[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       IT'S ELECTRIC: DEVELOPING
                        THE POSTAL SERVICE FLEET
                             OF THE FUTURE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                          OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 5, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-76

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
      
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-265 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                                
                             
                             
                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking 
    Columbia                             Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts      Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California                Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California             Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio               Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Pat Fallon, Texas
    Georgia                          Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California            Vacancy
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
                Mark Stephenson, Director of Legislation
                       Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                  Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on April 5, 2022....................................     1

                               Witnesses

Ms. Tammy L. Whitcomb, Inspector General, United States Postal 
  Service
    Oral Statement...............................................     8

Ms. Victoria K. Stephen, Executive Director, Next Generation 
  Delivery 
  Vehicle, United States Postal Service
    Oral Statement...............................................    10

Mr. Kenny Stein, Director, Policy, Institute for Energy Research
    Oral Statement...............................................    12

Ms. Jill M. Naamane, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure 
  Team, 
  Government Accountability Office
    Oral Statement...............................................    14

Mr. Joe Britton, Executive Director, Zero Emission Transportation 

  Association
    Oral Statement...............................................    15

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.
                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

The documents entered into the record for this hearing are listed 
  below and are available at: docs.house.gov.

  * Statement for the Record of Rep. Jared Huffman; submitted by 
  Chairwoman Maloney.

  * New York Times, article, ``How Hunter Biden's Firm Helped 
  Secure Cobalt for the Chinese;'' submitted by Rep. Comer.

  * Washington Post, editorial, ``The Hunter Biden Story is an 
  Opportunity for a Reckoning,'' submitted by Rep. Comer.

  * Letter to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy; submitted by Rep. 
  Norman.

  * Letter to National Archives and Records Administration; 
  submitted by Rep. Comer.

  * NARA's Response to Rep. Comer's Letter; submitted by Rep. 
  Comer.

  * New York Post, article, ``Hunter Biden's Firm Helped China 
  Gain Control of Electric-Car Mineral: Report;'' submitted by 
  Rep. Clyde.

  * E&E Daily, article, ``Hunter Biden and the Cobalt Mine, 
  Explained;'' submitted by Rep. Clyde.

  * New Delhi, ``Joe Biden's Son Helped China Get Control Over 
  Vast Cobalt Mine in Africa: Report;'' submitted by Rep. Clyde.

  * Daily Mail, article, ``Hunter Biden's Private Equity Firm 
  Helped Chinese Conglomerate Buy American-Owned Cobalt Mine in 
  $3.8 Billion Deal: Purchase Helped China Company Gain World's 
  Largest Deposit of Precious Metal Used to Make Batteries for 
  Electric Vehicles;'' submitted by Rep. Clyde.

  * Fox News, report, ``Hunter Biden's Firm Helped Chines Company 
  Purchase Rich Cobalt Mine in $3.8 Billion Deal;'' submitted by 
  Rep. Clyde.

  * Fox News, report, ``House Republicans Invite Hunter Biden to 
  Testify on Cobalt Mining, His `Expertise' on EV Batteries;'' 
  submitted by Rep. Clyde.

  * American Lung Association, ``The Road to Clean Air: Benefits 
  of a Nationwide Transition to Electric Vehicles;'' submitted by 
  Rep. Mfume.

  * Journal Times, article, ``Spartanburg Fights Back to Keep 
  Oshkosh Defense Postal Fleet Project;'' submitted by Rep. 
  Ocasio-Cortez.

  * Herald Journal, article, ``Why Oshkosh Corp. Didn't Build 
  USPS Vehicles in a Foxconn Facility in Mount Pleasant;'' 
  submitted by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

  * Letter from the Committee on Oversight and Reform; submitted 
  by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

  * Statement of Senator Carper; submitted by Chairwoman Maloney.

  * U.N. Report; submitted by Chairwoman Maloney.

 
                       IT'S ELECTRIC: DEVELOPING
                        THE POSTAL SERVICE FLEET
                             OF THE FUTURE

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, April 5, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
                 Committee on Oversight and Reform,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom; Hon. 
Carolyn B. Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Cooper, 
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, 
Tlaib, Porter, Bush, Brown, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, 
Johnson, Sarbanes, Speier, Kelly, Lawrence, DeSaulnier, 
Pressley, Comer, Jordan, Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Gibbs, 
Higgins, Norman, Sessions, Keller, Biggs, Clyde, Franklin, 
Fallon, Herrell, and Donalds.
    Also present: Representative Jarod Huffman.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
    And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
    I would like to start by acknowledging the important 
bipartisan work that the members of this committee did on the 
Postal Service Reform Act--and thank Mr. Comer and the 
Republicans on this committee--and this will be signed into law 
tomorrow by the President of the United States.
    Today, I hope we can come together on another common sense 
step, cutting our reliance on fossil fuel and saving money in 
the long-run by transitioning to an electric postal fleet. Just 
yesterday, the United Nations issued a major scientific new 
report warning that without immediate action shifting from 
fossil fuels, we will not be able to keep global warming to 
acceptable levels. This Congress must help the world avert a 
climate disaster by moving from gas guzzlers to electric 
vehicles now.
    The Postal Service operates an aging fleet of roughly 
230,000 vehicles, many of which need to be replaced. These old 
postal trucks are often unsafe, have high maintenance costs, 
and get terrible gas mileage at a time when we cannot afford to 
continue polluting our environment.
    The Postal Service began the process of acquiring a new and 
improved fleet more than seven years ago. Last year, they 
finally selected a contractor, Oshkosh Defense, to build the 
New Generation Delivery Vehicle. The Postal Service signed a 
10-year contract to order up to 165,000 vehicles. Under the 
contract, Oshkosh must provide either internal combustion 
engine or battery electric vehicles, in whatever amounts the 
Postal Service orders.
    Unfortunately, the Postal Service has stated that only 10 
percent of the vehicles it purchases under the contract will be 
electric, while the remaining 90 percent, up to 148,000 
vehicles, will be gas guzzlers. This is simply unacceptable.
    Nineteen of the hottest years on record have occurred since 
2000. Extreme weather events are getting more frequent. One of 
the most important steps we can take is to reduce the amount of 
carbon we put into the atmosphere by burning less oil and gas.
    Cutting our dependence on fossil fuels is also a national 
security imperative. With Russia using oil sales to fund its 
brutal war in Ukraine and Putin's price hikes hurting Americans 
at the pump, there has never been a better or more important 
time to invest in clean energy.
    This is why the Biden administration is working to move the 
country beyond fossil fuels and meet our obligations under the 
Paris Agreement. Transitioning to electric vehicles, using 
proven technology that is already on the road today, is a key 
part of that effort, and the Postal Service should lead the 
way.
    Electrifying its fleet would also keep the Postal Service 
competitive. EVs cost less to fuel up and to maintain over the 
life of the vehicle. So, buying electric vehicles could save 
the Postal Service money over time, even if the upfront price 
is a little higher.
    Major companies, from UPS to Amazon, have announced plans 
to adopt all-electric fleets, not mostly electric fleets. They 
are not talking about partly. GM says that they are moving to 
an all-electric fleet. And car companies from Volkswagen to 
Ford have committed to ramping up production of electric 
vehicles in the coming years.
    For months, the Postal Service claimed that it could buy no 
more than 5,000 electric vehicles with its current funds, a 
tiny fraction of its overall purchase. But after this committee 
raised questions about the Postal Service's environmental 
review, they changed their position and announced they were 
doubling the initial order of EVs to 10,000.
    But it is not enough. This is progress, but these EVs still 
are only 20 percent of the initial order. And according to the 
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which is here 
today--they currently are reviewing this matter--the Postal 
Service may be basing its estimates about the costs of EVs on 
faulty assumptions. In their written submission to the 
committee, GAO states that their preliminary analysis ``raises 
questions'' about these estimates.
    In particular, GAO found that the Postal Service used a gas 
price of $2.19 per gallon that bears no relationship to the 
reality of current prices, which are well over $4 and much 
higher in some states. And they predicted that maintenance 
would be more expensive for an electric vehicle than a gas 
vehicle, even though the evidence shows just the opposite is 
true. And if you talk to anyone who owns an electric car, they 
say there is practically no maintenance cost.
    Clearly, the Postal Service needs to reevaluate its 
assumptions, and the Postal Service should also be doing more 
to buy more EVs now, including both next-generation vehicles 
and commercially available, off-the-shelf models.
    The Postal Service currently has $23 billion of cash on 
hand, the most in years. And the bipartisan bill I led with my 
friend Ranking Member Comer provided $50 billion in financial 
relief over the next 10 years. A small portion of those funds 
can be used responsibly to buy more EVs.
    I also believe Congress should provide additional funding 
to ensure an all-electric postal fleet and be a good example to 
the country, and this committee approved that funding last year 
in the Build Back Better bill. We are now looking at a smaller, 
scaled-down Build Back Better bill, and the funding for the 
additional postal EVs could be in that bill.
    Finally, the Postal Service can reduce upfront costs for 
charging infrastructure by exploring partnership with private 
companies as well as public-facing charging stations that could 
increase Postal Service revenue. President Biden's bipartisan 
infrastructure bill also includes funding for a national 
network of charging stations, some of which could be located at 
the Postal Service's over 31,000 post offices across this 
country, many near highways, many in rural areas that would 
need these charging stations. This should be looked at and 
explored.
    Electric vehicles are the vehicles of the future. To 
continue purchasing gas-guzzling vehicles is not only bad for 
the environment, it is bad for the Postal Service, it is bad 
for its customers, and it is bad for America. It is bad for 
national security policy. It is a bad policy decision.
    I now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. 
Comer. I thank him for the leadership he provided in passing 
the postal reform bill, and he is now recognized for as much 
time as he may consume.
    Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for holding 
a hearing today.
    Madam Chair, you and I just spent a year doing what 
everyone thought was impossible in crafting a postal reform 
bill that would actually become law. And we succeeded.
    The agreement worked, in large part, because for once we 
had a Postmaster General who actually had a plan for reform, a 
plan to do what Congress could never do, fix the Postal 
Service's broken business model. And my support, and the 
support of many Republicans--in fact, over half of our 
Republican conference--depended on Congress giving that plan a 
chance to succeed.
    But the bill isn't even the law yet, and Democrats are 
going back on the deal. They want to mandate the Postal Service 
buy at least 75 percent electric vehicles, to be a guinea pig 
for their radical Green New Deal agenda.
    In keeping with the majority's pattern this Congress, 
today's hearing is about how to spend more money instead of 
saving more money. That is going to change next January. Mark 
my word.
    While Republicans are not against the Postal Service 
acquiring electric vehicles, we are against mandates that 
ignore the business needs and the financial situation of the 
Postal Service. Republicans believe the Postal Service must be 
self-funded. This means the Postal Service should pay for its 
own capital needs, like purchasing new vehicles.
    Meanwhile, Americans can't afford to fill up their gas 
tanks, let alone buy an electric vehicle. But that isn't 
stopping Democrats from demanding your mailman has one. There 
are many problems with the Democrats' plan, but one could be to 
access the critical element needed to produce electric vehicle 
batteries. And the President's own son has made it more 
difficult to do that, Hunter Biden.
    In 2016, Hunter Biden orchestrated the transfer of an 
African cobalt mine from an American company to a Chinese 
company, CEFC China Energy, dealing a severe blow to America's 
access to cobalt. Cobalt is one of the most important 
components of electric car batteries, solar panels, and other 
forms of renewable energy, and the United States is losing to 
China in a contest to secure cobalt.
    This is a national security threat and a blow to America's 
ability to lead in green technology. In fact, CEFC China Energy 
thought so much of Hunter Biden's expertise that it paid 
entities controlled by Mr. Biden and his uncle $4.8 million for 
14 months of work.
    What did China get for nearly $5 million? The American 
people deserve to know. Since Mr. Biden is an expert in cobalt 
mining operations, committee Republicans asked Chairwoman 
Maloney to invite him here today to shine a light on the 
importance of cobalt in electric vehicle production. Yet Hunter 
Biden is not here today.
    It is no wonder the Democrats didn't want to invite him and 
he didn't want to appear today. Hunter Biden has profited in 
the short term directly from America's long-term loss, and he 
doesn't want to explain it to Congress and the American people. 
We need him to provide answers about the sale of an African 
cobalt mine that has greatly harmed our access to this critical 
element, an element we need if we are going to convert to 
electric vehicles.
    Oversight Republicans have repeatedly called for answers 
about Hunter's suspicious foreign business dealings, including 
the sale of this mine, but we still haven't gotten any answers. 
The American people deserve answers and accountability.
    Since Hunter Biden didn't show up today, we are going to 
hear from the Republican witness, Kenny Stein, who is the 
policy director at the Institute for Energy Research, and thank 
you for being here today.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    And I do want to note that recently you wrote to me saying 
that you were interested in legitimate oversight instead of 
playing ``political games.'' But bringing up Hunter Biden is 
nothing but political theater, plain and simple, and you 
obviously agree because you wrote to me yesterday, and less 
than one business day after your original request to have Mr. 
Biden, the ranking member's staff contacted me and others on 
staff and asked for a different minority witness. And that 
witness is appearing today.
    So, even Fox News called it, your interview, ``a little 
tongue-in-cheek'' with this approach of playing political 
theater. This is important public policy. We just had a U.N. 
scientific report that came out yesterday, saying that we are 
in danger of losing life. We have a chance of combatting it by 
lowering the amount of fossil fuel emissions in our country. 
Converting to electric cars is one way to do it.
    Seventy percent of the pollution comes from the fossil fuel 
emissions, and we have to get off of it in order to save our 
planet. This is serious, serious challenges for our life, for 
our environment.
    We now have a national security challenge. We need to get 
off of Russian oil. We have to stop consuming so much oil. We 
have to move to alternatives, and one great alternative is 
moving to electric vehicles.
    The private sector is doing that. They are way ahead of us, 
and the largest fleet in the Federal Government is the Postal 
Service. We should be setting an example.
    We have expert witnesses that can go over the costs, the 
accessibility, and other challenges that we confront that could 
help saves lives, help our national security, help our 
dependence on Russian oil, help us get off of it, and to move 
us forward with a healthier, better environment. I would say 
let us stop playing games and political theater, as you so 
requested, and get back to the importance of this hearing.
    I now recognize----
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, Hunter Biden is an expert on 
Russian oil as well. But with all due respect, when we talk 
about converting to electric vehicles, rare earth minerals are 
a huge component of that, and China has the competitive 
advantage over us. And we need to talk about rare earth 
minerals. So, Hunter Biden is obviously----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Comer, you are not recognized.
    Mr. Comer [continuing]. A rare earth mineral expert. If you 
are going to pay millions of dollars to broker----
    Chairwoman Maloney. If you are concerned about competing 
with China, we have a bill on that we will be passing.
    Mr. Comer [continuing]. The sale of a rare earth mine in 
Africa to China.
    Chairwoman Maloney. You are not recognized. I now recognize 
Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Comer. So, it is not political gamesmanship. It is 
clearly an expert witness.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Let us get serious. Let us face these 
problems and solve them.
    OK, Mr. Connolly is now recognized for two minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair for holding today's hearing 
on the U.S. Postal Service's future vehicle fleet. I think that 
is our topic.
    Among the first bills I introduced when I came to Congress 
with the Oversight and Reform Committee was the Postal Service 
Electric Motor Vehicle Act of May 2010, 12 years ago. 
Unfortunately, we are only slightly closer to a green Postal 
Service fleet today, 12 years later.
    As co-chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environmental 
Coalition, I remain committed to partnering with President 
Biden to realize his long-term goal of running a Federal fleet 
on 100 percent clean power. This moment is a once in a 
generation opportunity to take electric vehicle technology, 
which is hardly new, hardly guinea pig technology, to the next 
level with the second-largest vehicle fleet in America and to 
do so through union labor.
    My own investigation and oversight work on green fleet 
includes letters to Oshkosh, House leadership, and to 
Postmaster General DeJoy, demanding investment in union-built 
electric vehicles. I requested that the U.S. Postal Service 
Office of Inspector General investigate whether the Postal 
Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act in 
the generation of the Economic Impact statement for the 
purchase of its vehicle fleet.
    I have repeatedly supported legislation to both fund and 
require the purchase of an electric vehicle fleet, including in 
the Build Back Better Act, the Postal Service Improvement Act, 
and my own bill, the Green Postal Service Fleet Act of 2022, 
which would require the Postal Service to procure at least 75 
percent EVs in each purchase made against the Oshkosh contract.
    Mr. DeJoy's investment in a fleet that is only 20 percent 
EV is simply not enough. His decisions are antediluvian and 
anachronistic. And we have reason to believe that the 
assumptions Mr. DeJoy is using to justify his investments in 
internal combustion technology fail to factor in fluctuations 
in gas prices and the lower upkeep and maintenance/repair costs 
for EVs.
    In short, the Postmaster General appears to have cooked the 
Postal Service books to justify a multibillion dollar 
investment in outdated technologies that contribute to the 
environmental degradation of our planet. We cannot and will not 
go along with that. Let us move the Green Postal Fleet Service 
Act and find additional ways to foster a robust electrified 
Postal Service vehicle fleet of the 21st century that serves 
this Nation and that serves postal customers.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Lynch, who is the chairman of the 
National Security Subcommittee, for one minute.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    As the sponsor of H.R. 3521, the Postal Service Electric 
Fleet Authorization Act, I do welcome today's hearing to 
examine how we can work with the Postal Service to facilitate 
its transition to a modern electric vehicle fleet. I would like 
to thank Chairwoman Maloney for her steadfast focus on this 
issue, and I would also like to thank and recognize the 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, and the gentlewoman from 
Michigan, Mrs. Brenda Lawrence, for their continued leadership 
on postal fleet modernization.
    According to a recent request that I made to the United 
States Postal Service, our current postal vehicle inventory 
consists of about 216,105 delivery vehicles. That is only 
second to the Defense Department in volume of vehicles.
    Over 136,000 of those vehicles, about 63 percent of them, 
are so-called ``long-life vehicles'' that have been on the road 
for an average of 29 years, which is about five years beyond 
their expected service life. So, currently, there are no 
electric vehicle--delivery vehicles in the existing postal 
fleet, which is unbelievable, which accounts for about, like I 
said, one-third of the entire Federal Government fleet.
    To its credit, now the Postal Service is taking steps to 
electrify a small percentage of its delivery truck fleet. 
However, our interest in promoting the environmental 
sustainability of our Federal agencies and reducing carbon 
pollution in our communities demand that we energize and 
greatly accelerate the agency's transition to electric 
vehicles. So, we must--as the chairwoman says, we must lead by 
example.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mrs. Lawrence for one minute for an opening 
statement, and thank her and Mr. Lynch and Mr. Connolly for 
their leadership--and Mr. Comer--for their leadership on this 
issue.
    Mrs. Lawrence. I want to thank the chair for holding this 
important meeting.
    As a 30-year veteran of the United States Postal Service 
and a representative of the Motor City--Detroit, the city who 
put the world on wheels--this hearing is particularly 
meaningful to me. As the big three automakers led the way in 
expanding access to electric vehicles, the United States Postal 
Service, which owns, as we heard, the largest civilian fleet in 
the Federal Government, they have an opportunity to champion 
the leadership of President Biden and our auto industry to push 
to electrify the Federal fleet.
    Fortunately, the Postal Service is well positioned to not 
only invest in a robust vehicle fleet, but their existing 
nationwide footprint provides the perfect opportunity to 
strength our companies' growing EV network.
    I want you to know I am disappointed by the Postal 
Service's initial purchase of the Next Generation Delivery 
Vehicles. I believe, though, that there is still an opportunity 
for the agency to substantially invest in electric vehicles in 
subsequent orders.
    I want to commend my colleagues on this committee for 
fighting for the inclusion of dedicated funding--there is no 
excuse--to purchase electric vehicles in the Build Back Better 
Act, and I look forward to looking for additional avenues to 
make this investment a reality.
    If the Postal Service is going to invest in new vehicles to 
be used for the foreseeable future, we must ensure that they 
are doing so in a way that makes sense, both financially and in 
a way that is a meaningful effort to protect the environment. 
As we all know, the motto of the Postal Service is ``Rain, 
sleet, or snow will not stop us from our appointed rounds.'' 
Well, we should not let the carbon footprint of the Postal 
Service be one that would be harmful not only to America, but 
to the world.
    I want to recognize and thank the witnesses who are 
testifying today, and I look forward to discussing how the 
Postal Service can truly lead the way with electric vehicles.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    But before we continue, I ask unanimous consent that 
Congressman Huffman be allowed to participate in today's 
hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, I also have a unanimous consent 
request to enter into the record two articles from two, I 
believe, credible liberal publications, the New York Times and 
the Washington Post. the New York Times article, ``How Hunter 
Biden's Firm Helped Secure Cobalt for the Chinese,'' and the 
Washington Post article, ``The Hunter Biden Story Is an 
Opportunity for a Reckoning,'' into the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Norman. Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.
    Mr. Norman. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a letter sent to Louis DeJoy on the great company that 
is now operating in South Carolina and goes into detail on the 
EVs.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Now I would like to introduce our 
witnesses for today. Our first witness is Tammy Whitcomb, who 
is the IG, Inspector General, for the Postal Service.
    Then we will hear from Victoria Stephen, who is the 
executive director of the Next Generation Delivery Vehicle at 
the Postal Service.
    Next we will hear from Kenny Stein, who is the policy 
director at the Institute for Energy Research.
    Next we will hear from Jill Naamane, who is the Acting 
Director of the Physical Infrastructure Team at the Government 
Accountability Office.
    Finally, we will hear from Joe Britton, who is the 
executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation 
Association.
    The witnesses will be unmuted so we may swear them in. 
Please raise your right hand.
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    [Response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses 
answered in the affirmative.
    Thank you. Without objection, your written statements will 
be made part of the record.
    And with that, Ms. Whitcomb, you are now recognized for 
your testimony.

