenario?1031    Mr. Plunkett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly do not1032want the Postal Service to stop doing what it does, but we1033believe that the Postal Service was performing reasonably well1034before Delivering for America. And so, there are specific1035aspects of the Delivering for America plan that we think could1036be paused while the new leadership team is allowed to come in1037and do an assessment of the current state of the agency and1038what it needs to go forward.1039    Specifically, we think there should be a moratorium on rate1040increases. We think that discretionary capital spending should1041be halted. We do not want to stop any repairs or any necessary1042upgrades to postal facilities, but we do not think it is1043necessary to invest in massive new structures that may be1044redundant.1045    I also think that we should have a pause on any product1046changes, again, while the new leadership has a chance to come1047in and assess some of the changes that were made under1048Delivering for America plan, whether they have worked, and how1049they could be repaired if possible.1050    Mr. Sessions. Thank you. Anyone on the panel, are you aware1051of staffing levels in the country whereby they are, what I1052would say, out of configuration, out of whack with what should1053be, or are we--and I am talking about overstaffing, not1054understaffing because I, too, have been to a post office. I,1055too, have waited in line. It is hard to make sure that all the1056timeframes equal the time of year when you might be doing it. I1057can think about tax time. I can think about Thanksgiving. I can1058think about Mother's Day. But do we have an issue, or does1059anybody have insight--perhaps, Dr. Patel, you do in your1060study--about we have people that are not busy, cannot be1061productive, post offices that should move away from their1062existence. I do not know the staffing levels. Can anyone talk1063to me about your viewpoint of staffing levels on the1064overstaffed side, not the understaffed side. I know most places1065I go to do not have enough people, at least at the door.1066    Mr. Steidler. Sir, Congressman, the Postal Service, at the1067end of 2024, had 533,724 employees. That is nine percent more1068than it had in 2014 of 488,000. This comes at a time when mail1069has declined in volume by about 1/3.1070    Also, a key metric for labor productivity that the Postal1071Service provides, or two factors of productivity, are the total1072factor of productivity and labor productivity. Those have both1073dramatically declined in the past three years. In fact, the1074Postal Regulatory Commission said that the decline in total1075factor of productivity in 2023 was the biggest since 1965. So,1076you have more people delivering less things than you did ten1077years ago, and you have labor productivity and total factor of1078productivity that are sharply declined on the labor side from a1079factor of 62.3 in 2020 to 54.2 last year. Those are big drops,1080and the source on that is the Postal Service itself.1081    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Steidler, thank you very much. Those are1082called facts of the case. Those are things that become1083apparent.1084    Yes, anybody else have any response to that? Mr. Renfroe.1085    Mr. Renfroe. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak with any1086level of expertise about other crafts within the Postal1087Service. I certainly can speak about the members I represent,1088and among the 200,000-plus active city letter carriers I1089represent in all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin1090Islands, I do not know of one single location where we are1091overstaffed. I know of many where we are understaffed for1092various reasons, but in terms of overstaffing--and should that1093result, we have provisions in our collective bargaining1094agreement to address that situation. So, we do not have that,1095and I represent the largest group of employees at the Postal1096Service.1097    Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.1098    Mr. Plunkett. Mr. Chairman, if I may?1099    Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.1100    Mr. Plunkett. I will just reinforce what Mr. Steidler said.1101According to my analysis, since 2015, the Postal Service has1102lost 28.2 percent of the volume that it handles, yet total1103employment is actually up by two percent.1104    And something I think is not given enough attention, there1105has been a shift in the Postal Service's volume. There is more1106shipping now than there is mail, or not more in aggregate, but1107a greater proportion is shipping, and shipping volume exhibits1108a much more pronounced seasonal pattern, and the Postal Service1109depends very heavily on full-time career employees, which may1110make it more difficult for them to do load balancing of1111resources, given the changes in their volume mix over time.1112    Mr. Sessions. Interesting. Anyone else?1113    [No response.]1114    Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.1115    Ms. Norton, the gentlewoman, is recognized.1116    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1117    Since its founding 250 years ago, the Postal Service has1118served as a vital lifeline for Americans providing connections1119to our rural and low-income communities and lifesaving1120medications to our veterans and seniors. President Trump's1121statements about privatizing the Postal Service reflect a1122fundamental desire to undermine the ability of our government1123institutions to serve the needs of the American people.1124    Since January, we have witnessed attempt after attempt to1125destroy the ability of Federal agencies to deliver services to1126the public, and we cannot allow President Trump and the so-1127called Department of Government Efficiency to do the same to1128the Postal Services.1129    Dr. Patel, does President Trump have the power to1130unilaterally privatize the public service, and what are the1131harms of privatizations?1132    Dr. Patel. I am certainly no expert in the legislative1133power versus the executive power over the Postal Service, but1134my understanding is, no, that would take an act of Congress to1135privatize the Postal Service, and I can say without a doubt1136that would be an enormous mistake. It is good economic sense to1137have a single provider of the Postal Service in a country as1138large and diverse as the United States. Other countries that1139have privatized their postal operators, my research has shown1140that they are not doing better financially. This has not been--1141privatization has not been the path toward stemming the1142bleeding, if you will, of first-class mail and letter delivery1143falling. That is the fundamental financial problem for the1144Postal Service and its funding model right now. And in Europe1145and other places where postal services have been privatized,1146you still have incredible declines in mail volume, and that is1147just because of digitization.1148    And so, what needs to happen is the Postal Service needs to1149modernize its operations, but maintain its network, maintain1150its last-mile delivery, maintain its universal service1151obligation so that everybody has access to these services in a1152public way, which is through a public postal service.1153    Ms. Norton. I remain very concerned about the agreement1154former Postmaster General DeJoy signed with the Department of1155Government Efficiency, which is still in effect after his1156resignation. After months of being embedded in the Postal1157Service to reportedly identify and achieve certain efficiencies1158and cut costs, we still have no idea what department officials1159have done or recommended. Meanwhile, we have seen the1160department recommend major work force cuts across Federal1161agencies.1162    Mr. Renfroe, why is a strong work force critical to1163efficient and reliable Postal Service operations?1164    Mr. Renfroe. Thank you, Congresswoman. You know, the Postal1165Service, in its role as a public service, the work that the1166people and postal employees do is essentially everything that1167it provides. You know, whereas some places operate like1168business and produce a product, the product we produce is1169service, and that service comes down to the people.1170    And I think the fact that postal employees, particularly1171the letter carriers that I represent, for many years have1172worked long careers, they have often worked long careers in the1173very same neighborhoods. We take a lot of pride in looking out1174for our communities and understanding what is happening and1175noticing when things are going wrong. We save lives and serve1176them. I think the stability of the work force has gone a long1177way toward building and establishing the trust that the1178American people have, not just in letter carriers, but in the1179Postal Service in general, and it is essential that we maintain1180that as we move forward.1181    Ms. Norton. We have seen the chaos in other agencies as the1182Department of Government Efficiency