    [Senate Hearing 115-352]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-352

                    THE POSTAL SERVICE'S ACTIONS DURING THE
              2016 CAMPAIGN SEASON: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HATCH ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 19, 2017

                                   __________

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    29-442 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                KAMALA D. HARRIS, California

                      Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                    Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
                Jennifer I. Scheaffer, Professional Staff Member
                   Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
                    Donald Sherman, Minority Senior Counsel
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Bonni E. Dinerstein, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator McCaskill............................................     2
        Senator Lankford.............................................    15
        Senator Heitkamp.............................................    18
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    23
        Senator McCaskill............................................    24

                                   WITNESSES
                            Wednesday, July 19, 2017

    Timm Kopp, Letter Carrier, U.S. Postal Service...................     3
    William Siemer, Acting Deputy Inspector General, Office of the
      Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service.........................     5
    Adams Miles, Acting Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel...     7
    Hon. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General and Chief Executive
      Officer, U.S. Postal Service...................................     9

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Brennan. Hon. Megan J.:
        Testimony....................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Kopp, Timm:
        Testimony....................................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
    Miles, Adam:
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
    Siemer, William:
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    31

                                    APPENDIX

    United States Postal Service Audit Report........................    42
    Office of Special Counsel Redacted Report........................    65
    Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record
        Mr. Miles....................................................    88
        Ms. Brennan..................................................    91

                      THE POSTAL SERVICE'S ACTIONS DURING
            THE 2016 CAMPAIGN SEASON: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HATCH ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:22
    a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron
    Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Hoeven,
    Daines, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and
    Harris.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON

        Chairman Johnson. Now I will call to order our hearing. I
    want to welcome our witnesses. In particular, I want to thank
    my home State Wisconsinite for, first of all, having the
    courage of bringing this issue to light. I truly appreciate
    that. I know it takes some courage. And, you certainly have
    demonstrated that throughout the process. In meeting with you,
    I know you never, ever felt this was going to rise to this
    level.
        I have said enough. I really believe my written statement--
    I will put that in the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I do want to say, though, because this issue did affect my
    State, potentially could have affected it when I was in the
    election cycle, I just want to get it on the record. I never
    made an issue of this. This was brought to light before the
    election. This has nothing to do from my standpoint personally.
    This is all about responding to a whistleblower. It is under
    our Committee's jurisdiction. We turned it over to the
    Inspector General (IG) and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).
    They have issued their reports. And, we have the Postmaster
    General here who will respond to those reports. I think this is
    completely cooperative, and I appreciate that fact. But, we are
    just trying to highlight this because there were some systemic
    problems here that people were basically unaware of, and this
    is appearing to highlight that for other departments and other
    agencies so they do not have to deal with the same issue.
        So, again, I just appreciate Mr. Kopp from Wisconsin and
    our witnesses in terms of your testimony and your cooperative
    effort in terms of solving this particular problem.
        With that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\1\

        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
    Appendix on page 24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Committee is the principal body in the Senate
    responsible for rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the
    Federal Government. One of the more important functions we also
    serve is promoting the effective enforcement of the Federal
    Hatch Act, which ensures that the Federal Government operates
    in a manner free from partisan political pressure, while also
    protecting the rights of Federal workers to engage in private
    political activity.
        The Hatch Act is essential to guaranteeing that Federal
    employees and all American citizens have confidence in our
    electoral process. Unfortunately, today's hearing reveals that
    the United States Postal Service (USPS) has failed to implement
    sufficient controls to ensure compliance with the Hatch Act.
    Exhaustive investigations by both the United States Postal
    Service Inspector General and the Office of Special Counsel
    have uncovered that the Postal Service's practice of approving
    leave without pay (LWOP) applications specifically requested by
    one of its seven unions violated agency policy and constituted
    an institutional and systemic violation of the Hatch Act.
        I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today so that
    all Federal Agencies can benefit from OSC and the IG's findings
    so that the USPS can chart a path forward. Both the OSC and the
    USPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted
    comprehensive reviews and identified findings and
    recommendations for bringing the Postal Service leave policy in
    compliance with the law.
        I want to thank Mr. Kopp for coming forward with the
    information that led to these investigations. It is possible
    these concerns would never have been brought to light without
    him coming forward.
        According to OSC's findings, the Postal Service problematic
    leave without pay practice for political activity has persisted
    for more than 20 years, a period spanning at least three
    Administrations, several different parties, and five
    Postmasters General. During that time frame, the National
    Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) has endorsed candidates
    of both parties and donated millions to both Republican and
    Democratic political campaigns and political action committees
    (PACs).
        As OSC's report noted, the Postal Service practice is
    emblematic of a systemic problem, not limited to one individual
    or one election cycle. The findings reached by OSC and the
    Inspector General demand immediate remedial action. While I
    find it shocking that the USPS practice has persisted for as
    long as it has, I am really encouraged that the United States
    Postal Service is now focused on charting a path forward under
    Postmaster General Brennan's leadership.
        United States Postal Service management has pledged to take
    corrective action to ensure the agency maintains a leave
    without pay policy that is compliant with the Hatch Act and
    addresses the concerns raised by these investigations.
        I look forward to working with OSC to ensure that other
    Federal Agencies throughout the Executive Branch abide by the
    lessons learned from this investigation and fully comply with
    the Hatch Act. I welcome any recommendations that OSC may have
    for Congress to improve enforcement of the Hatch Act across the
    government.
        This is the first hearing we have had in this Committee on
    our electoral process in the election of 2016. Protecting the
    integrity of our electoral process is critical to promoting
    confidence and participation in our democracy.
        In February, every Democratic Member of this Committee
    wrote to Chairman Johnson requesting that the Committee
    investigate and hold hearings on Russia's attempts to
    infiltrate and influence the U.S. Presidential election on
    November 8, 2016, by attacking the Nation's election
    infrastructure. The election infrastructure is part of the
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and lies squarely within
    the jurisdiction of this Committee. I will renew today the
    request of the Democrats on this Committee to have a public
    hearing on Russia's attempt to infiltrate and influence the
    U.S. Presidential election by attacking our Nation's election
    infrastructure and look forward to your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
        Our tradition of this Committee is to swear in witnesses,
    so if you will all stand and raise your right hand? Do you
    swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee
    will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
    so help you, God?
        Mr. Kopp. I do.
        Mr. Siemer. I do.
        Mr. Miles. I do.
        Ms. Brennan. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
        Our first witness is Timm Kopp. Mr. Timm Kopp is a Postal
    Service letter carrier in Marshfield, Wisconsin, a particularly
    beautiful area of the State that has pretty good health care,
    as a matter of fact. I think it is safe to say that the
    Marshfield Clinic is a world-renowned health care center. Mr.
    Kopp first raised concerns about the Postal Service's leave
    practices surrounding the 2016 election. Mr. Kopp.