   STATEMENT OF TAMMY L. WHITCOMB, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED 
     STATES POSTAL SERVICE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

    Ms. Whitcomb. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking 
Member Comer, and members of the committee. Thank you for 
inviting me here today to discuss our work related to the 
Postal Service's adoption of electric vehicles. Our mission to 
ensure the efficiency, accountability, and integrity of our 
Nation's Postal Service is something we take very seriously.
    Last February, the Postal Service awarded a contract to 
produce and deploy up to 165,000 new delivery vehicles over the 
next 10 years. While the contract allows for both electric and 
gasoline-powered vehicles, the Postal Service's current plan is 
for most of the new vehicles to be gasoline-powered. We have 
two recent reports related to this purchasing decision.
    One of our reports was a research paper that identified the 
opportunities and challenges for the Postal Service in adopting 
these electric vehicles. We found electric vehicles are well 
suited for most postal routes, and there are clear benefits to 
their adoption.
    For example, a large fleet of electric vehicles would help 
the Postal Service decrease its greenhouse gas emissions and 
encourage the growth of the electric vehicle market in the 
United States. Additionally, electric vehicles are more 
mechanically reliable than gas-powered vehicles and require 
less scheduled maintenance. They would also result in the 
Postal Service incurring lower and more reliable and stable 
energy costs.
    However, there are challenges associated with adopting an 
electric vehicle fleet. The upfront costs are significantly 
higher than gasoline-powered vehicles. The Postal Service would 
need to pay a higher per-vehicle price and incur the cost of 
installing the charging infrastructure.
    The Postal Service has over 17,000 delivery units that may 
host electric vehicles, and the cost and issues associated with 
installing charging infrastructure will vary by each, depending 
on the parking layout, power availability, and required 
upgrades. Good planning, along with early and consistent 
communication with local governments and utility companies, 
could help overcome these challenges.
    We found the Postal Service could save money in the long 
term by deploying electric vehicles on certain routes, for 
example, on longer routes and in areas of the country where gas 
prices are traditionally higher. The Postal Service might also 
be able to lower the costs associated with electric vehicles by 
exploring different mixes of the type and number of chargers. 
Because many delivery routes are short, it is unlikely that 
every vehicle would need to plug into a charger every night.
    There are two other factors that could significantly change 
the cost-benefit analysis of purchasing electric vehicles, 
Federal funding and local incentives. The Postal Service has 
stated it could achieve full electrification of its delivery 
fleet if Congress provided $6.9 billion. Incentive programs by 
local utility companies might also help offset costs.
    The Postal Service would not be the only logistics 
organization using electric vehicles. As part of our report, we 
looked at how other Federal agencies, foreign posts, and 
companies in the logistics and shipping sector have deployed 
electric vehicles. While their fleets are different in many 
ways, their experiences may be informative. We found that they 
used a wide variety of electric vehicles and charging 
infrastructures, and they emphasized the importance of working 
closely with local utilities and other stakeholders as early as 
possible in the planning process.
    Another report related to the purchase of new delivery 
vehicles was an audit of the contract clauses. While we found 
the contract was designed to mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse, 
it could have been stronger. We recommended additional language 
to encourage self-reporting by the contractor of potentially 
inappropriate or illegal activity during the development and 
production of these vehicles. Management agreed to make these 
changes.
    In response to a recently received congressional request, 
we have initiated an audit focusing on the Postal Service's 
vehicle acquisition process and its compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act. We will also examine the 
reliability and reasonableness of the Postal Service's 
Environmental Impact Statement and its supporting analysis.
    Another ongoing report focuses on whether the Postal 
Service's vehicle maintenance facilities are ready for both the 
electric and gasoline-powered Next Generation Delivery 
Vehicles. We plan to release both of these reports later this 
year.
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you 
today about this very important topic. We appreciate the 
opportunity to discuss our work, and I am happy to answer your 
questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
    Ms. Stephen, you are now recognized for your testimony. Can 
you turn on your mic?
    Ms. Stephen. Apologies. Is that better?
    Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.

  STATEMENT OF VICTORIA K. STEPHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEXT 
   GENERATION DELIVERY VEHICLE, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

    Ms. Stephen. OK. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking 
Member Comer, and members of the committee. Thank you for 
calling this hearing to examine the benefits, opportunities, 
and challenges of electrifying the postal fleet.
    My name is Vicki Stephen, and I am the executive director 
of the Postal Service's Next Generation Delivery Vehicle 
Program, which is a key component in our Delivering for America 
Strategic Plan.
    Replacing our aged fleet is a critical part of our 
organizational transformation, but is by no means the only 
critical part. We have many competing operational objectives to 
address in the immediate term. The higher purchase and 
infrastructure cost of the vehicle electrification adds tension 
to that competition, especially considering it's not mission 
critical.
    Nevertheless, we understand the national interest in moving 
toward an energy efficient and environmentally sensitive future 
and are committed to doing our part. On March 24, we placed an 
order for 50,000 vehicles of which 10,019 will be battery 
electric, or BEVs, and assigned to the routes that present the 
best initial application for such vehicles. This action 
demonstrates our commitment to including BEVs as a significant 
part of our delivery fleet and was carefully evaluated in the 
context of our unique delivery mission, our policy mandates, 
and organizational and financial constraints.
    Under our universal service obligation, we deliver to 163 
million addresses in all climates and landscapes six days a 
week, and we must do so in a financially self-sufficient 
manner. It is vital that we provide our carriers with 
appropriate vehicles to support this specific and robust 
delivery mission.
    The urgent need to replace our vehicles is not in dispute. 
Many of our 190,000 delivery vehicles are inefficient, and they 
lack basic safety features and ergonomic features, including 
air conditioning, airbags, antilock breaks.
    I must stress that our vehicles cannot be compared to other 
private delivery or Government fleets in nature, use case, or 
scope. Understandably, there is interest in the vehicle cost, 
and I look forward to articulating the factors that contribute 
to cost today and note that the differential between the two 
versions is comfortably within the range of commercially 
available internal combustion, or ICE, and battery electric 
vehicles.
    As my written testimony describes in detail, we have very 
specific vehicle requirements, including right-hand drive and 
ergonomic features necessary to perform delivery to curbside 
mailboxes, as well as ruggedized components built to support 
the wear and tear of our postal delivery operations.
    The NGDV program is just one part of our mixed delivery 
fleet strategy. We will continue to purchase the types of 
vehicles that best align with our routes. Any mix of 
replacement vehicles will deliver significant reduction in 
emissions and improvements in fuel economy over our existing 
long-life vehicles.
    I would note, however, that we have 12,500 routes over 70 
miles in length that are not candidates for electrification 
today, and another 5,000 that require all-wheel drive vehicles 
due to extreme climate conditions. Electrification also comes 
with the challenge of installing infrastructure at a multitude 
of postal facilities. Our search for replacement vehicles began 
in January 2015 after several years of industry outreach, 
study, evaluation, and prototyping, we conducted a robust and 
open production competition and awarded Oshkosh Defense a 
manufacturing contract in February 2021.
    The contract provides us with the ongoing ability to 
purchase between 50,000 and 165,000 NGDVs that will be equipped 
with either ICE or BEV power trains. NGDVs can be purchased in 
any proportion throughout the contract life. However, our total 
cost of ownership model points to a substantially ICE fleet due 
to the higher acquisition and infrastructure cost for the BEVs.
    Our procurement was deliberative. We considered the 
characteristics of more than 200,000 carrier routes to assess 
the appropriate vehicle for each and analyzed fuel and 
maintenance savings. We found that the benefits are not enough 
to overcome the higher costs over the 20-year life of the 
vehicle.
    We also followed all of the requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act, including consultations with the EPA 
and the Council on Environmental Quality and responding to 
thousands of public comments. Our ultimate decision was 
designed with enough flexibility to allow us to increase the 
proportion of BEVs if financial circumstances change, and if 
the use case continues to improve, as evidenced by our recent 
purchase order.
    The recent NGDV purchase contract was the culmination of 
years of careful needs analysis and procurement discipline, all 
linked to our unique operational imperatives. The opportunity 
to electrify at least 10,019 delivery vehicles is a meaningful 
step in the direction of broader electrification that is a 
priority for many of our stakeholders.
    So, thank you for the opportunity to address these matters, 
and I welcome any questions that you may have.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Stein, you are now recognized for your testimony.

   STATEMENT OF KENNY STEIN, DIRECTOR, POLICY, INSTITUTE FOR 
                        ENERGY RESEARCH

    Mr. Stein. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in 
this hearing. My name is Kenny Stein, and I am the policy 
director for the Institute for Energy Research. We're a free-
market organization that conducts research and analysis on the 
function, operation, and regulation of energy markets.
    At the outset, I'll say the Postal Service is correct and 
prudent in taking a gradual approach to introducing electric 
vehicles into its fleet. As both the Service's record of 
decision as well as the Inspector General's report make clear, 
EVs are substantially more expensive than the internal 
combustion alternative, due not just to the higher cost of the 
vehicle itself, but the large expense needed to install 
charging facilities for the new vehicles.
    The same two documents make clear that this cost 
differential is so great that the expected lower operating 
costs of EVs over their lifetime does not make up for the 
higher upfront cost, except in certain locations and certain 
routes. And even those exceptions are based on certain 
assumptions, and if those assumptions have proved overly 
optimistic, EVs could actually end up being a long-term 
financial drag on the Postal Service.
    But beyond pure cost considerations, there's a number of 
questionable assumptions that are underlying this predicted EV 
transition. The cost of battery modules, which are the most 
expensive part of an EV, have, indeed, been falling for many 
years. But this price decrease cannot and will not continue 
indefinitely.
    Once manufacturing is optimized, companies are left with 
the underlying cost of the mineral inputs of the battery. So, 
nickel, cobalt, lithium, various rare earth minerals have seen 
prices rise in recent years, and EV prices have had to increase 
in tandem.
    While there are research efforts underway to find 
alternatives for some of these elements, fundamentally, you 
always need a bulky battery to power an EV. Basic physics 
limits how small an EV battery can get, and the fact that the 
NGDV will need to have its batteries replaced within 10 years 
increases the significance of this battery assumption because 
it's not guaranteed that replacement batteries will be less 
expensive than the many thousands of dollars that they cost 
today.
    It is also assumed that electricity prices will not 
increase in the future. This is much of the basis for claiming 
fuel cost savings over internal combustion engines. But over 
the last several decades, electricity prices have been flat to 
increasing in the United States.
    There is no evidence for the often-asserted claim that more 
renewable electricity generation will end up lowering 
electricity prices. The evidence we have actually more often 
suggests the opposite, that the higher the share of generation 
from wind and solar, the higher electricity prices.
    On top of those existing trends, forced and voluntary 
transitions to EVs, as well as political pressure to increase 
electrification, stands to increase demand for electricity in 
the coming years. The infrastructure to supply this additional 
demand is subject to delay and limitations due to environmental 
objections or simple land use opposition.
    So, all these factors--higher demand, costlier supply, 
expensive transmission--mean that the expectation for the 
future electricity prices must be higher prices, not lower. The 
supply chain for electric vehicles also needs to be part of the 
Postal Service's decision-making process. The supply 
availability of many of the inputs for EVs is in doubt. Even at 
the end of last year, nickel supplies were forecast to be short 
by 128,000 tons in 2021, with a cobalt shortage of 1,800 tons.
    Supplies are further forecast to be tight all the way 
through 2025. Russia's invasion of Ukraine puts nickel supplies 
on an even more uncertain footing, given that Russia produces 
about 20 percent of the global supply of nickel.
    A deficit in lithium is also expected by 2025. These 
shortages cannot be quickly remedied. It takes many years to 
bring a new mine into production. With prices of mineral inputs 
high, there is a high likelihood of EVs being more expensive in 
the near term. It's even possible that there will simply not be 
enough minerals to meet the demand for electric vehicles.
    While a Ford or GM can wait a few years to hit its EV sales 
goal, the Postal Service needs their replacement vehicles 
today. There is a very real prospect of EVs being delayed due 
to supply shortages.
    The source of the mineral inputs should also be a concern, 
especially for this committee, given the discussion earlier. 
While U.S. mines do produce some of the minerals which go into 
EVs, the raw minerals are overwhelmingly processed outside the 
United States. This is especially true for the components of EV 
batteries, the supply chain of which is dominated by China.
    China processes the majority of the world's cobalt, nickel, 
lithium, manganese, and graphite as well as many rare earth 
minerals. China also dominates finished battery production, 
producing around 80 percent of the world's lithium ion 
batteries.
    Now there are currently companies building battery plants 
in the United States and working on permitting mines, but 
alternative supplies will take many years to come to market. 
And again, the Postal Service needs their vehicles now. We can 
hope that 5 to 10 years from now more of the supply and 
processing needed for EVs will take place in the United States 
or its close allies, but today, any increase in EV procurement 
by the Postal Service will be enriching China.
    The uncertainty around the utility of EVs for the Postal 
Service, the high cost of EVs, and EV supply chain concerns all 
point in the same direction for the Postal Service--caution. 
These factors strongly support the service's decision to slowly 
introduce EVs into their fleet.
    These factors may change in the future, but as of today, 
with the Postal Service having immediate need to replace its 
aging delivery fleet, EVs are an unnecessary risk to the true 
mission of the Post Office, which is to deliver the mail, not 
to support larger micromanaging of the national motor vehicles 
market.
    Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
    Ms. Naamane, you are now recognized for your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF JILL M. NAAMANE, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 
      INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Ms. Naamane. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and 
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss the Postal Service's efforts to acquire electric 
vehicles in its delivery fleet.
    The Postal Service and the Federal Government rely largely 
on gas vehicles to carry out a variety of Government missions. 
In 2020, over 600,000 vehicles in the Federal fleet, including 
the postal delivery fleet, traveled over 4 billion miles and 
used an estimated 360 million gallons of gas and diesel.
    Transitioning Federal fleets to electric vehicles will 
represent a significant transformation for the Federal 
Government. It will also require agencies to conduct sound 
analysis to support their decision-making.
    My testimony today will focus on preliminary observations 
from ongoing work. Specifically, I will discuss tools the 
Postal Service used to determine the number of gas and electric 
delivery vehicles to purchase and factors affecting the Federal 
fleet's transition to electric vehicles.
    Last month, the Postal Service ordered 50,000 new delivery 
vehicles, including about 10,000 that will be electric. To 
inform its decision, USPS conducted a total cost of ownership 
analysis of a range of types of vehicles. Information in this 
analysis included the maintenance and fuel costs of each 
vehicle.
    It also developed a model that recommends the lowest-cost 
vehicle for each delivery route and a mix of vehicles to 
purchase each year. The model is based on a set of assumptions, 
including information from the total cost of ownership analysis 
and details on individual delivery routes. USPS told us the 
model was one aspect of their decision-making, and although it 
recommended purchasing zero electric vehicles this year, the 
initial order included 20 percent electric vehicles.
    Our preliminary analysis of the model raises questions 
about the way in which certain assumptions estimate the costs 
and benefits of the gas and electric vehicles. I'll highlight a 
few examples.
    First, the model we reviewed used a 2020 gas price that is 
almost $2 per gallon less than the current national average. 
USPS told us they continue to update their model, and we will 
further evaluate how changing the price per gallon would change 
the recommended vehicle mix.
    Second, the model appears to assume maintenance would be 
more expensive for electric vehicles than gas. This is 
inconsistent with research we have identified, our interviews 
with private delivery companies, and Postal Service documents 
that show electric vehicles are expected to be less expensive 
to maintain.
    Third, the total cost of ownership analysis does not 
include a reduction in emissions as a benefit of electric 
vehicles. A separate USPS Environmental Impact statement found 
that with no tailpipe emissions, electric vehicles would have 
this benefit. In our ongoing work, we will test assumptions in 
the models to understand how they affect the recommended 
vehicle mix.
    I'll turn now to factors that have so far affected the 
widespread acquisition of electric vehicles in Federal fleets. 
We have previously reported that these factors include the 
higher upfront costs of electric vehicles and uncertainties 
around the cost and installation of charging infrastructure. 
Our ongoing work indicates that these factors remain relevant.
    For example, USPS officials said the higher upfront cost 
was a key factor in their decision-making. They estimate that 
the new electric and gas delivery vehicles will not cost the 
same until 2031. In addition, USPS estimates a range in the 
cost of installing chargers depending on the site, and it is 
uncertain whether older facilities have sufficient power 
capacity to support the charging infrastructure.
    In closing, some aspects of the transition to electric 
vehicles may become easier to manage as the market evolves. 
Other aspects will take some work to address. All aspects of 
this transition, however, will require agencies to use 
reasonable and current data and transparent analysis of costs 
and benefits to support their decisions. We will continue to 
assess these issues in our ongoing work.
    This concludes my statement, and I'm happy to answer any 
questions.
    Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Britton, you are now recognized for your testimony.

