[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRACKING THE POSTAL SERVICE:
AN UPDATE ON THE DELIVERING
FOR AMERICA PLAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
AND THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 17, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-34
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-244 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
_________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Bill Womack, Senior Advisor
Lauren Hassett, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations and the Federal Workforce
Pete Sessions, Texas, Chairman
Gary Palmer, Alabama Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Ranking
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Minority Member
Andy Biggs, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Byron Donalds, Florida Columbia
William Timmons, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Greg Casar, Texas
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Becca Balint, Vermont
Eric Burlison, Missouri Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Jasmine Crockett, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 17, 2023..................................... 1
Witnesses
----------
The Honorable Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States
Postal Service
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Written opening statements and the statement for the witness are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Article, Government Executive, ``Postal Police Won a
Grievance, but They're Unlikely to Patrol''; submitted by Rep.
Balint.
* Article, National Interest, ``Stop Fentanyl Shippers From
Exploiting the U.S. Postal System''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Report, GAO, May 2022, ``CBP Could Improve How It Categorizes
Drug Seizure Data and Evaluates Training''; submitted by Rep.
Biggs.
* Article, KeepUSPosted.org, ``Keep US Posted Challenges Stamp
Hikes with New Analysis Ahead of Congressional Hearing'';
submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Letter, from Keep US Posted to Rep. Sessions and Rep. Mfume,
May 17, 2023; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Report, NDP Analytics, ``The USPS Strategic Plan, Delivering
for America: An Evaluation of Key Metrics and
Vulnerabilities''; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Letter, to Postmaster General DeJoy from Rep. Mfume, Rep.
Connolly, and Rep. Raskin, May 16, 2023; submitted by Rep.
Mfume.
* Statement for the Record, Coalition for a 21st Century Postal
Service; submitted by Rep. Sessions.
* Rep. Connolly Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep.
Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Sessions.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Burlison.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Mfume.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Casar.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Lynch.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
TRACKING THE POSTAL SERVICE:
AN UPDATE ON THE DELIVERING
FOR AMERICA PLAN
----------
Wednesday, May 17, 2023
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on Government Operations
and the Federal Workforce
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pete Sessions
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Sessions, Palmer, Higgins, Biggs,
Timmons, Burchett, Boebert, Fry, Edwards, Burlison, Mfume,
Norton, Frost, Casar, Connolly, Stansbury, Garcia, Balint, Lee,
and Crockett.
Also present: Representatives Comer, Duncan, Mace,
LaTurner, Barragan, Raskin, and Lynch.
Mr. Sessions. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Government
Operations and the Federal Workforce will come to order, and I
would like to welcome everybody to this important Subcommittee
hearing.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
We also have a number of Members who are seeking to be
waved on today's hearing. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, as well as Ms. Mace from South
Carolina, both Members of the full Committee on Oversight and
Accountability, will be waved in today.
Also, we have the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Duncan, a Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who has
asked to be a part of this today, as well as the gentleman from
California, Mr. Barragan, will be waved on the Subcommittee for
the purpose of questioning today's hearing.
Mr. Duncan. It is Ms. Barragan.
Mr. Sessions. Excuse me, it is. Thank you. Ms. Barragan.
And I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
First of all, let me welcome our Postmaster General. The
General and I spent some time last week where we were preparing
the testimony and the operational needs of today, and I found
that the Postmaster General is very open and very thankful for
the opportunity of the legislation that was passed last year on
a bipartisan basis not only from the House of Representatives,
but also U.S. Senate, and signed by the President of the United
States.
This is a 10-year plan. It is a 10-year plan that has
goals. It has understandings, and I told the Postmaster General
that while there will be people, including myself, that have
issues and ideas with the Postal Service, that we believe that
the plan that has begun, that he is responsible for
implementing and will be held accountable for that. Not just by
meeting with us in this Subcommittee, but also the full
Committee and as he runs into Members of Congress, there will
be people that provide him feedback.
But nonetheless, in May 2020, Louis DeJoy became our
Postmaster General, and I appreciate him for his service. His
background of running large operations has become apparent. His
ability to effectively grab this issue is important.
He inherited a Postal Service that was some 60 days away
from running out of cash, an organization in desperate need of
modernization. Since his arrival, he has taken that issue on.
Obviously, when you are doing this, you need a plan. You need a
plan that you are willing to tell people you are a part of,
your employees that you are a part of, and work with your
employees and the American public to make happen.