arbitrarily cancels1183contracts and fires Federal employees with no regard for the1184impact on everyday Americans or employees. I hope that my1185colleagues on both sides of the aisle will remain vigilant in1186protecting the ability of the Postal Service to provide its1187vital services.1188    And I yield back.1189    Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.1190    We are aware that there have been numerous Members who have1191attempted to come here who have had to leave due to other1192competitive meetings that they have. So, we are going to go out1193of order, and I would next pass the microphone to the gentleman1194from Maryland, Mr. Mfume.1195    Mr. Mfume, you are recognized.1196    Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.1197    I am going to withhold my questions until we wrap up. The1198gentleman from Florida, Mr. Frost, and the gentlewoman from the1199state of Washington, Ms. Randall, have been waiting, and we1200will find a way to get back to my questions.1201    I do want to--a couple of quick things. Although, on a1202point of personal privilege, he is not a member of the panel, I1203do want to recognize the presence of Bob Levi, who is the1204Director of Legislative and Political Affairs at the National1205Association of Postal Supervisors.1206    And I also want to thank Mr. Plunkett for calling the name1207of Gerry Connolly, who chaired this Committee with great1208distinction and who clearly represented you and others well in1209Fairfax, Virginia. He is dearly missed. It almost seems like it1210did not happen.1211    Mr. Chairman, I have got a couple of unanimous consent1212requests for the record. I would ask unanimous consent to1213submit for the record the statement of the United Postmasters1214and Managers of America.1215    Mr. Sessions. Without objection.1216    Mr. Mfume. I would ask unanimous consent to submit to the1217record the statement of the executive vice president of the1218National Association of Postal Supervisors.1219    Mr. Sessions. Without objection.1220    Mr. Mfume. I would ask unanimous consent to submit to the1221record a statement by the National Newspaper Association.1222    Mr. Sessions. Without objection.1223    Mr. Mfume. And last, I would like to submit with unanimous1224consent into the record the official statement of the National1225Postal Mail Handlers Union.1226    Mr. Sessions. Without objection, all of these will be1227entered into the record.1228    We thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman seek further1229time at this point?1230    Mr. Mfume. No, no, please.1231    Mr. Sessions. The gentleman does not seek time.1232    Once again remembering that we do have Members who have1233expressed interest in coming, we will, however, now, through1234the designation by the Chairman, the gentleman, Mr. Frost, who1235is from Florida, will be recognized.1236    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the1237witnesses for being here.1238    The United States Postal Service is a core function of the1239Federal Government, the only government agency spelled out in1240the Constitution. Our U.S. Postal Service has a legal duty to1241deliver to every address in the United States, leaving none of1242our constituents, none of our people behind.1243    In the service of all Americans, the United States Postal1244Office processes 23.5 million packages a day. A day.1245    Mr. Renfroe, just a quick question. Who are the top clients1246of the U.S. Postal Service?1247    Mr. Renfroe. The Postal Service has customers across all1248spectrums, from individuals to small businesses, large1249businesses. Some of their larger, over the years, their larger1250businesses come from many of, ironically, their competitors,1251large retail outlets. So, one, I think, one of the strengths of1252the Postal Service and its network is its ability to provide1253shipping services that allows businesses of all sizes to1254compete. That does include many large ones, yes.1255    Mr. Frost. Yes, exactly. And to be even more specific, you1256know, the top clients of the U.S. Postal Service are people who1257you consider competitors, FedEx, UPS, Amazon, et cetera. A lot1258of these private shipping companies want to reap the profits of1259that mail without having to worry about the duty to serve all1260Americans like the Postal Service does. And I am very concerned1261about the rhetoric and conversation we are hearing from the1262White House and many of my colleagues here in Congress around1263privatizing the U.S. Post Office and Postal Service. This year,1264Wells Fargo put out a report on what privatizing the Postal1265Service would mean. This report states that the Postal Service1266would have to raise their package rates between 30 to 1401267percent, more than double, to equal the prices people pay for1268private shipping.1269    Another question, Mr. Renfroe--and before I continue, I1270also have to give a shoutout to my local letter carriers,1271Branch 1091, just throwing that in there, in Orlando, Florida.1272In the hot sun, doing a lot of good work.1273    Which Americans would pay the most when it comes to1274privatizing the Postal Service?1275    Mr. Renfroe. Yes, a privatized model of the Postal Service1276would disproportionately affect those that live in rural areas,1277which in many cases are the people that rely on us the most.1278And private business, as it should, exists to make profit. So--1279--1280    Mr. Frost. Yes.1281    Mr. Renfroe [continuing]. It is very natural they would be1282interested in delivering to locations where it is profitable,1283but not to locations where it is not profitable.1284    Mr. Frost. Yes.1285    Ms. Renfroe. That would likely be mostly rural areas.1286    Mr. Frost. Exactly. That is the difference. I always have1287an objection when people say we need to run the country like a1288company because, I do not know about you, but if I were a part1289of a company, my top concern would be making money, right, the1290bottom line.1291    But the U.S. Postal Service, the top concern is not making1292money, it is service, service to all Americans. And so, private1293companies like UPS and FedEx, if you live in rural America,1294they are going to go ahead and contract with and use the1295services of the Postal Service. Why? Because no matter what and1296no matter how far, if an American lives there, they are going1297to get their mail every damn day from your guys, right? And1298that is the difference between a private company and service.1299And I am not trying to demonize all companies or anything like1300that, but I have to spell it out this way because I think most1301people do not fully understand.1302    Of course, there are issues with the Postal Service that we1303want to fix. There is probably no one in this room that knows1304that more than you and the members you represent that are out1305there on a day-to-day delivering the packages. But the solution1306to this is not to turn it into a company where it is more of a1307profit motive than a service motive. And like you said, it will1308impact our people in rural communities the most.1309    That same report states that in 2024, 75 percent, 3/4, of1310all mail routes are losing money because the Postal Service is1311not a business, it is a service. How concerned should we be1312that if they privatize the Postal Service that there will be1313mail routes that are closed, or people would not receive their1314mail on a daily basis?1315    Mr. Renfroe. Yes, I think any privatized model, even a1316partially privatized model, would erode the universal service1317obligation and would almost certainly result in Americans that1318today have access to postal services, including mail, including1319the shipping of packages, that under any privatized model, A--1320--1321    Mr. Frost. Yes.1322    Mr. Renfroe [continuing]. Would either not have access or1323more than likely they would pay higher costs for whatever1324shipping they did have access to.1325    Mr. Frost. Thank you. And I just have a few seconds left if1326you will indulge me, Mr. Chair. I just want to ask a quick1327question relating to our veterans. Among those millions of1328packages handled by the Postal Service each day, a huge portion1329of that are Americans' vital medications. The Postal Service1330delivers 1.2 billion medical prescriptions a year. This1331includes 80 percent of all VA outpatient prescriptions, and1332every day about 330,000 U.S. veterans receive a box of1333medication from the Postal Service. For seniors, people with1334disabilities, people too ill to get their medication1335physically, the Postal Service is a medical lifeline.1336    Dr. Patel, my last question, what could privatizing the1337Postal Service mean for the cost and access to medication for1338people unable to regularly make the trip to and from the1339pharmacy, especially our Nation's veterans?1340    Dr. Patel. Yes, I think you highlighted maybe one of my1341biggest concerns, which is that in rural America there are1342folks that rely on the Postal Service to deliver critical