  STATEMENT OF JOE BRITTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ZERO EMISSION 
                   TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Britton. Chair Maloney and Ranking Member Comer and 
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak with you today about the benefits of electrifying the 
U.S. Postal Service.
    My name is Joe Britton, and I'm the executive director of 
the Zero Emission Transportation Association, a coalition 
spanning the entire EV supply chain from vehicle to battery 
manufacturers, to charging companies, to critical material 
developers, to utilities.
    We believe firmly in Postal Service electrification. With 
set daily routes, routine idling, and overnight depots that are 
ideal for charging, we believe these vehicles are the ideal use 
case in the entire Federal fleet. Electrifying this vehicle 
segment will deliver vast economic, environmental, and public 
health benefits.
    Independent studies show that electrifying these vehicles 
could save the Postal Service $4.3 billion and that 97 percent 
of these vehicles could be transitioned at a lower total cost 
of ownership. This should be an enormous opportunity for the 
Postal Service, but somehow this contract has veered off track.
    The Postal Service initially announced it was going to 
procure a swappable gas vehicle that could later be made 
electric. After months of asking for detail about this 
prototype, USPS acknowledged that a swappable drive train was 
no longer part of their plans. Instead, they are now relying on 
estimates that do not reflect the market for performance nor 
pricing in comparing gas to electric vehicles.
    For example, in deciding whether to go electric or remain 
reliant on gasoline, USPS, as the chair has noted and GAO has 
noted, they're relying on $2.19 per gallon gasoline, when 
Americans today are paying twice that amount.
    Even harder to believe is their assumption that gas prices 
will be $2.55 in the year 2040. I don't think anybody in the 
room today believes that gas prices are going to be 50 percent 
cheaper 20 years from now.
    And that's a real problem for the Postal Service because 
the vehicles that they're proposing to procure only get 8 to 14 
miles per gallon, which is lower than the 17 miles per gallon 
of the 1988 Grumman they're replacing. After years and years, 
decades, of technological innovation, it is indefensible that 
these vehicles are not more fuel efficient.
    USPS is also dramatically underestimating the capabilities 
of electric vehicles. For example, in their benchmark EV, they 
state that it should have a 94 kilowatt hour battery pack, but 
that it would only get 70 miles of range per charge. The 
standard in the marketplace is double that today.
    We've only seen this poor a range to battery pack estimate 
for extraordinarily heavy vehicles like Class A tractor-
trailers and semi trucks. It's unbelievable that this vehicle 
would only get 70 miles of range.
    The Postal Service is also claiming exorbitantly high 
charging costs. And the Inspector General here today called 
attention to their estimate that it would cost $18,000 per 
charger, which is far more than the current Federal blanket 
purchase agreement already negotiated to install these very 
same chargers today.
    And they project that a dedicated charger is needed for 
every single vehicle. But with accurate route and range 
estimates, we suggest two to three vehicles could effectively 
share the same charger.
    Ultimately, the Postal Service is relying on information 
that is creating a skewed comparative cost projection. It 
doesn't need to be this way. I think Mr. Stein and I would 
agree that we could maybe look to the marketplace to see what 
others are doing. They have already recognized the opportunity 
of electrification and are locking in years of strategic 
advantages over the Postal Service with their own fleets.
    This includes bulk EV purchases from UPS and Amazon, 70 
percent electrification goals from DHL, and 100 percent 
commitment to electrification from FedEx. These companies 
estimate 60 to 75 percent fuel cost savings and 50 to 80 
percent savings on maintenance and service.
    The Postal Service EIS is opaque and limited, but from the 
little they have disclosed, it shows their assumptions are not 
grounded in fact. Unless they reverse course, they will 
continue to bear these unnecessary costs for both gasoline and 
service and maintenance, whereas their competitors will not.
    We urge the Congress to require the Postal Service to 
rethink this contract and start with a transparent fleet 
transition plan like states and other recipients of Federal 
money are required to do today. This would not require the 
disclosure of proprietary information. Rather, it would allow 
USPS to produce a market analysis using transparent third-party 
engineering and modeling to assess the feasibility of 
electrification.
    We think the answers will be clear and more closely reflect 
the decisions being made by others in the free market.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, before we get into questions, if I 
may, I ask unanimous consent to enter two letters into the 
record.
    The first is a letter from me to the National Archives, 
asking for information about the sale of the cobalt mine from 
the White House while Hunter Biden's father was Vice President, 
and the Archivist's response, saying he could only provide to 
the chair of the committee.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Chairwoman Maloney. We will now recognize Congresswoman 
Kelly.
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK, Congresswoman Kelly, you are now 
recognized.
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. All right. Well, I will just 
recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
    On March 24, the Postal Service placed its first----
    Ms. Kelly [continuing]. Be able to----
    Chairwoman Maloney. We will just continue right now.
    On March 24, the Postal Service placed its first purchase 
order of 50,000 vehicles with Oshkosh, and although the Postal 
Service initially insisted it could buy only 5,000 electric 
vehicles in this first order, it doubled that amount to 10,000 
after this committee and others began to ask questions.
    So, I would first like to ask Ms. Stephen, can you briefly 
explain what changed the Postal Service's analysis to allow for 
the increase of EVs in this purchase order?
    Ms. Stephen. Yes. Am I on? Thank you for the question.
    The first thing that is important to note is that the 
Postal Service has committed to continuing to reassess changes 
in the market. And so the point that you and some of the other 
speakers have made today about changing fuel prices, $2.19 was 
the price at the time that we prepared the analysis. We have 
continued to do ongoing analysis on changing fuel prices and 
sensitivity analysis to determine if that changes our mix.
    It certainly does. Gas prices are higher today than they 
were when we prepared the initial analysis. So, that's one 
factor.
    The other key factor is that through the efforts of you and 
your colleagues, postal reform is making a big difference for 
the Postal Service. It allows us the flexibility to consider 
our capital position differently than prior to the passage of 
postal reform.
    So, between those two key variables, we were able to go 
back and assess our ability to increase the proportion of 
electric vehicles within our financial resources and within our 
means, and we're happy to do that.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I am glad to hear that you are 
going to reassess and see if we can move more to electric 
vehicles, given the testimony really, actually, we received 
today, and I am glad to hear that the postal reform bill is 
making changes that are helping you reassess.
    Yes or no, will the Postal Service provide the committee 
with a copy of the analysis that you used to determine how many 
electric vehicles to purchase? Yes or no, will you provide us 
with that information, please?
    Ms. Stephen. If it's specifically requested and protected, 
yes.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
    OK. The Postal Service now has roughly $23 billion on hand, 
including $13 billion that is not allocated to pay down debt. 
And this committee's bipartisan work will save the Postal 
Service roughly $50 billion over the next 10 years. And we are 
proud of that achievement, and we know that EVs are a good 
investment for the future, for the environment, for our 
country, for national security. We are asking you to go back 
and look again and see if we can increase the purchase of the 
EVs even more.
    So, Ms. Stephen, given all of this, will the Postal Service 
commit to conducting a new analysis of the EV costs and develop 
a more aggressive proposal to buy more EVs? We heard several 
criticisms from many of the panelists today of the analysis and 
ways that it was possibly not accurate. So, could you go back 
and develop a new analysis for us, given the changing 
environment, given the changing environmental environment, 
given the report from the United Nations, given the war in 
Ukraine, which means we have to get off of oil faster and more 
effectively?
    Could you go back and please try a new analysis, given the 
information we learned today and the changing world economy?
    Ms. Stephen. So, we've committed to doing ongoing updates 
as conditions change in the market. So, I don't think a new 
analysis is required. I think the analysis that we prepared is 
well designed to look at those variables and assess relative 
impact. And I think it's also important to note that the $13 
billion cash on hand that you referred to is also designated 
for key fundamental investments that are part of our Delivering 
for America Strategic Plan.
    There have been many things that have gone underinvested 
over the last many, many years, and so there are other 
financial priorities that are competing for our resources to 
make sure that we're addressing all of those needs in addition 
to the delivery vehicles.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, GAO in their testimony said they 
had analyzed the Postal Service's estimates and the cost of 
buying and maintaining electric vehicles. So, I would like to 
get their view on it now.
    So, Ms. Whitcomb--no, Ms. Naamane, based on GAO's analysis, 
did the Postal Service make assumptions that you believe are 
unreasonable and need to be corrected?
    Could you use the mic?
    Ms. Naamane. Our work is still ongoing, and so, from our 
preliminary observations, what we've seen in the documentation 
the Postal Service has provided us so far, we have some 
questions. We have questions about how current some of the data 
is. We have questions about how reasonable some of the 
estimates are. We have questions about how consistent it is 
with other information that we've seen in the market and from 
the Postal Service.
    And so, as we continue our work, we will test these 
assumptions. We'll gather additional insight from the Postal 
Service and other sources and assess that against some 
objective criteria to make our final conclusions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, thank you. I want to thank all of 
the panelists.
    I personally believe that the leadership of the Postal 
Service relied on faulty assumptions and needs to go back to 
the drawing board and come up with a much more aggressive plan 
to electrify the fleet. Otherwise, they risk saddling the 
Postal Service with an antiquated, gas-guzzling fleet for the 
next 20 years.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. Comer, you 
are now recognized.
    Thank you all for your excellent testimony.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, thank the 
witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Stein, I was somewhat criticized by my very good 
friend, the chairwoman, for politicizing the importance of 
cobalt and the need to have a witness talk about how important 
cobalt is in the production of batteries for electric vehicles.
    Can you kind of explain the importance of that rare mineral 
cobalt in the production of electric vehicles?
    Mr. Stein. Sure. So, cobalt is a crucial element in the 
battery production process, which, among other elements, and 
the key about cobalt, especially, among minerals is that it is 
not found in all that many places.
    It is--the largest mines, the largest production is in the 
Congo, but the majority of the mines in the Congo are actually 
owned by the Chinese state-owned companies and about 80 percent 
of the cobalt processing happens in China itself.
    So, if we are talking about national security issues, there 
has been discussion of national security regarding oil, but 
there is national security issues with the EV supply chain and 
with renewables more generally, too.
    Mr. Comer. So, let me get straight. Eighty percent of the 
world cobalt market is now owned by China?
    Mr. Stein. Well, the processing. We need to make a 
distinction between the mining and the processing.
    Mr. Comer. Right.
    Mr. Stein. And the mining happens in Australia and the 
Congo.
    Mr. Comer. Right. Right.
    Mr. Stein. But yes.
    Mr. Comer. OK.
    Mr. Stein. The actual processing.
    Mr. Comer. So, in your opinion, it does harm our national 
security if China has that much of a market share for the 
production of cobalt?
    Mr. Stein. One hundred percent, because we have just 
recently have gotten to the point where we produce enough 
energy domestically in natural gas and oil that we are, 
largely--we are not truly self-sufficient but we are, largely, 
able to operate independently from the international 
conditions.
    But when we are talking about renewables, this is--this 
goes for solar as well as electric vehicles and batteries--all 
batteries. The production process happens overwhelmingly in 
China. So, we will be exchanging one dependence on oil for 
another dependence on China, and I am not sure as a national 
security tradeoff that that is an improvement.
    Mr. Comer. Well, it seems odd that the son of our commander 
in chief played a leading role in selling a major cobalt mine 
in Congo to China. Does the United States have domestic sources 
for these metals?
    Mr. Stein. There are some potential domestic sources. I 
believe it is the Twin Peaks Mine in Minnesota has the 
potential for some cobalt production. But that is actually the 
mine that several permits were just withdrawn by the Biden 
administration for it.
    So, part of the problem with cobalt is that it is pretty 
dirty to develop and so environmentalists in the United States 
don't like it being done here.
    Mr. Comer. So, when environmentalists don't like mining for 
cobalt but environmentalists want to shift American vehicles 
from fossil fuels to electric vehicles and we need that cobalt 
mine to produce electric vehicles?
    Mr. Stein. Yes. The mining can be done in Congo by child 
labor and the processing can be done in China with no 
environmental standards. So, that way you get cheap electric 
vehicle batteries.
    Mr. Comer. Well, what impact will President Biden's use of 
the Defense Production Act have on the supply of these metals?
    Mr. Stein. Well, it could have a significant impact. But 
that would involve using it to encourage domestic mining and 
that, so far, has not been what he has tried to use the 
Domestic Production Act for.
    Now, he did--the Defense Production Act. Now, they have 
tried to encourage--provide some funding for some domestic 
processing of some of these rare earth, particularly the ones 
that are mined in Mountain Pass, which is really the only mine 
in the United States that produces a lot of these minerals. But 
that, of course, is a long-term play. They have to build the 
processing capacity. It doesn't currently exist.
    Mr. Comer. So, the U.S. does currently have the ability to 
process the minerals and metals needed for electric vehicle 
manufacturing. But under the Biden administration, what does 
that look like?
    Mr. Stein. So, there is a mine, Mountain Pass, in 
California that produces many of these critical minerals. But 
right now, they have to be sent overseas to be processed. So, 
the company that owns that mine is actually in the process of 
trying to build domestic processing capacity but it does not 
currently exist, and there is a lot of environmental permitting 
that has to go into that because, again, this is a fairly 
dirty--processing mining material is a fairly dirty operation.
    Mr. Comer. Wow. Well, Madam Chair, it looks to me like 
China has a competitive advantage in the rare earth mineral 
market, which is essential for the production and manufacturing 
of electric vehicles.
    So, I think we definitely need to have a rare earth mineral 
expert testify about how we can change the fact that China 
controls the market on this. This just gives them a further 
competitive advantage, and if we are going to do what I think a 
lot of Democrats want to do in the Green New Deal and shift 
everything from fossil fuels to electric vehicles, then we have 
to have an honest conversation about the rare earth mineral 
market and the importance to that in the manufacturing of the 
batteries for electric vehicles.
    So, I don't think it is political and, hopefully, we can 
get to that point to where we can have a productive thorough 
committee hearing about the rare earth mineral market.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    And from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, you are now 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Clyde. Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
    I request unanimous consent to have the following articles 
entered into the record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. The first article is from the New 
York Post dated November 20, 2021, ``Hunter Biden's firm helped 
China gain control of the electric car mineral'' report.
    The second article is from E&E Daily. It is from January 
21, 2022, ``Hunter Biden and the cobalt mine explained.''
    The third article is from the New Delhi, published November 
the 30, 2021, ``Joe Biden's son helped China get control over 
vast cobalt mine in Africa'' report.
    The fourth article is from the Daily Mail and it is from 
November the 21, 2021, and it is entitled ``Hunter Biden's 
private equity firm helped Chinese conglomerate buy American-
owned cobalt mine in $3.8 billion dollar deal purchase----
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
    Mr. Clyde [continuing]. To help China gain the world's 
largest deposit.''
    Chairwoman Maloney. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Clyde. I just--I just have two more. I just have two 
more. That is all.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Quickly. We have got other things 
to do.
    Mr. Clyde. Very quickly. Very quickly.
    And from Fox News, that Hunter Biden's firm helped Chinese 
company purchase rich cobalt mine for $3.8 billion, and the 
last one is from Fox News published just a few days ago, April 
the 2, 2022, ``House Republicans invite Hunter Biden to testify 
on cobalt mine.''
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from the District of 
Columbia, Ms. Norton, you are now recognized.
    Ms. Norton. I appreciate this hearing, Madam Chair. Bear 
with me. I begin by asking what is one pound worth?
    Ms. Naamane, yes or no, do you know what one additional 
pound on a delivery vehicle is worth in terms of greenhouse gas 
emissions? Yes or no.
    Ms. Naamane. I don't have those exact numbers. We did see 
in the Postal Service's Environmental Impact Statement that 
there was a benefit for the electric vehicles and that was 
something that was not included in the total cost of ownership 
analysis.
    So, we don't have the exact figures in how it factored into 
the Postal Service's decision-making. So, that is something we 
want to understand better as to what extent and how reduced 
emissions factored into the decision-making since it was not in 
the models.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you.
    Ms. Whitcomb, yes or no, do you know what one additional 
pound on a delivery vehicle is worth in terms of greenhouse gas 
emissions?
    Ms. Whitcomb. No, I don't, and that is not something that 
we included in this--in the paper that I just briefed.
    Ms. Norton. All right.
    How about you, Ms. Stephen? Yes or no, do you know what one 
additional pound on a delivery vehicle is worth in terms of 
greenhouse gas emissions?
    Ms. Stephen. Yes. I am aware that it changes the vehicle 
classification and it is aligned with a different level of 
greenhouse gas emissions. But I don't know the specific value.
    Ms. Norton. Well, all of that is understandable. It may 
come as a shock that in our own research we found that one 
pound could cost the planet 40 billion pounds of greenhouse gas 
emissions. That is because one pound may be the difference 
between a clean postal fleet and decades of deadly pollution.
    Oshkosh Defense, who has been contracted to design and 
manufacture the next generation delivery vehicle fleet, wants 
us to believe that the truck and payload will have a combined 
weight of 8,501 pounds on the dot--8,501.
    At 8,500 pounds, the NGDV is within statutory requirements 
for light duty vehicle efficiency standards, which would highly 
favor an electric fleet. Toss in one more pound and it evades 
this environmental protection. That is why, based on Postal 
Services' estimated NGDV emissions, a one pound package adds up 
to 2 billion pounds of carbon emissions each year and about 40 
billion pounds over the life of the vehicle.
    Ms. Stephen, was the Postal Service involved in decision 
strategy calls or other communications either internally or 
with Oshkosh that led to the 8,501-pound vehicle proposal?
    Ms. Stephen. Not to my knowledge, although I would say that 
their engineering development effort and the data that they 
used to develop those values are very precise.
    Ms. Norton. Did the Postal Service question why Oshkosh 
submitted a proposal that was one pound above the range for 
light duty vehicle efficiency standards?
    Ms. Stephen. I am not aware that we questioned that.
    Ms. Norton. Ms. Stephen, I am glad that more electric 
vehicles are being purchased. Clearly, the 8,501 pound models, 
2,941 pound payload capacity, is not core to operations. So, 
would you consider shaving off a pound?
    Ms. Stephen. I would want to see the data that is used to 
support that analysis. I would prefer to respond when I can see 
the data.
    Ms. Norton. We will get you the data. But I have to be 
honest, it looks like the Postal Service, Oshkosh, or both 
deliberately juked stats, the statistics, to keep polluting and 
keep dependent on oil.
    So, Ms. Whitcomb, I look to getting to the bottom of this 
with you, and I have to yield back the balance of my time now.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, is now recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Madam Chair. Witnesses, thanks for 
being here.
    I think, obviously, us dealing with the Post Office trying 
to electrify, obviously, it is a situation we need to deal in 
this committee. It is under our purview.
    But one thing that has already been clear that has come out 
of this hearing so far is that we are trading the apparent 
dependence on some portions of foreign oil at this point and, 
frankly, because of reckless energy policy from the 
administration, to a complete reliance on the Chinese with 
respect to getting electric batteries for the Postal Service.
    So, we are asking the American people to, literally, pay 
billions of dollars for batteries that we are going to get from 
the Chinese, sources from, under Mr. Stein's testimony, cobalt 
being mined by kids in Africa, the same cobalt material which 
is far more harmful to the environment, far more dirty than our 
own environmentalists in the United States don't want us to 
mine. They don't want us to mine it here but it is OK for kids 
to mine it in Africa and for us to buy it from the Chinese.
    Mr. Britton, a question for you. Mr. Stein's testimony 
talked about, frankly, and how dirty it is to mine some of 
these minerals. What is your group's position on advanced 
nuclear reactors?
    Mr. Britton. We don't have a position.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Britton, you are from the Zero Emission 
Transportation Association and your organization, Zero Emission 
Transportation Association, does not have an opinion on modular 
nuclear reactors, advanced nuclear reactors, micro reactors 
that can actually provide the energy output necessary to 
provide the electric load that an electrified fleet from the 
Post Office would provide? But your organization doesn't have 
an opinion on this?
    Mr. Britton. Well, we focus mostly on what propels the 
vehicle itself and so it is gasoline, hydrogen, battery, 
electric. So, that is typically where we focus. But I would be 
happy to answer some----
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Britton, a quick question for you. If you 
are going to plug an electric vehicle in, where are you getting 
the electricity from to charge the battery?
    Mr. Britton. From the grid.
    Mr. Donalds. And where does that energy--how does the 
energy that is on the grid get generated?
    Mr. Britton. It depends on the region but it is a full 
blend of whether that is coal, gas, renewables, nuclear.
    Mr. Donalds. So, let me back up. We are talking about 
trying to have vehicles be zero emission. It is a worthy goal. 
It is a nice goal.
    But the reality is, is that the energy necessary to charge 
the vehicles still comes from the fossil fuels that the other 
side of the aisle would want us to completely get away from 
under the current energy proposals and projections and vision 
from the Biden administration. Would you say that is correct?