He has been before this Committee. He has been forthright
of his desire to try and do the things that are in not only the
Postal Service's best interest, but also the American people.
And we appreciate him being here.
I think it is important to remember that the Postal Service
is subject to economic and market forces about as much as any
organization in this country. It stretches across this country.
Fuel prices, labor issues, the things that--growth and the
changes in marketplace are all part of what this Postmaster
General has to work with while maintaining the delivery of
mail, which is the mission of the Post Office.
So, a lot of things are not necessarily their fault, but
they are part of conditions that happen. So, I happen to see
progress, and I express my confidence in not only the
Postmaster General to continue on his plan. Because he believes
that if he does this, it will lead to better outcomes that are
stated as goals in the legislation.
But really, I appreciate his tenacity to be forthright
about addressing problems. The General knows that today there
are going to be Members of Congress who are going to provide
him important feedback. Feedback, some that represent
communities that are in growth and others that are in demise.
Things that are problematic to your employees, we hear about
those, too, General. But we know that you are the right man for
the job, and I appreciate you taking time to be before this
Subcommittee, willing to stay at the table, willing to listen,
and willing to learn both ways, us from you and you from us.
So, we appreciate you being here and hearing from us.
I now would recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman
from Maryland, for the purpose of making an opening statement.
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Good morning to my colleagues. Good morning, Mr. DeJoy.
I want to thank Chair Sessions for jointly convening this.
I think it is extremely important that we have a chance to talk
and to follow up on a number of things that concern Members of
this Committee with respect to the United States Postal
Service.
As we convene today's Subcommittee on Government Operations
and the Workforce, I want to emphasize the latter half of that
title of that name, the Federal Workforce. Last week,
Congressman Connolly of this Committee, Congressman
Fitzpatrick, and myself co-led a resolution designating the
week to honor our Nation's public servants, including postal
workers all across America and even in our own congressional
districts.
So, thank you for keeping the Government running, all of
you who are Federal workers. Your hard work, your sacrifices do
not go unrecognized by this Committee.
The former Chair of this Subcommittee continuously led
valiant efforts to acknowledge and to appreciate our public
servants and is a fierce defender and supporter of the Federal
work force. Congressman Connolly, I just want to say to him--
and I know most of you join me in saying that the attack on his
staff earlier this week is weighing heavily on his mind. It is
weighing heavily on the minds of all of us. Whether we are
Democrats or Republicans, we are all equally devastated by the
senseless violence that occurred, and we are all praying for
his team's speedy recoveries.
Mr. DeJoy, welcome back to this Committee. The last time
you were here, we were all masked up, as we all remember. And
although we have had our differences in the past, I am looking
forward to a fruitful discussion this morning.
Throughout the pandemic, Baltimore, which I represent, and
much of Maryland's Seventh congressional District had the worst
on-time delivery in the Nation by far. Now that mail delivery
is improving, Maryland is experiencing one of the worst spikes
in mail theft, particularly in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy
Chase, Maryland.
Moreover, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service reports that
robberies of postal carriers have increased by 78 percent,
resulting in nearly 500 robberies alone in 2022, which I find
absolutely amazing. Most of us grew up in an America where
postal carriers were not being robbed.
Criminals who commit robberies of Postal Service letter
carriers are specifically, we believe, looking for one thing--
the so-called ``arrow keys,'' which grant access to most
mailboxes across an entire zip code associated with that key.
This provides bad actors with ample opportunities to steal
checks and to rewrite them to withdraw excessive amounts of
money from a victim's bank account and further victimizes mail
recipients to other potential crimes.
So, we are here for a number of things, but we are also
here about this. I am concerned about the thousands of dollars
that a single family could lose if a check is stolen and
oftentimes is. And I am concerned about the safety of our hard-
working postal carriers by senseless criminals who we have to
find, prosecute, and send off to jail.
Now to cut these costs, the Postal Service, as I
understand, has increased its reliability on the private sector
to deliver mail. The results, for lack of a better term, have
proven to be--and I do not use this lightly--results have often
been fatal. In the past three years alone, third-party trucking
companies have been involved in 68 fatal crashes, which have
cost the lives of 79 people.
We expect that the Postal Service will take its job
seriously to deliver our mail securely and safely, and yet it
appears that the Postal Service cannot guarantee fully the
safety of individuals and, in some instances, seems to have
prioritized cost-saving strategies above the safety that I have
just mentioned and the people who have lost their lives through
these third-party carriers.
