[Senate Hearing 116-60]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-
NOMINATIONS OF RON A. BLOOM,
ROMAN MARTINEZ IV, JAMES A. CROWELL IV, AND JASON PARK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF RON A. BLOOM TO BE A GOVERNOR, U.S. POSTAL
SERVICE, ROMAN MARTINEZ IV TO BE A GOVERNOR, U.S. POSTAL
SERVICE, JAMES A. CROWELL IV TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND JASON PARK
TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________
APRIL 2, 2019
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.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
36-305PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RAND PAUL, Kentucky THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
MITT ROMNEY, Utah KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
RICK SCOTT, Florida KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Staff Director
Courtney J. Rutland, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs
Helen M. Heiden, Senior Professional Staff Member
Jennifer L. Selde, Professional Staff Member
David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Minority Chief Counsel
Ashley E. Poling, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs
Claudine J. Brenner, Minority Counsel
Annika W. Christensen, Minority Professional Staff Member
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Johnson.............................................. 1
Senator Peters............................................... 2
Senator Hawley............................................... 15
Senator Carper............................................... 18
Senator Lankford............................................. 21
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson.............................................. 31
Senator Peters............................................... 32
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................................... 33
WITNESSES
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Ron A. Bloom to be a Governor, U.S. Postal Service
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Biographical and financial information....................... 37
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 59
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 64
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 90
Roman Martinez IV to be a Governor, U.S. Postal Service
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Biographical and financial information....................... 98
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 113
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 118
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 140
James A. Crowell IV to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of
the District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 147
Biographical and financial information....................... 149
Jason Park to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 177
Biographical and financial information....................... 179
APPENDIX
Board of Governors Chart......................................... 199
U.S. Postal Service Income Statement Chart....................... 200
Statements for the Record from:
Mayor Muriel Bowser.......................................... 201
Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service.................. 203
NOMINATIONS OF RON A. BLOOM,
ROMAN MARTINEZ IV, JAMES A. CROWELL IV, AND JASON PARK
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson
presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Romney, Scott, Hawley,
Peters, Carper, Hassan, and Sinema.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. Good afternoon. This hearing is called to
order.
I want to first of all welcome the nominees. Thank you for
your willingness to serve. Welcome to your families, and I will
ask you to introduce them during your opening comments. One
thing we find, very quickly, in government service is it really
is a family affair. These jobs are often very time-consuming so
your families see a little bit less of you. Hopefully you can
find time for your families. But again, I want to thank all of
you and your families for that willingness to service.
Now we are meeting to consider four nominations, two
nominees to be Governors to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), two
nominees to be Associate Judges on the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.
I just ask that my prepared statement be entered into the
record,\1\ and I have just a couple of charts to show you why
we are, first of all, focusing on the Board of Governors. The
first one will be the blue graph.\2\ And the next chart will be
kind of the 10-year income statement of the Postal Service,\3\
you see the financial difficulty it is in. The fact that we do
not have a quorum of Board of Governors is really
unconscionable, and one of the things we will be talking about
in questions for the two nominees for Board of Governors is
just the very--you can leave the income statement up there--
just the difficult nature of the financial condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 31.
\2\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 199.
\3\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To a certain extent it was interested in our hearing on the
Postal Task Force, a lot of this financial crisis was really
sparked by the 2006 Postal reform, which required prefunding
where the postal system did not have the funds to do it. Now we
are talking about, well, maybe ought to recalculate what that
annuity ought to be or, how to amortize the pension liability.
So it is a mess. We need Governors to actually serve as a board
of directors because a 535-member board of directors does not
work all that well.
I want to thank the nominees. I look forward to your
testimony and your answers to our questions, and with that I
will turn it over to Ranking Member Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Chairman Johnson, and
thank you to our nominees for being here today and for your
willingness to serve in these positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today we are considering two nominees to serve on the
United States Postal Service Board of Governors and two
nominees to serve as Associate Judges on the Superior Court for
the District of Columbia. The D.C. Superior Court and the U.S.
Postal Service Board of Governors perform certainly very
different functions but both are critically important to the
communities that they serve. Both have also faced a common
challenge in recent years--too many empty seats. Prolonged
vacancies on the D.C. bench slow the Administration of justice
and for years vacancies on the Postal Board of Governors have
prevented the board from tackling the immense financial and
operational challenges now facing the Postal Service.
Mr. Bloom and Mr. Martinez, if you are both confirmed, the
Postal Service Board of Governors will have a quorum for the
first time since 2014, which is quite a crucial step forward in
helping the Postal Service address its significant daily
challenges.
Although Congress must take on the challenge of passing
bipartisan postal reforms, we will have to rely on and work
closely with the Board of Governors to ensure the Postal
Service continues to be a vital public service for every
community, business, and household all across this country.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that we are holding this
hearing today and moving one step closer to a fully functioning
Board of Governors. As you know, seven of the nine Senate-
confirmed seats on the Board of Governors are currently vacant,
which means that after today we will still have a whole lot of
work to do to get qualified nominees confirmed and serving on
this board.
I would also like to thank you for honoring this
Committee's tradition of considering nominees for the board in
a bipartisan pair. I look forward to working together to
continue that tradition while moving qualified nominees through
the process as quickly as possible.
Mr. Park and Mr. Crowell, you have each demonstrated a
long-standing commitment to public service. Throughout the
nomination process, this Committee has heard nothing but praise
of your legal abilities and professionalism and I look forward
to hearing from each of the nominees here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Peters. It is the
tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if you
will all stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear 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. Bloom. I do.
Mr. Martinez. I do.
Mr. Crowell. I do.
Mr. Park. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Our first nominee is a nominee to be the Governor of the
U.S. Postal Service, Ron Bloom. Mr. Bloom is the Vice Chairman
of Brookfield Asset Management. He previously served at the
U.S. Treasury and the White House as an advisor on automotive
and manufacturing policy under President Obama and has over 30
years of business and labor experience. Mr. Bloom.
TESTIMONY OF RON A. BLOOM,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE A GOVERNOR, U.S.
POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Bloom. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for considering my
nomination to serve on the Board of Governors of the United
States Postal Service. It is a great honor to be considered and
if confirmed I can assure you that I will work diligently to
help guide this vital American institution in adapting to its
fast-changing environment and many challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Bloom appears in the Appendix on
page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since before the Nation's birth, the Postal Service has
played a vital role as the backbone of America's delivery
infrastructure. While changing times demand changing solutions,
the core mission of providing affordable access to its network
to all Americans, is as relevant today as it has always been.
I believe that my background and experience equip me to
play a meaningful role in meeting the Postal Service's
challenges and positioning it for the future.
In addition to my master's of business administration with
distinction from Harvard, my 40 years in the workforce have
provided me with what I believe are a distinct and relevant set
of experiences and perspectives. My work has been equally
balanced between business, where I have worked in investment
banking and private equity, and work for labor unions, with
just over 2\1/2\ years of service for the Federal Government.
My time in investment banking included two stints doing
financial advisory and restructuring work at Lazard as well as
founding and building a boutique advisory firm. For the last 3
years I have worked in private equity, where I am Vice-Chair
and Managing Partner in Brookfield Asset Management's Private
Equity business. Brookfield is one of the largest alternative
asset managers in the world, with over $350 billion of assets
under management and places significant focus on being good,
responsible stewards of businesses.
My work for labor unions included time with the Service
Employees and the Steelworkers. At the Steelworkers Union, I
helped the union to navigate dramatic changes in its core
jurisdiction as well as developing partnerships with Wall
Street investors. My time at the Federal Government included
work at the Treasury Department helping to lead the
restructuring of the auto industry and at the White House as
Assistant to the President for Manufacturing Policy.
In each of those settings my focus has been on designing
and leading positive and creative multi-faceted changes to the
strategy, operations and finances of complex large
organization. Whether it was the problems facing the Nation's
largest steel companies, tire manufacturers, the auto industry
or the city of Detroit, I have been able to craft solutions
that balanced multiple legitimate needs and moved the affected
organization forward.
The Postal Service faces many challenges. It must adapt
itself to the enormous changes regarding the demand for and
nature of its products. It must continue to play its role as
the backbone of the Nation's delivery infrastructure. And it
must honor its obligations and commitments by developing and
implementing a plan that meets the needs of its customers and
ensures long-term financial viability, all without requiring
direct taxpayer assistance.