    Mr. Britton. Well, what I would refer you to which, 
actually, is a pretty interesting comparison, so if you look at 
the Union of Concerned Scientists' map for the entire U.S. they 
actually map out what is the carbon equivalency for a gas-
powered car versus an internal combustion engine vehicle or in 
an EV and what they find is that across the country it is often 
100 to 200 miles per gallon equivalency when you look at the 
carbon content.
    So, point being is that in some regions, you might have a 
cleaner grid. Other areas of the country you might have a 
dirtier grid.
    Mr. Donalds. Does that study take into account the 
dirtiness of getting the rare earth minerals to create the 
battery that goes into the car itself?
    Mr. Britton. Yes. It is a full well to wheel analysis of 
scope one, two, and three.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Stephen, quick question for you. If the Postal Service 
was left to its own ability, would you be going down this line 
of purchasing electric vehicles to the scale that the majority 
party wants you to purchase electric vehicles?
    Ms. Stephen. We would be purchasing the 20 percent that we 
are taking forward in our acquisition today. That is an amount 
that we can afford. There are benefits, particularly if applied 
to the routes that have the right conditions where we can 
actually capitalize on the benefits of an electric vehicle. The 
more you drive the more you save.
    Mr. Donalds. OK.
    Ms. Stephen. So, the longer routes, routes that are between 
40 and 70 miles in length, are really a sweet spot and the 
OIG's independent TCO analysis found the same impact. Longer 
routes give us the better opportunity for savings----
    Mr. Donalds. Quick question because I am--quick question 
because I am running out of time. I want try to focus this in.
    Ms. Stephen. Yes.
    Mr. Donalds. You are going to get funded--the Democrats 
want to fund you to make these purchases more money above what 
you are currently funded to run operations, or whatever we 
backfill from the Treasury to keep you guys afloat. Are you 
taking advantage of any other Federal subsidies in order to 
make these acquisitions? Does that go into the analysis of 
being able to buy electric vehicles at the Post Office?
    Ms. Stephen. It will go into the analysis. We haven't 
initiated that body of work yet. We just got the vehicle 
contract signed. That will be in the process while we develop 
infrastructure. So, we will absolutely consider it and have 
plans in the works to assess available incentives.
    Mr. Donalds. All right.
    Real quick. Mr. Stein, I know we kind of talked about the 
national security aspects of relying on China for electric 
batteries. In your opinion, would that put us in a worse 
position from a national security perspective than we currently 
are with the oil and gas that we do import from several nations 
around the world?
    Mr. Stein. Certainly, 100 percent, based on today, because 
most of our oil imports today actually come from countries like 
Canada and Mexico. So, even the oil that we are importing isn't 
necessarily from hostile nations and that has only been a 
recent change in the last 10 years.
    Mr. Donalds. Madam Chair, considering the fact that the 
Chinese literally dominate the electric battery market, it 
makes no sense at all why the U.S. Government should be giving 
the Postal Service more billions of dollars to acquire 
batteries that, literally, come from the Communist Chinese 
Party and empowering them to put us at a disadvantage here at 
home.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair, I want to thank you for calling 
this important hearing and for the excellent way in which you 
are conducting it.
    You know, climate change is a civilizational emergency 
bearing down on us. We are seeing record forest fires 
throughout the Western part of the United States consuming 
millions of acres of forests.
    We are seeing record drought throughout the Midwest, record 
flooding on the East Coast, hurricanes at record velocity 
smashing up against the Southern coast and the East coast of 
the country.
    We had a warning yesterday from the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change that we are not remotely doing enough. This 
is an emergency that we are in. We need all hands on deck and, 
instead, we get a bunch of silly propaganda lectures about 
Hunter Biden.
    The climate benefits of electrifying the postal fleet are 
significant. The Postal Service's 216,000 delivery vehicles 
burn about 200 million gallons of gasoline each year, pumping 
up the demand for gasoline and the price of gasoline.
    A gallon of gasoline which weighs, roughly, 6.3 pounds 
produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse 
gases which will then linger in the Earth's atmosphere and 
continue to heat and boil the planet for centuries.
    Altogether, the Postal Service's gas-guzzling fleet emits 
billions of pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse 
gases every year.
    Mr. Britton, tell us about what some of the concrete 
climate benefits are that we will see if the Postal Service 
does the logical thing now and electrifies its entire fleet.
    Mr. Britton. Well, you bring up a good point, which is that 
each and every year, and I think it was Atlas Public Policy 
that estimated, that there is 12 megatons of carbon savings 
that would be reduced every year.
    And just for comparison, we actually put a fair market 
price on that as the Federal Government through the tax credit 
45Q, which is made available to coal companies, gas processors, 
fertilizer plants, steam methane reformers, to reduce the 
emission from those smokestacks.
    If we allow, just as a comparison, the same level of 
emissions reduction to be reimbursed through the 45Q tax 
credit, we would be cutting a $6 billion check to the Postal 
Service for the emissions reduction of electrification.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, Ms. Stephen, is fleet electrification now 
a goal of the Postal Service?
    Ms. Stephen. I would say that the Postal Service is focused 
on our core mission and on the strategies that we have outlined 
within our Delivering for America Plan. The NGDV is a part of 
that plan. But it is only one piece of the plan. We have many 
other competing priorities.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, right. We want to get the mail delivered 
to our people. We want to do it six days a week and we want 
to--you know, I don't want constituents calling me because the 
mail is being delivered to the wrong place and all of that.
    But within the category of this judgment, would the Postal 
Service's preference be to have 100 percent fleet 
electrification if the funding were available?
    Ms. Stephen. If the funding was made available to us, we 
would absolutely adjust our plans. Our plans today reflect what 
we can afford within our own resources.
    Mr. Raskin. Great. Well, look, I think we all share that as 
a common goal then. You know, there may be a handful of people 
left, unfortunately, who are still denying the reality of 
climate change.
    There may be some people who are so much in the thrall of 
the oil and gas industry that they can't admit that the 
survival of our species is in peril because of the dramatic 
consequences of climate change all over the world with the 
glaciers vanishing and the ocean levels rising and the polar 
bears drowning because they are good swimmers but they are not 
inexhaustible.
    We are seeing dramatic evidence of the way that the climate 
of the Earth is changing and some people just want to, you 
know, stick their head under the sand, and it is the wrong way 
to approach a catastrophe of this proportion.
    So, this is a small step. We don't want to overstate it. 
But it is a very significant one and, symbolically, it is 
incredibly important and it will make a real difference in 
terms of reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that 
we are pumping into our own ecosystem.
    So, I think at this point, Madam Chair, we have gotten 
people who--the vast majority of the people who accept the 
reality of climate change and the imperative of acting to 
address it and those people who want to go back to rhetoric 
that is now aging 10, 15, 20 years ago.
    I yield back to you and thank you for this important 
hearing.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is now recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Madam Chair, pursuant to Clause 2(k)(6) of Rule 11 of 
the rules of the House, I move that the Committee on Oversight 
and Reform issue a subpoena to Hunter Biden as an additional 
witness for this hearing.
    Hunter Biden helped sell one of the world's largest cobalt 
mines to China. Cobalt is a key component in batteries for 
electric vehicles. It is obvious that Hunter Biden has a 
valuable expertise which he can share with us today at this 
hearing on electrifying the Federal fleet of postal vehicles.
    So, Madam Chair, we should have him here at this hearing 
and I urge my motion.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman has made a motion to 
subpoena Hunter Biden. His motion is in order.
    We have consulted with the parliamentarian and we will be 
able to place this motion in abeyance and we will deal with it 
before the end of today's hearing. This will be done out of 
courtesy to the important witnesses that we have before us who 
are here, and have to give adequate notice to all members.
    We will consult with our members and announce a time to 
return and dispose of this motion. Now we will move on with the 
rest of the hearing. We have a serious hearing in front of us. 
Let us move forward.
    I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Biggs, for your 
testimony.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, thanks. I am happy to give testimony but I 
will ask questions instead.
    So when--I live in the West. We mine. Arizona is a mining 
state. An electric vehicle requires elements that come from 
mines. In fact, the batteries that they rely on come from the 
ground.
    There are so many innovations that have been put in place 
for mining these critical minerals throughout the world but, 
particularly, in the United States and in the Southwest.
    And yet, we find that this administration, as well as 
previous administrations, have continued to put speed sticks 
down to prevent us from getting the mineral resources that we 
need to actually build electric vehicles, build batteries, 
build the craziest wind farms that you have, build the 
materials necessary for solar.
    So, you guys just don't want to mine. You don't want to 
mine. You don't want to extract from the earth the gifts that 
are necessary to implement your environmental goals and 
strategies.
    Mr. Stein, President Biden announced the use of the Defense 
Production Act to boost mining of rare earth minerals, which 
are necessary for electric cars in the U.S. Is that going to do 
anything to help?
    Mr. Stein. So in the announcement, the information that 
they gave out, it didn't really say much about mining. There 
was a lot of discussion of trying to increase processing in the 
United States, which, of course, is important, too. But there 
wasn't much action on the actual getting things out of the 
ground.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, can you discuss some of the issues that 
will exist with regard to permitting rare earth mines and the 
timeline for getting those mines up and running should this 
administration ever decide that, hey, we want to be players in 
the critical minerals?
    Mr. Stein. Well, yes. It takes--at a minimum, you are 
talking five to 10 years and that is assuming the permitting 
goes well.
    There are some mines that--I think the Twin Peaks Mine in 
Minnesota may have had their first permit for 50 years, I 
think--just had a few of them withdrawn. So, this is a long-
term thing. It takes many decades, especially given American 
environmental standards.
    So, if you actually want to do this, it would require a 
sustained effort by multiple administrations forcing through 
some of these environmental permits, fighting back against some 
of the NIMBY-ism and environmental opposition to building these 
mines, and I know that is a big problem in Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. So, when we think about it, and critical 
minerals are necessary to build batteries and the vehicles 
themselves that we are talking about today.
    I can think of one country that has a substantial amount of 
critical minerals and that would be Afghanistan. Can you 
describe--I don't know if it is in your expertise--describe 
some of the critical minerals that are available in 
Afghanistan?
    Mr. Stein. I am not familiar with the full inventory. But I 
know that the USGS did do an estimate of the resources 
available in the mountains in Afghanistan and almost all these 
critical minerals were there and present in large quantities. 
Of course, the question was how to actually build those mines 
in the middle of a war zone. But yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Right. And when we evacuated from Afghanistan we 
turned those over to the Taliban, who is now engaged in 
contractual relations with China to explore and extract.
    Where are some other places around the world, and I am 
thinking of China and other places around the world, that have 
critical minerals that we would be reliant upon were we to 
adopt this policy that we are discussing today?
    Mr. Stein. Well, that is the key is that China processes 
the majority of all these major minerals that go into EV 
batteries. Now, not all the resources are in China, but they 
have gone around the world and they have bought up mines. They 
have bought off politicians. They work with people like the 
Taliban, who we won't work with. They are open to all comers as 
long as the resources get sent to China to be processed.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair, I am extremely alarmed at the anti-union 
actions that Oshkosh has taken in recent months. Many of my 
colleagues might not realize this, but Oshkosh's Wisconsin 
facility has been a union facility for decades.
    And for the record, Madam Chair, those unionized workers 
are the ones who actually did the work to produce the products 
and maintain the high standards of production that made Oshkosh 
a competitor for this massive contract in the first place.
    When Oshkosh submitted production proposals to USPS, those 
proposals were based on capabilities demonstrated by the union 
workers in Wisconsin, who represent countless combined years of 
experience and expertise in their field.
    So, Oshkosh's sudden decision to manufacture these trucks 
in an unproven newly acquired facility with new hires is 
nothing more than a bait and switch that betrays the very 
workers who made Oshkosh the company it is today and have 
proved that they have the skills to get the job done and get it 
done right.
    So, Madam Chair, I urge Oshkosh to end these blatant anti-
union actions and produce these vehicles in their tested and 
proven Wisconsin facility.
    And second, and this is something, Ms. Stephen, I hope you 
do take back to leadership, we do need to talk about the 
environmental shortsightedness of Postal Service's current 
plan.
    In February--in a letter in February that we posted to 
Postmaster General DeJoy, Council on Environmental Quality 
Chair Brenda Mallory, who has come to my district a number of 
times, you know, she had warned that if the Postal Service 
fails to improve its environmental review to meet its legal 
obligations under NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, 
then, quote, ``Congress or the Federal courts may compel USPS 
to alter course.''
    Like Ms. Mallory, the EPA, and so many of my colleagues, I 
seriously doubt the Postal Service Environmental Impact 
Statement meets its obligation as an independent agency.
    Ms. Stephen, is it fair to say the Postal Service followed 
its policies under NEPA and would, quote, ``emphasize 
environmental issues and alternatives in the consideration of 
proposed actions,'' which is a direct quote from USPS' own 
policy on NEPA implementation?
    Ms. Stephen. So, I would say that our team followed with 
rigor the NEPA process. We put tens of thousands of person 
hours.
    Ms. Tlaib. So yes?
    Ms. Stephen. Yes, we have followed rigors.
    Ms. Tlaib. OK. So, if USPS actually lived up to its 
responsibilities under NEPA, though, the Postal Service would 
revise its EIS, and let me explain. Getting it right means 
saving billions in maintenance and fuel costs and slashing 
toxic pollution that is choking our communities.
    I have one of the most polluted zip codes in the state of 
Michigan. So, this is extremely important to my residents. USPS 
has repeatedly acknowledged that electric vehicles are, 
potentially, a better option in its responses to the inspector 
general and the EPA. So, all we are asking Postmaster DeJoy and 
USPS leadership to do is to stop intentionally making bad 
choices, and let me explain, Ms. Stephen.
    Right now, what is the maximum number of electric vehicles 
and the minimum number of gas vehicles the Postal Service can 
order and meet its contractual obligations right now?
    Ms. Stephen. Fifty thousand, which is the size of the order 
that we placed.
    Ms. Tlaib. But there is room to buy more vehicles, electric 
vehicles, way more, correct?
    Ms. Stephen. Correct. But those would have to be justified 
and funded.
    Ms. Tlaib. I urge the Postal Service to revise its EIS to 
bring itself back into line with the law and administrative 
policy.
    And what it is is this is a rare opportunity, because right 
now you could be doing more and one of the things is the future 
of, you know, I think, of our climate crisis and so forth.
    But this is an opportunity I think you guys are short 
falling, really not doing the maximum you could be doing in 
that regard.
    One of the things that I continue to hear from workers and 
folks on the ground is that we didn't do our due diligence as a 
Federal Government with the EIS and what they are saying is 
that we didn't go farther, as Ms. Mallory, again, working for 
the Biden administration, this is a person, again, that has 
been on the ground talking to people--that looks like you all 
might end up in court to compel you to comply with the NEPA 
standards. Are you all aware of that?
    Ms. Stephen. What I am aware of is that we have put a lot 
of rigors into this and we built our alternatives to allow us 
the flexibility to go from a minimum up to 100 percent battery 
electric vehicles. We are balancing our financial resources 
along with the intent to meet these environmental challenges. 
So, it is a balance for beyond this.
    Ms. Tlaib. So, do you think that Council on Environmental 
Quality Chair Mallory is incorrect here?
    Ms. Stephen. I do.
    Ms. Tlaib. OK. So, you are probably going to end up in 
court. Were you aware of that?
    Ms. Stephen. I am aware of what is covered in the media. I 
am also aware of----
    Ms. Tlaib. No, no, this is factual. I don't really care 
about the media. I have been involved with EIS processes as an 
attorney, and if you are segmenting, if you are cutting up, if 
you are doing it in a way and your interpretation of rigor, at 
the end, if the result is not protecting the public, then you 
are going to end up in court, ma'am.
    Thank you so much. I yield.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, you are now 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    You know, I think it is interesting that we have 
politicians who are saying that union workers, I guess, are 
more qualified than those that choose not to be in the union. I 
would remind my friends across the aisle that it is the 
employees that had the choice of going union or nonunion in a 
right to work state, which is--South Carolina is a right to 
work state and is where Oshkosh located their new facilities so 
they can be competitive, and the employees do not have to go 
there if that is not what they want.
    But politicians, for them to be dictating who the Postal 
Service can buy their vehicles from is laughable, to be honest 
with you.
    Ms. Stephen, let me run some figures by you. You know, we 
have got my good friends across the aisle wanting to rely on 
China for a product that is--that you have to have to produce.
    Do you realize battery grade cobalt prices are up 119 
percent from January 1, 2020, through mid-January 2022? Nickel 
sulfate has gained 55 percent and lithium carbonate rose 569 
percent.
    Who pays the price on these increases? Regardless of what 
the initial cost of the vehicle is, who bears that and is that 
in the budget, that you know of?
    Ms. Stephen. So our contract that we have signed stipulates 
a specific price that we will pay for each vehicle. If there 
are conditions in the market that are well beyond the 
negotiated pricing, there is a procedural process through our 
supply management processes to reassess and renegotiate.
    Mr. Norman. But you would--you agree that with these 
increases in prices that China that has sweatshop labor--with 
China, that is not our friend--with China then as a communist 
country, this could be a problem and what is to prevent them 
from going up 600 percent? Anything?
    Ms. Stephen. You know, the market is a challenge right now. 
The availability of these resources is a challenge in many 
ways.
    Mr. Norman. They are a challenge because it is the policy 
of this administration to, basically, sell out to China. Now, 
you ask about some of the specifics of the product. What kind 
of--when they gave you the--when they gave Oshkosh the mandate 
to produce a product, they didn't just say let us just go 
produce a product. They had specifications, didn't they?
    Ms. Stephen. Absolutely.
    Mr. Norman. All right. Would you walk me through the 
requirements that you went through and the dollars that you put 
to put prices on a product that was competitively bid and they 
were the lower, which I would think my Democrat comrades would 
like--less cost. Walk me through that process that you went 
through.
    Ms. Stephen. Yes, thank you. We initiated the process to 
prepare for this solicitation in 2015. We have been developing 
prototypes, working with industry, working with producers in 
this field for many, many years and conducted an open 
competitive production solicitation to arrive at our decisions.
    I can tell you that Oshkosh Defense compellingly won this 
competition. They had the highest technical scores. Our 
employees who drove those vehicles rated them far and away more 
favorably than any of the other models that were in 
consideration and so their--their pricing was best. This was a 
compelling example of a clear contract winner when this 
contract award was made to Oshkosh.
    Mr. Norman. So, for seven years, you invested your time, 
your time, your talent to look at a--pricing a vehicle that 
would be competitive. You didn't know who was going to bid on 
this, did you?
    Ms. Stephen. That is correct.
    Mr. Norman. It was open to any and all comers?
    Ms. Stephen. Yes, and we encouraged participation.
    Mr. Norman. Yes. Well, it is an insult for some of the 
questions you have had to endure and, particularly, the insult 
about labor employees versus non-labor employees. And I admire 
you for doing this and have you all--has your company ever--has 
Oshkosh ever made a statement against a union?
    Ms. Stephen. Not to my knowledge, sir.
    Mr. Norman. So, if employees want to gather to--band 
together and if they think a union is worth the dues that they 
pay that comes out of their paycheck, they have got the freedom 
to do it in a right to work state such as South Carolina.
    Ms. Stephen. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Norman. Well, thank you for your time. I am about out 
of time so I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from Missouri, Ms. Bush, is recognized for 
her five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Madam Chair, for 
convening this timely hearing.
    Electrifying the Postal Service fleet is an urgent priority 
for environment and justice communities, including those in St. 
Louis. We have a unique opportunity to reduce tailpipe 
emissions and decrease cumulative pollution burdens that have 
disproportionately harmed Black, brown, and indigenous 
communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis.
    The Postal Service's current procurement plan to continue 
buying gasoline vehicles is in direct conflict with the 
agency's policy to, quote, ``emphasize environmental issues and 
alternatives and protect, restore, and enhance the quality of 
the human environment,'' end quote.
    It is also not in line with the policy to, quote, ``use the 
NEPA process to assess reasonable environmental alternatives to 
propose actions in order to avoid or minimize adverse 
effects,'' end quote.
    I am extremely troubled by the next generation delivery 
vehicle proposed plan, which doubles down on decades of 
pollution.
    Ms. Stephen, is it correct that the Postal Service refused 
to explore specific environmental justice mitigation options in 
an expanded Environmental Impact Statement?
    Ms. Stephen. I would say that the Environmental Impact 
Statement supplement that was requested was not justified. Part 
of that process demands the introduction of new information 
that was not considered as part of the formal draft or final 
environmental impact assessment process.
    There were no substantive issues brought forward through 
that process that had not previously been addressed--
considered, introduced, or addressed in the Postal Service's 
Final Environmental Impact Statement. It just didn't rise to 
the level that is required to consider a supplemental EIS.
    Ms. Bush. OK. So, the fact that I was quoting the Postal 
Service's response to the EPA comments in the NGDV Final 