Our postal carriers must be assured that their employer,
which is you, Mr. DeJoy, is implementing all strategies and
focusing all resources necessary to ensure the safety of its
carriers and the timeliness of the mail that they are charged
with delivering. That is why Ranking Member Raskin, Congressman
Connolly, and myself sent a letter to the Postmaster General
requesting the Postal Service's detailed response to this
alarming threat that we are all facing, and particularly that
600,000 postal employees could possibly face who are just doing
their job.
And so, Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous consent that we
submit that letter for the record.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection, it will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, sir.
I look forward, Mr. DeJoy, to all of your responses today.
Since the USPS 2021 implementation of the 10-year plan,
that we all had a lot of discourse and discussion around, 54
million Americans entrusted their Postal Service to deliver
just last year their mid-term election ballots securely, on
time, per first-class standards, which is now classified within
one to five days. And while the Postal Service delivered 99
percent of mail-in ballots on time, we are still concerned that
640,000 arrived late.
Now we can quibble over whether or not 99 percent or 100
percent is the goal. I just know that it is a tough job, and I
want to commend the men and women that took that seriously,
because there was a lot of concern about whether or not those
ballots would be delivered as they should be.
Congress has stepped in, as we all know, to address the
financial challenges through the enactment of the bipartisan
Postal Reform Act of 2022, which, fortunately, provided
significant financial relief to the Postal Service and
eliminated many of the archaic requirements to prefund Postal
Service retiree health benefits and moved postal retirees into
Medicare.
So, there is a lot that we want to talk about. Mr. DeJoy, I
want to, again, in advance thank you for your testimony, for
your appearance here. I am looking forward to hearing more
about those things and many of the other things that many of us
on this Committee may not be aware of.
The Chair and I are also charged with conducting true and
meaningful oversight. So, I would implore you to overcome the
challenges that you face by sharing with us as much as you can
so that we might be partners in that process.
I want to thank the Chair, and I want to yield back any
time that I would have remaining.
Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Mr.
Mfume, thank you very much.
We do need to remember that today is about the men and
women, the veterans, the people who are part of, not just the
Postal Service, but support the Postal Service. We also need to
remember our friends in the Capitol Hill Police, who are
providing us the safety that we need.
But with that said, I would like to yield for the gentleman
the time he would need, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, who is a Member of this Committee and Subcommittee,
for any remarks he would like to make. The gentleman is
recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me thank you and my friend, Mr. Mfume, for the
heartfelt comments.
And I just want to take a moment to thank all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have been here 15
years, and I do not think I have ever experienced just the
collapse of partisanship over a human issue. And I cannot tell
you how much I and my staff appreciate that. Talking with
Hakeem Jeffries, talking with Kevin McCarthy, talking with
Steve Scalise, and so many, many colleagues offering to help
and express support for an unprovoked violent incident.
And Mr. DeJoy, one of the heroes in this story was actually
the postman. He came to the office while the attack was going
on, and it startled the assailant, and that allowed the woman
who was being beaten on the head to escape. And he is sort of
an unsung hero in our story.
So, I just want to express that gratitude to my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle for their consideration and very
sympathetic response to what is a very difficult situation.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Sessions. Congressman Connolly, thank you very much.
And as you know, there are people on this Committee who have
expressed sorrow for what happened, but we also today
recognize, Mr. DeJoy, one of your own may have saved what could
have been a worse circumstance. So, thank you very much.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Over here. I may
be out of order. Would it be inappropriate to offer a prayer up
for those in Brother Connolly's office that were injured? Would
that be appropriate or not?
Mr. Sessions. If the gentleman would wish to make a
statement, I will recognize the gentleman.
Mr. Burchett. All right. Well, my statement will be a
prayer. If you want to bow your head, that is fine.
Dear Lord, we thank you for this body. We thank you for the
men and women that are here. We ask your healing hands upon
these folks that were injured in Brother Connolly's office, and
we ask that, the Great Physician that you are, that you heal
them in body, soul, and spirit.
And we thank you for everything you have given us, Lord. In
Christ's name, I pray. Amen.
Mr. Sessions. Amen. And thank you. And I thank the
gentleman. The gentleman yields back his time.
I would like to, if I can, before we welcome the Postmaster
General, to acknowledge the Chairman of the Committee, Mr.