goods1343like medicine, and we just know that those are not profitable1344routes, and that those would be cut by a private operator. That1345is part of why the Postal Service is such an important public1346institution, to make sure we maintain that access.1347    Mr. Frost. Thank you. I appreciate it. And thank you, Mr.1348Chair, for putting this hearing together. I think as long as1349this conversation is in the ether from the highest levels of1350government, any opportunity I can get to talk about it, I will.1351    Thank you. I yield back.1352    Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.1353    Mr. Mfume, I want to state that I am proud of all of the1354Members who have chosen to keep their comments not just on a1355positive basis but on a basis that would draw better ideas out.1356And Mr. Frost, thank you for, once again, doing that here today1357and your entire Committee Members on your side, Mr. Mfume.1358    You also mentioned distinguished visitors. We had Bob Levi.1359I also see Chuck Mulidore, who is the vice president of the1360National Association of Postal Supervisors, and you submitted1361his comments, and so I want to thank you.1362    We will move now to the distinguished gentlewoman, the1363Chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for her 5 minutes. The1364gentlewoman is recognized.1365    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank1366our witnesses for being here.1367    Mr. Cochrane, the Postal Service's package business is the1368most profitable and perhaps most valuable part of the Postal1369Service's business. This package business not only covers its1370costs but helps subsidize the rest of the Postal Service's1371operations. And I understand that while you were with the1372Postal Service, you helped create public-private partnerships1373to grow the package business. Do you believe the private sector1374could do more to process mail and packages for the Postal1375Service and thereby increase the efficiency and reduce the cost1376of the overall postal system?1377    Mr. Cochrane. Well, thank you for the question. I think1378that the Postal Service is a unique company, and the last mile,1379I said it in my opening statement, but the fact that they are1380running down five million miles a day going to all those1381addresses, 168 million addresses, and unfortunately, in some1382cases, the trucks are not full. So, we have heard a lot about1383filling the trucks up.1384    But, you know, the real opportunity here is that--I do1385not--whether it is UPS, FedEx, Amazon, they are all looking for1386a delivery solution, and the Postal Service has got by far the1387best delivery solution in the United States.1388    Ms. Foxx. So, do you think we can maximize the opportunity1389for private carriers to hand over their packages to the Postal1390Service close to the destination for the final mile delivery to1391homes and businesses?1392    Mr. Cochrane. That is the best solution that is in the1393marketplace, and we absolutely should be doing more of that.1394    Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Is it important to preserve affordable1395pricing for destination delivery unit or DDU entry?1396    Mr. Cochrane. Of course. I mean, price is a component of1397the transaction, the retail sale, but the Postal Service has1398got to--you know, they have to approach the marketplace. There1399is competition, and so they got to be always cautious about how1400heavy the price is, I will say, but they have a unique ability1401to deliver something that other companies cannot do, and that1402is the big ones we talked about, but it is also a lot of1403regional carriers. There is a lot of people out there1404delivering stuff nowadays, but no one does it better than the1405Postal Service.1406    Ms. Foxx. Well, I want to pick up on what Mr. Frost had1407said and Dr. Patel. So, if the Postal Service were to spin off1408its package business, scale back package delivery to three days1409a week, or dramatically increase prices, what do you anticipate1410the impact would be on Americans in rural areas like those in1411my district? And I do have more questions to ask of other1412members. So, at what point do increases in postage rates start1413destroying demand and decrease the volume?1414    Dr. Patel. So, I think that what you started by asking1415about was if they spin off packages or otherwise reduce1416universal service, and I just think that that erodes the value1417of the Postal Service. And so, anything that you do to reduce1418profitability is ultimately going to harm everybody by making1419it harder to maintain universal service.1420    Ms. Foxx. This question would go to Mr. Steidler, Mr.1421Schatz, and Mr. Cochrane. So, I will ask the question, and if1422all of you would give me a fairly quick answer. The Postal1423Service exists to ``provide the Nation with a reliable,1424affordable, universal mail service.'' That means Congress must1425preserve its ability to operate so constituents in some of the1426most rural and remote areas in the Nation can get their mail.1427It should be easy for all of us to agree taxpayers should not1428have to continually bail out and prop up the Postal Service.1429But it recently had the Delivering for America plan with the1430goal of breaking even by 2023, but losses continue to mount.1431What changes should the new Postmaster General make to the1432Delivering for America plan so the Postal Service can finally1433break even? And you can give me written comments in addition to1434your quick responses verbally. Thank you.1435    Mr. Steidler. Sure. Congresswoman, I would begin by saying1436there has to be an increased focus on cost reductions, on1437better cost efficiencies. The Delivering for America plan1438should be tabled. I would cite the reasons that Mr. Plunkett1439gave.1440    Ms. Foxx. Okay. Mr. Schatz.1441    Mr. Schatz. Yes. The answers are in my--at least our1442answers are in my testimony, but moratorium on the new1443processing facilities, freezing non-delivery positions,1444exempting letter carriers, and terminating the Regional1445Transportation Optimization initiative. There is more, and1446again, happy to give you further details.1447    Ms. Foxx. Mr. Cochrane.1448    Mr. Cochrane. I think the answer is in public-private1449partnership for the Postal Service. And there are a lot of1450people out there that have boxes that need to be delivered, and1451the Postal Service has, in some cases, backed off of partnering1452with people. And I think that the real solution is for the1453Postal Service to partner with the e-commerce platforms, to1454partner with traditional competitors and the biggest retailers1455in the United States. They should be looking to deliver1456everywhere, every day.1457    Ms. Foxx. Well, I like the fact that you are saying we need1458to reduce costs. That is obviously very important. I think that1459is where you always start. That is where an individual starts1460when you do not have enough money to spend for the things that1461you need is you look for ways to cut costs.1462    I am a person who loves the Postal Service. I use it a lot,1463always have. I would like to have us be at a time--when I was a1464student at Appalachian State University and somebody wrote me a1465letter, I was in Boone, North Carolina, and they sent a letter1466to my name, Boone, North Carolina, and the Postal Service1467delivered it to me. I use that as an example, Mr. Chairman, all1468the time of how the Postal Service used to work.1469    I will tell you, I went for a period of time recently--not1470real recently, a year ago--when I was afraid to put mail in my1471mailbox to be picked up by the post office because I did not1472trust the people in the post office not to destroy my mail1473because I complained so much about the bad service. And so,1474that is where we are. I mean, that is the difference between1475what it was some years ago in terms of how the Postal Service1476worked and how it is now. I want to bring the Postal Service1477back to the way the American people expect it to be, and I hope1478we will be able to do that with the emphasis from this1479Committee.1480    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging my going over time.1481And thanks, all of you, for your efforts.1482    Mr. Sessions. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much.1483    Ms. Randall, you are now recognized.1484    Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1485    I think we can all agree on this Committee, as you have1486heard today, that despite the decline in mail volume, the1487Postal Service remains a vital link to information, goods, and1488services, and connection for Americans. And this is even more1489true for rural districts, like many of ours, like mine,1490certainly. More than 1/4 of the U.S. population live in rural1491areas, and they deserve to get their mail on time too.1492    I am concerned that some of the cost-cutting proposals for1493the Postal Service will disproportionately disrupt rural1494communities and could jeopardize the timely delivery of1495lifesaving medications, mail-in ballots, personal letters,1496cards, and financial documents. In particular, the Postal1497Service is in the process of implementing its Regional1498Transportation Optimization initiative, which reduces end-of-1499day collection at post offices more than 50 miles from regional1500hubs, effectively slowing delivery time for people living in1501hard-to-reach areas.1502    The closest regional hub or regional processing and1503distribution center to my district is in Seattle. That is more1504than 100 miles away from 17,000 constituents in Aberdeen and1505150 miles away from 3,500 constituents living in Forks, meaning1506that constituents could expect a degradation of services under1507this RTO initiative.1508    And my constituents are concerned, and I am not surprised.1509They have every right to be. One of my constituents wrote to me1510concerned that these changes may compromise the ability of the1511Postal Service to carry out even essential functions, and they1512are particularly concerned about delivering ballots safely.1513    And in a community where we are seeing small pharmacies,1514rural pharmacies close down, it is even more important that we1515preserve this last-mile delivery of medication to rural1516communities like mine. ``The Postal Service is the lifeblood of1517rural America,'' my constituent wrote, ``where people rely on1518USPS to deliver goods and transmit information.''1519    The Postal Regulatory Commission, the regulatory body1520overseeing the Postal Service, has found that the RTO1521initiative will have significant negative impacts on delivery1522in rural communities and not produce significant savings. Mr.1523Renfroe, in your view, is it reasonable to degrade service for1524rural communities for such modest, if any, savings?1525    Mr. Renfroe. The short answer is no. If I could quickly, I1526will not speak to either support or condemn this particular1527program, as a whole. I would, however, like to say we1528absolutely should, at minimum, preserve service, while at the1529same time, if there are things the Postal Service can do to1530improve efficiencies without degrading that service, you know,1531that is the type of thing that we engage with them on in this1532modernization effort, but it certainly starts with maintaining1533and improving service.1534    Ms. Randall. Definitely, I agree. The Postal Service is, in1535fact, required by law to provide prompt, reliable, and1536efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render1537Postal Services to all communities. I think maintaining rural1538access is incredibly important, and this universal service1539obligation must always be our north star for the Postal Service1540and for us as Congress Members and oversight body.1541    Despite this, we have seen continued proposals for1542privatization for parts or in whole of the Postal Service and1543slashing the postal work force. I also agree that we should be1544looking for efficiencies and modernizations wherever possible,1545but I think cutting the rural jobs, the rural delivery1546mechanisms that reach people in far-off areas like Forks on the1547coast of Washington State with one road that washes out every1548year like clockwork is incredibly important.1549    Ms. Patel, how would privatization or other aggressive1550cost-cutting efforts interfere with the Postal Service's1551universal service obligations?1552    Dr. Patel. I mean, quite simply, privatization exists kind1553of orthogonally to universal service. They are not compatible.1554So, if we wanted a private operator to adhere to what is1555required by law in terms of affordable, equitable, and1556universal service, it would need taxpayer funding because the1557current model would not support that even for a private1558operator. So, you cannot avoid that by going to a private1559market, and the private operator would confront all of the same1560problems that the current Postal Service faces, which is just a1561decline in first-class mail that has historically been the most1562important leg of the stool in Postal Service funding.1563    Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.1564    Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time. Thank1565you very much.1566    I am now going to move what actually would be, Mr. Mfume,1567to a second round and would be extending that to you and any1568other Member that decided that they would come to attend.1569    There has been discussion--I do not remember exactly who1570said it, perhaps Dr. Patel, you did, or perhaps Mr. Plunkett--1571about the pension issue and that if pensions were allowed to be1572out into a marketplace, that they would yield a greater amount1573of money. Could someone address that issue perhaps again? I1574have got a trusty pencil now.1575    Mr. Steidler. Yes, Congressman, the U.S. Treasury reported1576that for May 31, there was $25.1 billion in the Postal1577Service's Retiree Health Benefits Fund. At the end of Fiscal1578Year 2024, the Postal Service reported having $249 billion in1579pension assets. Those by law can only be invested in government1580bonds, which traditionally yield much less than a diversified1581portfolio of stocks and bonds. Think about it this way. If you1582were starting to save for retirement, there is no way you would1583put all your assets into bonds.1584    I would call to your attention a report from the Postal1585Service's Office of Inspector General that came out April 26,15862023. It assumed that if 60 percent of the Postal Service's1587retirement assets were in stocks, that there would be a $1.21588trillion improvement in its financial position. That is1589assuming that this would have started with the CSRS assets in15901972, the FERS assets in 1988, and the Postal Service Retiree1591Health Benefits Fund in 2007. Over a 50-year period, this $1.21592trillion comes to about $20 billion a year in extra cash that1593would be there.1594    And what we are talking about is just investing these1595assets the same way that teachers' assets are invested,1596firefighters, government workers at the state and local level.1597So, it is a huge amount of money that is being left on the1598table and should be a no-brainer from a bipartisan standpoint1599to go forward with making this change. And I would encourage1600you to look at it and would be glad to discuss this further.1601    Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Dr. Patel, there has1602been a word that has been used here many, many, many times, and1603that is privatization. And I have heard this same term,1604although not exactly sure the real intent of privatization of1605Social Security, privatization. Does that mean anything that1606competed against it, even if you kept the Postal Service there,1607but you put some operations or looked at different ways to do1608things? What does privatization mean to you?1609    Dr. Patel. Yes, thanks for the question. And actually, I1610think it is really good to clarify because there is a couple of1611things that can go on in postal in general. There is something1612called liberalization, which is opening postal markets up to1613competition, which was done broadly in Europe beginning in the1614early 2000s, and also exists in the United States. There is1615substantial competition in middle-mile delivery services. There1616is competition for parcels and packages.1617    Privatization is about the sale of some or all of the1618Postal Service's assets, so a fully privatized USPS would sell1619all of its assets to a private operator and would cease to be a1620public operation. You could also partially privatize it by1621issuing stocks that the Federal Government held the majority1622share in and introduced shareholders. That is a form of partial1623privatization that, again, in Europe, you see a mix of all of1624these sort of organizational structures, depending on the1625country that you are talking about.1626    Mr. Sessions. Do you believe that such an ability exists to1627take and privatize the Postal Service to where someone would1628either want this opportunity or be able to pay for that1629opportunity or that there would be enough Members of Congress1630who would put a demand together to do that?1631    Dr. Patel. I do not. I know there is a lot of rhetoric1632around it, but I cannot imagine there is actual public will to1633get that done.1634    Mr. Sessions. So, if you were, let us say, trying to keep1635the ball in the middle of the field--and I alluded to this1636earlier when I actually did believe what I said when I said1637about not just Mr. Frost, but Mr. Mfume's leadership of1638discussion within his Members. Does it do us any good to throw1639that word out there if we really know that following what you1640have said, which I believe is a good definition, we are not1641going to privatize the Postal Service? We need to, however,1642have certain goals. We need to understand what we are trying to1643do, and we can get closer to those.1644    I spent 16 years at AT&T and moved that structure about as1645much as anybody during my years there, and I think