Environmental Impact Statement--OK.
    The environmental racism on display from Postal Service 
leadership is absolutely alarming. We have heard of no interest 
in outside experiences and expertise that do not support 
management's preference. In fact, Postal Service management did 
not generally consider alternatives to the proposed plan. It 
dismissed 100 percent, it dismissed 75 percent, and it 
dismissed even 25 percent battery electric vehicle options.
    As a Black woman with asthma from a community littered with 
brownfields, I am offended, as a Congresswoman representing a 
district where Black children have made 10 times more emergency 
room visits for asthma than white children.
    I am outraged. The Postal Service has a long history of 
improving the lives of everyone by providing a critical public 
service. The rejection of community-informed priorities by 
Postal Service management is out of line with that history.
    Ms. Naamane, is there anything preventing the Postal 
Service from incorporating environmental justice into its 
Environmental Impact Statement?
    Ms. Naamane. That is not really in the scope of what we are 
looking at. We are focused on the optimal mix model and the 
total cost of ownership model, and the Environmental Impact 
Statement is a separate process that is outside of the scope of 
our current work.
    Ms. Bush. So, left unchecked and without proactive measures 
to serve the environmental justice community, the Postal 
Service's sleight of hand will produce tens of millions of 
metric tons of emissions over the NGDV's lifespan.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. I thank the chairwoman and our panelists for 
appearing today. This is, certainly, a topic that needs to be 
discussed--electrification of the postal fleet.
    We have a constitutional obligation to support the Postal 
Service and, of course, as part of the American narrative, you 
know, where do electric vehicles fit.
    And I would hope that this body has a reasonable and 
prudent approach to this topic. But I find troubling though it 
be it is quite easily observed that my colleagues across the 
aisle are pushing electric vehicles no matter what.
    If it is smart, they want electric vehicles. If it is not 
smart, they want electric vehicles. They are not receptive to 
reasonable arguments regarding just how effective and efficient 
it could be.
    But no one can argue the simple fact that we are 
responsible for the people's treasure and American citizens are 
watching hearings like this wondering just what is going on in 
Congress.
    We had two and a half million illegal crossings at our 
southern border last year, 500,000 dedicated criminals. I am 
not talking about family units that turn themselves in. I am 
talking about what they call got-aways at the border.
    These young men have plugged into the criminal networks. 
They are coming here to do no good in our country. They had 
80,000 last month pouring across our border. America is 
watching and saying, what is going on in the Oversight 
Committee? They are talking about electrification of cars.
    So, let us talk about it. Rescue vehicles on our highways, 
if you have been paying attention, are all powered by gasoline.
    Mr. Stein, is that generally true? Highway service 
vehicles, are they electric?
    Mr. Stein. As far as I know, they are--.
    Mr. Higgins. No, they are not. Of course, they run on 
gasoline.
    Every American has had some experience of running out of 
fuel, the best of us, the most prepared. You get stuck in 
traffic you didn't expect, there was a crash, something delays 
your trip, and you are burning fuel you didn't anticipate. You 
thought you had filled it up a couple of days before but you 
did not.
    For one reason or another, we have all run out of fuel. 
What do you do? You get a ride to the nearest service station. 
You buy a fuel can if you don't already have one. You get back 
to your vehicle and put fuel in it. What are you going to do 
with an electric car?
    Mr. Stein, what are you going to do with an electric car if 
you run out of juice on a highway?
    Mr. Stein. You have to get it towed.
    Mr. Higgins. You have to get it towed. Americans are 
saying, hold on. We have to have our mail delivered.
    Madam, what would the Postal Service do right now if a 
Postal Service vehicle runs out of fuel on its route?
    Ms. Stephen. A conventional vehicle today?
    Mr. Higgins. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Stephen. Yes, we would call our local team and they----
    Mr. Higgins. Yes. You would bring them gas pretty quick, 
would you?
    Ms. Stephen. That is right.
    Mr. Higgins. What are you going to do if an electric postal 
service vehicle runs out of juice?
    Ms. Stephen. It is more challenging.
    Mr. Higgins. You are going to have to tow it.
    Ms. Stephen. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. So, listen, I say to my colleagues across the 
aisle, maybe the time has come for this discussion but let us 
have it honestly. It is not going to work. We are spending 
billions of dollars of the people's treasure to accomplish some 
dream, not to mention what my colleague has brought up.
    The raw materials for these batteries are being mined by 
child slave labor overseas. That raw product bought by China is 
assembled, the finished product, by slave labor in China. Do we 
support that?
    For God's sakes, let us take a step back. As a committee, 
we owe it to the American people that we serve. Take a hard 
look at this thing. These patriotic intelligent young men and 
women have come before us today. They are prepared to give us 
answers.
    The American people deserve the simple task that we 
accomplish as their congressional servants that we ask the 
right questions. The answers are before us. We are asking the 
wrong questions. We have to reassess this--the realities of the 
electrification of the postal fleet and perhaps my colleagues 
can accept that simple fact.
    Madam Chair, I yield.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair, I have a request that I made to the United 
States Postal Service just to give me a summary of their 
vehicle fleet, and I know we have a--I know we have a slide on 
that. Yes, there we go.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Lynch. So, we do have a dilemma where there are a lot 
of very, very old vehicles that we have in service that are 
high maintenance vehicles and on this chart. We are talking 
about LLVs. Those are long-life vehicles. As I mentioned in my 
opening statement, these are vehicles that have been on the 
road for about 29 years, 4 or 5 years beyond their expected 
service life.
    And so what I might suggest to the Postmaster General is 
there some way that--for those vehicles that are on their last 
legs, literally, that are presenting a safety or a public 
safety hazard, really, to--not only to the men and women who 
drive them but also to the general public?
    Is there a way we could phaseout those vehicles, replace 
them in the short term with combustion engine vehicles, as 
regrettable as that is, but to there and after? So, in the very 
immediate term to take a certain percentage of those vehicles 
and allow them to be replaced with combustion engines but for 
the great majority, I would say 80 percent of these vehicles 
that could be replaced gradually, I would like to see that, you 
know, as a compromise invested in and acted upon by the United 
States Postal Service.
    Ms. Stephen, is that something that we can work out here 
because the way this is going right now, to have such a small 
number of electric vehicles--10 percent of the fleet--and to 
commit the American people for the next 30 years to be burning 
diesel and gas-guzzling, you know, vehicles?
    You know, I have a high asthma rate in a lot of parts of my 
district. I got a major postal facility, the general postal 
facility at South Station. And then if you count up all those 
individual post offices where they are hubs of transportation 
in the local neighborhoods, it would be a huge benefit to a lot 
of these people all over the country, Louisiana to 
Massachusetts, if we could get clean on our postal fleet and 
convert, you know, completely to electric vehicles. I just want 
your thoughts on that.
    Ms. Stephen. Well, I would say that the internal combustion 
engine versions of the NGDV have significant improvements in 
fuel economies and in environmental data versus our existing 
fleet.
    So, any level of investment----
    Mr. Lynch. How do they compare to electric vehicles?
    Ms. Stephen. Of course, electric vehicles are better. Of 
course, they are better.
    Mr. Lynch. Yes. I mean, a world better, right? I mean, you 
know, we are talking zero emissions, right?
    Ms. Stephen. Two hundred percent was the value. Yes.
    Mr. Lynch. So, what I am suggesting is you are starting--
you are real--you are clearing a very low bar here. You know, a 
vehicle that is burning diesel and has been on the road for 29 
years, it is pretty easy to beat that----
    Ms. Stephen. Certainly.
    Mr. Lynch [continuing]. Is what I am suggesting.
    Ms. Stephen. Yes. Emission standards have, certainly, moved 
on.
    Mr. Lynch. So, what about the mix that--the way that we are 
phasing this in? What is the critical path to get us to all 
electric? What is the most efficient way?
    And I don't want to wait 30 years for this to happen. I 
would like it to happen tomorrow, if we could.
    Ms. Stephen. Sure. So, the 10,000 vehicles of that 50,000 
purchase that are battery electric vehicles, that is what the 
Postal Service can fund within our own resources, right.
    We have structured our contracts, and beyond the contract 
itself we have structured the mechanism to allow us to apply 
additional funding. We can even change the proportion of 
electric vehicles for the ones that are already on order if 
additional resources are made available.
    We are similarly structuring flexibility in our planned 
contracts for the infrastructure work. So, the Postal Service 
stands ready to make these changes as resources are made 
available either from our coffers, which we have already 
demonstrated, or from other external sources.
    So, we are ready to make those shifts as resources are 
available.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I know I am running out of time here. 
But we put $8 billion in the Build Back Better Act. I think $6 
billion was for vehicles and $2 billion were for 
infrastructure. And we have got to move it along here. We are 
lagging desperately behind where we should be in making this 
move.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, for all your courtesy and for your 
work on this issue as well. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    And the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Herrell, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Stephen, it was stated earlier that the Postal Service 
is well positioned then to electrify their fleet. But is that 
exactly true, the entire fleet?
    Ms. Stephen. Our focus has been on the replacement of the 
delivery fleet, not our entire fleet.
    Ms. Herrell. So, the top priority of the Postal Service is 
still to deliver the mail in a timely fashion?
    Ms. Stephen. Absolutely. That is mission critical for us.
    Ms. Herrell. But and I just want to kind of go off what was 
just being said. If you were to raise the number of electric 
vehicles in your current order, where would you find the money? 
I mean, because you are saying there is maybe some different 
silos and so forth. Where would that money come from in terms 
of your interior--your budget?
    Ms. Stephen. So, those adjustments have already been made. 
That was part of what allowed us to support the decision to go 
from 5,000 electric vehicles to over 10,000. We were able to 
look at our own resources. We have had some great progress 
already, early progress, from the execution of our Delivering 
for America Plan that is helping us find other resources.
    And, of course, postal reform has allowed us to make some 
shifts in resources. That 10,019 does--is the maximum that our 
resources allow us to support today in light of all of the 
other organizational priorities that are part of that strategic 
plan.
    Ms. Herrell. OK. So, if you were mandated to, say, increase 
the number of electric vehicles, you don't--it would not have 
an impact on the Delivering for America Plan?
    Ms. Stephen. I mean, it could potentially. It, certainly, 
presents a risk, right. Competing resources--you know, we want 
to make sure that we are making good on all of the commitments 
in Delivering for America. So, we need to be mindful of those 
changes. It, certainly, introduces a risk. But it is not 
something that we believe is insurmountable. We just need to 
coordinate those initiatives and make sure that we have the 
facilitated coordination between them.
    Ms. Herrell. Right, because I think--what I think I am 
seeing is, you know, we have got two different things happening 
because this is going right at the heart of the Postal Service 
Reform Act that we just passed, and now we are looking at 
something that is actually going to compromise what we tried to 
help the Post Office do. So, it makes no sense.
    But what I am concerned about is what about the rising 
costs in terms of future years? You know, how are you going to 
subsidize yourselves to continue an increase in costs for an 
electric vehicle fleet? Because the demand in terms of energy 
and rare earth minerals, et cetera, is not going to go away. 
So, how do you compensate for that?
    Ms. Stephen. I would say that we are comfortable with the 
10,019 that are in our acquisition today. Unless we have other 
resources, we would not advance beyond that unless we either 
find resources or they are made available to us. We feel that 
that 10,019 is a manageable proposition within the scope of all 
of the other activities that we have underway to support the 
Delivering for America Plan.
    Ms. Herrell. So--and I understand it. I mean, I get the 
energy. I get the environment. I understand all that. But do 
you think it is worth child safe labor to have these cars put 
into your fleet? Yes or no.
    Ms. Stephen. No.
    Ms. Herrell. And there you have it, and I have to agree 
with my colleague, Mr. Higgins. We should have a very honest, 
transparent conversation for the American people about what 
this means.
    We have resources here at home but an administration that 
refuses to allow us to tap these natural resources, and yet, we 
turn the blind eye on child slave labor around the world and 
somehow make it OK to invest in a fleet of electric vehicles 
for the Post Office or whatever else the administration wants 
to do.
    Thank you for your honest answer in that question.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Brown, is now recognized for 
questions.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for holding this 
hearing and thank you for all the witnesses for joining us 
today.
    First, I would like to thank Congressman Connolly for 
introducing the Green Postal Service Fleet Act. I am a proud 
original co-sponsor of this legislation that would prevent the 
new purchase of gas-guzzling vehicle fleets for the Postal 
Service.
    President Biden has made a clear and stated goal of 
electrifying the Federal fleet and I fully support his 
commitment.
    Let us shift our attention to current events. Russia's 
recent unprovoked and devastating war against Ukraine 
underscores the urgency of eliminating our reliance on fossil 
fuels so that no country is forced to bear higher energy costs 
due to the behavior of an irrational, unpredictable, and brutal 
war criminal.
    Some propose increasing the production of fossil fuels here 
in the U.S. But that is a very siloed approach that attempts to 
address one global challenge at the expense of another. 
Electric vehicle offers an opportunity to address multiple 
challenges at once.
    Not only do they reduce emissions to combat climate change 
but they also secure America's energy independence while 
providing the opportunity to create jobs and advance America's 
competitive edge on the global stage.
    Mr. Britton, how are President Biden's made in America 
policies ensuring that electric vehicles create a win-win 
scenario for the American people?
    Mr. Britton. Well, thank you for the question. There is 
actually a brand new automotive industry corridor that is 
manufacturing and recreating communities all across not just 
from Michigan and Ohio but down to Indiana, to Kentucky to 
Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama.
    We are seeing every single week a new announcement of more 
jobs and more investments in this space, and it is imperative 
for us to lean into this because we don't need to look too far 
back to see what happened when we got caught from behind.
    If you look in 2007, Americans, because of a gas price 
spike like we are seeing today, started to turn to more fuel-
efficient foreign imports for their vehicles.
    So, this is an opportunity for us to meet consumer demand, 
create great and good-paying jobs, revitalize communities. So, 
if you look at Rivian they took over a Mitsubishi plant. Tesla 
has rejuvenated a plant. You look at Lordstown, they took over 
a GM plant. These are opportunities for us to not only, you 
know, look at the American consumer and the driver but create 
jobs and drive down emissions, which are, obviously, important 
for both climate change and public health.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. You actually touched on my 
second question, which was about the jobs being created across 
the country due to the President's commitment to expanding 
domestic and industrial base for the EV supply chain. So, thank 
you for that.
    From charging infrastructure to the electric vehicles 
themselves and the many components they require, the down 
payments we make now on securing the American vehicle supply 
chain will provide compounding benefits for the U.S. economy 
far into the future.
    Ms. Stephen, will postal routes change because of the 
adoption of electric vehicles, and also will it save time on 
mail delivery?
    Ms. Stephen. So, I would say that the choice of the 
vehicle--sorry, I lost where you were on the screen there. The 
choice of the vehicle--I hate to say it in this way--doesn't 
matter in terms of the efficiency except for having a right 
hand drive vehicle that is purpose built for curbside delivery.
    That is essential to our mission. The decision about 
whether it is an internal combustion engine or an electric 
vehicle doesn't affect the daily activities for the carriers 
who are using those vehicles as long as it is the right 
vehicle, that custom built right hand drive vehicle, that is 
built for curbside mail delivery.
    The source of the energy does not necessarily, we don't 
anticipate, make a significant difference in how they would go 
about conducting their work or develop any additional 
efficiencies.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you for that. So, what changes will the 
Postal Service need to make to ensure the next generation 
delivery vehicle is part of the solution in securing a win-win 
electric vehicle future for the American people, Ms. Stephen?
    Ms. Stephen. We stand ready to support this effort today. 
We are excited to bring forward a green platform. Even though 
we understand the desire to go further, we are really proud to 
take forward a portion of the fleet that we can afford within 
our resources, within our strategic plans, and be part of 
building that future. We have done everything we possibly can 
to create additional flexibilities that allow us to adjust to 
go further if additional resources are made available.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. I think we all can agree that 
more can always be done and the Postal Service is no exception. 
But it is time that the Postal Service go all in on electric 
vehicles, and I look forward to reviewing your plans to do so.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized.
    Mr. Grothman. First of all, I would like to thank you all 
for being here today. I know a lot of times in these hearings, 
a lot of people don't come over here and I really appreciate 
all you fine folks coming over here.
    As I understand it, we have shifted, correct, Ms. Stephen, 
from shifting away from electric vehicles and more toward, I am 
sorry, shifted away from gas-powered vehicles and more toward 
electric vehicles.
    Do you think we will be able to, no problem, we will be 
able to produce that many?
    Ms. Stephen. I have the utmost confidence in our partner, 
Oshkosh, to be able to produce whichever quantities of 
whichever drivetrain we require.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Some of my colleagues proposed requiring 
75 percent of the vehicles to be electric.
    Do you think that is a reasonable possibility or do you 
think that is really something that could not be handled right 
now?
    Ms. Stephen. I think it is a bit beyond what our estimates 
say is possible. When we were asked by some of the 
congressional committee members and staff throughout the last 
year to assess how far we could go with our electrification, 
the response we provided was 70 percent of our delivery fleet 
acquisitions over the course of the decade could be electrified 
if resources were made available.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Ms. Whitcomb, could you give me your 
opinion on that?
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, I think it is definitely something to 
consider. Feasibility studies are critical. Some parts of the 
routes are probably not well-suited. They might be too long for 
an electric vehicle. So, there are some limitations.
    But in our study, we found that there is definitely 
opportunities for significantly more electrification of the 
vehicle fleet.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I always care a great deal about the 
people who put these vehicles together. I am going to ask Mr. 
Stein a question, do you mind, and it is kind of a followup on 
what Ms. Herrell said.
    We look not just as the companies as building the vehicles, 
but the components or the materials that are mined or put 
together in other countries. Could you comment on the 
difference between the type of people who are working to put 
together the stuff for the gas-powered vehicles and the 
electric vehicles.
    Mr. Stein. Well, sure. That gets into the question of where 
the minerals that come and go into these vehicles. And when we 
talk about critical minerals, we talk about things like cobalt 
and we talk about some of the rare earths that are processed in 
China.
    These resources, right now, they come from places where, in 
the Congo, there is child labor. In China, there is an entire 
race of people that are being enslaved for this sort of thing: 
the Uyghur minority.
    So, when these supply chains are stretched across the 
world, which they certainly do, and they do in the part, and to 
a certain extent in ICE vehicles they also do, as well, but 
much more of that manufacturing capacity happens in the United 
States than the----
    Mr. Grothman. What was the last country you mentioned 
there? I missed it.
    Mr. Stein. China.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    Mr. Stein. Talking about the Uyghur minority, the Muslim 
minority.
    Mr. Grothman. I thought you mentioned another country, too.
    OK. I know other people, they have always been out there 
and out of side, out of mind, and they don't care how people 
are being abused, but is that something that, as far as you 
know, the United States in any area, cares about or do we just 
buy from companies, whether it is, you know, the full 
healthcare, you know, good pensions in France or Germany or 
whether it is the Uyghurs and maybe very young people abroad, 
is that something that you find here in America, we really 
don't care who is producing it or do any companies care about 
that?
    Mr. Stein. Generally, most companies voluntarily make a big 
effort to ensure that they are sustainably sourced, I guess, 
like safely sourced. The Government also requires some of those 
things, too. There are occasional laws, like the Uyghur 
minority, there has been laws passed about using Uyghur slave 
labor.
    And, of course, that is in direct contrast to the way that 
China operates, is they truly do not care. They don't care who 
dies to get the product, as long as it gets to China.
    And this is a big problem with buying so much, many of our 
components that are processed in China. It is very hard to 
trace the supply chain back to where it actually comes from, to 
know whether there is slave labor used, to know what the 
conditions are at mines in the Congo, that are in the middle of 
war zones. So, you can't send health inspectors in to see what 
is going on.
    Mr. Grothman. For those of us who care about workers in 
other countries, as well as just this country, then, do you 
feel gas-powered vehicles would probably the labor that is 
building them or putting together the components would be a 
little more what we would expect in America?
    Mr. Stein. Probably yes, just because so much more of that 
manufacturing and assembly happens in the United States, so we 
can actually supervise it. Certainly, some of the resources do, 
that go into even the ICE cars do come from, perhaps, unsafe 
areas, and areas where workers are abused, but yes.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair, the Postal Service has with once ``in a 
generation'' chance to replace its aging Grumman mail trucks, 
which last came out of the assembly line in 1994. But instead 
of looking to the future, the Postal Service plans for 90 
percent of its new fleet to be gas guzzlers.
    These trucks, as we have talked about this morning, get 
only 14 miles per gallon, and less than 9 miles per gallon when 