Comer, the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
being here today and for your instructive nature that you began
from the time you were Ranking Member to Chairman of providing
the confidence to the Postal Service that we can work on these
issues.
Also, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin. I want to
thank the Ranking Member and thank him for taking time to be
here for this important time.
Louis DeJoy was appointed the 75th Postmaster General of
the United States and Chief Executive Officer of the U.S.
Postal Service in June 2020. Prior to becoming Postmaster
General, he had 35 years of experience managing a successful
nationwide logistics company. Postmaster DeJoy developed the
Delivering for America plan, which is signed into law, a 10-
year improvement plan to make the Postal Service financially
stable without compromising its mission to deliver mail. As a
matter of fact, in the legislation, there are very specific
goals that have been established that the General is aware of.
So, I want to thank him for being here today. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 9(g), the witness will now please rise and raise
their right hand.
Mr. DeJoy, welcome. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that
the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
[Response.]
Mr. Sessions. Let the record reflect that the gentleman--
our witness answered in the affirmative.
Mr. DeJoy, thank you. We appreciate you being here today
and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witness
that we have read your written statement, and it will appear in
the full record.
Please limit your oral testimony to five minutes because, I
assure you, you will be here until probably 2 [o'clock] this
afternoon to answer our questions. And as a reminder, please
press the button on the microphone in front of you so that it
is on, and the Members can hear you.
And we ask that you would, as the Members do, politely
confine your comments to those things, and then when the light
comes back on, we will ask that you finish those questions.
I recognize the Postmaster General for his opening
statement. The gentleman is now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS DEJOY
POSTMASTER GENERAL
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you, Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member
Mfume, Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Raskin. Thank you for
having me today to appear before the Committee for an update on
the Delivering for America plan.
I have submitted as part of my written testimony our
recently released two-year DFA progress report, which contains
good news on our progress concerning DFA and the PSRA
implementation. It highlights that simultaneously with
transforming the organization, we have improved our service,
stabilized our work force, expanded our capacity, started to
modernize our nationwide network, and just two years into a 10-
year plan, we have cut in half our projected financial losses.
When I arrived here in June 2020, besides being in the
middle of a pandemic and in a highly sensationalized political
environment, the financial, operational, and organizational
condition of the Postal Service had so deteriorated that its
continued ability to serve the Nation was in significant
jeopardy. The perilous condition was the result of 15 years of
posturing, complacency, legislation, regulation, misplaced
actions, and inactions that focused on narrow, parochial
interests and that failed to confront the cataclysmic events
that faced the Postal Service.
This collective failure accumulated to produce the
catastrophic consequence the organization was then facing. Most
surprisingly, nowhere to be found was any comprehensive plan to
put the Postal Service on the right track for the future, even
though the alarms and bells had been ringing for more than a
decade.
I was aware of these conditions when I accepted the
Postmaster General position, offered by a bipartisan Board of
Governors who had a charge to fix the Postal Service. So why am
I bringing these conditions up now? I want to ensure that we
have our eyes wide open about the magnitude of the problem that
we need to fix, that we acknowledge the reasons why it is so
imperative that we make the kind of significant, transformative
changes that are outlined in the Delivering for America plan
and that we remain vigilant not to repeat those mistakes of the
past.
So, how have we done so far? In a very difficult
environment during the pandemic, facing extreme demands for
service and at the height of our financial and operational
erosion, I worked in tandem with my leadership team and with
the support of our Board of Governors to develop and introduce
the Delivering for America plan, and we all got working on it.
Today, we are in a substantially better position than we
were just over two years ago. We have made great success
pursuing the objectives of the DFA plan, and our whole
organization is energetically and collaboratively deploying
professional tactics that will continue to improve our
operational precision, reduce our cost of performance, increase
our service reliability, grow our revenue, and provide long-
term, enjoyable career paths for all our employees.
Some specific accomplishments I would like to highlight are
as follows. Since the release of the plan, service has improved
to where 98 percent of the population receives their mail and
packages within three days. First-class mail and packages take
an average of 2 1/2 days from origin to destination.
The Postal Service has delivered on two successful peak
seasons and worked successfully with the Biden Administration
and Health and Human Services to deliver 700 million COVID test
kits to the American public. These accomplishments demonstrate
our ability to quickly ramp up to meet the critical delivery
needs of our Nation for both commercial purposes and in our
Government capacity and in response to national and local
emergencies as part of the country's critical infrastructure.