there are1646ideas that I have about the Postal Service. They are having1647problems getting enough carriers. They are having enough1648problems to where they, as what was said, deliver maybe with1649un-full trucks. They have a reduced amount of mail that they1650deliver. All these things come into play that indicate that a1651wise manager of this, whether it be our young Chairman, James1652Comer, or Mr. Mfume, or myself.1653    Mr. Chairman, I see you over there, and I am delighted that1654you are here. Mr. Jack, I see you here too.1655    My point is, is that I think that there has to be a1656structure without called privatization. You are going to kill1657something because right now we are not exactly the goose that1658lays golden eggs, but rather move ourselves with agreement,1659with knowledge, with a plan, and with our employees. I think1660that this is important, and I think that I am hoping to give1661some confidence that we can talk about these without an1662assertion that you are trying to get rid of it or you are1663trying to privatize it because we are not.1664    Mr. Mfume, do you seek time?1665    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I would yield right now for the1666Chairman of the overall Committee, the distinguished gentleman1667from Kentucky, and then reclaim my time later.1668    Mr. Sessions. Oh, trying to do a little suck-up business1669here today. Yes. So, the distinguished gentleman, the gentleman1670from Kentucky, is not seeking time. The gentleman from Georgia1671is. The gentleman, Mr. Jack, is recognized for 5 minutes.1672    Mr. Jack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our1673witnesses.1674    The title of the hearing alone, I think, is helpful as we1675look to deliver solutions for the many customers of the Postal1676Service. Hearing from all stakeholders is very helpful.1677    Specifically, I would just like to, on the record, note I1678represent Georgia's 3rd Congressional District, which is just1679southwest of Atlanta, stretches down to Columbus. Most of my1680district is serviced by the Palmetto Mail Facility, which has1681experienced a lot of trouble in recent years, recent months,1682recent years.1683    But specifically, if I could start, Mr. Plunkett, again,1684thank you for your testimony. Curious for your insights. The1685Delivering for America plan includes, I think, over $40 billion1686in investments for new capabilities and facilities, almost1687exclusively in package sortation and distribution. However, as1688I have just noted, we have seen significant disruptions at some1689of those facilities, particularly in Atlanta, Indianapolis, and1690Richmond. From your perspective, have these massive investments1691in package capacity improved services for packages? Have the1692investments degraded, perhaps, the Postal Service's core1693mission of delivering mail should these investments in1694competitive products continue?1695    Mr. Plunkett. I apologize. From my perspective, there is no1696evidence indicating any kind of improvement whatsoever, quite1697the contrary. As you point out, Atlanta and many other1698facilities around the country have suffered severe gridlock at1699various stages over the last few years.1700    My concern about the capital investments in the Postal1701Service's package business, they are allowed by law from the17022006 PAEA to operate in competitive markets. That law, though,1703also included a price cap that protected mailers from having to1704backstop questionable or speculative investments in trying to1705compete with the private sector.1706    My concern today is if the Postal Service is allowed to1707continue to funnel tens of billions of dollars into excess1708processing capacity, at the end of all this, it is the mailers1709that are going to have to pay those bills because the1710protection of the price cap has been eviscerated by the1711regulator. But clearly, there is no evidence whatsoever that1712those investments are paying off in any way yet.1713    Mr. Jack. And what other distractions can be cut out of1714USPS so they can focus on their core mission?1715    Mr. Plunkett. Well, we strongly believe the Postal Service1716has a critical opportunity to focus on its last-mile delivery1717network, which is unparalleled, and on first-mile access to its1718services. Beyond that, we believe the Postal Service and its1719customers would be much better served through development of1720private-public partnerships to allow for mailers and shippers1721to enter their product as close to destination as possible.1722That would reduce postal costs, it would increase overall1723efficiency, and most importantly, perhaps, improve service. We1724know that the longer the Postal Service holds on to a letter, a1725package, or a flat, that the worse the service gets. So, we1726believe for every product category, the Postal Service should1727be maximizing downstream entry to increase efficiency and1728improve service.1729    Mr. Jack. So, just to help me understand in layman's terms,1730would, you know, a package being sent, let us say, to Peachtree1731City, where I reside, would it be handled by perhaps a private1732carrier up until that last mile and then Postal Service takes1733over from there?1734    Mr. Plunkett. And until very recently, that was the working1735model. Consolidators used to collect shipments from small1736businesses, consolidate them into larger shipments, and then1737enter those generally at a destination delivery unit, close to1738the destination. In recent years, the Postal Service has been1739restricting access to its delivery units for entry and forcing1740more packages further upstream into its own processing network,1741thus justifying those tens of billions of dollars in capital1742investments that you asked about initially.1743    Mr. Jack. Wonderful. Thank you for your testimony there.1744    Mr. Schatz, welcome back. You were at, I think, our first1745hearing, one of the first hearings of this Committee, and I1746always welcome and appreciate your testimony. I would love, in1747the closing minute that we have, for you just to highlight any1748other instances of waste, fraud, and abuse within the USPS that1749we and our Committee can work to solve and cut out.1750    Mr. Schatz. Well, I think the discussion about public-1751private partnerships is critical because it works across many1752of the Federal Government's functions. I think it is something1753that should be reviewed not just at the Postal Service but in1754other agencies.1755    However, it is particularly pertinent in the Postal Service1756because the private sector has developed systems over time with1757new technology that the companies themselves have invested in1758that the Postal Service is a little bit of trying to catch up1759to in its processing facilities, but it is duplicative. It1760overlaps. And as we have said, we think it's something that1761should be immediately ceased. Tens of billions of dollars could1762be saved or not spent. The other area, of course, is this1763optimization initiative, which has led to a reduction in1764service in rural areas.1765    And having worked on Capitol Hill many years ago, I know1766that there is a great deal of comments. There were many1767comments from people about USPS. That has not changed. People1768like getting the service. They need the service. And to the1769extent that it can be made more efficient and the universal1770service obligation continues with that last-mile delivery by1771the letter carriers, that would help avoid a lot of the waste1772and abuse and allow the Postal Service to operate more1773efficiently.1774    Mr. Jack. Thank you. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.1775    Mr. Sessions. The distinguished gentleman yields back his1776time. Thank you very much.1777    Would our young Chairman wish to be recognized?1778    Chairman Comer. I appreciate that. I appreciate the young1779comment too.1780    Mr. Sessions. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.1781    Chairman Comer. All right. Well, thank you. And thank our1782witnesses for being here today.1783    I think everyone knows this Subcommittee, and for the most1784part this full Committee, strongly supports the Postal Service.1785We have, as you know, legislative jurisdiction. And we1786recognize--and I am sure you all do--that there are problems1787with the Postal Service. The performance is a problem, but the1788massive losses are a problem as well. The Postal Service was1789designed to be self-sufficient, and it is not self-sufficient1790by a long shot.1791    My first question, Mr. Schatz, what are the top two or1792three things the Postal Service could do to reduce its costs to1793try to get closer to breaking even?1794    Mr. Schatz. Well, it has to match its labor costs with its1795revenues. The labor costs are 80 percent of costs. And when the1796Postmaster moved 195,000 part-time jobs to full-time, that was1797clearly not helpful.1798    Chairman Comer. Yes, no, I agree with that, and I was real1799disappointed when that happened. That was not a part of the1800postal reform business model that I strongly supported and this1801Committee led, so that was a huge disappointment. I agree.1802    Mr. Schatz. Yes, and I also, as I have said numerous times,1803you know, processing, logistics, transportation of mail, as Mr.1804Plunkett and others have said, really needs to be made closer1805to the destination and allow the systems that have been1806developed over years--and it is a lot like other areas in the1807Federal Government. They do not have the technology or1808investment in innovation.1809    Chairman Comer. Right. Was it a bad idea to consolidate the1810sorting facilities or was that a good idea? The idea, as I was1811explained, was to reduce costs and to be more efficient. Has1812that helped the bottom line? It has not helped the1813performance----1814    Mr. Schatz. No.1815    Chairman Comer [continuing]. I can assure you.1816    Mr. Schatz. No, it has degraded performance and it1817certainly is not helping the bottom line. And it does--as I1818have said, the new Postmaster General to come in and halt that1819effort and come back and talk to the Committee about what1820should be done.1821    Chairman Comer. Okay. Mr. Plunkett, across the country,1822mail volume has declined, we have talked about that, with the1823rise of digital media. The Postal Service now handles half the1824mail volume it did 20 years ago, but it has significantly more1825employees, in fact, 40,000 more postal employees. And as Mr.1826Schatz said, the labor is your biggest expense in just about1827any government agency. So, it is particularly concerning to me1828because 80 percent of the Postal Service costs are labor. How1829can public-private partnerships help deal with this high labor1830cost?1831    Mr. Plunkett. One way, as Mr. Schatz rightly points out,1832much of what the Postal Service does in the middle mile--1833transportation, sortation, and logistical distribution of mail1834or packages--can easily be replicated outside of the Postal1835Service and could be done much more efficiently and much more1836effectively.1837    Now, you mentioned the fact that we have a mismatch between1838the size of the labor force and what has happened with volume1839over time. You know, the Postal Service unfortunately does have1840a lot of opportunities for attrition. I think no one wants to1841see any layoffs. We certainly do not. But over time, if the1842Postal Service were to concentrate on last-mile delivery and1843first-mile access and restructure its products and its1844incentives, it could do a lot to move mail further downstream,1845move packages further downstream, and create billions of1846dollars in cost savings opportunities in the middle mile parts1847of its network.1848    Chairman Comer. Okay. Mr. Cochrane, the mail continues to1849get slower. The performance continues to decline, despite1850having more employees than ever. When I look at the Postal1851Service and I talk to postal employees, I try to communicate1852regularly with the unions, communicate regularly with the1853stakeholders, the people in the package coalition and all the1854groups that utilize the Postal Service at the largest levels,1855it seems to me that the problem is in the mail sorting, Okay? I1856do not think there is a problem with the mail carriers. I do1857not think there is a problem with the post offices. You could1858make an argument that there are too many post offices, and that1859could be consolidated.1860    But at the end of the day, it looks to me, as someone who1861strongly supports the Postal Service and someone who has, you1862know, worked closely with Mr. Sessions and Mr. Mfume and the1863previous Chairman, the Democrat Chairwoman Maloney, of this1864Committee to try to help the Postal Service, that the problem1865is in the sorting. Do you think there could be a private sector1866solution to the sorting, just the sorting?1867    And I have always encouraged Mr. DeJoy to do a pilot1868project, one pilot project to privatize the sorting of the mail1869to see if we could do that more efficiently and quicker. Do you1870think that is an option, a viable option?1871    Mr. Cochrane. Well, yes, because it worked with packages. I1872mean, packages used to be brought--you know, until last year,1873two billion parcels were being brought all the way to a local1874post office. And once again, very nominal work once it gets to1875the post office. They just separate it into one of 30 routes1876and load the truck up. That was brought back into the network,1877and now it runs across sorters, and it has got to incur1878transportation costs and incur processing costs. The1879profitability goes down when you do that.1880    And it is the same with mail. I mean, once again, there is1881catalogs and magazines. Eighty percent of them are already1882entered at a plant, a processing center. With slight financial1883incentives, 80 percent of those same pieces could go right to a1884post office. So, I think there is absolutely an opportunity to1885do that. And the mailing industry actually does it already. I1886mean, once again, marketing mail, 85 percent of it is bypassed1887by the entire network and is brought to a destinating sort, so1888we just got to do more of that and do it better.1889    Chairman Comer. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say1890publicly that this Subcommittee is serious about trying to save1891the Postal Service, but it is going to have to be more1892efficient. I mean, they are losing customers every day. I am1893not blaming the postal employees. I am not blaming the1894Postmaster General. But at the end of the day, it is broken,1895and we have to fix it because the Congress is not going to1896continue to funnel money in there. And this is one of the very1897few bipartisan issues in Congress. We want to support the1898Postal Service.1899    So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate you1900holding this hearing, appreciate your commitment. Hopefully, we1901will get some more direction from the White House as to what1902their plans are for the future of the Postal Service. But I1903think one thing is for certain from my standpoint. I want to1904see a Postal Service into the future, but it is not going to1905happen until we make some needed changes.1906    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.1907    Mr. Sessions. Chairman, thank you very much. I think you1908hit at least the nail on the head that Mr. Mfume and I are1909after, and that is to seek other people's opinions also. We1910think our opinions matter. We know that others do matter, but I1911think that people who are engaged in the day-to-day operation,1912business, and other matters do matter.1913    We have now been joined by Mr. Burchett. Mr. Burchett is a1914member of this Subcommittee. The distinguished gentleman is1915recognized.1916    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1917    How many unions operate within the Postal Service? Can1918anybody tell me that?1919    Mr. Schatz. Four.1920    Mr. Burchett. Four. Okay. What are the top two or three1921things--I mean, Mr. Schatz, have I got that name right?1922    Mr. Schatz. Yes, sir.1923    Mr. Burchett. All right. I am Burchett, so mine is never--1924--1925    Mr. Schatz. I know that.1926    Mr. Burchett. Yes, I never get that right, so we are good.1927What are the top two or three things that the Postal Service1928could do to reduce its costs?1929    Mr. Schatz. Well, as I have mentioned----1930    Mr. Burchett. And I want to apologize to you.1931    Mr. Schatz. That is fine.1932    Mr. Burchett. Mr. Burchett. As the 435th most powerful1933Member of Congress, I am always the last person to ask the1934questions.1935    Mr. Schatz. That is Okay.1936    Mr. Burchett. So, everyone knows this. When I ask the1937question, it is already been asked 15 times. You are supposed1938to immediately respond and say that is an incredible question.1939I will try to answer that for you, sir.1940    Mr. Schatz. And I have great answers. Well, as I think we1941have said this, we have been working on postal issues since the1942Grace Commission issued its report under President Reagan, and1943we have been very consistent over the years. Increase the1944number of public-private partnerships, and, given some of the1945changes made in the Delivering for America plan, we think there1946should be an immediate halt to that plan, reassess what is1947working and not working, mostly not working.1948    And, you know, it is important to keep the Postal Service1949moving forward. We do not support privatization. It has been1950mentioned several times, but I will throw that in since I was1951not asked directly. And I think that the changes that can be1952made, particularly in increasing the ability of the private1953sector to help and improve efficiency, is probably the best1954thing that can be done.1955    Mr. Burchett. Okay. Mr. Plunkett, with the rate increases,1956what are you hearing from the business community? Are they1957pitching a fit, are they jumping ship, or what are they doing?1958    Mr. Plunkett. Let me first say