the AC runs. And this stands in sharp contrast to the private 
sector, where major shipping companies are making great efforts 
to reduce their carbon footprint.
    For instance, FedEx and Amazon pledge to have their whole 
operations be carbon neutral by 2040 and electric fleets are a 
big part of that. UPS also made robust investments in 
sustainable vehicles to become carbon neutral by 2050.
    Mr. Britton, can you briefly give your experience working 
with the private sector and give us a sense of whether FedEx 
and Amazon can meet these goal pledges?
    Mr. Britton. Well, actually, just last week, I was at the 
Rivian plant and saw the Amazon vehicles firsthand. They have 
ordered 100,000 of them. They are in production. And I think 
that Amazon is going to be quite happy with the fuel savings.
    We actually created a report and an analysis of how much it 
costs to propel your vehicle with gasoline versus electricity, 
and we did a comparison in 16 different states. We could 
compare triple-A gas price data to Energy Information 
Administration electricity data and we found that it is 500 to 
600 times more costly to power your vehicle with gasoline. So, 
I think both Amazon and FedEx will be quite happy with their 
100 percent electrification plans.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, I bet they would.
    Ms. Stephen, as your direct competitors electrify their 
fleets, and we have cities and counties all over America that 
are electrifying their buses, it blows my mind that the U.S. 
Postal Service is taking such, you know, infinitesimal steps 
toward electrification.
    As your direct competitors electrify their fleets, how can 
you justify transitioning just 10 percent of USPS' fleet to 
electric vehicles?
    Ms. Stephen. So, first, I would like to clarify that the 
10,019 vehicles out of our 50,000 purchase, it is higher than 
the 10 percent statistic. But the most important point why 
there is a difference, our use case is different. It is 
completely different.
    The Postal Service drive cycle, as we refer to it, includes 
hundreds of starts and stops throughout the day. Our carriers 
are driving house to house, mailbox to mailbox. There is a 
start and an acceleration, a stop, then the delivery of mail 
into the mailbox, and then they start over again. And they do 
that hundreds of times a day.
    Typically, our competitors, when they drive down a similar 
street will stop----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I just going to reclaim my time 
now, I am sorry, I am going to reclaim my time because your 
answer is warranting my asking Ms. Whitcomb, because the USPS 
OIG noted in its own audit that frequent stopping may allow 
delivery vehicles to increase efficiency through regenerative 
braking, which is a standard vehicle in electric vehicles.
    So, Ms. Whitcomb, what impact would the frequent stops have 
on the overall life of an electric vehicle battery and, 
consequently, the total cost of ownership.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, in some cases, we thought it provided 
some opportunities and so I am probably, maybe a little less 
qualified than Mr. Britton to address the regenerative braking 
issue, but we did address that in our work, that there are some 
opportunities there in the use case the Postal Service provides 
to enhance its use of electric vehicles.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, Mr. Britton, do you want to 
answer that question and then answer, under the same driving 
conditions, would an electric vehicle perform better or worse 
than a gas-powered vehicle?
    Mr. Britton. Well, it would perform better, and actually, 
in some ways, the inverse of what you would expect with an 
internal combustion engine vehicle, in an ICE vehicle, you may 
get better gas mileage on the highway. For many EVs, the 
starting and stopping, especially if you have strong 
regenerative braking, will provide you greater range in city 
driving, especially with use cases where you are starting and 
stopping every 20 or 30 feet. That is especially important from 
an emissions standpoint, though.
    Your average internal combustion engine postal vehicle is 
idling that entire time and emitting not only CO2, but other 
pollution into the community that we do not need to do. And so, 
the frequent start and stop makes it a perfect use case for 
electrification.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And last, Ms. Whitcomb, assuming 
that the adoption of electric vehicles will save the Postal 
Service money in the long run, does USPS have the financial 
resources to increase its percentage of electric vehicles?
    Ms. Whitcomb. The Postal Service has a significant amount 
of cash set aside for capital investments. Obviously, some of 
that money is going toward its vehicle fleet, along with other 
capital investments. And so, I think in our analysis, our model 
showed that there are some benefits to subsidies to help the 
Postal Service. It makes the cost-benefit equation better for 
the Postal Service, but, obviously, the Postal Service is 
investing its own cash right now in the electric vehicles.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentlelady.
    And now the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson is now 
recognized.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    There are vehicles in the Postal Service fleet that are 30 
years old. When would be a good time to transition to a less, 
fuel-dependent fleet, if not now? Electric vehicles would 
release less emissions, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, 
and help lead our country in the right direction in combatting 
the climate crisis, and electric vehicles will also save 
taxpayers $100 million in costs for gasoline.
    Ms. Stephen, based on an average price for gasoline as of 
January 2021, it would cost $500 million to fuel the Postal 
Service's internal combustion engine fleet to cover the 1.5 
billion vehicle miles traveled annually at $3 a gallon, which 
was the average price in January 2021; isn't that correct?
    Ms. Stephen. I will assume that your data is correct.
    Mr. Johnson. And using the June 2021 average price for 
electricity and an electric fleet could cover the same number 
of miles for hundreds of millions of dollars less; isn't that 
correct?
    Ms. Stephen. I don't know that it is correct. Part of what 
the difference is how far you drive and----
    Mr. Johnson. Just based on current figures----
    Ms. Stephen. Sure.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Wouldn't the taxpayers save 
hundreds of millions of dollars per year in gasoline costs if 
we were to move to an electric vehicle fleet?
    Ms. Stephen. The Postal Service funds those fuel costs, not 
the taxpayers, and so there would be potential for----
    Mr. Johnson. OK. You are right.
    But the people who purchase stamps----
    Ms. Stephen. Yes----
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Who pay for the Postal Service--
--
    Ms. Stephen [continuing]. That is correct, yes, sir.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. They would suffer a cost, well, 
let's just say the Postal Service can do business with an 
electric fleet, operating, without having to purchase hundreds 
of millions of dollars in gasoline per year. That would save 
the customers of the Post Office, correct?
    Ms. Stephen. Agreed.
    Mr. Johnson. And the investment in an electric vehicle 
fleet would not only insulate the Postal Service from high and 
variable gasoline prices, but it would also diminish the cost 
of potential increased miles traveled that were not budgeted; 
isn't that correct?
    Ms. Stephen. I would agree with your point.
    Mr. Johnson. And in 2016, the Postal Service fleet traveled 
203 million more miles than originally estimated, correct?
    Ms. Stephen. I believe that is correct.
    Mr. Johnson. And that required a purchase of 30 million 
more gallons of gasoline than initially projected, correct?
    Ms. Stephen. I believe so.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Ms. Naamane, rural communities are sometimes overlooked and 
I am worried that they may not be able to benefit from the 
technological advances of the electric vehicles. Have you 
looked at the infrastructural demands for rural and low-income 
communities and options for meeting that demand?
    Ms. Naamane. We haven't looked at that specifically. We do 
note that installation of charging infrastructure is a 
significant factor that needs to be considered and can be a 
challenge in determining the placement of the correct 
deployment of the vehicles and providing the service that is 
affected.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Ms. Whitcomb, according to the U.S. Postal Service OIG 
report, a report published in 2021 showed that six electric 
vehicles acquired in 2017 had reduced fuel consumption by 5,888 
gallons and saved approximately $10,000 in fuel costs. Just six 
vehicles.
    Imagine if the entire fleet were to be replaced, what would 
cost-savings and fuel consumption look like if every postal 
vehicle were electric.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, when we did our analysis of what would 
happen if the charging infrastructure and the initial purchase 
of the vehicles was subsidized, we found that there would be an 
11 percent decrease in costs for the Postal Service moving 
forward with an electric fleet. So, it has a significant impact 
on the Postal Service's cost moving forward because of the fuel 
costs reduction, energy-cost reduction, as well as the charging 
infrastructure and maintenance reductions, as well. So, there 
is definitely a positive impact moving forward.
    The challenge is the upfront costs.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    My time is expired and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is now recognized.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chair.
    Ms. Whitcomb, has your office studied the impact of the 75 
percent electric vehicle mandate on the Postal Service's 
ability to implement the Delivering for America Plan?
    Ms. Whitcomb. We have not studied a 75 percent requirement 
at all as part of our work.
    Mr. Cloud. Do you have plans to study that?
    Ms. Whitcomb. We have not be asked to do that. We have been 
asked to do some additional work to look at the Postal 
Service's compliance with NEPA in its Environmental Impact 
Statement and that is what we are doing, moving forward.
    But if that 75 percent request comes our way, we will 
definitely take a look at it.
    Mr. Cloud. There was a post from the USPS Office of 
Inspector General's LinkedIn account promoting your testimony 
today on this hearing. It said: How the agency can acquire more 
vehicles.
    Are you here to promote electric vehicle purchases or are 
you here as a nonpartisan witness?
    Ms. Whitcomb. I am here as a nonpartisan witness.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. I have a question for Mr. Stein.
    What we have seen in the past right now is car prices are 
going up dramatically. Used car prices are, I think, 40 percent 
higher. New cars, electric car prices are also going up. We 
have supply chain issues going on right now. The Biden 
administration's solution to high gas prices has been to tell 
everybody to buy an electric car, which for most people, that 
is out of their price range.
    Can you speak to the role that our supply chain's play in 
obtaining necessary resources, such as lithium, cobalt for 
battery-operated electric vehicles.
    Mr. Stein. Right. So, all these minerals we have been 
talking about are the, they go into the electric vehicle 
batteries and they are the largest component of the cost of an 
electric vehicle. So, as these prices skyrocket, and they have 
partly to the war, but they also were rising even before on 
supply chain issues, so that directly translates into higher 
costs for electric vehicles.
    I think Tesla has raised their prices twice just this year 
because of these supply chain issues.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. And has the Office of Inspector General, 
have you looked at kind of a more comprehensive approach of 
what this would mean as far as markets in general?
    Ms. Whitcomb. We have note looked at that. We looked 
specifically at the Postal Service and how the opportunities 
and challenges. It is kind of a hot, the paper that we 
published was kind of a higher-level look at opportunities and 
challenges associated with electric vehicles at the Postal 
Service.
    Mr. Cloud. And what is the average expected lifespan for a 
battery in an electric vehicle, in these electric vehicles?
    Ms. Whitcomb. In our analysis, the model looked at 10 
years.
    Mr. Cloud. At 10 years?
    Ms. Whitcomb. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Cloud. And these need to last 20 years; is that what we 
are saying?
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, our analysis had a 20-year lifespan, uh-
huh, so one replacement of the battery.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. And Mr. Stein, when it comes to batteries 
and when it comes to, I mean, there is debate now on what 
should the right mix be between electric vehicles, whether 
there should be 20 percent, 75 percent. A lot of that is going 
to depend on the region, the routes.
    I live in, you know, rural Texas, so the routes are a lot 
larger and the infrastructure is different, those kinds of 
things.
    Also, there is an extremely--can you speak to battery 
performance when it comes to regionally, when it comes to 
climate, when it comes to hot, extreme hot and cold 
temperatures, seasonal, those kinds of things.
    Mr. Stein. Right. That is an important operational variable 
and that is actually discussed in both, the Record of Decision 
and IG's report. And part of the problem is that that is very 
uncertain. We do know that in very hot and very cold 
temperatures, battery performance does degrade overtime, but 
part of the problem is, as has already been discussed, the 
Postal Service has a very unique way of operating, that Amazon 
or UPS, they don't do the same thing. So, it is hard to even 
take from their lesson of how their batteries have worked.
    But even in, I think it was in the OIG report, they even 
found that some of the, a lot of the proposed ranges, the 
expected ranges actually didn't come through. I think it was 
the German Deutsche Post had shorter ranges than they expected. 
Amazon had some shorter ranges and that is because of the 
actual operational use was different from the theoretical 
range. So, I think that is part of what my point has been, 
being very cautious about introducing electric vehicles until 
we know how they actually perform in the use by the Postal 
Service.
    Mr. Cloud. So, you would advocate for a more gradual 
implementation; is that what you are looking at?
    Mr. Stein. I think 20 percent is a little higher than I 
might go, but certainly for more than that.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    We will be voting on the motion to subpoena in five 
minutes, so I now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. 
Kelly for her questions and we will be voting in five minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The global auto market stands at a crossroads today and 
companies and countries, alike, are racing to see who will win 
the EV race.
    Mr. Britton, last year you said, and I quote, the choices 
we face are stark. We either cultivate an advanced vehicle 
sector or cede this economic opportunity to others. You then 
explained how China's economy has captured the EV market, but 
that the U.S. has the opportunity to reclaim its leadership in 
this important transformation.
    Mr. Britton, can you say more about what is at stake in the 
global race for leadership in the EV market and how are 
President Biden's policies helping the U.S. seize the 
opportunity.
    Mr. Britton. Well, thank you for the question. I think we 
have heard a lot of talk about what other countries' 
capabilities are. I don't think it is the American way to look 
at strategic advantages that others have and then to shy away 
from that battle. We know how to compete and we have won these 
fights before, and we know that the consumer is going to be 
demanding electric vehicles.
    So, the opportunity before us is twofold. One is, are we 
able to meet those consumer demands with domestically 
manufactured vehicles by cultivated a strong industry, and 
then, two, are we also able to drive the public benefits of 
both, emissions reduction for a climate change, but also public 
health.
    And so, those two combinations are ones where we can drive 
multiple values and do it in a way that makes everybody better 
off. Even if you never get behind the wheel of an EV, the more 
electric vehicles on the road benefits workers in those plants, 
retail outlets in those communities, and then everybody who is 
breathing in pollution today.
    And one of the things that I would mention is we have, 
many, many Americans, 40 percent of Americans are living in 
areas with subpar air quality that is hurting their public 
health and if you are an American of color, you are two to 
three times likely to be part of that 40 percent that is 
breathing in pollution. And Black and Brown Americans certainly 
in the mid-Atlantic, studies have shown, breathe in 66 percent 
of that pollution.
    So, it is really important for us to look at the multitude 
of values that we can drive down, whether that is economic 
development and manufacturing or it is emissions reduction for 
both, climate change and public health. Everybody can be better 
off.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
    And how do Federal purchasing decisions impact the domestic 
EV market and how can we make sure that these purchasing 
decisions deliver the greatest benefit possible to the American 
people?
    Mr. Britton. Well, I think the most important thing that we 
can do is send the signal that this is an area that the 
government and the Federal Government, in particular, is moving 
in, and the Biden administration has already offered an 
executive order that should be a clear signal to the Postal 
Service that this is a direction that they ought to be going.
    But, really, it is, you know, I don't think you even need 
to look. You could look past the manufacturing benefits, past 
the emissions reduction benefits. The Postal Service is set to 
save $4.3 billion if they electrify. It is more expensive to 
drive an internal combustion engine vehicle than an electric 
vehicle. And their model relies on a 50 percent discount on 
gasoline for the next 18 years. It then is taking the cost of a 
charger and inflating it by a magnitude of 10 and tripling the 
number of chargers that we need, and then they are assuming 
that the range of these vehicles are half of what they can 
actually achieve.
    And so, if we had a model that reflected reality and was 
based in fact, it would be an easy answer and a no-brainer that 
is reflected in what their competitors are doing today; FedEx, 
Amazon, UPS, everybody is moving in this direction, not from an 
ESG sensibility, but because it is good for business and it is 
good for their bottom line.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
    Ms. Stephen, does the Postal Service take these broader 
policy goals into consideration when deciding whether to 
purchase gas or electric versions of its next generation 
delivery vehicle?
    Ms. Stephen. Certainly, they are in consideration, but they 
are also in the context of our Delivering for America Plan and 
our internal resources and our need to be self-sustaining 
financially. So, it is a balance of all of those factors.
    Ms. Kelly. Did the Postal Service conduct any data-driven 
studies to determine the optimum number of electric vehicles to 
purchase, yes or no?
    Ms. Stephen. Yes.
    Ms. Kelly. Well, can you provide the committee with the 
data and the study?
    Ms. Stephen. If it is protected and specifically requested 
through formal channels, we can followup on that, yes.
    Ms. Kelly. And as we have heard, Mr. Britton, the purchase 
of EVs under President Biden's ``Made in America'' policy would 
reduce pollution, create jobs, advance U.S. leadership in 
innovation and help make the U.S. a global leader in EV 
production.
    Ms. Naamane, would you say that purchase of such EVs would 
be in the national interest of the United States?
    Ms. Naamane. Well, the purchasing power of the Federal 
Government is certainly a, can be a driver in the private 
markets.
    Ms. Kelly. I am out of time. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    We will now consider the subpoena motion and I now 
recognize Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. I move to table.
    Chairwoman Maloney. All those in favor of tabling the 
motion of the gentleman say aye.
    Those opposed say no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is tabled.
    OK. I now recognize Mr. DeSaulnier. But he is not up there. 
Mr. DeSaulnier, you are now recognized.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for 
having this hearing.
    I wanted to ask all of the panelists, and thank you for 
being here today, I have spent, I was able to get a bill with 
$7 billion into the transportation infrastructure bill for 
battery charging stations and fuel substations.
    So, it strikes me that obviously the Postal Service, as a 
retail, national sort of real estate asset, that looking at 
infrastructure is part of not just transitioning the fleet, and 
we have done a lot of work on this in California when I was on 
the Transportation Committee and when I was on car fuel cells 
having a former Republican Governor who talked about the 
Hydrogen Highway.
    So, my question is, how can we use the real estate assets 
not only to help the Postal Service electrify its fleet, but 
also to have charging and fuel-cell stations at postal 
facilities, and I will just let you answer that question in the 
order that you have testified.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Sure. I can go first and then go down the 
aisle.
    Obviously, the Postal Service has an extensive nationwide 
retail infrastructure. There are opportunities there, but there 
are also challenges with doing that, and I can move to Ms. 
Stephen. She can probably explain better some of the challenges 
associated with that. But there is an extensive infrastructure 
there that the Postal Service maintains.
    Ms. Stephen. Thank you. I will go ahead and jump in, as 
well.
    So, we have more than 17,000 facilities where we are 
planning to, if we fully electrified our delivery fleet, where 
we would need some kind of charging infrastructure. We also 
have additional retail facilities beyond that quantity, as 
well. So, you are right, we definitely have a significant 
physical presence.
    One of the things that is important to us from a safety 
perspective and a security perspective is that all of our 
vehicles are behind what we call in the secured fence line. 
There are reasons for not only security, you know, security of 
the mail to make sure that it is only authorized personnel in 
that space, but also for safety perspective; there is moving 
vehicles, moving containers. So, it is really important to us 
to consider this equation outside of that scope. So, perhaps, 
on the front end of the postal retail parking locations, for 
example.
    We are willing to have the discussions. We are absolutely 
willing to participate in those discussions. We do have 
concerns about making sure that we continue to have 
sufficiently available parking, especially during peak hours 
for our retail customers who are coming to their local post 
office to transact with us. So, that is important to us, and 
making sure that, you know, that there is a way to take this 
forward.
    We are happy to have those discussions and entertain those 
analyses and determine a place that we can help contribute. We 
understand the importance.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks.
    Ms. Naamane. And so, we have ongoing work that is looking 
at opportunities and challenges of using postal facilities as 
locations for public charging infrastructure. There could be a 
number of different use cases for, that would make sense. There 
could be some cases where it may not make sense. There could be 
gaps in service for, in charging locations, for example, where 
a Postal Service facility could maybe fill that gap.
    But as Ms. Stephen mentioned, there are probably some 
challenges, as well, the security and legal challenges, and we 
will be looking at all of those in our ongoing work.
    Mr. Britton. So, one of the things that I would recommend, 
obviously diversifying the retail options for the Postal 
Service has been something of a discussion in reform debates 
for years, but part of the capital upgrades for charging is 
some of the highest-cost expense. So, you could share the power 
delivery if you are trenching and delivering new power to a 
part of the Postal Service. Some of those chargers could be 
behind the fence. Some could be in front of the fence for 
customers.
    And I think one of the areas that, you know, we want to set 
the Postal Service apart is for consumers. So, we want there to 
be an additional incentive for them to choose the Postal 
Service over their other options. And so, if there is charging, 
as more and more electric vehicles become part of the Federal, 
individual light-duty fleet, we want to meet them where they 
are at as consumers and they are going to be shopping and, 
obviously, voting with their dollars. We want that to be with 
the Postal Service. We believe firmly in charging options, 
whether that is joint or something that is distinguished just 
for retail customers.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks.
    Mr. Stein. I will mostly defer to the post office. They 
troubleshoot a lot of the issues, but the one thing I will say 