We have delivered excellent performance on every election,
including the highly energized 2020 election, which took place
when I first arrived. In that regard, we admirably have
fulfilled our role on multiple occasions as part of the
Nation's electoral process whenever election officials or
voters chose to utilize us.
We have improved the quality of our career prospects for
our work force by converting over 125,000 employees from pre-
career to full time, and we have improved the quality of their
work lives by implementing enhancements to their workplaces and
working conditions to help our employees to succeed so they can
help us to achieve success.
And most importantly, we are a different organization with
a different leadership and management team that is deploying
robust and comprehensive strategies that will continue to
sponsor our improvement and transform our culture to one that
leads us to world-class performance. And I am very proud of the
accomplishments of our management team, our board, our union
and management association leaders, and the women and men of
the United States Postal Service.
I am also excited to continue our work together to finish
what we have started, bringing new life to our cherished
organization and tackling the remaining problems we have so we
can continue to serve the American people for another 250
years.
Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and Members of the
Committee, I thank you for your support, and I look forward to
answering the Committee's questions.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. DeJoy, thank you very much.
I believe your opening statement and the conversations,
which you openly have with not only all Members of Congress,
but in particular this Subcommittee and those who have waved
on, is important to note that there are many of these factors
that seemingly come into your purview that are difficult tasks,
but some that require personal attention and a continued part
of your plan.
It is not lost on any of us that there are economic
conditions that impede your ability to make changes, but there
are also day-to-day operational issues, which we believe need
to be addressed. Today, you are going to hear from Members of
Congress who bring to you and your team very specific examples
of items.
I have had, within the congressional district that I am
elected to represent--in Travis County, Texas, which is
Austin--for my entire service in Texas, 17 problems. And they
seem to be around what would be friendly to a robber or a
thief, these large, effective for your service to handle a
neighborhood, but make themselves a target.
Can you provide me or this Subcommittee with any insight
into how you view these large mailboxes that--and I am not sure
what you call them. But these large areas that then can be
broken into and hundreds of packages can be stolen. And then
that, correspondingly, the need to have people in those areas
have to go to the post office, stand in line, and then the
replacement therein.
This is a part of the crime problem that you have to deal
with. Sir, do you have any comment about that specific area?
Mr. DeJoy. I do. I do. So, you are referring to what we
would call cluster boxes, which were decided in 2012 by the
organization, to put into newly developing areas as our mail
volume was coming down significantly. It was the beginning of
the--right after the Great Recession. We were losing $10
billion a year, and the management was looking for ways of
continuing to get mail into communities but start to limit the
amount of travel a carrier had to do to get the mail there
because the volume was dropping significantly.
Cluster boxes were effective for mail, and effective at a
time when crime was less. We are evaluating--and it is a
continuing, it is probably the largest number of phone calls I
actually get about neighborhoods who want post boxes instead of
cluster boxes. This is something that we will look at as we
move forward and a big part of our delivery business becomes
package-oriented also.
But they are targets, just like the blue box is a target.
Just like any access to our system is, in fact, a target we
need to defend again. We are looking at different types of
double validation in keys, because of stealing the locks,
stealing our keys has been an ongoing problem for a number of
years, and we are addressing that now. Forty thousand new locks
coming into play. That will be tied to our carriers' handheld
device for double validation, and it could also be turned off.
So that is some of it. We are looking at hardening our
boxes. But some of these they take chainsaws to. I mean, it is
pretty deliberate.
But we recognize and I recognize that our success is the
ability of people to conduct commerce through the Postal
Service, and crime and lawlessness has always been throughout
history a deterrent to commerce. And we are looking at a number
of ways of trying to address both the residential appeal of
having a cluster box or not, which is strictly for commercial
purposes from our standpoint, or from the safety and sanctity
of the mail and the people and our carriers.
So, it is something we briefed a committee of Congress last
week on some of the initiatives that we are rolling out, and
that is going to be become an expanding part of our daily
discussions is how do we--how do we address this?
I would ask that much of this has to do with the attention
to the crime, that the crime gets when we do, in fact, catch
people. Mail crime is not--although it is a Federal crime, it
is not one of the things prosecutors run to prosecute, and all
of this plays into the whole situation that creates the really
increasing nature of these happenings.