     TESTIMONY OF TIMM KOPP,\1\ LETTER CARRIER, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

        Mr. Kopp. Good morning, everybody. First of all, I guess
    thank you for inviting me here. Like Senator Johnson said
    earlier, I never expected it to get to this point. Basically
    all I did is I wanted to raise concerns about things that I
    thought were not being done correctly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kopp appears in the Appendix on
    page 28.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I do not want to go back and go over all the things that I
    have submitted in my written testimony. That is kind of
    redundant to me.
        Looking back, I knew from the previous elections, while I
    was hired at the post office, that the union is always involved
    highly in political activities, and I did not want this to be a
    partisan thing by no regards. I wanted it to be a thing where
    the general public does not lose trust with the integrity of
    the post office. That is where I started with this, and that is
    where I am going to end with it. It is something that the
    general public needs to have the faith and trust in, and if
    somebody does not want to speak up on things, it is just not
    going to work that way.
        We were always given floor talks on the Hatch Act, and we
    were told, you cannot do things while you are working, using
    government resources for any type of political activities.
        The problem is in 2016 things seemed to be a little bit
    different. I had more experience carrying mail. I have been
    there for 10 years plus. And, I have also had 6 months as a
    supervisor, so that time to me was kind of valuable, because as
    a new employee you kind of see how things are done, but you do
    not want to step on toes. You do not want to be the one to come
    in and cause waves.
        As a city carrier, on that viewpoint, you are constantly
    under pressure for meeting times, getting back for schedules,
    keeping within the budget. So, they are always looking at
    keeping the overtime down, keeping labor costs down, and it is
    totally understandable. And, as a supervisor, looking at it
    from that standpoint, you are always getting emails; you are
    always getting phone calls on the performances of the people in
    your office. Things that could totally be unrelated to that
    cause overtime, that you always have to explain via emails,
    texts, or whatever to people explaining why this person was
    late, why this person did not make it, which is to some point
    understandable, but to some point it gets a little bit
    nitpicky, in my opinion.
        So, to see this happening when an employee comes in with a
    notice saying that he is to be off work for up to 5 weeks,
    giving 2 days' notice, not allowing the supervisor time to
    figure out how to fill those vacancies, there was no leeway at
    all. The supervisor wanted to say maybe, if we could let you
    off 3 days next week, a couple days off the week after, he was
    fine with that. It was that certain days we are short-staffed.
    We have people on vacation, other things come up. He even
    wanted to extend the Thursday leave and just give him 2 more
    days to try to cover things and put that employee off on
    Saturday, and that was per our local union contract. Once the
    schedule is up for that week, there is supposed to be no more
    changes unless for emergency reasons. And, that was shot down
    also. It was, ``This person needs to be off. He will be off in
    2 days regardless. The scheduling issues are of no concern to
    us.'' And, that is where it went.
        I also know the other local post office was already short-
    staffed to begin with. I had dealt with them consistently as a
    supervisor, responding to emails, things on that order, phone
    calls that they need help, ``We need anybody that you can send
    us. It does not matter if they are a new person. If they do not
    know the city, it does not matter. We need help.''
        So, from that standpoint, I know that office was a lot
    worse off than the Marshfield office. And, from what I read in
    some of the reports, it is exactly what I kind of knew what was
    going on by talking to my supervisor. They were sometimes
    having late trucks, running penalty overtime, which is double
    time, things on that order.
        So, I had to work personally a few of my days off, which to
    me I am not really that thrilled about, but I also had to work
    many days late, and so did a lot of the other employees. And,
    that caused a lot of--not animosity but a few grumblings, just
    because of the reasons that these people were off, because the
    post office is not supposed to be politically biased, and
    people did not like the reasons that it was causing all this
    overtime.
        I thought I went through all the proper channels. I
    definitely did not expect to end up here. I started with my
    union officials, got nowhere. I went to the State union
    officials, basically got nowhere with them. I went to the
    national over in Minneapolis, that district office, and all I
    was told was basically, ``This is how it has been done for
    years. You do not need to question this. We are just trying to
    help preserve your job.''
        To me, I just want things done fairly. I do not want it
    done on a partisan issue. I want the post office to succeed for
    the long term and not just look to this election or a year down
    the road. I want it to be sustainable because there are a lot
    of employees that work there, and there are a lot of good
    employees there. But, the way that this was done, and from
    reading the other reports, it was just a nightmare. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Kopp. We really do
    appreciate your willingness to come forward. I think you did
    exactly the right thing. You followed the right channels.
        I would say one of the good news stories about this is
    that, from what we have heard, there was no retaliation, and we
    have seen in so many instances retaliation against people like
    Mr. Kopp. So, there is the good news story.
        Now I guess we will turn to our next witnesses, and we will
    see the bad news story of this, but then hopefully end up with
    the Postmaster General and talk about how cooperatively they
    are going to fix the problem.
        Our next witness is William Siemer. Mr. Siemer is the
    Acting Deputy Inspector General for the Postal Service's Office
    of Inspector General. Mr. Siemer joined the Office of Inspector
    General in 2003 and previously served in both the Secret
    Service and Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Mr.
    Siemer.

        TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM SIEMER,\1\ ACTING DEPUTY INSPECTOR
     GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

        Mr. Siemer. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Chairman Johnson,
    Ranking Member McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. Thank
    you for inviting me to discuss our work on Postal employees'
    use of leave without pay for election campaigning.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Siemer appears in the Appendix on
    page 31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During last year's election season, Mr. Kopp expressed
    concerns that certain mail carriers in Wisconsin were taking
    leave without pay to work for union political campaigns. He was
    concerned that the Postal Service was behaving in a partisan
    manner. He also complained the absences were causing
    operational problems, including additional overtime and an
    unfair distribution of work among employees who remained.
        As a result of that complaint, we investigated and provided
    our findings to the Office of Special Counsel to evaluate for
    potential Hatch Act violations. We also conducted an audit on
    the nationwide use of leave without pay for union campaign
    activities.
        We determined that, from September through November 2016,
    97 carriers took leave without pay to participate in partisan
    political campaigns for periods ranging from 4 to 50 days. In
    total, the employees took more than 2,700 days off. Eighty-two
    percent of this time was taken in six States: Florida, Nevada,
    North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The carriers
    were associated with a single Postal union, the National
    Association of Letter Carriers.
        Our work found that local managers felt compelled to
    release the carriers for extended periods of time. Several
    managers initially attempted to deny the requests because of
    the impact on local operations, but higher-level labor
    relations or operations managers in the field directed them to
    release the carriers. All 97 carriers were ultimately released.
        The releases occurred because a Headquarters Labor
    Relations executive used his position and authority to send
    emails to local Labor Relations managers in the field
    announcing the release and requesting explanations for any
    carriers that were not released. Because of these and other
    communications, and the longstanding practice of allowing
    employees to participate in union political campaigns, field
    Labor Relations and Operations managers believed that releasing
    the employees was mandatory. This circumvented Postal Service
    policy and the ability of Operations supervisors to manage work
    at their local offices. Postal Service policy gives local
    installation heads the administrative discretion to approve
    leave without pay requests of less than a year. Employees make
    requests using a leave form, which supervisors approve or deny.
    Decisions are to be made based on the needs of the employee,
    the needs of the Postal Service, and the cost to the Postal
    Service.
        Local managers said the leave without pay caused
    operational problems such as increased overtime and delayed
    delivery of mail. In at least one office, the remaining
    carriers were required to work 6 days per week, including their
    normal scheduled days off. Some managers and employees also
    believed the releases were politically motivated.
        For our audit, we analyzed the absences of 22 of the 97
    carriers who took leave without pay across the country. In each
    instance, we examined the assignments that could have been
    covered if the carrier was working. According to our analysis,
    the use of leave without pay resulted in combined net overtime
    costs of more than $90,000 at the 22 facilities we reviewed.
        Throughout our work, we found that Postal Service
    management generally viewed allowing employees to take leave
    without pay for union campaign activities as a customary
    practice. They saw it as a necessary part of cultivating a good
    relationship with the union, even though releasing employees
    for union campaign activities is not required by the collective
    bargaining agreement.
        In our audit report issued on July 5, 2017, we recommended
    that the Postal Service follow its policy of assessing
    operational needs prior to granting leave without pay requests.
    We also recommended that Labor Relations and Operations improve
    communications to bring up any operational problems caused by
    employees taking time off for union activities. Postal Service
    management disagreed with the premise of our first
    recommendation and do not intend to implement it. They believe
    they followed their policy. We consider management's comments
    on this recommendation nonresponsive and will work to
    coordinate a resolution. The Postal Service plans to address
    the second recommendation by improving communications and
    undertaking an educational campaign about the collective
    bargaining agreement.
        Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work, and I am
    happy to answer any questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Siemer.
        I want to apologize to the witnesses. We have a vote
    called. I know we have already had you delay for our business
    meeting, but I think we are going to do this, quick call a
    recess, and then we will come back and continue with the
    testimony. Right now the Committee is in recess.
        [Recess.]
        The hearing will be recalled to order.
        Our next witness will be Adam Miles. Mr. Miles is the
    Acting Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel. Mr.
    Miles joined the Office of Special Counsel in 2011 and
    previously served as a staff member on the House Committee on
    Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Miles.

     TESTIMONY OF ADAM MILES,\1\ ACTING SPECIAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF
                            SPECIAL COUNSEL

        Mr. Miles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel and our report regarding Hatch
    Act violations at the United States Postal Service. My