is it does seem like the mission of the Postal Service is to 
deliver the mail, not to provide charging services. So, it 
seems outside the scope of their job.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. And I appreciate that, but there is, 
hopefully, we can be open-minded about effective and efficient 
delivery of public services and I think we have real 
opportunities if we are open to that.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    We now have Mr. Fallon, the gentleman from Texas. I believe 
he is remotely going to ask his questions.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
    You know, electric vehicles aren't the magic bullet that so 
many claim they are and you have to consider certain things. 
The mining of the rare-earth materials, that in and of itself, 
exhausts a tremendous amount of energy. In the mining process, 
a significant amount of greenhouse gases are emitted. And a lot 
of these processes in mining occurs in countries where health 
and safety and environmental standards and precautions are 
dramatically less stringent than they would be here in the 
United States or in other developed nations.
    The battery production for these also have an environmental 
impact and it should be noted that about two to two and a half 
tons of emissions are generated when you produce a BEV rather 
than--a battery than you would in a combustion engine.
    And then how the electricity is generated to actually 
charge the BEV needs to be considered. We know that coal-
powered plants, of course, are the least ideal. We have 
hundreds of those in the United States alone and it is 
estimated that upwards of 60 percent of the electric grid in 
our country is powered by fossil fuels. So, it is almost two-
thirds chance when you plug in that car to charge, it being 
charged, ironically, by fossil fuels.
    And, you know, studies have shown with the battery in 
electric vehicles, the BEVs, may be responsible for greater 
human toxicity and ecosystem defects than in an ICE equivalent, 
due to the mining and the processing of the materials, the 
metals to produce the batteries and as we just mentioned, the 
mining and the combustion of coal to produce the electricity. 
And most BEVs rely on lithium-ion batteries which are made from 
critical materials, including as we talked about earlier, 
cobalt, graphite, and lithium.
    So, Mr. Stein, I am sure you are aware that most estimates 
determine that the People's Republic of China produces 85 
percent of rare-earth resources, 40 percent of the world's 
copper, 30 percent of the world's nickel, and controls 70 
percent of the world's cobalt-refining capacity, and nearly 60 
percent of the world's lithium.
    Would you agree that the U.S. must secure battery-related 
resource supply chains as a matter of national security?
    Mr. Stein. Certainly, if our goal as a country is to change 
over to electric vehicles, then yes, we absolutely need to 
secure those resources because we are, if we are talking about 
national security, we don't want to just exchange buying 
foreign oil from buying foreign batteries. So, the point, the 
national security point should be to have these things produced 
domestically.
    Mr. Fallon. So, if we don't secure that, it is just 
mentioned, rather than just, we are really just kind of trading 
one, exchanging, I should say, one trade master for another, 
whether it is Saudi Arabian OPEC as opposed to, you know, now 
China; would that be a fair statement?
    Mr. Stein. Sure. And, ironically, the last 10 years, we 
actually have largely weaned ourself off of the oil coming from 
these countries that hate us. So, we have just finally gotten 
to that point and now we are talking about returning to 
dependence on another country that hates us.
    Mr. Fallon. So, maybe and just vernacular, one--several 
steps forward and then even more steps back if we went this 
route?
    Mr. Stein. Right. It is not even, it is two steps forward 
and four steps back.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes. Yes.
    And then are you also aware, Mr. Stein, that China owns or 
finances 15 of the 19 cobalt-producing mines in the Democratic 
Republic of Congo, which contains 60 percent of the world's 
cobalt?
    Mr. Stein. Yes, that sounds correct.
    Mr. Fallon. So, the last question I have for you is, why 
would our Democratic friends be pushing for more electric 
vehicles in the U.S. Post Office fleet when they have not 
secured the supply chain and the supply lines for resources 
critical to the EV production?
    Mr. Stein. Well, I think it is just an ideological 
commitment to electric vehicles. This is the same problem that 
we have with the ideological commitment to wind and solar 
generation, even though those resources are, again, coming from 
outside the United States. It is about outsourcing these 
environmental harms to other countries so that we can pretend 
that we are environmentally virtuous.
    Mr. Fallon. Because we are just not there yet, are we, from 
a technological standpoint? I mean, we may get there someday, 
but we are just not there yet. It is not as efficient right as 
it could be. The old nasty combustion engine vehicle seems to 
actually be more environmentally friendly, when you consider 
all things, than an electric vehicle, at least today; is that a 
fair statement?
    Mr. Stein. It depends on what weight you put at different 
parts of the manufacturing process. Certainly, at the tailpipe, 
ICE vehicles produce more emissions than an electric vehicle, 
obviously, but what value, how many emissions is the worth to 
have child slave labor in the Congo?
    That is not a 1:1 comparison. It becomes a world tradeoff, 
like, what do you prefer?
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Brenda Lawrence is now 
recognized.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Stephen, I would like to ask a few questions about the 
internal discussions related to the public-facing electric 
vehicle charging stations. In your testimony, you reference 
that the USPS' role has not yet clearly defined this part of 
the public-facing infrastructure.
    So, my question is, has the Postal Service been involved in 
discussions with other Federal agencies about the role the 
Postal Service can play in this conversation in a proactive 
manner as opposed to waiting for direction?
    Ms. Stephen. The short answer to that is no. We certainly 
have had discussions with various congressional staff members, 
exploring the idea. We have not engaged other agencies to 
pursue that.
    Mrs. Lawrence. And why is that? Why haven't you?
    Ms. Stephen. As Mr. Stein pointed out, it is not part of 
our core mission. Our core mission is delivering mail and 
making sure that we have the infrastructure to support or 
operational needs for the electric vehicles that we take 
forward through this process. So, we consider it beyond that 
remit.
    Mrs. Lawrence. I just want to push back on that because 
your core mission isn't about dog bites, but the reality of 
what has happened, and even safety of our carriers on the road, 
I mean life dictates what your priorities are and I would hope 
the Postal Service understands the need for priority when it 
comes to being a part of the solution for carbon, for our 
carbon footprint.
    From an implementation standpoint, what are some of the 
logistical challenges the Postal Service faces? How could we, 
as Congress, help you address some of these concerns? Do you 
need us to give you direction to make this one of your 
priorities? And I would like to hear your comment on that.
    Ms. Stephen. OK. Yes, certainly.
    I think in terms of constraints, one of the top constraints 
would be that we are not even sure that within statute, that we 
have the right to establish this kind of a service. This would 
not fall into postal products and, you know, supplies. It does 
not fall neatly into the definitions of the types of products 
and services that we offer. So, there is some opportunity to 
assess what needs to be done legally to enable that. We would 
not find it within the statute that controls that today.
    From an implementation perspective, some of the challenges 
are just understanding what the administration and Congress is 
seeking to achieve. If the goal is to set up, you know, to 
reduce range anxiety, for example, that might lead to a 
different set of conclusions than just having a charging 
station at every nearby postal facility. So, I think----
    Mrs. Lawrence. So, Ms. Stephen, I have to ask this 
question. We passed the Postal Service Reform Act----
    Ms. Stephen. Yes.
    Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. Providing the agency additional 
areas of revenue, while providing service to the public. We 
know that we have had conversation about banking, about permits 
and other things that are not within the core function of the 
Postal Service but is a revenue stream.
    And so, have you had internal conversations about using 
these public-facing stations as an additional funding system?
    Ms. Stephen. We have had a preliminary evaluation. We do 
not think that public charging capabilities fall within what we 
can provide as other postal products and services. So, our 
initial read on the matter is that it is beyond our scope; it 
is beyond our purview.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Madam Chair, I would really like to continue 
this discussion and to make sure that we are on the same page 
with the Postal Service, because one of the things they wanted 
was an opportunity to have additional funding opportunities. 
And if you are going to have an electric fleet and it is 
sitting there idle, the charging station and you can have an 
opportunity to get additional funding.
    So, I will yield back, but I want you to know that that is 
something that I want to explore. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentlelady for her 
question. She raised really good points.
    And it certainly my understanding along the line of your 
understanding that, of course, this would be covered in the 
additional services that they could provide.
    But let us keep on the hearing. Mr. Connolly, you are now 
recognized.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair and I am sorry, I have 
multiple hearings and I have a bill on the floor, so I am 
running around, so please forgive me for not being able to be 
here the whole time.
    Ms. Whitcomb, you are the Inspector General of the Postal 
Service; is that correct?
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes, you mind turn--, yes.
    We heard a little earlier than the assumption about the 
price of gas in looking at costing the benefits of a fossil 
fuel fleet versus an EV fleet was assumed to be $2.19; is that 
correct?
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, that is what we heard earlier. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. I am having trouble hearing you. Can you----
    Ms. Whitcomb. Sorry. I will scoot up.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
    Ms. Whitcomb. The thing is on, yes.
    Mr. Connolly. There you go. That is better.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, is this better?
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, my understanding is that was the gas 
price at the time the Postal Service did its initial 
assumptions.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes. But they project that out.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Right.
    Mr. Connolly. So, what is the current cost of gasoline on 
average in the United States, do you know?
    Ms. Whitcomb. It is between $4 and $5, I believe.
    Mr. Connolly. It is almost twice what they are assuming 
already.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Connolly. And, of course, we can't see the future. 
Maybe we will come down to $2.19. Maybe it will go up.
    In California, for example--there is also variability in 
the states--in California, I believe the average cost of a 
gallon of gasoline right now is hovering around $6; is that 
your understanding?
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. So, when the Postal Service says, well, in 
looking at the cost benefit, you know, benefit, over 20 years, 
the operating costs for a gas fleet will be $9.3 billion and 
the operating costs for an electric fleet will be $11.6 
billion. That is predicated on an assumption we now know to be, 
at the very least, subject to great variation at any given 
time; is that correct?
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, if the $2.19 is what that is relying 
upon, I would agree with you there, and these assumptions 
change. And that is why modeling is so important, so that you 
can put in different assumptions and adjust.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes, that is right. What you assume can 
determine the outcome.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Right.
    Mr. Connolly. And I am very worried about the assumptions 
that went in or didn't go in to the environmental report that 
the Postal Service came up with, gasoline being one of them.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Connolly. Let's talk about maintenance.
    What were the assumptions about the contrast of the cost of 
maintenance of a gasoline diesel fleet versus an EV fleet, do 
you know?
    Ms. Whitcomb. I don't know specifically. I do know that 
from what we have heard from other witnesses, that the 
maintenance costs were assumed to be higher for an electric 
vehicle fleet in the Postal Service's model. We did not analyze 
that in our work.
    Our model projected those maintenance costs to be lower.
    Mr. Connolly. Lower, exactly.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Right.
    Mr. Connolly. So, if, and I am going to give you an 
opportunity, Ms. Stephen, but that is of concern to me, too. 
What were the assumptions about maintenance?
    Anyone who owns an electric vehicle will tell you that the 
maintenance costs to, for an EV are lower than what they paid 
or would pay for a gasoline-or diesel-fueled vehicle.
    Ms. Stephen, did you want to comment on that? I want to 
give you an opportunity to.
    Ms. Stephen. Absolutely. I would be pleased to.
    So, first of all, the $2.19 data point----
    Mr. Connolly. Well, we are going to move beyond that for a 
minute. I thought you wanted to talk about maintenance.
    Ms. Stephen. Sure. I would be happy to talk about all of 
it.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes. I don't mean to cut you off. I just have 
limited time.
    Ms. Stephen. It is OK.
    In terms of the maintenance costs, the data that been 
misunderstood by others who have had access to the data within 
the model. The maintenance ratio of an ICE vehicle versus a BEV 
vehicle for us in our analysis shows that it is 8 percent 
lower. So, that is a data point that has been misunderstood in 
the way that it has been represented.
    It is lower. A BEV takes less maintenance. It has less 
moving systems, so it is lower. It just has not been understood 
correctly in the data.
    It is also important to note that our costs reflect, we are 
moving from 30-year-old vehicles with hardly any systems up to 
a new standard, so there is additional maintenance.
    Mr. Connolly. Believe me, I know. I have been working on 
this issue for 14 years.
    Ms. Stephen. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. And I have been championing trying to replace 
the vehicle fleet. I will say to you, historically, in 2009, 
Ruth Goldberg, who was then the head of the Postal Regulatory 
Commission, came to see me saying, what if we earmarked some of 
the stimulus money, $3 billion at that time, to replace the 
fleet.
    And the then-Postmaster General used the same language Mr. 
Comer used: We don't want to be Guinea pigs. And he rejected a 
three-billion-dollar earmark to replace the entire fleet with a 
hybrid fleet. And here we are 12 years later, making the same 
arguments and having the same discussion.
    And I worry, you know, we obviously can't afford another 30 
years of an obsolete fossil-fueled vehicular fleet. And that is 
my concern about the decision that has been made. In about 15 
years, those vehicles will be obsolete.
    I have run out of time. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very, very much for your 
questions and your hard work in this area.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is now 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the 
hearing.
    Just to piggyback, no pun intended, on what was just said 
by Representative Connolly, the Post Office has the opportunity 
not to be a Guinea pig here, but to be a trailblazer and that 
is what I think is creating a lot of the anxiety on the far 
side of the aisle is the lost opportunity here for the U.S. 
Postal Service to really lead the way when it comes to clean, 
efficient, energy vehicles and addressing climate change.
    We know we have got to take immediate action on this front. 
Every report that comes out, kind of on a six-week basis, shows 
that the problem is accelerating. So, the Federal Government 
should be a leader in reducing emissions and transitioning to 
greener technologies.
    A quick advertisement here. That is why I was proud last 
year to introduce the Federal Building Clean Jobs Act, which is 
another example of where the Federal Government and associated 
agencies can be trailblazers. That would require Federal 
agencies to meet all their energy and emission goals for their 
physical spaces by 2030.
    But this hearing today about the Postal Service's 
investment is obviously critical and I want to compare the 
decision the Postal Service has made in the space to the 
aspirations that the President and I would say, our country, is 
laying out at this moment. In his first week of office, 
President Biden recommitted us to the goals of reducing our 
emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030.
    So, Ms. Stephen, the Postal Service, as we have discussed 
at length here today, recently purchased 50,000 vehicles, only 
10,000 of which will be electric. Do you believe that the 
Postal Service's current procurement plan of relying on gas-
powered delivery vehicles for the next 20 years lives up to the 
national commitment that President Biden has articulated here?
    Ms. Stephen. It is the best that the Postal Service can 
elicit, given the resources that we have available today. You 
know, we would love to do more. We simply don't have the 
resources. We need to make good on our Delivering for America 
Plan and the execution of all of those other capital and 
strategies, as well. We are balancing both and trying to do the 
best what that we can within our given resources to meet the 
intent of those initiatives.
    Mr. Sarbanes. President Biden also issued an Executive 
Order calling for, quote, clean and zero-emission vehicles for 
government fleets, including vehicles of the United States 
Postal Service.
    Ms. Stephen, again, the internal combustion engine delivery 
vehicles that make up 80 percent of the recent order that was 
placed by the Postal Service, quote, clean and zero emission, I 
think I know the answer, but go ahead.
    Ms. Stephen. So, my understanding of both of those 
Executive Orders in the OMB's implementation memorandum, they 
strongly encouraged the Postal Service to meet the goals and we 
are doing everything that we can to meet those goals. There was 
not a mandate for us in that; it was strongly encouraged and we 
are responding in the best way we can within our resources.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Last August, alongside auto executives, UAW 
leadership, President Biden issued another Executive Order 
calling for half of the new cars and trucks sold by 2030 to be 
electric. On Friday, the Transportation Department issued new 
fuel economy standards, requiring efficiency gains of 8 percent 
in both 2024 and 2025, followed by a 10 percent increase in 
2026, and further requiring that passenger cars and light 
trucks achieve about 49 miles per gallon.
    Ms. Stephen, yes or no, will the Postal Service commit to 
ensuring that all next generation delivery vehicles it 
purchases by 2026 get at least 49 miles per gallon?
    Ms. Stephen. I don't think I have the information today to 
make that commitment.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Well, it is a difficult one to make, given 
the decision tree that we are discussing here today. And, look, 
I understand the Postal Service is independent and, you know, 
is not directly under the authority of the President and the 
administration the way some other agencies are, but responding 
to the climate crisis requires an all-of-government and all-of-
society approach.
    And I just think that, I mean, I understand the constraints 
that you are talking about, but I think there was a way, and we 
are going to continue to pursue whether there is a way for the 
U.S. Postal Service to stretch and reach for more ambitious 
goals when it comes to these clean energy and energy-efficient 
vehicles. So, we are going to continue to press on you. Thank 
you very much for your testimony today.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for your questions today. And 
we now go to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Davis, you are 
now recognized.
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Davis? We can't hear you. Your mic 
is not on. We can't hear you. There seems to be a technical 
problem in reaching Mr. Davis.
    The gentlelady from New York--nope, did he get on? OK. Mr. 
Davis?
    [No response.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, can we go to----
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think I am OK now.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    The Government Accountability Office and to all the rest 
who are present, let me just say thank you. GAO has outlined 
clear concerns about the methodologies used by the Postal 
Service when developing its total cost of the ownership model.
    We have spent a lot of time today talking about what the 
Postal Service needs to correct with its existing purchase 
order and contract. Now I would like to take a few minutes to 
discuss what the Postal Service should do moving forward to 
ensure that future acquisitions are done more effectively and 
efficiently.
    Ms. Naamane, GAO has spent significant time reviewing the 
Postal Service's methodologies and analysis. What should the 
Postal Service do to improve its analysis in future 
acquisitions?
    Ms. Naamane. Well, we are still completing our work, so we 
don't have final recommendations yet. But one of the things 
that we'll be looking at and asking the Postal Service about is 
their process for updating their model. We've heard that 
they've made some updates, and we understand that.
    So, one of the things we want to understand further is what 
kind of process there is to institutionalize updating those 
assumptions and information in the model to make sure that they 
are the best possible information so that the results that come 
out of the model are reflective of current market conditions or 
technological advances. So, before another order is placed, for 
example, that the information is as sound and accurate and 
reliable as possible.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Whitcomb, let me ask the same question to you.
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, I think we are--similarly to Ms. 
Naamane, we are in the process of doing work on the Postal 
Service's assumptions and how those assumptions were used in 
preparing the Environmental Impact Statement. And so we will be 
also looking for things like sensitivity analysis and other 
things, looking for ranges of assumptions, not just individual 
assumptions, and the ability for a model to be agile enough to 
adjust to the significant, I guess, disruptions in the energy 
sector that we've seen recently, both on the electric vehicle 
battery components that you heard a lot about today, as well as 
the prices of gas, gasoline, which are both kind of really have 
been disrupted recently.
    Mr. Davis. Ms. Whitcomb, let me just ask, I am specifically 
concerned about the way the Postal Service went about the NEPA 
process. What can the Service do in the future to ensure that 
it is complying with both the letter and the spirit of the law 
with respect to NEPA?
    Ms. Whitcomb. Yes, it's something that we are looking at 
right now, and we will definitely be evaluating the Postal 
Service's compliance of NEPA as a part of that work. And if we 
see issues there, we will be making recommendations to ensure 
that that happens.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you both very much.
    And thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing. 
And I think, hopefully, all of us are interested in the Postal 
Service being able to electrify its fleet as quickly as 
possible, as rationally and as feasible as possible. So, I 
thank you very much for this hearing, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate 
you holding this hearing. I want to thank you and 
Representative Connolly specifically for your work in this 
ongoing effort to try to make sense of what I consider to be a 
nonsensical position of Mr. DeJoy and the U.S. Postal Service.
    Ms. Stephen, since everybody has been coming at you for 
questions and comments and observations, I am going to try to 
do the same thing here, not to pick on you, but to try to get 
more information.
    I understand, as has been said several times, that the U.S. 
Postal Service Office of the Inspector General found that the 
cost of an electric vehicle over 20 years would be 8.5 percent 
lower than that projected of a gas-powered vehicle and the cost 
of that vehicle. And yet, as has been stated here several 
times, Postmaster General DeJoy still argues that electric 
vehicles are not cost effective. Which sounds like fuzzy math 
to me when you have the numbers to prove that they are, and 