To do this, the Postal Service must take advantage of its
most valuable asset--the size and density of its network. Any
change that reduces delivery frequency and convenience will
need to weigh carefully any forecasted direct cost savings
against both the potential loss of revenue and customers who
use the service precisely because of the attributes of its
network. That said, the USPS cannot ignore the long-term
inexorable decline of First-Class Mail and that successfully
transitioning to a greater focus on package delivery requires
rethinking many of its historical approaches. Add to that the
obligations of the Universal Service Obligation (USO) and the
need to meet the concerns of rural communities and you have a
devilishly complex balancing act.
I believe that the Board of Governors has an important role
to play here. Working within the legal and regulatory framework
set by the Congress and the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC),
I see the Board's job as working with Postal Service management
to develop a strategic plan that would allow the USPS to
fulfill its mission, meet its obligations, and achieve long-
term operational and financial viability and to provide
oversight, support, and guidance of and to the management as
they carry out that plan.
I believe that each Governor is responsible for
contributing his or her best ideas and to work constructively
with the other Governors to do our job. I expect that there
will often be spirited debate. There are no easy answers for
the Postal Service and a wide variety of relevant perspectives.
But I am confident that if I am given the opportunity to serve,
I can work with my fellow Governors to chart a positive path
forward for this important American treasure.
Thank you very much and I would be happy to take questions
at the appropriate time.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Bloom.
Our second nominee to be Governor at the U.S. Postal
Service is Roman Martinez. Mr. Martinez currently serves on the
Board of Directors for Cigna Corporation and Orbital Alliant
Techsystems (ATK). He has nearly 50 years of business
experience including his role as former Managing Director for
Lehman Brothers and has 20 years of experience serving on
various corporate boards of directors. Mr. Martinez.
TESTIMONY OF ROMAN MARTINEZ IV,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE A GOVERNOR,
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson,
Ranking Member Peters, and Committee Members, thank you for
considering my nomination as a Governor of the U.S. Postal
Service. If I may take advantage of your kind invitation I
would like to introduce some of my family members here with
me--my wife, Helena, of 44 years, sitting behind me; my son,
Roman; my Oklahoman daughter-in-law, Dace; and my terrific
grandson, Rommy. Thank you for that opportunity, sir.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez appears in the Appendix
on page 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a boy, I emigrated from Cuba in 1960, to our great
country. I am grateful for all the opportunities this country
has given me. If confirmed, it would be a privilege to serve
the Nation.
Let me tell you a bit about my background. Arriving from
Cuba, we lived in Miami before I headed to Massachusetts for
high school and then Boston College. After earning a Master of
Business Administation (MBA) at Wharton, I worked in New York
as an investment banker for 32 years. I became a partner of
Lehman Brothers in 1978, at the age of 30, and was involved in
most aspects of investment banking until retiring in 2003, when
my wife and I became Florida residents.
Since 2004, I have served on several corporate boards. At
Cigna, currently, I chair the board's audit committee and serve
on the finance and executive committees as well. I qualify as
an ``audit committee financial expert,'' as defined by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
For over 20 years, I have also served on nonprofit
organizations, including serving as Vice Chairman of the
Investment Advisory Council of Florida, which required Florida
Senate confirmation. I currently serve as trustee of New York-
Presbyterian Hospital and as an overseer of the International
Rescue Committee.
For over 200 years, the Postal Service has effectively
served the entire country, but recently it has faced severe
challenges. The digital revolution and rigid mandates have
placed it in virtual insolvency. Its business model is not
viable but its function remains vital. The Postal Service is in
dire need of restructuring.
If confirmed, I would immerse myself in a deep analysis of
the root issues. I will follow the same approach that I took
throughout my banking career, and which I continue to do as a
board member. I will keep an open mind. I will learn as much as
I can. I will consult broadly and consider as many points of
view as possible, and I will do my very best to propose
practical solutions consistent with the Postal Service's
Universal Service Obligation.
Based on my experience, however, I will respectfully offer
some preliminary observations now, that given the introductory
comments by both the Chairman and the Ranking Member, might be
singing to the choir. But it is very important to make
observations regarding the structure of the Postal Service
board, which I believe is extremely important.
As you know, Congress established the board to include nine
independent members, but as of today there are only two, and
one is up for reconfirmation this year. For years the board had
no Governors and it lacked a quorum for even longer. It is
critical that the board be appropriately constituted. Lacking a
quorum is crippling, but the problem goes beyond that.
My experience as a board member has taught me that an
effective board must include individuals with relevant
expertise and experience and with backgrounds representative of
key constituencies. A diverse group is critical to provide
effective advice and counsel.
Further, it is essential for a board to be at full strength
so that its important committees, such as those addressing
enterprise risk, human resources (HR), audit, and increasingly
information technology (IT) and cybersecurity, can provide
effective oversight.
Also, Governors must be able to serve long enough to
acquire in-depth knowledge of the organization and to establish
relationships with fellow board members and management which
are essential to build the trust and respect required for
candid discussions.
The Senate has an invaluable constitutional role in
providing advice and consent on Presidential appointments. The
vetting of qualifications and potential conflicts are
essential. But for positions like these, which are not full-
time and where diverse backgrounds and experience is desirable,
I would respectfully urge Congress and the President to work
together to streamline the process in whatever way possible.
In closing, I would like to express again my appreciation
for being considered and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
Our next nominee has been nominated to be an Associate
Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, James
Crowell. Mr. Crowell is the Director of the Executive Office of
United States Attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ). He was also a Federal prosecutor for more than 16 years.
Mr. Crowell.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. CROWELL IV,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE AN
ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Crowell. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and
Members of the Committee, it is a great privilege for me to be
here. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to appear before
you as you consider my nomination to be an Associate Judge of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Crowell appears in the Appendix
on page 147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank the Judicial Nomination Commission and its
chair, Judge Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White
House. I want to thank the President for nominating me. I also
want to thank Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for her
support. Finally, I would like to express my sincere thanks and
appreciation to the Committee Members and the dedicated
Committee staff for their hard work in considering my
nomination.
I am immeasurably grateful for the support and inspiration
of my colleagues, family, and friends, many of whom are here
with me today. In particular, I want to recognize and thank my
friends and colleagues, the United States Attorneys for the
District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Virginia,
Jessie Liu and Zach Terwilliger, as well as Judge Anthony
Epstein of our D.C. Superior Court. I deeply appreciate their
friendship, support, and encouragement.
My wife, Michaeleen, has been my life partner and cherished
friend for the last 19 years. Her love and support, and the
gift of our children, Jac and Ellie, are our greatest
successes. A moment's indulgence--this is my son, Jac, my
daughter, Ellie, my wife, Michaeleen. I am also thankful that
her father, Michael, is here today. I appreciate his love and
support over these many years.
My family is from Mississippi and Louisiana, but my wife
and I have made the District our home for the last 16 years. We
came to Washington for Michaeleen to pursue her dream of
working on Capitol Hill. As a young newlywed, I did not realize
that her dream of coming to Washington would become our dream
of making this city our home. We are communicants at St.
Joseph's Church on Capitol Hill, where my son will be confirmed
this weekend. I take pride in serving as a volunteer softball
coach for my daughter here on the Capitol Hill Little League. I
am a proud member of the American Legion, Post 8, here on the
Hill. Our children were born here, and we have proudly raised
them as D.C. natives. This is my home.
I was raised by a single mother with a high school
education, who worked tirelessly to provide for me and open
doors of opportunity that no one in our family had walked
through. She passed 20 years ago, but I hope that she is able
to look down upon her son with pride on this day. She taught me
to expect nothing, and to be grateful for everything, to remain
gracious in times of defeat and humble in moments of victory,
and always to leave things better than you found them. These
have been, they currently are, and will always remain my
guiding principles.
My presence here today is the result of a supportive
family, exceptional colleagues, and my good fortune in joining
two organizations that have shaped me personally and
professionally, the United States Army and the Department of
Justice.
In 1994, as a 19-year-old private, I raised my hand for the
first time to swear allegiance to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States. As a career public servant,
over the last 25 years, I have had the privilege of repeating
that oath many times.
I started my legal career as a law clerk to United District
Judge Charles Pannell, Jr. He taught me the meaning of judicial
temperament--patient, unbiased, open-minded.
In 2001, I joined the Justice Department through the
Attorney General's Honors Program and I served in the Antitrust
Division, the Public Integrity Section, and as an Assistant
United States Attorney (AUSA). I was privileged to represent
the United States as trial counsel in countless cases that
protected the public and preserved public resources, and
protected victims of crime. Now, as Director of the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys, I continue to serve the
Department's mission of ensuring equal and impartial justice.