what an excellent question1959that is.1960    Mr. Burchett. I concur.1961    Mr. Plunkett. So, I do not know if people realize the size1962of the increase that it is going to hit commercial mailers in1963July. Many large categories of mail are getting an 11.4 percent1964rate increase in July. They were not budgeting for that. They1965were expecting about seven percent. But the Postal Service,1966when they filed their change, it was much higher than we1967expected. It is very difficult to plan in an environment like1968that. And so, it is not just the magnitude of the increases1969that is going to drive away substantial volume, but it is the1970surprise that was provided when that was announced.1971    And another thing I will mention is it is not just the1972overall size. The Postal Service is diminishing incentives to1973do the exact same things that Mr. Schatz is talking about. They1974are taking away incentives to move mail closer to its1975destination, to move it back up into their own processing1976network. And I can tell you that in several postal facilities1977around the country that happen to be located close to large1978mail manufacturers, there is the real possibility of gridlock1979in the middle of July when those incentives are taken away and1980all of a sudden mailers just dump all of their mail at the1981point of origin. That is something our members are bracing for.1982We wrote to the Board of Governors suggesting that they should1983hold off for a few months to reassess this. We have not gotten1984a response to that request, but I can tell you the mailing1985community is on the verge of being terrified of what is going1986to happen in July.1987    Mr. Burchett. Okay. Mr. Cochrane, can the private sector do1988more to process mail and packages for the Postal Service, maybe1989increase the efficiency of the overall postal system?1990    Mr. Cochrane. Yes, they could. I think they--one of the1991first things they need to do is open up last mile again. And1992last mile is bringing stuff all the way to a post office. A1993year and a half ago, they decided to move that and cut that off1994and move it back into the processing network. The processing1995network got gridlocked, and it took them a while to restore1996service. It charged more. But if they just open back up into1997the last mile where they have facilities, they have automation,1998they have, you know, where the carriers are located, you bring1999it there, you bypass a whole lot of costs. And it is the most2000efficient way of doing it. It is the lowest price and service,2001the key service issue. So, it is an easy thing for them to turn2002back on. It was just a decision that was made not to allow2003access into the post office.2004    Mr. Burchett. Have your delivery standards impacted your2005customers?2006    Mr. Cochrane. Absolutely. When it moved back into the2007processing center, I think some of the stories we heard today2008about what happened in Georgia and then Louisville and then2009down in Houston, it is, you know, the processing centers are2010where you are going to find delays with mail sorting. The2011processing centers are where you are going to find--you2012literally lose a trailer or lose volume.2013    So, the post offices--the beauty of a post office, it has2014got nowhere to hide anything. They are small. What you see when2015you walk into the lobby, there is like equal space in the back.2016    Mr. Burchett. Yes.2017    Mr. Cochrane. So, there is no lost trailers, no packages2018lined up on the, you know, containers lined up on the wall,2019pallets full of things. When you go to the post office, it is2020clean, it is great service, and the best price in the2021marketplace.2022    Mr. Burchett. I am out of time, but I would like to say I2023did--somebody mentioned earlier something about the former2024Postmaster, and I had a lot of problems with the former2025Postmaster. I think I maybe exhibited a little bit of my east2026Tennessee anger toward him multiple times, and it was well2027deserved. But I would like to say--I know I am over time--but2028back in the day I had a burgeoning eBay business, and I loved2029going to the post office. Some of the best memories I have, my2030old daddy would go with me. My dad was a World War II veteran,2031and they would see Mr. Burchett come in there and they would2032bring a chair out for him and he could watch my packages while2033I was running back and forth to the truck, bringing them in.2034And Daddy would usually take a nap, but everybody was really2035kind to him. And I dig that about the post office.2036    I miss the so-called professionalism. You know, we get all2037this highfalutin stuff, and we forget that a lot of the postmen2038back in the day, they checked on people. And if packages were2039stacking up in front of their dadgum house, they were knocking2040on the door, checking on the family. And I think that was a2041good thing, and we are missing out on a lot when we lose that.2042    So, sorry I went over, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And Ranking2043Member as well, sorry.2044    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Burchett, thank you very much. If you2045would like, we will give you more time.2046    Mr. Burchett. I could just indulge on my current state2047where I am trying to sell my baseball card and comic book2048collection. Because my daughter likes horses, apparently, that2049is a priority right now.2050    Mr. Sessions. It would be to me.2051    Mr. Burchett. Yes, well, I wish she had stuck with2052motorcycles. They were safer and cheaper. But I will leave that2053as it is. But anyway----2054    Mr. Sessions. Good gosh.2055    Mr. Burchett [continuing]. No, it is a pleasure being on2056this Committee. And as I said, the Ranking Member and the2057Chairman are, I consider, two of my closest friends up here.2058So, thank you all.2059    Mr. Sessions. Mr. Burchett, thank you very much.2060    I think that this panel has heard from a lot of people2061today. I would like to go to Mr. Mfume for any final words that2062he may have and closing remarks. The distinguished gentleman,2063my friend, is recognized.2064    Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the2065gentleman from Tennessee, who is my friend also and who keeps2066it real all the time here in the House of Representatives. Take2067care, Tim.2068    A couple of quick things, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I want2069to thank you for working to put this hearing together. It is2070something that both you and I wanted to do and that we are2071going to follow up on.2072    You were correct. I was kind of cozying up to the Chairman2073of the Committee earlier by giving him my time. So, since I was2074doing that, it occurred to me I would not be out of order to2075brown nose and to recognize Chuck Mulidore, who you did2076earlier. Chuck, good to see you. Sometimes, we are both2077overtaken by the radiance of Bill Levi, so that is why I only2078saw him beaming through there. Yes, Bob Levi, excuse me. That2079is why I saw him beam through there.2080    Mr. Chairman, the question is where do we go from here? And2081there are a lot of directions. I have got a couple of quick2082questions, and then I want to get with you and try to figure2083out all this for the follow-up to this hearing.2084    Mr. Cochrane, you talked about systemic slowdowns. Can you2085just take a second or two to give me an idea of what you mean2086there and why we have them?2087    Mr. Cochrane. Well, it is the optimization, the Regional2088Transportation Optimization. And it does have an effect that,2089you know, the previous Congressman talked about being an eBay2090seller. If you are an eBay seller in a rural area that is2091caught up in the changes that took place in Regional2092Transportation Optimization, you are judged by when that2093purchase takes place, you are measured from that time to when2094it gets delivered, and you get a score. And unfortunately, if2095you are living in a rural area, you lose. You are already a day2096behind because you sold it on Monday, and it did not even leave2097until Tuesday. So, you have got to catch up, and it will affect2098how you are rated on a platform. And that is not just eBay.2099That is a lot of the platforms that are out there.2100    So, you know, once again, slowing down service in rural2101America is not necessary. And actually, I would think it is one2102of the big growth areas. The population was growing. We heard2103that before. Twenty-five percent of the U.S. population now in2104rural areas. And frankly, it is not all rural areas. And it is2105just--it is a 100-mile zone issue, which is a problem.2106    So, I live in Delaware, and there is a lot of beaches down2107there, but there is 100,000, 200,000 people living there. But2108they decided my regional building was in New Jersey, so my mail2109does not get picked up----2110    Mr. Mfume. I got it.2111    Mr. Cochrane [continuing]. At the end of the day, so.2112    Mr. Mfume. I got it.2113    Mr. Cochrane. Yes.2114    Mr. Mfume. Thank you. Mr. Steidler, let