then you almost deny those numbers.
    You are not a heart surgeon, and you are certainly not a 
brain surgeon, but Postmaster DeJoy wants to position the 
service, the Postal Service, to compete with companies, as he 
says, such as UPS, FedEx, Amazon. And as has been stated, all 
three of which have made aggressive efforts to electrify their 
fleets. Those are who we are going to be competing with now and 
into the future.
    So, if you could rather subjectively give again some sort 
of explanation as to why the Postal Service is only allocating 
10,000 of the 50,000 in its initial order with Oshkosh, I would 
appreciate your comments and your thoughts.
    Ms. Stephen. Yes, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity 
to address that.
    I think the findings of the OIG, we were really pleased 
when they took a look at our total cost of ownership model and 
developed their own model independently to see some 
consistency, and perhaps we'd be able to hear from the OIG on 
that as well. What the OIG's findings revealed were very, very 
similar to the Postal Service's modeling efforts.
    When we look at the entire fleet, there is not, over the 
course of the 20-year life of that asset, even though it's the 
fuel is cheaper and, in theory, the maintenance is also cheaper 
over that period of time, the savings from fuel and maintenance 
benefits is not sufficient to overcome the higher investment 
value that's required for electric vehicles.
    And so----
    Mr. Mfume. OK. And I kind of thought you were going to say 
that.
    Ms. Stephen. Yep.
    Mr. Mfume. So, let me point out something else if there is 
no cost difference there. The Congress has helped the Postal 
Service fill its coffers with billions of dollars in the last 
few years, and so if there was any shortfall, there is none 
now. In 2020, this Congress approved an emergency $10 billion 
Pandemic Relief Act to your organization, and just this year, 
Congress passed Chairwoman Maloney's Postal Service Reform Act, 
which will relieve the Postal Service of $107 billion in past 
due amounts and future payments.
    So, my current understanding is that the agency has right 
now $24 billion in cash, according to information provided by 
the Treasury. If that is so, why does the Postal Service and 
Mr. DeJoy continue to argue that it is too expensive to 
increase the proportion of electric vehicles in its order with 
Oshkosh? Could you speak to that?
    Ms. Stephen. Certainly. It has to do with our Delivering 
for America plan, our strategic objectives and priorities. The 
vehicle fleet implementation is a portion of those priorities 
and funding requests, but it's a small portion by comparison. 
We've deferred maintenance. We've deferred investments.
    It's not just our vehicles that are long overdue to be 
replaced. There are structural infrastructure-related things 
that are part of what the Postal Service requires to operate 
effectively and efficiently and over the course of decades to 
come.
    Mr. Mfume. Thank you. I want to reclaim my time.
    What we can't defer is what is happening in terms of the 
health of Americans as a result of an enlarging carbon 
footprint that now the United States Postal Service, which 
operates one-third of all the vehicles in the inventory of the 
U.S. Government, continues to ignore or delay or to put aside 
the issues that deal with health. I have here a report from the 
American Lung Association, which points out the dangers of 
going down the path that the Postal Service is currently on by 
refusing to electrify vehicles into the future.
    And they talk about asthma. They talk about lung cancer in 
communities, wheezing and coughing, shortness of breath among 
children, and we know the cardiovascular harm. I could go 
through a long list of things. This is one thing we can't 
defer.
    We cannot assume that people can still get sick, 
chronically or otherwise, because we don't have the foresight 
to recognize the real benefits in moving over time like FedEx 
and Amazon and UPS toward electrical vehicles. So, it just--it 
breaks my heart that there are the reasons which don't stand 
the test in terms of the truth and reasons that are being put 
forth to this committee repeatedly about why it is OK to, 
again, get all these gas guzzlers for the next 20 years, 
putting pollutants into the air, affecting the health of 
people, and engaging us in a cost that could be, as you said, 
deferred or certainly tamped down.
    So, I am adamantly opposed to the position of the Postal 
Service.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
    And without objection, your report will be put in the 
record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. 
Ocasio-Cortez, is now recognized. Thank you.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    Ms. Stephen, in March of this year, the U.S. Postal Service 
placed its first order of Next Generation Delivery Vehicles 
with Oshkosh Defense. Is that correct?
    Ms. Stephen. That's correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And what was that contract, that initial 
contract valued at?
    Ms. Stephen. I think it's been covered in the press. It's 
$2.98 billion for 50,000 vehicles.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, nearly a $3 billion contract that 
the United States Postal Service presently has with a defense 
contractor in order to produce these internal combustion engine 
vehicles--largely, largely. The initial order is for 50,000 
Next Generation Delivery Vehicles, but from what I understand, 
only about 10,000 are actually required to be battery electric 
vehicles. Is that correct?
    Ms. Stephen. That's correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, to summarize, the USPS has 
contracted with Oshkosh Defense and is giving them $3 billion 
to build around 50,000 vehicles, 10,000 of which must be 
battery powered.
    Now, you know, I think one note and element of context that 
is important to mention is that this committee has a long 
bipartisan history of oversight, particularly when it comes to 
defense contracting. And this is one of the very few things 
that we have been able to agree upon in the past. Even when 
former Ranking Member Mark Meadows was here, this was something 
that he--that concerned him, and I hope that our current 
Ranking Member, we can continue to find agreement there.
    Now, Ms. Stephen--and I will say one thing about Oshkosh 
Defense is that they are union. They have union labor. Ms. 
Stephen, would you say that part of the reason, and it was an 
important consideration for Oshkosh Defense that they had a 
unionized work force that the United States and the USPS would 
be contracting with them to potentially work and fulfill this 
contract?
    Ms. Stephen. The solicitation from the Postal Service 
requires domestic production only. It does not require 
particular locations or work force.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes. But was it a favorable element? Did 
Oshkosh mention this? Was it something that was considered? You 
know there are many different contractors that are capable of 
domestic production.
    Ms. Stephen. Sure.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And the President has very clearly 
indicated a preference for union labor in domestic production.
    Ms. Stephen. It is not a contract requirement. Therefore, 
it was not an evaluation criteria or considered.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, it was not considered at all?
    Ms. Stephen. It was not considered in the decision.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And as I understand, Oshkosh Defense 
does have multiple manufacturing facilities in Oshkosh, 
Wisconsin, that are made to build military vehicles. Correct?
    Ms. Stephen. Military and other.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And they have a long history, 
established history of this. We have heard from workers on the 
ground that Oshkosh Defense has the capacity to build these 
vehicles in their existing facilities in Wisconsin, yet we are 
starting to see some troubling reports.
    Madam Chair, for the record, I would like to submit two--
two reports, one from the Journal Times and the other from the 
Herald Journal, ``Spartanburg Fights Back to Keep Oshkosh 
Defense Postal Fleet Project'' and ``Why Oshkosh Corp. Didn't 
Build USPS Vehicles in a Foxconn Facility in Mount Pleasant.''
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I would also like to submit to the 
record a letter from the members of this committee regarding 
concern about the fact that Oshkosh Defense is now moving their 
facilities after they had won the contract.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    Ms. Stephen, are you aware that the announcement that Next 
Generation Delivery Vehicle fleet would be built in South 
Carolina after the Oshkosh Defense initially won the contract 
and having facilities in Wisconsin?
    Ms. Stephen. Yes, the Postal Service was made aware of that 
decision shortly before the public announcement, and it is a 
decision that's at the discretion of the supplier.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, are you aware that Oshkosh Defense 
might be trying to circumvent its longstanding contract with 
the United Auto Workers work force in Wisconsin by essentially 
building a brand-new facility after the contract was awarded in 
a vacant warehouse in South Carolina?
    Ms. Stephen. I have no awareness of that, but I would 
encourage you to have that conversation with Oshkosh.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Is USPS troubled by this timeline at 
all?
    Ms. Stephen. By what----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. By this timeline at all?
    Ms. Stephen. Which timeline are you referring to?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The timeline of the fact that Next Gen--
they had secured Oshkosh. Oshkosh presented the contract with 
their existing facilities. They have union labor. They were 
granted a $3 billion contract under the USPS under the 
leadership of DeJoy, and then after the ink was dry, it looks 
like they are opening up a scab facility in South Carolina with 
no prior history of producing vehicles in that facility.
    Ms. Stephen. So, I think some of the facts about what was 
represented in a proposal are not correct, and I would disagree 
with those assertions.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. And so I would say that USPS is not 
troubled by that timeline?
    Ms. Stephen. I would agree with your statement.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    I now recognize our last speaker, my colleague in Congress, 
Congressman Huffman, who has developed several pieces of 
legislation on this issue and worked with the committee on it.
    Thank you for being here for the whole hearing. You are now 
recognized for your five minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Chair Maloney, thanks so much for allowing me 
to participate and for holding this important hearing.
    I have been leading the charge for postal fleet 
electrification along with my friend Representative Connolly 
for nearly a decade now. I am proud to be cosponsoring the 
Postal Vehicle Modernization Act with you, Chair Maloney, and 
with Representative Connolly. And I am sorry that Congress may 
have to legislate common sense, the same common sense that has 
led all of the Postal Service's private sector competitors to 
move quickly to all EV fleets without asking Congress for any 
money to do it.
    As we have heard from several expert witnesses, the 
business case for doing this is a no-brainer. In fact, with EV 
costs declining, EV technology improving, gas prices soaring, 
and vehicle manufacturers moving away from internal combustion, 
it would be really hard to cook up a model or a business case 
that favors lumbering internal combustion vehicles that get an 
average of 8.6 miles per gallon over EVs, the same EVs that are 
going to be powering fleets at FedEx, Amazon, UPS, and DHS.
    But that is exactly what the Postal Service did with this 
contract and this program, calling for vehicles that are built 
for obsolescence. They will literally be the last internal 
combustion fleet vehicles on the road 20 years from now.
    So, Ms. Stephen, you testified that the Postal Service's 
sensitivity analysis on gas prices let you double the initial 
order of EVs to just over 10,000. Does this mean that you are 
also doubling the total fleet purchase from 10 percent to 20 
percent?
    Ms. Stephen. When you refer to the total fleet purchase, 
are you referring to the 50,000? Just so that I'm clear.
    Mr. Huffman. The entire contract, the entire contract.
    Ms. Stephen. Oh, no. This is specific to this initial 
investment decision. We've made this contract for 50,000.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. That is what I thought, and if the 
only change is a slight increase to the initial order, it is 
hard to see how this sensitivity analysis has really changed 
much. It seems more like a reaction to the public criticism and 
political pressure that you have been getting over buying 
vehicles that will get 8.6 miles to the gallon.
    Ms. Naamane, you testified that under the model GAO 
reviewed, the Postal Service was showing higher maintenance 
costs for EVs. Ms. Stephen just testified that that is 
incorrect. It misunderstands the data. And so let me ask you, 
were you correct when you said after reviewing the USPS model 
it showed higher maintenance costs for EVs?
    Ms. Naamane. This is one of the inconsistencies that we've 
seen in the information that we've gotten so far from the 
Postal Service. The--some of the information, including what 
Ms. Stephen said today, is that the maintenance costs would be 
less for electric vehicles. However, when we looked at the 
formula in the model itself, in the Excel spreadsheet that 
we've received of the model, we don't see that in--in that 
formula. We see a different amount that's used in that model 
that indicates that the maintenance costs would be higher.
    So there's--definitely, it's an iterative process, our 
ongoing work, and we'll get additional information from the 
Postal Service and make our final conclusions.
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Britton, in your colloquy with Representative Wasserman 
Schultz, you highlighted another important discrepancy, the 
assumption by the Postal Service that the start and stop nature 
of many routes favored internal combustion engines when, in 
fact, it is a strong selling point for EVs. Correct?
    Mr. Britton. That's correct.
    Mr. Huffman. And then there is the problem with the Postal 
Service assumptions about EV range, a 70-mile vehicle range. In 
your extensive work in this field, including the vehicles that 
companies like GM, Ford, and Rivian are providing to private 
fleets, did USPS use the correct assumption about battery 
range?
    Mr. Britton. No, it is far inconsistent with what we're 
seeing in the marketplace, and I'll give you a couple examples. 
The Ford E-Transit van gets nearly 2 miles per kilowatt hour in 
the battery pack. The Workhorse C-Series gets 1.5 miles per 
kilowatt hour in the battery pack. The Arrival van that is 
being contracted with UPS gets 1.7 miles per kilowatt hour in 
the battery pack.
    The USPS assumption is that this vehicle gets 7/10 of a 
mile per kilowatt hour in the battery pack. The only other 
vehicle that we have seen that has that inefficient of an 
electric drive train would be a Class A tractor-trailer or semi 
truck fully weighted down. It is impossible----
    Mr. Huffman. Got it. And if the----
    Mr. Britton [continuing]. That a last-mile delivery truck--
--
    Mr. Huffman. And if the model used the correct range 
assumption, wouldn't that significantly affect the total cost 
of ownership analysis, including the number of charging 
stations needed to support these vehicles?
    Mr. Britton. That's correct. You would not need nearly as 
many charging stations as the Postal Service is asserting.
    Mr. Huffman. And Ms. Naamane, you also flagged another 
problem that the Postal Service initially didn't account for 
the amount of air conditioning used in the real world. And when 
you correct for that, the performance drops to 8.6 miles to the 
gallon on average. Correct?
    Ms. Naamane. Right. That's--that's another thing that we 
saw in the model that we received from the Postal Service, that 
the fuel efficiency used was around 15 miles per gallon, which 
is the efficiency when the air conditioning isn't running, and 
it's less when the air conditioning is running. We've heard 
from the Postal Service that there is another place in the 
model that may account for the use of the air conditioning, and 
so that's something else that we'll be continuing to look at in 
our ongoing work.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have learned a lot 
today about errors and discrepancies that seem to go right to 
the heart of this unusual decision that is so at odds with what 
the private sector is doing.
    Thanks so much for this important hearing.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, thank you for waiving on and all 
of your hard work, along with all the committee members, on 
this issue. Thank you so much. You made a very valuable 
contribution.
    I would now like to submit for the record an important 
statement from Senator Carper on this critical hearing.
    So ordered.
    Chairwoman Maloney. And I would like to submit to the 
record a new U.N. report--it literally came out just 
yesterday--that makes clear that divesting from fossil fuels is 
critical, and they warned that without immediate action 
shifting from fossil fuels, we will not be able to keep global 
warming to acceptable levels.
    So, this is a critically important report. I urge everyone 
to read it. And without objection, it now becomes part of our 
record.
    Chairwoman Maloney. I would now like to call upon my 
colleague--thank him again for his valuable input on the reform 
bill for the Post Office--for his closing statement.
    Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    And again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here. 
And I want to be very clear. Republicans do not oppose electric 
vehicles. In fact, we do not oppose electrifying some of the 
U.S. Postal fleet.
    We raise a very valid concern, and I appreciate Mr. Stein's 
testimony today and the questions he answered. The policies of 
the Biden administration and his son Hunter have put us at a 
severe competitive disadvantage to China in the world battery 
market, which is essential to electrifying the Postal fleet and 
electrifying the everyday, average vehicle.
    It is a worthy cause to try to--to try to transfer from 
fossil fuels to electric vehicles, but the policies in the 
Biden administration are making that even more difficult than 
the economics of it. For example, the Biden administration war, 
war on coal is making it more difficult to mine coal and to 
burn coal. I know that from being from a coal-burning state and 
a coal-producing state.
    You have to have coal to make electricity. You also have to 
have natural gas to make electricity. We have a lot of problems 
with our energy policy in America from the Biden 
administration, and it is going to make electrifying vehicles 
even more difficult.
    I know a lot of Democrats think that if the average 
American is upset with the high prices of gasoline, due 
primarily to the Biden administration policies, then the 
solution is very simple. According to Democrats, just go buy an 
electric vehicle.
    We don't have the infrastructure to electrify the fleet, 
and I appreciate the Inspector General, and I look forward to 
working with you in the future on Postal issues. She mentioned 
in her testimony that in some of her analysis, it was cheaper 
in some areas to electrify the vehicle. I am going to go out on 
a limb and say those were the urban areas.
    And my colleagues on the left that are advocating for 
electrifying the Postal fleet and mentioned the private sector, 
UPS and FedEx, and electrifying some of their fleet, those are 
in the cities. If you close your eyes and you imagine the 
Presidential map of the last four Presidential elections, you 
see blue on the East Coast, blue on the West Coast, and a few 
blue dots around America. And the rest of that map is red.
    That red area like where I represent, where we represent, 
we just don't believe that those rural areas are ready and have 
the infrastructure for the postal fleet to be electrified. The 
routes are longer. There are many more challenges than in the 
more compact urban areas.
    So, we have a long way to go in America to electrify the 
Postal fleet. Besides, this committee's jurisdiction and this 
committee's role, Madam Chair, is to save money. But yet every 
policy and every committee hearing from my friends on the left 
involve spending more money. When the Government spends too 
much money, we have this thing called inflation. And that is 
another challenge we have in America.
    And last, the role of the Postal Service, right now we need 
to focus on delivering the mail on time and doing it at a 
break-even cost. That is why we supported the postal reform 
bill.
    I am very excited about the bill signing ceremony tomorrow, 
Madam Chair, very excited about the Postal Service. I think 
many of you know my grandmother spent her whole career as a 
mail carrier, a rural mail carrier. I love the Post Office. I 
am committed to saving the Post Office.
    But we need to focus on improving the performance at the 
Post Office and trying to get the Post Office to operate at a 
break-even level because Congress is not going to continue to 
provide bailouts to the Postal Service.
    So, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back and look forward 
to many more discussions about the Postal Service in the 
future.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and I thank 
him for his participation today.
    I want to thank everyone who participated. As we heard 
today, the Postal Service can and must increase the number of 
electric vehicles that it purchases. As the United Nations 
warned just yesterday--couldn't be more on point for what we 
are talking about today at this hearing--the time to combat 
climate change is absolutely now. And the best way to do it is 
to burn less oil and gas.
    And the Postal Service cannot ignore its responsibility to 
reduce the environmental impact of its fleet. The United 
Nations says if we don't do this, we are facing dire, dire 
consequences. And relying on gas guzzlers is also bad for 
business, which is why the major automakers, the private 
sector, and the Postal Service's competitors are all moving to 
electric vehicles. Most of them already have.
    We have heard from our witnesses today, including the 
nonpartisan GAO, that the Postal Service based its decision to 
buy tens of thousands of gas-guzzling trucks on faulty, wrong 
assumptions. The Postal Service used gas prices that are just 
half of what they are today and climbing.
    They claimed electric vehicles cost more to maintain than 
gas trucks. I have never heard that anywhere except for in the 
testimony today, the exact opposite of the evidence and the 
science and really the testimoneys of everybody here today. And 
they ignored the benefit of lower emissions from taking 
thousands of gasoline engines off the road, improving our 
environment. And the scientists are saying this will save lives 
of Americans.
    I am very pleased and thankful to the Post Office and their 
services today, and Ms. Stephen, in her testimony, thank you 
for committing to provide this committee with the analysis that 
the Post Office used to determine how many EVs to purchase. But 
it is clear that the Post Office needs to go back to the 
drawing board.
    Today, I call on the Postal Service to listen to the 
concerns of the Inspector General, the EPA, the GAO, and this 
entire committee and conduct a new environmental impact study 
and new cost estimate for electric vehicles. And if Oshkosh is 
overcharging the Postal Service for EVs, they should 
immediately renegotiate to a better price for America.
    Finally, let me briefly respond to the repeated attempts by 
my Republican colleagues to hijack this hearing to score cheap 
political points that have nothing to do with health, 
environment, or Postal Service. I will not play that political 
game.
    I intend to keep this committee focused on delivering for 
the American people. I will not relent until the Postal Service 
finally follows the private sector's lead and begins a real 
transition to an electric fleet. Going electric is imperative 
for our environment, for the Postal Service's bottom line, and 
for our national security at a time when Putin is using fossil 
fuels to finance atrocities against the people in Ukraine.
    I want to sincerely thank all of my colleagues who 
participated today and each of the witnesses for your valuable 
testimony, your productive conversation.
    And I would say that we as a committee, we as a Congress, 
we as a country, have a singular opportunity right now before 
us to choose to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, lower our 
costs, protect our economy, and help save the planet. What is 
not to like about going to electric vehicles? There are so many 
wins for our country.
    I want to thank everybody, and in closing, I want to thank 
particularly our panelists again for their remarks. And I want 
to commend my colleagues for participating in this important 
conversation.
    And with that, without objection, all members have five 
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials 
and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to 
the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their 
response.
    I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you 
are able.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]