I have also served in the U.S. Army Reserves for the last
25 years. I began my career in the Army as an infantryman, but
after law school I became a Judge Advocate and was assigned as
trial defense counsel. In that role, I represented countless
soldiers accused of all manner of crimes. These soldiers'
career, their livelihood, and their family security were on the
line. That experience formed the basis for my strong belief
that able defense lawyers are essential to the functioning of a
constitutionally sound adversarial system.
Whether serving in a uniform or a suit, as a prosecutor or
as a defense lawyer, I have sought to be a fierce advocate for
the rule of law, a principled and independent decisionmaker,
and a faithful servant of the Constitution. I understand the
D.C. Superior Court's mission to provide access to justice for
all. If I am fortunate enough to receive your support, you have
my word that I will strive to achieve that mission and approach
every case, every controversy with a commitment to justice and
fairness.
Thank you again for considering my nomination and I look
forward to answering any questions you might have.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Crowell.
Our final nominee, also has been nominated to be an
Associate Judge for the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, is Jason Park. Mr. Park is an Assistant U.S. Attorney
in the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office. He is the Deputy Chief of
the Felony Crimes Division, overseeing a team of attorneys
prosecuting cases before the D.C. Superior Court. Mr. Park.
TESTIMONY OF JASON PARK,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Park. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for this opportunity to appear before you as you consider my
nomination to serve as an Associate Judge on the Superior Court
for the District of Columbia. It is a great honor to be here
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Park appears in the Appendix on
page 177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank the District of Columbia Judicial
Nomination Commission and its chair, the Hon. Judge Emmett
Sullivan, who is kind enough to be here today, for recommending
me to the White House, and I thank the President for nominating
me. I would also like to thank the Committee staff for their
hard work, Congresswoman Norton for her support, and Chief
Judge Robert Morin, who is also here, for his leadership of the
court.
I am also grateful to my friends and colleagues, some of
whom are here today, including my exemplary boss, the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie Liu, and the Hon.
Judge Kelly Higashi, my former chief in the sex offense section
at the U.S. Attorney's Office and an extraordinary colleague,
mentor, and friend.
I am joined today by my wife Kati Daffan, and our oldest
son, Elliot, who is seven. Our younger son, Oliver, is four and
is in school today. It is impossible for me to express how much
I owe to my family and in particular to my wife, Kati, without
whom I would not be here today.
I also would like to acknowledge my parents, Dr. Duk-Won
Park and Sunja Park, who traveled from Alabama to be here. My
parents came to this country nearly 50 years ago, and over the
years and decades they built a home that has served as the
foundation for everything my sisters and I have been blessed
with. I am grateful they could be here today.
I first came to Washington, DC, 16 years ago to attend law
school at Georgetown. After graduating and spending nearly 3
years practicing commercial litigation at an international law
firm in New York, my wife and I returned permanently to the
District 10 years ago. We are proud to call this city our home.
Upon returning to the District, I was fortunate enough to
serve as a law clerk to the Hon. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who remains
an inspiration and mentor to me to this day. I then spent a
short time as a defense attorney at a large law firm here in
D.C., where I represented individuals who were the subject of
investigation and prosecution by Federal entities.
For the last 7 years, I have had the distinct privilege of
serving the citizens of our city as an Assistant United States
Attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
Columbia. Currently, I serve as the Chief of the Major Crimes
Section of the Office's Superior Court Division, where, with my
three deputy chiefs, I supervise more than 20 AUSAs prosecuting
violent crime cases in D.C. Superior Court.
For the majority of my career, I served as a prosecutor in
the sex offense and domestic violence section, investigating
and prosecuting child sex abuse, child physical abuse, sexual
assault, and child exploitation cases in the D.C. Superior
Court and in Federal district court. I have had the great
privilege of working closely with survivors, witnesses, and
families from all parts of this city. I have also been
fortunate enough to appear before and try cases in front of
many of the exemplary judges of the Superior Court.
It would be a great honor to continue my public service as
an Associate Judge on the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia. Thank you again for considering my nomination and I
look forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Park.
There is a series of three questions I have to ask all of
the nominees, and what I will do is I will ask the question and
then go right down the line. If you will answer them
individually, starting with Mr. Bloom.
The first question, is there anything you are aware of in
your background that might present a conflict of interest with
the duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
Mr. Bloom?
Mr. Bloom. No.
Mr. Martinez. No.
Mr. Crowell. No, sir.
Mr. Park. No.
Chairman Johnson. Do you know of anything, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Mr. Bloom. No, I do not.
Mr. Martinez. No.
Mr. Crowell. No, sir.
Mr. Park. No.
Chairman Johnson. Do you agree, without reservation, to
comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are
confirmed?
Mr. Bloom. I do.
Mr. Martinez. I do.
Mr. Crowell. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Park. I do.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Those are all the right answer. Thank
you. [Laughter.]
First of all, I do want to acknowledge the colleagues here.
I appreciate the strong attendance. Normally I would throw it
right to Ranking Member Peters but I have a hard break at 3:30
so I just have a couple of quick questions for the postal
nominees.
Have you both had a chance to review the Postal Task Force
recommendations, their report? Mr. Bloom.
Mr. Bloom. Yes, I have.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Martinez?
Mr. Martinez. I have.
Chairman Johnson. One of the principles of their
recommendations is to come up with a plan for solvency of the
Postal Service that does not require taxpayer bailout. As
Governors, is that a goal that you would also share, Mr. Bloom?
Mr. Bloom. Yes, it is.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Martinez?
Mr. Martinez. I do, as well.
Chairman Johnson. One thing in our hearing that I thought
was pretty interesting, a couple of the witnesses talked about,
we really do need to--because we have never defined what
Universal Service Obligation means, and I think that is going
to be important as we move forward. What is that definition? Is
that something that you would be committed to trying to
recommend what that definition would be? It would probably have
to something we would have to do in legislation. Mr. Bloom.
Mr. Bloom. Yes, I think the Board of Governors would have a
role. Obviously it would be up to the Congress, but they would
have a role in trying to bring forward our thoughts.
Chairman Johnson. Do you want to throw out some of those
thoughts right now?
Mr. Bloom. No, sir. Not yet.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Mr. Martinez?
Mr. Martinez. Absolutely. You have to have a clear
definition of the USO before you can start tackling the
problem. How do you know what you are going to solve if you do
not have the definition that is agreed to by all
constituencies, and hopefully on a bipartisan basis.
Chairman Johnson. So you think the conversation ought to
start at the Board of Governors.
Mr. Martinez. Well, let's step back. As I understand it,
the statutes are created by the Congress and they have a very
broad definition of USO, the concept, the principles of Postal
Service obligation for the entire nation at a reasonable cost.
When you get into the details, it is hard to find any place
where you see that. The PRC chairman has asked for a
definition. The Members here have asked for a definition. The
USPS have asked for a definition. So I think we should define
it first.
Chairman Johnson. This will be my last question. As an
accountant myself, as a business person, it is very difficult
to price products if you do not have a really good cost
allocation model. We are operating off of what I have been told
is something like a 50-year-old cost allocation model.
Obviously, the Postal System has changed quite a bit with the
reduction in the monopoly part of the business and First-Class
Mail and, really, in terms of parcel post. We deliver to every
post box and that is that last mile that is so attractive to
other partners in the parcel service.
Talk a little bit about the cost allocation model and what
we really need to do there. We will start with you, Mr. Bloom.
Mr. Bloom. Yes. I think as a general matter your broad
comment is absolutely right. You have got to be able to score
what you are doing, and if the model is indeed that old I
cannot imagine it does not need updating. I am not familiar
with the detail of it but I certainly agree with your
overriding proposition, which is that the service needs to be
able to score what it is doing to make determinations about
what its best path forward is.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. This will be preliminary because I have not
gotten the chance to go and dig deep into it, but you put your
finger on a very important issue. We have, in the monopoly part
of the business, a model that started with a pricing philosophy
that was to keep up with the growth of the Nation. Then the
digital revolution hit, and all of a sudden the pricing part is
no longer compatible with that part of the business, while the
cost basis continues to go up because we need to continue to
serve the entire nation. So there is a disconnect there and we
need to know exactly what the cost is to service the universal
obligation that we have.
On the other part of the business, that should be, frankly,
freer of constraints. We are competing with--sorry, I am not
confirmed yet--the USPS is competing with Federal Express
(FedEx) and United Parcel Service (UPS) to have a cost
structure completely different than ours. That chart\1\ over
there shows health care prefunding of $4.5 billion. That is 7
percentage points in terms of the margin that it eats up. FedEx
does not have retiree benefits. So, yes, there is a great need
to analyze the cost basis and the model as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Mr. Martinez appears in the Appendix on
page 200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Chairman's priority, I have one more
question.