    testimony today will be relatively brief, but our full report
    on the Hatch Act issues is in the hearing record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Miles appears in the Appendix on
    page 36.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Johnson. And, by the way, everybody's full written
    testimony is included in the record.
        Mr. Miles. So, at the outset, I just want to thank Mr.
    Kopp. My Dad was a Postal worker for 32 years, and as a
    whistleblower protection agency, I know that you did not start
    out to be here, and I can promise you that my Dad would have
    never seen himself sitting in that chair. But you did the right
    thing, and I really appreciate that and just want to express
    gratitude for that.
        I also want to thank the OIG for the partnership throughout
    the investigative process and also the OSC staff who did such a
    bang-up job on this report--Carolyn Martorana, Louis Lopez, and
    Ana Galindo-Marrone--for their work. I think a lot of the
    factual information will mirror what the OIG said, and I think
    the consistency between these investigative findings sort of
    lays out a story that you all can understand and work to
    improve the situation.
        In 2016, Mr. Kopp submitted to Chairman Johnson information
    that he was concerned about, that the USPS incurred unnecessary
    overtime costs and improperly coordinated with the NALC when it
    released members for several weeks of union official leave
    without pay. So, after receiving a complaint from Chairman
    Johnson, OSC initiated an investigation to determine if these
    activities violated the Hatch Act, and we found that NALC
    identified certain letter carriers to participate in its
    campaign activities. NALC then sent the names of these carriers
    to a senior headquarters labor relations official, and this
    official then emailed the list of carriers to USPS officials at
    lower levels of management. And, these officials at the lower
    levels of the Postal Service interpreted the communications
    from headquarters as a directive to release the union members
    on union official leave without pay.
        So local supervisors, like you heard from Mr. Kopp, raised
    concerns about the impact that these releases would have on
    their operations in terms of overtime costs and mail delivery
    delays. But despite their objections, USPS managers instructed
    the local supervisors to release the carriers anyway.
        We concluded that the USPS practice of facilitating and
    directing carrier releases for the union's political activity
    and the use of union official leave without pay for such
    activity resulted in an institutional bias in favor of NALC's
    endorsed political candidates and that this violated the Hatch
    Act.
        To correct these systemic violations, we made two
    recommendations to USPS.
        First, we recommended that USPS management not require,
    direct, or suggest that local supervisors release union members
    to engage in political activity. We are asking them to take a
    hands-off approach to the political activity.
        The Postal unions and individual employees are permitted--I
    want to be clear about this, and the law, in fact, encourages
    them--to maintain PACs, endorse candidates, and enlist union
    members to support their electoral agendas on their own time.
    But USPS headquarters and labor relations managers should not
    enable a union's lawful political activity through official
    practices and directives that create institutional biases for
    certain candidates.
        Our second recommendation is, to ensure that it is
    administering its programs in a politically neutral manner,
    USPS should exclude political activity, as defined by the Hatch
    Act, from the acceptable uses of union official leave without
    pay. Our concern is that officially characterizing NALC's
    partisan political activity as ``union business'' affords this
    activity official advantages and benefits that should be
    reserved for other traditional union business, such as training
    and conferences.
        We have communicated these recommendations to the USPS, and
    the Postmaster General appears ready to take the steps
    necessary to comply with the Hatch Act, and that is very
    encouraging.
        A few important points as I conclude. While we determined
    that the USPS engaged in systemic violations of the Hatch Act,
    we did not determine that any USPS management officials helped
    NALC to identify or select carriers to participate in the
    campaign program. And, the evidence does not support a finding
    that USPS officials sought to assist NALC's favored candidates
    in achieving electoral success. Rather, the evidence suggests
    that USPS engaged in this practice to engender goodwill with
    the union. And, while that is a laudable goal, as a Federal
    entity, the USPS must remain politically neutral. Although the
    USPS is exempt from many other civil service laws, Congress
    chose specifically to ensure that USPS employees are covered by
    the Hatch Act's restrictions. And, a primary purpose of the
    Hatch Act is to promote public confidence in the nonpartisan
    administration of the laws by the Federal Government.
        In many localities, the Postal Service is a citizen's
    primary point of contact with the government, and this
    reinforces the need for the Postal Service to comply with both
    the letter and the spirit of the Hatch Act.
        Given these considerations, again, we are encouraged by the
    USPS' initial response to our recommendations. We believe the
    USPS is committed to ensuring full compliance with the Hatch
    Act, while also allowing its employees to participate fully in
    the political process to the extent permitted by law.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward
    to your questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Miles.
        Our final witness is the Honorable Megan J. Brennan. Ms.
    Brennan is the 74th Postmaster General and the Chief Executive
    Officer (CEO) of the United States Postal Service. Postmaster
    General Brennan began her career as a letter carrier in
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Madam Postmaster.

      TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MEGAN J. BRENNAN,\1\ POSTMASTER
        GENERAL AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

        Ms. Brennan. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Johnson,
    Ranking Member McCaskill, and Members of the Committee. I am
    pleased to represent the 640,000 hardworking and dedicated men
    and women of the United States Postal Service, individuals like
    Mr. Kopp, and I would like to thank him for his service and
    thank him for his testimony here today. These men and women
    play a vital role in every American community every day.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Brennan appears in the Appendix
    on page 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Last Friday, the Postal Service received the Office of
    Special Counsel report concerning a Hatch Act investigation.
    The OSC determined that a longstanding practice of the Postal
    Service violates the Hatch Act by enabling union political
    activity.
        In order to prevent any future violations of the Hatch Act,
    I want to give this Committee my complete and unconditional
    commitment that the United States Postal Service fully accepts
    and will fully implement all of the recommendations and
    directions of the OSC.
        In response to the initial allegations that prompted the
    OSC's investigation, I can say without any reservation or
    qualification that senior postal leadership, including myself,
    did not in any way guide union leadership in selecting the
    candidates for whom Postal union employees could campaign, did
    not approve or choose candidates for the unions to support, and
    did not ask the union to advocate for political candidates on
    behalf of the Postal Service. Neither the United States Postal
    Service Office of Inspector General nor the OSC found any
    evidence to the contrary.
        Furthermore, with respect to the leave without pay practice
    that violated the Hatch Act, the OSC found that the violation
    was not intentional and that it was not motivated by any desire
    to support or oppose a particular party or candidate.
        In its report, the OSC recommends that the Postal Service
    take certain affirmative steps to prevent future Hatch Act
    violations.
        First, to ensure that we are administering our programs in
    a politically neutral manner, the OSC directs that the Postal
    Service exclude political activity, as defined by the Hatch
    Act, from the acceptable uses of leave without pay for official
    union leave. The Postal Service accepts this direction, and we
    will implement this change to ensure that we do not put our
    people in harm's way and they do not unintentionally run afoul
    of the Hatch Act.
        Second, the OSC recommends that the Postal Service should
    implement a hands-off approach to a union's political activity.
    The Postal Service likewise accepts this recommendation, and we
    will implement this change. The Postal Service will work with
    the OSC to design corrective measures by its August 31, 2017,
    deadline.
        Further, in light of the concerns that have been raised and
    in view of the OSC's determinations here, the Postal Service
    will expand its communications efforts on the Hatch Act. We
    will also educate our employees about the changes that we make
    to our current leave without pay practices.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States Postal Service delivers for
    the American public--both literally and figuratively. We will
    continue to safeguard America's trust in the Postal Service. We
    take these responsibilities seriously, and we will fully comply
    with the OSC's recommendations and directions.
        Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and
    Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today.
    I welcome any questions that you may have.
        Chairman Johnson. Well, thank you, Madam Postmaster
    General.
        As I am preparing for this hearing here and reading through
    all the testimony and reading something that the systemic
    violation of the Hatch Act covering multiple elections, and
    then you get further down into the reports, but it was nobody's
    fault. There is nobody that needs to be disciplined. I mean,
    you kind of have to scratch your head, going, ``How can you
    have such a longstanding systemic violation of the Hatch Act
    and yet nobody is really held accountable?''
        Why was it systemic? Why did it go on for so long? I will
    just ask Mr. Siemer first.
        Mr. Siemer. During our investigation it seemed that it was
    adopted just as a practice where nobody was really looking at
    it through the lens of is this appropriate or not. So, I do not
    believe anybody questioned in the labor relations headquarters
    office whether or not what they were doing was wrong. And then,
    once the communications went down to the field, the culture and
    the practice is that it is mandatory, it is directive.
        So, I am not sure there was any analysis given to whether
    or not what they were doing should be done based on our
    investigation.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Miles, what is your kind of
    explanation for that?
        Mr. Miles. So, one answer is that nobody was as brave as
    Mr. Kopp was over the years. I mean, I think that people did
    raise operational concerns, but nobody sort of stood up and
    spoke out in the way that he did, brought it to the attention
    to you, gave us the opportunity to take a look at it.
        And, again, there was a senior labor relations official at
    headquarters that sent an email directing the lower-level
    officials to
    enable the union political activity. But, the followup,
    everybody got in line down the chain to sort of implement that
    directive, and that is why we were looking at it more as an
    institutional violation versus pinning the blame on one
    individual or another.
        Chairman Johnson. It was also very obvious which candidates
    the union supported, correct? There was no secret there. It was
    not like this was unknown to the Postal Service management.
        Mr. Miles. That is correct. And, that is part of analysis,
    too, that even if the managers were not to help or hurt a
    particular candidate, they knew that their intent was to enable
    the political activity by NALC, and their chosen candidates
    were public.
        Chairman Johnson. And, they knew there was pushback from
    supervisors because Mr. Kopp testified that they were really
    hampering their ability to design their schedules, and it was
    going to cost overtime, and it was going to inconvenience other
    Postal employees who may have been for the other candidate.
    Those individuals were going to have to work the overtime. They
    were going to have to cancel their vacation because these
    individuals who were going to go to work for known candidates
    of one political party that was pretty well being imposed upon
    them by Postal Service management?
        Mr. Miles. That is correct. And, sort of the disparate
    impact of this is what bothered us in large part. Again, if
    NALC, sort of the institutional advantages that come with a
    union official request for leave without pay, that one is going
    to get approved. But, if somebody else just wants to go to
    their boss and ask for permission to go on leave, now the slots
    are already taken. So if I am a Green Party supporter, if I am
    a Republican Party supporter, I do not get to go do this work.
    And, that creates the disparate impact that we were concerned
    about.
        Chairman Johnson. Again, that was very obvious, that if you
    wanted to go to work for a different--a non-endorsed candidate,
    you were not going to get the time off.
        Mr. Miles. That is right.
        Chairman Johnson. You were certainly not going to be
    supported by Postal Service management to make sure that, no,
    give that Postal worker time off without pay.
        Madam Postmaster General, in your written testimony, I will
    quote, ``the evidence simply does not support any allegation
    that any Postal Service officials sought to assist the NALC's
    favored candidates.'' But on page 20 of the OSC, to quote their
    report, ``only carriers who wanted to campaign for NALC's
    endorsed candidates were given the opportunity to take several
    weeks of leave on short notice, over the objections of local
    supervisors who raised concerns about potential operational
    impact.''
        Again, it was no secret what the Postal union was trying to
    accomplish, who they were endorsing, and as Mr. Miles stated,
    if you were going to leave to campaign for somebody else, you
    were not going to get that leave. I am kind of scratching my
    head on the fact that you are saying that there was no Postal
    Service official sought to assist NALC. It seems like you
    people in the Postal Service fully supported and assisted the
    NALC in their effort.
        Ms. Brennan. Mr. Chairman, some context. Ninety-two percent
    of our employees are covered by collective bargaining
    agreements by law. We are a human organization. It is in our
    interest to maintain and foster good working relationships with