me ask you a quick2115question. You talked about robotics and AI as being avenues2116that could increase significantly our efficiencies. Can you2117talk some more about that? And does that mean--is that a threat2118to the work force? That is the other issue.2119    Mr. Steidler. The short answer is it is not a threat to the2120work force. In fact, it will empower the work force by enabling2121them to focus on more efficient things going forward here.2122    Robotics are already being used widely in warehouses and2123other places to transport things, and that is something that2124USPS should look at. I would add to that, that is going to be2125difficult in the current situation because that involves2126capital expenditures. But those are expenditures, much like on2127the vehicles, that will pay for themselves in greater2128efficiencies and reduction in maintenance costs.2129    The other thing is, the Postal Service is a repository of a2130huge amount of data on its different products, on what works2131well in different areas, what practices are best, and what the2132pricing should be. And the opportunity to use AI is there to2133identify the best practices in the best areas and to help2134replicate them on a national basis.2135    Mr. Mfume. Is any of that being used now, utilized at all?2136    Mr. Steidler. I believe it is being used very sparingly at2137the Postal Service that they are really, from an IT standpoint,2138they have higher priorities in terms of preventing cyber2139threats and things along those lines. But this is something2140that the private sector is looking at. It is something that the2141Postal Service should certainly be looking at as well.2142    Given its cash constraints, I would--and they are not that2143public with this information. I would imagine they are not2144looking at it nearly to the extent that they should.2145    Mr. Mfume. Okay. And the other thing you mentioned in your2146testimony was that the Board of Governors should be done away2147with.2148    Mr. Steidler. Yes.2149    Mr. Mfume. Let us say we do that. What do you envision as2150replacing that, if you think it needs to be replaced at all?2151And what should some of its priorities be?2152    Mr. Steidler. I think it should be a smaller commission2153type or Board of Governors type entity. Right now, you have2154nine individuals who are paid $30,000 a year to look at a2155variety of issues in the Postal Service. The simple reality is2156that is not enough money to attract and retain bright people2157who are going to focus in on those areas.2158    And I think we also have to take a step back and realize2159that those who should have been keeping an eye on the finances2160of the Postal Service have not been as rigorous as they should2161have been. The Postal Service, for example, has had the same2162auditing firm that it has had for 54 years. Best corporate2163governance practices would say that you should swap them out or2164at least competitively bid them every year.2165    So, we need a small contained outside board with resources2166that can focus on these issues, that can demand to look at2167contracts, that can look at------2168    Mr. Mfume. Thank you. I am going to have to reclaim my2169time.2170    Mr. Steidler. Sure.2171    Mr. Mfume. Dr. Patel and Mr. Schatz, your thoughts also on2172the Board of Governors and where you think any reform is needed2173outside of your written testimony. By the way, there will be2174follow-up questions as a result of the testimony that we all2175have. We just do not have enough time right now. But if you2176could both take a stab at that, that would be great.2177    Dr. Patel. Yes, I would just answer really quickly. I think2178the Board of Governors is important. I think the reforms that2179have been talked about are also important. And I think a2180regulator, because the Postal Service operates a legal2181monopoly, is a really important part of the puzzle. So, I just2182think empowering these bodies to do more and do better is the2183step forward.2184    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Schatz.2185    Mr. Schatz. Yes, I agree there has to be oversight, and I2186think there should be more transparency, and that can be done2187with a stronger board.2188    Mr. Mfume. Okay. I am just trying to get to where we are.2189This board now--you want a board that is appointed by the2190Administration? Is this a board that ought to be elected in2191some other kind of way? I am just trying to get a sense of what2192you see a new board being and looking like.2193    Mr. Schatz. I do not know that we have reached that issue2194yet. I think it is a good question. I think it is something we2195would consider as an organization, but I do not have a direct2196answer at this point.2197    Mr. Mfume. Okay. That is fine.2198    Mr. Chairman, I do not have any other questions right now.2199I will be happy to yield back, and thank you again for your2200work on this.2201    Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.2202    Before I go to my final closing remarks, I do want to make2203sure that we entered into the record at least three additional2204pieces of correspondence that we have been asked to. The2205National Paper Association; ``Keep US Posted'' by the2206gentleman, the Honorable Kevin Yoder; and Envelope2207Manufacturers Association, Marie Clark, has asked that that be2208entered in the record.2209    I also want to do two other things I think are important,2210and that is to thank members of the Postal Service. I, too,2211have friends in the Postal Service. I have friends and know2212that over my 27 years of working as a Member of Congress, I2213have developed friendships, people who have talked with me2214about their hopes, aspirations, and desires about that.2215    I, from time to time, do well enough to get invited to2216conventions that the Postal Service has in their different2217operations. But I think that it is important that we recognize2218that they still live up to the postman's creed, and they are2219out there working every day. And today, I went up to vote and2220walked right by the open door and went, it is hot out there.2221And there are thousands of people who work for the Postal2222Service who are out in the heat today and in the cold when it2223is cold too.2224    Secondly, I would like to thank the gentleman who runs this2225Subcommittee from a staff perspective. Bill, I want to thank2226you for not only putting this together but remembering the same2227viewpoint that we have tried to take, and that is we go2228together with Mr. Mfume and our friends. But Bill, thank you2229very, very much for bringing this together. I think that this2230panel showed itself for what it is, and that is good ideas and2231an opportunity to openly discuss it.2232    Lastly, in my closing statement, I am approached from time2233to time, from people who want us to speed up. And I will tell2234you, I do feel a sense of urgency in the things that each of2235you have brought forward today. Our young Chairman, as you2236heard tonight, he looks to me to move a lot of ideas related to2237this. Both he and I are not frustrated but have not fully been2238able to move forward with decisionmakers. I think that that is2239ending now with the new Postmaster being named. We intend, Mr.2240Mfume and I, intend to meet with the new Postmaster. I have met2241with the Board of Governors, certain members of the Board of2242Governors.2243    There has got to be a plan. You cannot have something as2244big and as important that has value across the country without2245giving better direction, answers to people. I learned a long2246time ago when I worked at AT&T, when you raise prices, there is2247a corresponding value of people who quit using your services.2248And this is something that I have known for a long, long time2249and thus feel that the mathematics that are related to spending2250is just as important as the service because, at some point,2251people voluntarily quit using your service.2252    Bill just passed me something here. Oh, yes, Morgan is a2253Democratic counterpart, and she is great to work with. Yes, I2254will tell you that we have this demand on us, Mr. Mfume does, I2255do, where we try and work together. We try and see things that2256are the same way, but so did you in your conversation that you2257had with us today.2258    And so, with that said, Morgan and Bill Womack, without2259objection, all Members have five legislative days within which2260to submit materials and additional written questions for the2261witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses as they2262become apparent.2263    If there is any further business, I have not seen it. So,2264without objection, the Subcommittee will stand adjourned as2265soon as I bang the gavel. But I want you to know that Mr. Mfume2266and I intend to come down and shake your hand and thank each of2267you for being here today.2268    With no further business, we now stand adjourned.2269    [Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]22702271                           [all]