If you could summarize, just in kind of like the biggest
problem the Postal Service has, what would you say it is, Mr.
Bloom?
Mr. Bloom. I would say two things. One, my observation of
other companies or institutions is normally it is a
constellation of problems. There is not one thing. But if I had
to look at one thing it is the fundamental change in the
environment. It is the decline of First-Class Mail, and that
sort of sits on top of everything because your fundamental
revenue base is changing. And so adapting to that change, I
think, is the central challenge.
Now there are 20 other things that sit on top of that but
the thing that has changed most radically in the last 10 years
is the decline of first class.
Chairman Johnson. And they have not been able to change
their cost model significantly because labor costs are such a
huge----
Mr. Bloom. I think there are a number of constraints that
make that adaptation difficult, whether it is the prefunding,
which needs to be looked at, whether it is the pricing model,
the cost model. All of those models need to constructively be
looked at holistically to deal with the basic fact that the
main thing they used to sell, if you will, they are selling a
lot less of.
Chairman Johnson. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. I would agree with what Ron said and I would
add a couple of things, if I may. There is a disconnect. We
want the USPS to be self-sustaining, i.e., generate its own
revenues as public company, as a private sector company, yet we
mandate them with costs that the private sector does not have,
like in the retiree benefits situation. So we have to bring
things back into balance as to the objectives of the USPS and
what is the right business model, which includes both pricing
and costing of all the products.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you. Senator Peters.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all
of you for your willingness to serve and congratulations on
your nomination.
To focus again back on Postal Service and to pick up on
Chairman Johnson's comments on universal service, and hearing
from both of you saying that it is not completely defined
exactly what Universal Service Obligation means, for me it is
fairly clear, and that is that everybody, no matter where they
live, have access to quality Postal Services and at a
reasonable price, particularly in our rural areas.
I think of Michigan, with our urban areas in the Detroit
area, but when you get into Northern Michigan, in the Upper
Peninsula, you are many miles from a lot of metropolitan areas,
but the Postal Service is absolutely vibrant, or I should say
absolutely essential for small businesses in those communities,
for example, to sell their products, and we are seeing more and
more engage in commerce by using Postal Services as a part of
that. People need to have access to medicines and other kinds
of essential services.
So my question to both of you is, give me a sense of how
you are thinking, right now, of how you deal with the
challenges associated with providing that kind of service to
rural areas in even places like the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan, which are a long way from large urban areas. How are
you going to approach this problem? Give me a sense of your
thought process.
Mr. Bloom, do you want to start?
Mr. Bloom. Sure. I think there is, to me, the sort of
central dilemma sits with the following--both in terms of
serving rural and non-urban communities as well as the broad
mission of the Service, that the network is what it brings to
the table. The network both from a social policy perspective as
well as an economic matter, the network is what the Postal
Service has. As I said in my remarks, would be very cautious
about changing--degrading the network, because then I think you
start in a negative spiral that is hard to get out of.
The degradation of the network does not just affect rural
communities, although it most assuredly does, but it affects
all users and all shippers, because they are attracted to the
Postal Service precisely because of its network. That, I think,
is fundamental.
On the other hand, we cannot ignore the fact that the
number of first class pieces going through that network has
declined, and so balancing those two, I think, is the
challenge, is maintaining the network, not getting into a
negative spiral where the network degrades and then fewer
people want to ship and it degrades further, et cetera, but
also not ignoring the external reality of filling that network
has to be done differently, given the decline of first class.
Senator Peters. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. It is clear that the public interest, which
is the mandate of the USPS, is to serve both the urban and
rural, and I subscribe to that. I would like to understand
better, and one of the things that I would like to ask, sir, as
soon as I--if I get confirmed, is, is there a difference in the
service needed in rural Michigan to rural Florida or rural
Missouri or rural New Hampshire? I do not know the answer to
that. It may be there be different sub-models of how to service
the communities, given what they need. I would like to get an
answer to that question.
But in principle, I think it is very important to maintain
the essential services to rural America. And if you step back,
that is why it is also important to have the competitive
product side of the organization developed as best as it could,
because it is the consolidated operating cash-flow of the
combined that will be able to serve as the public side that
might be not cost effective.
Senator Peters. When you bring up essential services,
obviously that is part of what we have to think through too.
What are essential services and what are non-essential? There
could be a variety of opinions on that, and folks in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan may define that differently than others
will do that.
Mr. Martinez. Exactly.
Senator Peters. So the sense that I get from both of you,
and I want to get your commitment, is that you will do a deep
dive into the economic impacts of changes in Postal Service to
rural areas. We have this Postal Task Force that analyzed the
rural communities but I do not think they actually looked at
the economic impact to the particular community and the
challenges associated with that.
Do I have your commitment to do that kind of deep dive?
Mr. Martinez. Yes, Ranking Peters, and beyond that is what
do the people want? What do they think they need? It is not
just an economic study from some commission. It is what do the
people in those areas believe they need in terms of service?
That would be very helpful to know as well.
Mr. Bloom. Yes.
Senator Peters. Great.
And related to that, and both of you brought this up too,
is as you have the universal obligation to provide service,
universal service, there is also service performance. I think,
Mr. Martinez, you alluded to that in some of your comments, is
that as you degrade performance, in order to save money, then
you become, or you can fall into a death spiral where people
are not going to use the services because it continues to get
worse, and that cannot continue.
Give me your thoughts on how do we deal with that
challenge, which is significant. Mr. Bloom.
Mr. Bloom. Yes. I do think that is the challenge, but you
cannot leave the network exactly like it was 50 years ago
either, because the Nation is not like it was 50 years ago, and
the needs of the citizens are not like they were 50 years ago.
But the basic principle of a robust network, as I said, I think
is the Postal Service's key attribute, and if it is going to
both be financially successful, which today it is not, and
fulfill its broad social mandate, I think it has to have a
robust network.
Senator Peters. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. I am not sure exactly if this is going to
answer your question, but what I took from it is quality of
service. USPS is a service organization. I come from a service
business, and the client comes first. The customer comes first.
One of the first things I also would like to see is what is the
quality monitoring that the USPS manages in its employees
today? What are the metrics they look at in terms of
performance? I think that is critical.
One of the things that, again, the current governance
structure lacks is a board committee to deal with it more
granularly at the board level in terms of the oversight of the
process of how you monitor quality. Normally that would come
under the audit committee or the governance committee, but the
USPS does not have that because they do not have the people
there.
Senator Peters. Just one final question to both of you, is
that probably one of the most important resources at the Postal
Service are the employees of the Postal Service. Nearly 100,000
veterans, as you know, work for the Postal Service. Oftentimes
those folks who are on the front line are not asked questions,
are not asked to give their opinion, and yet they are the ones
in the best position to often know exactly what is going on and
offer some incredibly productive ideas as to how to change
things.
I would like each of you just to briefly comment as to how
you will actively seek out the opinion of Postal employees and
make sure that they are part of the decisions made by the Board
of Governors.
Mr. Bloom. Yes, I think that is principally one of the jobs
of management, so I think encouraging management and instating
that management have that kind of open dialogue with the
employees and their representatives is absolutely essential.
Senator Peters. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. I think not so much the decisionmaking
process but the input, and I think it is very important for the
board to know whether the management is, in effect, getting
input from the employees as to where the businesses are.
I would ask another question, as we look at new businesses
and new services, has the USPS asked its employees basically to
come up with ideas? They are the ones that have the contact
with the customer. Maybe the best ideas can come from them.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to each of the nominees on your nomination.
Mr. Martinez, can I start with you? In your written
responses you note the difference between, or you make a
distinction between governance and management, which I thought
was interesting, and I wonder if you could just elaborate a bit
on what you think that difference is what the proper balance is
between the two.
Mr. Martinez. I appreciate the question. I appreciate that
somebody read the questionnaire, because there were 72
questions.
There is a very fine line between governance at the board
level and management, and a board member should not be micro-
managing management but should be involved enough to oversee it
and monitor the pace of the strategy, the pace of the
operations, and other things that basically make up the
workings of a company.
At the same time, thought, they should be there, available
for advice and counsel. The best boards involve diversity of
expertise, as I mentioned in my opening statement, where you
have people with experience with large companies, with
marketing, with finance, with information technology, et
cetera. Bringing them in to advise is a very important element,
but the line has to be drawn in terms of--and sometimes it is
hard for former Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) sitting on
boards to not to try to manage the managers. That is what I
meant.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. That is very helpful.
Speaking of questionnaires, Mr. Bloom, in your
questionnaire there as a series of quotations. I want to ask
you about some of these that, quite frankly, I find disturbing.