    the union.
        What transpired here was a longstanding practice that was
    accepted, that expanded the definition of ``union leave'' to
    ``union leave for political activity.'' As noted, this was a
    case of first impression for the OSC. We fully accept and will
    fully implement their recommendations and directions, and we
    will no longer permit leave without pay for union political
    activity.
        Chairman Johnson. Obviously, one of the reasons we are
    holding this hearing is to make sure that we highlight this so
    that other Agencies, other departments, have not followed--if
    they have followed the same track, they can also take
    corrective action. I will just ask both Mr. Siemer and Mr.
    Miles, are you aware of any other Agencies? Just in your work
    now that this has been publicized, has anybody come to you, any
    other Offices of Inspector General? Obviously, with the Special
    Counsel, you might have access to oversight of other agencies.
    Are you aware of this occurring anyplace else throughout the
    Federal Government?
        Mr. Siemer. I am not aware of that, sir.
        Mr. Miles. No, we have not heard any similar allegations.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Well, again, I appreciate all your
    testimony, and I will turn it over to Senator McCaskill.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think it is terrific that we have uncovered this problem.
    I think it is even better--as a former auditor, I can tell you
    that one of the most pleasant experiences you have as an
    auditor is when the organization that is being investigated and
    looked at, they can do one of two things: they can circle the
    wagons and argue with you, or they can say, ``Hey, thank you.
    You have pointed out a problem, and we are going to fix it.'' I
    am really pleased, Ms. Brennan, that you fall in the latter
    category, that you have looked at this issue and said, ``We are
    going to fix this.'' And, I assume that both you, Mr. Siemer,
    and you, Mr. Miles, have no criticism about how they have
    handled your recommendations or their commitment for going
    forward with your recommendations.
        Mr. Miles. No, we have none and are really encouraged by it
    as well.
        Mr. Siemer. We have not had a chance to follow up with the
    Postal Service yet based on the findings in our report.
    Initially, they did not agree with one of our recommendations
    or the financial impact. But, since they have received the
    OSC's information, we would like to talk to them about what
    they are going to do to address OSC's findings.
        Senator McCaskill. And, when you are speaking of financial
    impact, I am not aware--and maybe there is information that we
    have not had a chance to look at, but was there any final
    analysis as to what the set-off was in--because these people
    took leave without pay. Correct?
        Mr. Siemer. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator McCaskill. So, the Postal Service did not pay them
    while they were gone.
        Mr. Siemer. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator McCaskill. Was there any attempt to set off what
    the overtime costs versus what the pay was that the agency
    saved by them taking these days of unpaid leave?
        Mr. Siemer. Our auditors evaluated the days where those
    carriers were not present in the office to calculate how much
    overtime and additional costs were expended to cover the
    activities those carriers would have covered. So, that is where
    the financial impact that we estimated came from.
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, but you did not do a set-off?
        Mr. Siemer. No, ma'am.
        Senator McCaskill. A business analysis would require--this
    is the auditor in me coming out. A business analysis would
    require that you would set off the overtime cost against the
    saved salaries that were not paid for those days. That did not
    occur, correct?
        Mr. Siemer. Let me clarify. I do not know if a set-off
    occurred. I am not aware of that. I can get that information
    for you afterwards. I just know how we calculated the
    additional overtime costs that were incurred as a result of
    their departure, but----
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, but you did not calculate the money
    saved by these people leaving without pay.
        Mr. Siemer. I do not know the answer to that, ma'am.
        Senator McCaskill. OK. That would be important for us to
    know whether or not this was a net loss to USPS or whether it
    was a net gain to USPS.
        Mr. Siemer. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator McCaskill. It would depend on how much the overtime
    was compared to the level of salaries that the people had that
    left and whether or not there was temporary work. I think the
    temporary work is like $10 an hour. So, I do not know that I
    need you to spend a lot of time doing that. I just think it is
    important to point out that we do not know at this point in
    time whether it was a gain or a loss.
        Mr. Kopp, I want to thank you. I know the Chairman
    mentioned it, but this is really important to us--that you
    state on the record today whether or not you believe you have
    been retaliated against for you coming forward.
        Mr. Kopp. Yes. No, nobody has said anything, done anything.
    That was absolutely a concern because I still need to work at
    this organization, and I did not want to have to deal with
    that. But, I have had no issues at all.
        Senator McCaskill. That is terrific news. Will you make
    sure that you let Chairman Johnson or my office know if that
    changes in any regard?
        Mr. Kopp. Absolutely.
        Senator McCaskill. Because we are anxious to protect you.
        Mr. Kopp. Yes.
        Senator McCaskill. In this Committee we depend on people
    coming forward and telling us about problems, and so we want to
    make sure that they are fully protected.
        I know this is on the Hatch Act, but I am really worried
    about Postal reform. And, I think that in the grand scheme of
    things--while I certainly agree that this hearing is important
    and enforcing the Hatch Act is important, in the grand scheme
    of things getting the Postal reform across the finish line is
    much more important, Mr. Kopp, to the future of your job than
    this hearing. And, I want to make sure that I ask at least one
    question on that.
        Ms. Brennan, are you feeling optimistic about the progress
    that is being made in the House? We have not had a bill
    introduced over here yet. I know that Senator Carper is still
    working on it. But, I know the Medicare integration has proved
    a little thorny over there. I have been trying to follow it
    closely. I care very much about it.
        What is your assessment of where we stand right now? And,
    are you optimistic or pessimistic that we can find the
    political will around here to do the basics when it comes to
    Postal reform in terms of putting it on a more sound financial
    path going forward?
        Ms. Brennan. Senator McCaskill, I am optimistic. Three
    months into the new session, we had a bill with bipartisan
    support voted out of Committee, H.R. 756. However, given some
    of the other public policy issues and the change in Chair,
    there has been some transition in the House.
        We do recognize that the Medicare integration issue, which
    is a cornerstone and key to our legislative ask, is an issue
    that is yet to be resolved. We are looking to meet with
    Chairman Brady to address that issue, but the need for Postal
    reform is urgent. Our financial condition is worsening. We will
    end this fiscal year (FY) with a projected $3.2 billion net
    loss. The volume declines are continuing. We will see roughly a
    4-billion-piece decline this year.
        So, we are in a position that we need this reform, we need
    to stable our finances. The Postal Service is committed to
    taking the appropriate actions to respond to the latent
    capacity in our system, the change in the mail mix to drive
    operating efficiency, but we need legislative support.
        And, if I may just for a moment, to your comment and
    question to Mr. Kopp, you have our assurances. There will be no
    recriminatory action. In fact, as noted, we appreciate him
    coming forward. I spoke with him at the recess and actually am
    trying to recruit him into management. [Laughter.]
        Senator McCaskill. There you go. And, I do know that
    Senator Carper, to his great credit, has found a way to pay for
    the hit to Medicare, but his idea seems to be struggling for
    momentum. If you have any ideas on how we can do more on this
    side to push our House colleagues--I know if they get a bill
    out over there, I am confident that the Chairman will want to
    move forward because it is time to get Postal reform done. I
    should not speak for him. He can probably speak for himself
    much better than I could speak for him. But, I thought I would
    give it a shot, anyway.
        Ms. Brennan. Well, thank you. And, I look forward to
    meeting with both of you and to advancing Postal reform. Thank
    you.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

        Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        So, let me run through a series of questions to try to be
    able to set the context. We have 97 Postal employees that took
    time off, unpaid leave for them to be able to do political
    activities, but that caused other Postal employees to have to
    do additional overtime, some of them involuntarily, at greater
    cost to the Postal Service because of that, and so the
    appearance is it is an offset. The Postal Service was assisting
    in some ways the political activities. Though those individuals
    were not receiving compensation, the Postal Service was having
    to pay more for those individuals to be able to take on
    political activities. Is that correct or not correct?
        Mr. Siemer. That is correct.
        Senator Lankford. So, let me ask this question then:
    According to the OIG's report when it came out, a Postal
    Service labor
    relations manager sent an email out, and the email says it
    limits--well, let me just say it this way: The names, it says,
    of the individuals, the names were approved at the highest
    level of USPS management. The endorsed candidates have proven
    themselves to be in agreement with the objectives to the NALC
    to hold and strengthen and protect USPS. That really is the
    nature of what we are doing. Since the USPS cannot advocate for
    themselves, they are allowing us to do it.
        So, through that email--let me ask a couple of questions on
    that. Where did that email take you in the investigation to be
    able to have an email like that?
        Mr. Siemer. So, we talked to the author of that email, and
    he backed off on the assertion that the Postal Service senior
    management was involved in selecting the candidates or directly
    being involved in the political activities. He meant that the
    Postal Service had, he believed, some common interests in
    having friendly politicians involved in being in place to
    support Postal Service priorities.
        Senator Lankford. So, was there any other investigation or
    any other tracking of what he meant by the statement, ``the
    highest levels of USPS approved this''?
        Mr. Siemer. He was not aware of anybody in the highest
    levels of management being involved in this initiative.
        Senator Lankford. So, that was just a lie?
        Mr. Siemer. Yes.
        Senator Lankford. So, was there any way to be able to
    validate that, whether it is a lie or whether it was true?
        To be able to back up--obviously, he has already put one
    lie out there then. Is there any way to be able to substantiate
    that or not substantiate that, any investigation on other email
    chains or any other conversations over there?
        Mr. Siemer. So, we evaluated all the emails between senior
    Postal management, and we did interviews. There was no evidence
    to suggest that senior Postal officials were involved in this
    election or identification of either carriers or candidates.
        Senator Lankford. Where would he get the impression,
    ``Since the USPS cannot advocate for themselves, they are
    allowing us to do it''?
        Mr. Siemer. I have no idea.
        Mr. Miles. So, we talked to that gentleman, too, and he did
    the same; he backed off of sort of the core allegations in that
    email. But, to put it in a context, how we would look at it is
    that what he said is he was not in a position to know what USPS
    senior management knew or did not know. But, I think I would go
    back to Mr. Kopp's statement. What that email did was it sort
    of reinforced the perception that existed--right?--because of
    this leave without pay program, that folks sort of in the field
    and folks at a local level thought that USPS management was
    supporting and enabling this activity.
        So, we have sort of an actual technical violation with the
    emails that are being sent from headquarters, but then we have
    this perception that goes against what Mr. Kopp was saying. We
    want the USPS to be operating in an independent, nonpartisan
    manner. But, when you have folks sort of up and down the chain
    believing that there is this institutional bias in favor of
    certain candidates, then we should recommend and take steps
    backward to avoid that perception. And, that is why I think
    that we are encouraged with the USPS reaction to our
    recommendations. It will alleviate that perception and that
    perceived bias and the actual bias that we found.
        Senator Lankford. Yes, there is no question, any individual
    can vote however they choose to vote. They can engage in those
    conversations. They are American citizens. These are great
    Federal employees and members and workers of the USPS. There is
    no angst there.
        What I am trying to figure out is this has every appearance
    that not only this is longstanding but that it was the
    assumption: ``Of course, we are going to go take down Senate
    candidates. We do not have a voice, and we do not like what
    they are doing, so why we would not try to flip the Senate to
    be able to change the reality of what is happening there?''
        When they put out a word like this, that is a pretty clear
    statement, and it looks like a pretty clear perception of what
    was happening. When you can read even the materials that came
    out from the union as well, it was pretty clear it was
    constantly reinforcing this. And, when supervisors get the
    message, ``No, you have to let these people off because they
    are working for us,'' or, ``We are doing what we are doing
    because the management cannot do it, and so we are going to do
    it for them,'' that is a pretty clear political operation,
    quite frankly.
        Mr. Miles. Yes, we agree.
        Mr. Siemer. The only thing I would just follow up on, sir,
    is the author of that email was not the only Postal manager
    that believed the decision was partisan. There were four other
    managers in our investigation that told us that they believed
    the decision to release these carriers, they believed from
    their perspective that it had to be politically motivated. But,
    again, we found no evidence that that was actually the case. It
    was just their belief from where they were sitting.
        Senator Lankford. So, the statement has been made by OIG
    and by Office of Special Counsel that this was not an
    individual violation of the Hatch Act, though there have been
    Postal employees in the past that have run for office and have
    been found in violation of the Hatch Act, but this was not a
    Hatch Act violation, but institutionally there was an issue
    with that. How do I deal with institutionally there is a
    problem other than statements? Then who do we interact with as
    a Committee to say is this fixed, is this not fixed? I
    understand the Office of Special Counsel, the IG's office.
    Where do I go?
        Ms. Brennan. If I may, Senator Lankford, the OSC's
    determination, we are bound by that. So, we have a work group
    of our General Counsel, our lawyers. We will work with them to
    ensure the countermeasures we put in place, including ending
    the practice of approving leave without pay for union political
    activity, ends and we are consistent with their recommendations
    and direction.
        Senator Lankford. OK. So, who would be to be able to come
    back to you to be able to help confirm, be able to track this
    through as far as processing in the days ahead?
        Ms. Brennan. I would take responsibility for that, and
    certainly with the OSC's recommendation and concurrence that we
    did follow the letter of their intent.
        Senator Lankford. OK. Were there any individuals in the
    investigation that were determined--they asked for leave but
    they wanted to help the wrong party or the wrong task and so
    they were not given leave?
        Mr. Siemer. No, not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Miles. We did not hear from anyone.
        Senator Lankford. Good. Because, again, if individuals were
    taking off to get a chance to participate, they should be able
    to participate. The challenge is here it was clear that there
    was a direction here that cost the USPS, which is obviously
    struggling financially. That is one of the things that we talk
    about here consistently on what to be able to do, that we have
    to be able to resolve that and not have additional burden.
        So, Mr. Kopp, in stepping up as a whistleblower, an
    exceptionally difficult thing to do around your peers and in
    the task. I appreciate you stepping up to do it. We try to be
    able to encourage every individual to be able to work through
    the right process, as you did through this. Your response was
    not to call Members of Congress and find ways to be able to
    expose all this. You tried to work through the chain and to be
    able to do it appropriately, and I appreciate anyone who wants
    to be able to do that. And, quite frankly, not just about
    political activities but about whatever it may be.
        We all are taxpayers as well as people that serve for the
    Federal Government. Just about everybody in this room serves
    for the taxpayer. But we are also taxpayers, and so we are all
    trying to be attentive to that. So, I appreciate any Federal
    employee stepping up, anyone trying to do that. So, thanks for
    that.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Heitkamp.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP

        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kopp, let me echo the sentiments of almost everyone
    here. It is not easy to be plopped in the middle of Washington,
    D.C., in a big hearing room and tell your story. But, I bet you
    it was not easy to step up and do the right thing, and so I
    want to tell you how much we appreciate that. I want to
    appreciate the professionalism of the investigation and the
    professionalism of the response from the United States Postal
    Service.
        This is a can-do story, and hopefully this hearing will
    provide and illuminate this kind of issue going forward for
    other agencies. And so, I appreciate the way the Chairman has
    handled it and the way the Ranking Member has handled it.
        But, I want to build on Senator McCaskill's line of
    reasoning. I continue to be deeply concerned about the lack of
    systemic reform within the Postal Service. I think it has had a
    very negative effect on service, and ultimately, we sit here as
    a board of directors, almost, but yet you are not getting the
    direction and you are not getting the reforms that you need to
    continue to make the post office viable into the future. And
    so, as somebody who represents a rural community that is deeply
    dependent, as you see in the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) reports, on mail service delivery, we continue to be
    concerned.
        I want to raise another issue, which I think actually adds
    to the concern that I have about oversight and the ability to
    do hearings like this, and that is that we do not have a Board
    of Governors (BOG). Right?
        Ms. Brennan. That is correct.
        Senator Heitkamp. This should concern all of us. And, since
    there is no confirmed Governors, none at this time, they could
    not be part of this investigation. So, for you, probably,
    Megan, how might a fully functioning or at least partially
    functioning Board of Governors have been helpful through this
    process from an accountability perspective?
        Ms. Brennan. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. Clearly, we are
    best served having a fully constituted board comprised of
    individuals with different perspectives, different backgrounds
    to provide oversight, strategic direction. It would be helpful
    to have a sounding board, and I would respectfully ask, in
    addition to Postal reform, that as the Administration nominates
    Postal Governors that we move apace to confirm them. That would
    go a long way in positioning the organization.
        Senator Heitkamp. Where are we? Have you heard anything
    from the White House in terms of nominees?
        Ms. Brennan. Yes. The information we have is that there are
    a number of individuals that are currently being vetted and
    that the process is moving forward. So, we are optimistic that
    potentially as early as the fall we may have a number of seated
    Governors.
        Senator Heitkamp. I do not think there is any doubt that we
    have failed in our oversight responsibility and our management
    responsibility of the post office.
        I want to make the point that there are 650,000 Federal
    employees, employees who we have trust and faith in, especially
    people in rural areas who build relationships with the people
    they serve. When several employees, including supervisors and
    area operation managers, realized that allowing this number of
    letter carriers to take leave would have a sizable impact,
    obviously, on the day-to-day operations, that is--I mean, we
    can all see how this could get completely out of hand if we
    were not taking a look at it. And so, I want to applaud you,
    Megan, for all the work that you are attempting to do.
        When you look at your testimony, you note the importance of
    ensuring that Postal employees are further educated about the
    Hatch Act, and as a way to prevent future violations, how do
    you plan on communicating that as a preventive method? The post
    office has led the way on some of the follow up to the IG
    reports. I think you could also be an example of what other
    Agencies could do. So, tell us about that heightened education
    that you plan on undertaking.
        Ms. Brennan. Yes, Senator Heitkamp. A number of different
    mediums that we use. We utilize oral, written, digital
    communications to employees in the workplace, to their home. We
    utilize scrolls on our advanced computing systems to educate
    them. We use what we call ``smart business moments,'' which is
    really just common sense to protect employees and ensure that
    we abide by all Postal policies and procedures.
        So, there will be a number of venues we will do. I will do
    videos. We will do stand-up talks in the workplace environment.
    And, I think we were effective in expanding that information
    prior to the 2016 election. We need to do that and ensure that
    cascades down throughout the workforce.
        Senator Heitkamp. I get what you are saying about the
    methods. What about the message? That is what I am saying.
        Ms. Brennan. Oh, the message. I apologize.
        Senator Heitkamp. No. That is OK.
        Ms. Brennan. And it was interesting because Mr. Kopp
    mentioned that right at the outset. As Postal employees, we
    pride ourselves on being the most trusted Government Agency.
    And, we are nonpartisan; we are independent; we are apolitical.
    We need to maintain that trust that the American public has in
    us. That is a competitive advantage.
        Senator Heitkamp. And, maybe I am just not making myself
    all that clear, because a lot of times when you have a lot of
    this message, it is like, ``Here we go again.'' It does not
    sink in. And, obviously, as I understand this situation, this
    is not a new problem. This has been going on. This has been
    something that has happened year to year and just been accepted
    until Mr. Kopp came forward and raised the awareness, which led
    to all this investigation and all this follow-through.
        So, what part of the messaging are you delivering, what
    kind of message are you delivering to say there has been a
    change, that attitude that we have had in the past is not what
    we are doing now?
        Ms. Brennan. Well, we will certainly communicate that that
    longstanding practice of expanding the definition of ``union
    business'' to include union political activity cannot continue,
    will not continue, that we will abide by the OSC's
    recommendations and directions. And, we need to be clear that,
    again, it goes back to the trust that the American people have
    in the Postal Service. While we are a microcosm of society with
    640,000 employees, we are a trusted Federal agency.
        And so, I will emphasize the importance of this, that this
    was a Hatch Act violation and, frankly, to be labeled as
    ``institutional bias'' and a ``systemic violation'' to me is
    pretty damning. And so, I will ensure that that is communicated
    and that is heard throughout this organization.
        Senator Heitkamp. Again, just to reiterate, we need to get
    Postal reform done because these things, they all land in your
    lap, and you are there alone. And, this needs to be fixed, and
    we need to have better opportunities for oversight and
    accountability on service standards, on a whole host of issues.
    And, I want to thank you and your staff. You have been
    extraordinarily gracious to my staff and to me personally in
    responding to our concerns. But, we have to get this done. And,
    it is a bit of business that should be easy, but it is not. And
    so, thank you, and I thank all of you, especially you, Mr.
    Kopp, for your courage and for your commitment to the
    institution that you work for, which is really by extension the
    taxpayers of this country.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp.
        One of the reasons it is difficult is because we are
    talking tens, hundreds of billions of dollars, and I appreciate
    your line of questioning because, as it is in the report,
    ``systemic violations,'' and, Madam Postmaster General, you
    just said ``institutional bias.'' In my mind, I was kind of
    thinking ``cultural bias,'' and I think that is an
    institutional problem. I think that is one of the things that
    this hearing has certainly brought to the fore and that is
    something that I think really does need to be corrected.
        I am completely on board and I think this Committee has
    done a good job under the previous Administration and this one,
    when we have nominees before us, we will do our work and report
    those to the Senate. The Senate is going to have to do its
    work. News reports said that at the same point in time in the
    Obama administration, 69 percent of nominees had been
    confirmed. The Trump administration is 23. So, if you would
    help us in terms of working with your colleagues to not make us
    burn the full clock on all these nominations so we can actually
    staff the Administration, we can work together on that. And,
    Senator McCaskill, I think you would like to say something.
        Senator McCaskill. Yes, I think we are moving to that point
    because I think we are really more protesting the fact that
    there had been no hearings or no regular order----
        Chairman Johnson. I am offering you hearings.
        Senator McCaskill. I know. No regular order on the health
    care issue, and we were struggling with a way to communicate
    how frustrated we were that we were being shut out of a really
    important process. But, I can tell you I think that there is a
    lot of discussion ongoing now that that is going to stop. But,
    we cannot confirm until we have nominees.
        Chairman Johnson. I understand.
        Senator McCaskill. And, that is another problem we have
    had.
        Chairman Johnson. There is a pretty good backlog. Let us
    really end it on a bipartisan note. We are going to work
    together----
        Senator McCaskill. We agree that we need to have more
    nominees confirmed and more nominees.
        Chairman Johnson. We will. And, we will work together on
    this, health care, hearings and laying out reality.
        So, again, I want to thank Mr. Kopp, you possibly have an
    opportunity. That will be interesting if we see some
    promotional opportunities come out of this hearing as well to
    reward your courage but just your managerial skill as well.
        I want to thank all the witnesses. In the end, again, this
    was highlighting a problem, but in many respects a real good
    news story: no retaliation, total cooperation between the
    Postal Service and the Inspector General and the Office of
    Special Counsel. This is the way this process should work. I
    just want to thank all the witnesses.
        The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until
    August 3rd at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and
    questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]