In a 2008 speech, entitled ``Asserting the Union Position
and Restructuring Steelworker Style'' that you gave at the
Sixth Annual Distressed Investing Forum, you are quoted as
saying the following.
Here it is, and I quote: ``Generally speaking, we get the
joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that
the whole point is to gain the system, to beat the market, or
at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because
they are convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is
largely about power, that is an adults-only, no-limit game. We
kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from
the barrel of a gun, and we get that if you want a friend you
should get a dog,'' end quote. Are those your words?
Mr. Bloom. Yes.
Senator Hawley. Do you stand by those?
Mr. Bloom. No.
Senator Hawley. What specifically? I mean, where should we
start? Do you think the free market is nonsense?
Mr. Bloom. I think I answered in my questionnaire that I do
not.
Senator Hawley. Well, why is that? Because you have changed
your views or because you were inadequately quoted? What you
answered in your questionnaire are one-words answers to very
specific questions, all of which are just flat denials. So why
don't you take the opportunity to inform us?
Mr. Bloom. No, I am happy to clarify further. I was giving
a speech at a conference where the people in the room were--
styled themselves as very tough, hard-boiled investors, and I
was trying to convey that the steelworkers union is also
capable--while it would to work constructively it is also
capable of acting in a very hard-headed and hard-boiled way.
And so in order to do that I spoke in a very provocative way
that does not reflect my actual views.
Senator Hawley. So you were pandering to your audience.
Mr. Bloom. I was trying to provoke my audience.
Senator Hawley. By saying that you agree with Mao?
Mr. Bloom. I was trying to provoke my audience to get them
to think that the steelworkers could be a great partner but
were also prepared to be tough, just like them.
Senator Hawley. Do you agree with Mao that political power
comes largely from the barrel of a gun?
Mr. Bloom. I do not.
Senator Hawley. Do you think that the whole point is to
game the system, to beat the market, to find somebody who will
pay you a lot of money because they are convinced there is a
free lunch?
Mr. Bloom. No, I do not.
Senator Hawley. My concern, Mr. Bloom, is that if this were
just one speech it would be troubling enough, but as the
record, I think, clearly reflects you have a long history of--I
think the best you can put it is inflammatory statements, I
mean, that are politically charged, is I think the nicest way
to put it.
What assurances do we have that as a member of this very
important governing body you will conduct yourself in a way
that is befitting of a nonpartisan body charged with overseeing
a very important institution in this country and not engage in
this kind of inflammatory rhetoric that you now say--oh, do you
regret this rhetoric, actually? Do you regret these remarks?
Mr. Bloom. Yes.
Senator Hawley. Would you make them again now?
Mr. Bloom. I would not.
Senator Hawley. So what assurances do we have going forward
that you will not engage in this pattern of behavior?
Mr. Bloom. Well, the best I can offer you, Senator, is I
have a 40-year career of solving exceptionally complex problems
from all sides of the table, whether it be labor, whether it be
management, or whether it be sitting in a government seat, and
I think my record in those 40 years speaks for itself, where I
have been able to find win-win solutions in very complicated,
difficult situations where normally parties were drawn to
conflict and I was able to find resolution.
I believe that while I certainly occasionally speak in an
aggressive way to advocate a point of view, I think a 40-year
career of solving problems and fixing things that are badly
broken, as I have, I think is the best I can offer you.
Senator Hawley. Let me turn, in the time I have remaining,
to Mr. Crowell and Mr. Park. Gentlemen, let me just ask each of
you to begin with, what, in your opinion, is the most important
characteristic of a good judge?
Mr. Park, we will start with you.
Mr. Park. I think that the number one characteristic that
we look for in a judge is the law, understanding what the
judge's role is, and the judge's role being to apply the law to
the facts, not to be influenced by that particular judge's
personal sympathies, biases, not to be influenced by popular
perceptions, popular views of a particular litigant or party. I
think that that spirit of independence is fundamental to our
system of government and to the judicial system. I think if I
had to identify one characteristics that would be the one.
Senator Hawley. Thank you. Mr. Crowell.
Mr. Crowell. I completely concur with Mr. Park. I think
impartiality is the cornerstone of any judicial opinion.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Park, let me ask you, you recently joined, this past
year, a number of different bar associations, including the
Women's Bar Association of D.C. Let me ask you about a number
of litigating positions that that bar association has taken,
including opposing religious liberty exemptions to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate,
opposing--being on the wrong side of the Becerra case in
California's attempt to use speech regulations to force prolife
crisis pregnancy resource centers to issue statements in
conflict with the mission of those organizations.
I am concerned about this. I am concerned that this
association engages in this sort of activism and that it
consistently comes out on the wrong side in these important
issues, with what the Supreme Court says the Constitution and
the law is. Can you tell me about your membership in this
association? Does it reflect your views, as a judge?
Mr. Park. To be perfectly honest with you, Senator, I did
not realize that the bar association took all of those
positions. Part of the thing that I had hoped to do when I
first considered applying for this position was to gain a base
of support and to see whether or not I would have support
within the community.
So one of the things I did was to reach out to different
bar associations--the Women's Bar Association (WBA), the
Hispanic Bar Association (HBA), the Asia-Pacific American Bar
Association (APABA)--and to meet with those people and to ask
whether they would support my nomination.
One piece of advice I got was that it would be the better
course of wisdom to pay the dues and show that those
organizations mattered enough for you to pay the dues and
become a member. And so that is why I did that. I am not
familiar, Senator, with actually all of the issues that you
just raised.
Senator Hawley. Last question, Mr. Chairman. Is it safe to
say that should these issues come before you, if you are
confirmed and should these issues come before you as a judge,
you would adhere to the precedent and the instructions given by
the U.S. Supreme Court in these and all relevant cases.
Mr. Park. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely, Senator. It is not
just my personal belief. It is a rule of the Judicial Code of
Conduct in the District of Columbia, so I would be ethically
bound to do that.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Lankford [presiding.] Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Let me say to my friend--our friend from
Missouri, I have known Ron Bloom for a long time. The work that
he did with respect to the restructuring of Chrysler and GM and
bringing them back, really, from not just the abyss but really
from bankruptcy, is laudatory. You are probably going to be
surprised to hear me say this but our colleagues, myself
included, sometimes we say things that are somewhat
inflammatory, even in this room, and we should not be totally
surprised that maybe one of our nominees, maybe some of them
would do the same thing. I actually feel real lucky to have
people as good as Ron and Roman Martinez to be nominated to
serve.
I think we should be ashamed, as a body, for our failure--
and I would say the current Administration--the last
Administration actually nominated six Governors in, I think,
2016, and the Senate--three Democrats, three Republicans--and
we failed to move those nominations. So we were stuck with
nobody for the Board of Governors for 2 years, which is just
awful. Can you imagine a business this big operating without a
board of directors for 2 years, and with maybe one or two
people for even longer? It is just abhorrent.
I just want to say to Mr. Bloom and Mr. Martinez, thank you
for your willingness to do these jobs.
I want to say, Mr. Crowell and Mr. Park, I do not have any
questions for you. I do want to say I thought your statements
were excellent. I just want to say to your children, who are
sitting behind you, I just want to express our thanks for their
willingness to cut class today---- [Laughter.]
To be here and sit behind you and lend their support. Who
is your 7-year-old? What is his name?
Mr. Park. His name is Elliott, and in full disclosure he
has been promised ice cream. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Well, I have had the honor of raising three
boys with my wife, Martha, and we have had to offer to our boys
a lot more than ice cream to get them to be this well behaved.
So with that having been the incentive, let me get serious.
To our nominees for Postal Board of Governors, if you look
at what--I used to be a naval flight officer (NFO). I served
three tours of Southeast Asia. The best day of the week for all
of us was the day we got the mail. We did not have Skype, we
did not have cell phones. In fact, we did not have much of
anything except the mail to communicate with people, family and
others back home. The world has certainly changed, and
relatively few people use First-Class Mail compared to what
used to be the case.
But in adversity lies opportunity, and the loss of First-
Class Mail and the movement of mail to the Internet and the
idea that people now order a lot instead of going shopping at
brick-and-mortar places for their goods, they get it over the
Internet. But there are other opportunities there. Would you
all just talk about that idea, in adversity lies opportunity as
it pertains to the Postal Service looking forward? Ron, would
you go first?
Mr. Bloom. Yes. I think you have identified a key new fact,
which is, as I said earlier, the decline of First-Class Mail is
very significant and a big negative, but in that same 20-year
period e-commerce has exploded and shows no sign of stopping to
explode in terms of its growth. And because of its network,
because it visits every location 6 days a week, and now, in
some cases, as I understand it, even seven, the Postal Service
is uniquely situated to be that last mile. Package delivery is
different than first class, and so I think they cannot just do
it the way they did it, but sitting beside the decline of first
class is the explosion of packages and that opportunity. At
least as I see it, e-commerce continues to grow relentlessly
and in that adversity lies the opportunity to continue to play
a role as the delivery backbone of the United States but to
deliver a different thing.
Senator Carper. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. Well, the opportunity would be that it is
necessary to change the model, because it is broken right now.
The area of the organization that is growing, the packages, is
one that provides opportunities if exploited correctly. One of
the other first things I would like to do is what is the USPS
doing on its own, in terms of creating new opportunities, new
businesses, development----
Senator Carper. Do you see part of the role of the Board of
Governors is to help explore those and to create the ideas and
bring ideas to postal management?
Mr. Martinez. Well, it is a give and take. First of all, it
would be to make sure that the organization is there, that the
process is there for that to happen. For example, if you were
to say what are the new business ideas you have, well, we do
not have any people thinking about them. Well, that is the
problem. So what is there already, in an organized way, to
create ideas for the organization? The board members should
come up with ideas if they have them but that is not really
their role, in my view.
As I mentioned before, also, the employees might be a
tremendous source of ideas, because they are the ones on the
firing line. Some of the best inventions have happened because
of necessity of changing a product or a process or what have
you. So those are opportunities.
But having said that, we cannot ignore the fact that the
way the model is now is broken, because of the way it is
supposed to serve as the essential services part of the
business, the pricing, the revenue side, and the cost basis are
out of whack, and the mandated costs on top of that make it an
impossible model to succeed on its own. The only way it can
keep succeeding like that is if the other side, the competitive
product becomes overwhelmingly successful. So both things have
to be dealt with, not just one.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Another question for both of
you. We have nine slots for Board of Governors plus the
Postmaster General and the Deputy. We have two right now that
have been confirmed. I think one of you mentioned the idea that
to the extent that we had more Governors serving in position
they would be different skills, different expertise, from
different backgrounds, and be able to make different kinds of
contributions and complement one another.
Would you each talk about how your backgrounds might enable
you to do that effectively?
Mr. Martinez first.
Mr. Martinez. Sure. Well, my background mostly is as an
investment banker. I consider myself a financial expert, if I
may say so humbly. The SEC qualifies me as such.
Senator Carper. I once read in a newspaper, I had become
Chairman of this Committee, and in the Wall Street Journal
there was an article about a new chairman and it described me
as the expert in the Senate on cybersecurity. My wife said this
to me that night. I said, ``Look at this, honey. The Wall
Street Journal says I am the Senate expert on cybersecurity''
and she said to me, ``In the land of the blind--'' [Laughter.]
``The one-eyed man is king.''
Mr. Martinez. I may be in that category. I do not know.
But, no. My functional expertise is on that. My experience
in terms of work not only has been in finance but also the last
15 years or so on boards, and that brings a dimension to the
job that I think is very important. A lot of it is asking
questions. A lot of it is thinking out of the box, thinking out
loud, challenging the status quo. In my work, and where I work
with boards, I believe in the Socratic method--asking the
questions, the right questions, pursuing that, and, in effect,
come up with solutions as a group.
So that kind of work, that kind of perspective, that kind
of experience I think I would bring to my board work.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Bloom, same question,
please.
Mr. Bloom. I think most of my experience has been working
with large organizations who, at one point in their life, were
very successful but whose external environment changed and
needed to change. And that could have been a steel company, it
could have been an auto company, it could have been the city of
Detroit, where I was involved in the bankruptcy there. And in
each of those cases what I have tried to----
Senator Carper. Detroit is a come-back city now.
Mr. Bloom. It is.
Senator Carper. It is really impressive.
Mr. Bloom. It is.
Senator Carper. I hope the same will happen with my Detroit
Tigers. They are a baseball team.
Mr. Bloom. I am going to stay out of that.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Bloom. But so what I have tried to do in all of those
cases is ask how can you preserve what is really good in that
organization but how can you challenge that organization to
change to meet a very different world that it faces, and how
can you bring people together around a creative solution. That
is what I have tried to do in my other work and that is the
spirit I would bring to this responsibility, if I were given
it.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks to both of you. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Let me ask a couple of questions as well.
Gentlemen, thank you all for doing this, and thank your
families, as well, for stepping through this process. It is not
a simple process, nor short--painfully so. We are working,
actually today, to try to make the process a little more
expedited as we go in the days ahead, but I appreciate so much
for you taking the time to be able to go through it.
Mr. Bloom and Mr. Martinez, let me ask you both about the
President's Task Force and your impressions of that. I know
there was an initial question to you. I would like a more
expansive answer. What are your impressions so far of some of
the recommendations out of there? What do you think needs to be
applied? What needs to be set aside? Just your initial
impressions. You can take it in either order you want to take
it.
Mr. Martinez. I will start. I think as a whole it is an
excellent report. It was able to bring together a lot of the
issues that are impacting the USPS. If I may make a couple of
specific observations, they also underscored what has been
underscored before you came in, that we talked a little bit
about the USO and the need to define the Universal Service
Obligation, and I think that is a major thing. It sounds simple
but that needs to be done.
They identify a lot of areas generally, in terms of new
services and products that need to be addressed. That is
important. They underscore the fact that this is a public
service, that urban and rural are very important, and I think
that is a critical thing to keep in mind throughout the
process.
There are areas where I would question. I would like to
understand better what they mean. For example, there was some
section there about balance sheet separation and the packages
business that I frankly did not understand what they meant by
that. I would like to understand better when they talk about
new services, the monopoly of the mailbox, and the other things
that we do on a very sort of a proprietary basis. What are the
actual revenue potentials?
I would like to flesh out from all of that more of the
impact on the economics. In the report that I saw it was not
totally fleshed out.
The last point I would make is on-board governance. They
touched on it but I thought it was incomplete, to the extent
that I described in my oral statement that I made. The
importance of having a full-strength board is not just to have
a quorum. It is you have the diversity of experience,
backgrounds, the diversity of constituencies, and to be able to
basically fill the key committees of a board that are needed
for a board to function--audit, for example, governance, human
resources, at the very minimum.
So in that part I wish they would have gone a little bit
more. But on the whole it is a very complex issue and I think
they did an excellent job.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Martinez, thank you. Let me do one
quick follow up. What does universal service mean to you?
Mr. Martinez. Well, in principle it means providing postal
services to the entire nation at a reasonable cost.
Senator Lankford. OK.
Mr. Martinez. So what does it mean in terms of the
specifics, and that is where you can get a lot of different
interpretations.
Senator Lankford. Do you think that is every day to every
box to every location?
Mr. Martinez. I am not sure, and I think it is something
that--it is critical to define it, because if we do not define
the objective, how can we define the solution?
Senator Lankford. Right. Which is part of the Task Force
task was to bring that up, to raise it as a question.
Mr. Martinez. And correct me if I am wrong, but the statute
delegates that basically to the Executive and the USPS and the
PRC--the Regulatory Commission--to do. Having said that, it is
such a sensitive and critical issue that I think there needs to
be bipartisan agreement as to what the clear definition of it
is.
Senator Lankford. That is fair. Mr. Bloom, same two
questions. What does universal service mean to you, and also
about the Presidential Task Force?
Mr. Bloom. Yes. I will start with the second question.
Again, I would echo Mr. Martinez's point. It means
affordable access. But even there you asked a question about
frequency. But even that is not simple because is it that every
letter needs to be there the next day? The next morning? The
next night? So you could deliver every day but if it takes 3
days to get the letter there I think that is probably not
acceptable to most people. I think the idea of fleshing it out
and really looking at it more comprehensively is really quite
important, because it is not just delivery frequency, it is
time to deliver, and how far away should a post office be from
the average American. Those are complex, nuanced questions that
need a lot of study.
But as was said earlier, getting a little more clarity on
that will be important, I think, in order for the Board of
Governors to figure out what problem we are trying to solve.
What are we solving for? And once one has a clearer sense of
the USO I think it is a little easier to figure out what you
are solving for.
I thought the Task Force had a number of excellent points,
certainly a number of things that deserve further study. I do
not take this as a criticism but obviously what was presented
was a summary. And so what I would look forward to do is
working with the Treasury to understand what went behind it,
and having worked briefly in government I am sure there are
many hours of work that sit behind it. I think a report like
that cannot be 500 pages but there is a lot of backup.
And so I would feel the need to understand that better
before I would know whether or not to support the particular
conclusions. I think the issues they raised are critical.
I would also say, again, that while that Task Force report,
I am sure, will be taken very seriously, or will be taken very
seriously by me, I would also want to perhaps open the aperture
a little wider. There are other ideas for reform that have been
floated. I think we have to be pretty open-minded and have not
many a prioris when we go into this examination. And that is
not to denigrate all the good work that has been done. It is
more to say that there is a lot of good input to get.
Senator Lankford. I would only say for Congress and, quite
frankly, for the American people, and the great folks who work
for USPS, they are counting on not just a quorum for the Board
of Governors but an operational Board of Governors that is
taking leadership, making hard decisions, and trying to get us
not only solvent but directionally focused. There are a lot of
unanswered questions as we have waited on a quorum, and there
are unanswered issues because Congress continues to be able to
debate these forever and not resolve anything.
So this is the first step, is to get a good, functioning,
leader-focused Board of Governors, and we are counting on you
to be able to take that on. So I appreciate you stepping up in
this season to be able to take this on.
For the two of you, you get the benefit of being on a panel
of four people. [Laughter.]
And with only 7 minutes of questioning time. Of course, I
am not exactly limited on time. We can spend a little bit of
time together.
Both of you, our team has done a tremendous number of
reference checks and calls and checking with colleagues. There
is no way you can be that nice. [Laughter.]
Or you knew everyone that we were going to call, and we
called a lot of people. So you both have stellar reputations.
You both have an exceptionally difficult task to step into. I
appreciate both what you have done in the past, how you have
carried yourself in the past, and for being willing to be able
to step into this role. It is a very tough task, and thanks for
your leadership, and how many people around this community
already have great respect for you.
And my daughters got ice cream when they got a shot, so you
either equate this with getting a shot---- [Laughter.]
Or something else from there. But I appreciate it very
much.
Let me just ask some very simple, straightforward questions
of you. What do you think are the most significant issues that
D.C. faces right now, as a community? I know that is a little
esoteric, but as a community, just for D.C., and for the
population of D.C., what do you think are the most significant
issues for the people of D.C. right now?
Either one of you can take that on first.
Mr. Park. Well, Senator, I think it might be a function of
the work that I do, but I think among the most pressing issues
is the amount of gun violence that happens in the streets of
D.C. We have seen homicide rates over the last however many
years increase, and so the consequences of that are
extraordinarily far-reaching for communities, particularly
disadvantaged communities in our city. And so that is something
that is on the forefront of my mind, in the work that I do at
the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you. Mr. Crowell.
Mr. Crowell. Senator, I think I agree with Jason that gun
violence definitely is a significant issue. I also think
housing affordability remains a very significant issue in the
city. The city has rapidly grown and it is rapidly
diversifying, and a number of D.C. citizens need a home to stay
in their city, and I think affordability is a major issue, not
for the court but for the community here in D.C.
Senator Lankford. Yes. So let me ask you this, the reverse
of this. In the role of serving on the court, what do you think
is one of the best ways that you can serve the people of D.C.,
that you can do as a leader and as a judge?
Mr. Crowell. As a judge I think it is to be a fair and
impartial applicant of the facts to the law, to not overstep my
role as a judge, to faithfully execute and serve the
Constitution. I recognize that I serve on an inferior court,
and to continue that service in that way.
I think as a leader I think it is incumbent upon the
Judiciary not to hide behind their robes, to be out in the
community. I enjoy my public service. I enjoy serving in the
military. I intend to continue that service. I enjoy coaching
softball for my daughter. I enjoy attending service at my
church. I think it is important, living here in Ward 6, that
the citizens that see me here in Ward 6, or across the river in
Ward 8, recognize the judge, that I am a part of that
community. They see me not only in the pew but also at any
number of community events, and see us out in the public.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Mr. Crowell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Park. I would actually echo everything that Jim said,
and perhaps add that I think in the Superior Court there are
enormous challenges, given the volume of cases that they have
to deal with it can be crushing, I know, on the criminal side,
on the civil side. I would like to think that one thing I might
be able to contribute is some measure of decisiveness, moving
cases along. Having spent a number of years practicing in that
courthouse I would like to think that I could hit the ground
running and ensure that litigants have their day in court as
expeditiously as possible.
Senator Lankford. OK. With that I always have a question
that I ask, and that is about helping the litigants actually
get their day in court and get it finalized. There is a
terrible habit among attorneys nationwide to not prepare well
for a case and know that I can just go to the judge and ask for
more time and I get more time. That may be nice for the
attorney, that may be convenient for the judge, but for the
person who is trying to get justice it is both expensive and
time-consuming for them.
How do you manage your court, or how do you plan to manage
your court in the way to be able to hold attorneys responsible
for preparing for their cases on time, to make sure that their
clients actually get their day in court?
Mr. Park. I think part of it is meaning what you say, and
when you set a deadline it needs to be a realistic deadline,
and there have to be consequences for not meeting that
deadline. I think everybody understands that the lawyers who
practice in the court, who are a wonderful group of attorneys,
have a lot of challenges and competing responsibilities.
But what I have found during my time working in the court
is the judges who demand more and who you know will hold
parties accountable for not meeting those deadlines, they tend
to get met. I would like to develop that type of reputation in
the court, and I think it means it stems from setting deadlines
that matter and sticking with them.
Senator Lankford. Yes. OK. Mr. Crowell?
Mr. Crowell. Senator, I would agree with those comments. I
think one of the major challenges in D.C., is in fiscal year
(FY) 2018 we had over 90,000 new cases file in the District of
Columbia. And most of our focus is often on criminal cases--
those are the cases that we think about--but of those 90,000,
55 percent of them were civil cases. And unlike criminal cases,
there is no Fifth, Sixth Amendment right to counsel, so these
are oftentimes individuals, litigants coming before the court
who are trying to navigate that byzantine world of the court. I
think that is one of the roles of the court and its juris is to
make the court more available to those pro se litigants, to
make it more transparent.
One of the pillars that the court is building upon and is
providing access to justice--that is actually one of the core
concepts that we are trying to push forward, and if I am lucky
enough to be confirmed it is one I believe in firmly--one of
those issues where a diversifying city, many of our litigants
that come before the court do not speak English. Many of the
forms not necessarily have been translated into their
languages. It is an area that we need to make an effort to
simplify some of the civil forms so that those litigants are
able to represent themselves if they are not able to afford
counsel.
And then I think it is incumbent upon the court and the
judges to encourage the civil defense bar and the civil
plaintiffs' bar to offer their services to those litigants. I
think it is a mark of leadership. Being an attorney is a
privilege, and with that privilege comes certain
responsibilities, and I think that includes serving those that
are less fortunate.
Senator Lankford. OK. That would be terrific. Excuse me
just a second. Thank you.
Senator Carper has one final question. We are trying to
pause for just a moment. I think he is going to step back in. I
assume it would be something hard and complex, so I want to
make sure you do not miss that, and be able to go from there.
Let me make this statement on the way back in and then he
will be able to step in. Senator Carper, you are recognized.
Make sure it is a difficult question.
Senator Carper. I have a question about impartiality. The
question is, for each of you, could both of you, Mr. Martinez
and Mr. Bloom, speak to your ability to be impartial when it
comes to businesses and others who use and partner with the
Postal Service?
Mr. Bloom, would you go first.
Mr. Bloom. Yes. I think the role demands it. The role
demands that your responsibility on the Board of Governors is
to the entire institution, not to any particular stakeholder.
While I have served stakeholders on all sides, that is not my
job, if I am privileged to be confirmed. My job is to try to
ascertain, with my fellow Governors, what is best for the
entirety of the institution, and that would be my goal.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Martinez, same question,
please.
Mr. Martinez. The Delaware court defines it----
Senator Carper. Did you say Delaware court?
Mr. Martinez. Oh, you are from Delaware. That is right.
Senator Carper. Half the judges that serve on the Delaware
court----
Mr. Martinez [continuing]. Defines that one----
Senator Carper [continuing]. One time with folks I had
nominated.
Mr. Martinez [continuing]. The Chancery Court defines the
duties of the board as a duty of loyalty and duty of care, and
in the duty of loyalty, integrity is one of the key
determinants of that loyalty definition. I like it that way, I
believe, with all my board assignments and I plan to continue
to do so here.
Senator Carper. That is great. In fact, off the record--
this is off the record--the Chief Justice of the Delaware
Supreme Court was at one time one of my interns, and he had a
big brain even then. We had another young guy, Mr. Chairman,
who ended up--his name was Guhan Subramanian. That was it,
Guhan Subramanian. Guhan was a junior in high school, and we
never had interns that were juniors in high school.
And we had Guhan and we had Leon Strine, who went on to
become the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court. One was
a junior in high school and one was a junior in college, and
they had more intellectual horsepower than the rest of us in my
congressional office combined. And we knew they were going
someplace but we did not know how far. We used to call Guhan,
President Guhan. So, who knows? He is still young so it might
happen.
Could you fellows speak to your ability to be independent
of the President and Postal Service management to make the best
decisions for Postal customers? Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. That is the way I have operated in not only
my board work but also in my professional career. I have had
chances where I have turned down assignment of a public board
that I resigned from because I did not agree with the direction
of the company. There are other instances that have happened
and I cannot get into the detail because of the confidential
nature of those dealings. But, no, I have acted independently
and there is no reason why I would act differently now.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. Mr. Bloom, same
question.
Mr. Bloom. Yes, no, the same thing. I feel like I have
always tried to be independent and say what I think. I try to
do it in a respectful way. I acknowledge that the other
stakeholders have legitimate perspectives. The management, the
President, the Congress will all have important roles here, but
what I think you are asking us to do is give you our collective
best judgment, and then the Congress, in its wisdom, can do
with it as it will. But we are no use if we are not giving our
independent best judgment.
Senator Carper. All right. This is for both of you, if
confirmed, again, speaking to the work of overseeing the
Postmaster General, other senior Postal management, what steps
would you take to evaluate the team in place today, and going
forward, what qualities would you look for when looking to fill
key positions?
Two questions. If confirmed, what steps would you take to
evaluate the team in place today, and going forward, what
qualities would you look for when looking to fill key
positions? Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. One of the most important things that boards
do is that, and also to provide for continuity of management,
succession planning, et cetera. That is one of the things where
the USPS board is lacking now. Normally you have a governance
committee, a human resources committee of the board that deals
and delves, in a more granular way, into those assignments.
Lacking that, I think the board has to act as a committee of
the whole, basically, and in that respect you can have
different ways of assessing it.
It is a little premature for me to say how it would be done
but I would like to get to know the Postmaster General better,
the Deputy, some of their direct reports. In some situations
that I have been involved in there are so-called 360-degree
sort of assessments that get made to see how management is
perceived by their underlings. I am not saying that that should
be the thing we do here, but I keep an open mind as to how best
to do it. But it is critical that the board be very much
involved in assessing the performance and also the
compensation.
Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Bloom, same question.
Mr. Bloom. I would agree with Mr. Martinez. I would add a
couple other observations.
I think what the Postal Service needs now is someone who
both possesses the knowledge and experience with this
particular organization but also knows how to lead change. That
is a balance but I think both of those are required in
leadership in the Postal Service.
The second thing I would say is in my experience the board
has pretty good access to the top few people in the
organization but does not really have access to the next layer,
and that is where a lot of the action happens.
And so I think one of the responsibilities of the board is
to be sure there is a robust talent assessment process so that
the young folks who are trying to rise up, who show promise,
who want to really be the leaders of the future are given a
chance to develop, and there is a good management development
program and a good opportunity to nurture those folks who
appear to potentially be what they usually call the high-
potential folks. The board would, in my experience, not
typically be directly interacting with them but it would be
assuring that the top people have that robust program in place.
Senator Carper. My last year as Governor of Delaware we
earned AAA credit ratings. That is a tribute to Pete du Pont
who used to be our Governor, Mike Castle, who used to be our
Governor before me, and the legislature and a lot of people in
our State who worked hard to pull us from really a terrible
situation like GM and Chrysler to that position of
respectability.
When we earned AAA credit ratings, the same week we earned
the AAA credit ratings both Moody's, Standard & Poor's (S&P),
and Fitch all said to us, ``Congratulations. You got a AAA.''
It was the first time in Delaware history and we were thrilled.
They also said, ``You have a big liability out there. You have
not even recognized an epic liability is health care costs of
your retirees and potential retirees.''
This has not been an issue in terms of recognizing--not
just recognizing the liability but figuring out over what
period of time to amortize that liability. We amortized our
liability for creating a pension fund over 40 years. We did not
need 40 years but that was what we started out in, and we made
it in more quickly than 40 years.
Under the 2007 legislation signed by George W. Bush, this
liability was recognized, but the Postal Service requires, you
may know, to actually pay for it, amortize the liability like
10 years. For the life of me I just think that is a bit too
aggressive, given the situation that the Postal Service is in,
and suggested it be re-amortized, if you will, to something
like 40 years, as an appropriate period of time.
If you have any thoughts along those lines I would welcome
your thoughts.
Mr. Bloom, why don't you go first.
Mr. Bloom. Look, I think the Postal Service has to take
seriously the promises it has made.
Senator Carper. Let me just say, if you look at the Fortune
100 companies, you look at Fortune 500 companies, if you look
at Fortune 1000 companies, almost none of them have done much
of anything about setting money aside, amortizing toward this
liability. Same thing with States, State governments in large
cities.
Go ahead.
Mr. Bloom. Yes.
Senator Carper. That is not to say that they should
amortize. They should recognize it and they should amortize it.
But their track record is not great.
Go ahead.
Mr. Bloom. Yes. I think, as I said, the Service needs to
take seriously the promises that have been made and it needs to
have a plan to honor them. The precise, right period for
amortization, I think, needs to be thought of carefully. I also
think, candidly, the assumptions used to define the size of the
liability needs to be looked at carefully. I think the
investment of the assets that go behind the liability need to
be looked at carefully.
I would not, Senator, focus on simply one issue. A duration
of amortization is critical but I think you need to ask
yourself, holistically, what is a burden that this organization
can bear so that, over time, it can meet this promise, because
it is critical that it meet this promise without asking for
help from the taxpayer. But it has to do it in the context of
an accurate analysis of what the obligation is, it has to do it
with a modern way of thinking about its assets, and it has to
do it cognizant of the fact that it would be a very rare
company that prefunded all of its retiree obligations.
Senator Carper. That is good advice.
Mr. Martinez, please, and then I am way out of time. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martinez. It is a very complex issue. In the corporate
world they do recognize the liability but they do not fund it,
so there is a charge to the profit and loss (P&L) as a non-cash
charge, and it creates a liability on the balance sheet and
then it gets amortized as you pay in the future.
Most companies now are trending toward having no retiree
benefits----
Senator Carper. Yes.
Mr. Martinez [continuing]. And basically what they do is
integrate it into Medicare. Some companies issue supplemental
plans or some other form of health reimbursement accounts to
help that. Some do not. FedEx, January 1, 2018, stopped
recognizing, or froze its plans for retiree benefits.
So the USPS has to deal with the mandate of the Federal
Government and how it treats its retirees, yet it has to
compete and generate its own revenues. There is a disconnect
there.
I would like to understand more what flexibility the USPS
has to restructure that liability, so as not to impact the
existing retirees. Any plan would have to take into account
those who have been there and those who were promised what they
were promised, and deal with that. But it is a question as to
whether going forward, for new employees, et cetera, the plan
should be different. The corporate world is moving to the
Medicare Plus or no retiree benefits recognition.
If we are going to compete on the competitive market side,
and we have 7 percent of revenues going into retiree benefits,
as that chart shows, and FedEx has none, that is pretty
uncompetitive right there. So all of this has to be balanced
out.
Senator Carper. A number of us agree with you on the idea
of Medicare integration. I think that is part of the solution.
You give us a nice roadmap and hopefully you will have a chance
to actually help refine it and to implement it going forward.
I just want to say to James Crowell, are you Army?
Mr. Crowell. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. Retired Navy captain. Navy salutes you. And
thank you for your service and good luck to both of you. Thank
you. I thought your answers to the questions today were almost
as good as your opening statements. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Great. Gentlemen, thank you again.
The nominees made financial disclosures and provided
responses to biographical and pre-hearing questions.\1\
Submitted by the Committee, without objection.\2\ This
information will be made part of the hearing record,\3\ with
the exception of the financial data, which is on file and
available for public inspection in the Committee offices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information for Mr. Bloom appears in the Appendix on page
37.
\2\ The information for Mr. Martinez appears in the Appendix on
page 98.
\3\ The information for Mr. Crowell appears in the Appendix on page
149.
\4\ The information for Mr. Park appears in the Appendix on page
179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing record will remain open until 5 p.m. tomorrow,
April 3, for the submission of statements and questions for the
record.
Thanks again, gentlemen, for the service to get to this
spot, and we will look forward to getting you actually into
that seat and getting you busy in the days ahead.
With this, the hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Crowell. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]