Mr. Sessions. General, thank you. I believe that your
insistence on being open about the discussion of this issue,
your openness to the frailties that are perceived not only by
local law enforcement, but also making sure that we get to a
better answer, will help us get there. And I appreciate your
discussion.
I will be pleased to stay with you on this issue. I thank
the gentleman.
I now would yield five minutes to the gentleman, Mr. Mfume,
the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeJoy, I want to go back to the announcement of steps
to reduce postal crime that the Postal Service announced last
week, and a key part of that is the replacement of the so-
called arrow locks, which are the kind of blue box skeleton key
that I talked about earlier.
I am glad to hear that somebody is thinking now about a
double validation effort. Can you tell me or this Committee, in
addition to that, though, are there other safety measures that
are being thought of, electronically or otherwise, that might
get us to where we need to be? Even if it is thumbprint
recognition by carriers.
Mr. DeJoy. So, one of the things that we are doing is
looking at ways of hardening our boxes, and that is we have
11,000 new ones that are rolling out this summer. And we are
looking at buying another 20,000 coming forward. That will just
harden the access, and we will also have these new entry
devices, combination entry devices.
We are exploring, with regard to the key, another option
that kind of makes the--I forget which one it is--so either the
box dumb or the key dumb on a daily basis, and then we--through
electronic communication, we revalidate the entry process of
the--of the key.
So, our engineering team, along with our retail and
delivery team, are working, and it is up--you know, I get
briefed on it, a number of different options to prevent basic
key access, which is a lot. And key access, the--a big reason
for some of the carrier, the crime against carriers is to
actually steal--steal the key.
I mean, these keys are on the dark web for $5,000, $6,000,
$7,000 a key, you know, to purchase the key. So, we need to
race through getting out of those. This delivery that is coming
through right now, I signed off on about a year ago. We have
had supply chain issues in getting, you know, this equipment
into the marketplace.
But those are the two big things, the keys and hardening
the device itself, the collection boxes. We have--with this
recent announcement, we have put teams out into the community,
into several communities to surveil and work with local law
enforcement to try and make sure that we identify hotspot areas
that we know have been frequently, repetitively throughout the
year, we have had locations that have been, you know, attacked
over five times, six times a year.
So, working that and working with our employees and
communities, asking people to be more alert to these things.
Mr. Mfume. And let me ask you. I mentioned earlier in my
opening remarks the trouble that we have been experiencing in
Baltimore, both in terms of delivery, which has started to ebb
somewhat, but also in terms of these attacks on postal
employees. And then I had mentioned particularly in other
places in Maryland, like Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Potomac, a new
increase going on.
Can you give us a sense of when you expect to have all of
these locks installed, and how you are doing that? Is it based
on the crime figures? Is it based on the region? Or is it based
on something else that you are getting from postal carriers?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. So, we--the quantity of locations that we
have boxes is in the millions, and the delivery--I mean, we
are--the delivery pace is very dependent on the supply chain.
So, this is a several-year project to get--to tighten up
everything the way we need to do it.
And it won't--it's not going to be complete without some
combined effort on reducing crime in these particular areas.
With regard to how and where they go, it is interesting. Postal
crime does not necessarily match all the time what community
crime is.
Areas where there tends to be more high value in postal
boxes is where these trained thieves and lawbreakers go. With
some sophisticated processes, they even reroute mail in many
cases. So, that is something. Inspection Service works in a
very detailed manner with our delivery units, and we have good
visibility on crime and incidents that happen and also the--it
will take several years to get to a place where you and I would
both be happy with it.
Mr. Mfume. Just one other thing because my time is running
short. I had mentioned earlier that Ranking Member Raskin,
myself, Mr. Connolly, had written this letter to you, which I
assume you received, because we are really concerned about the
600,000 postal employees who are just trying to do their job,
who are coming up against all sorts of violence. I do not know
that in the last 48 hours, you have had a chance to put
together or cobble together a response. But off the cuff, could
you just speak and tell us as a preview, what you think that
response might look like?
Mr. DeJoy. Sir, to be honest with you, I was not in the
office yesterday when it came in, and I have not had a chance
to really digest it. So, I would hesitate to give a response.
But in general, with regards to crime and protecting our
employees, I, too, am very concerned about the exposure of our
employees to the criminal aspects that are occurring throughout
the Nation. We----
Mr. Mfume. Mr. DeJoy, my time is up. But can you tell us
when we might expect that?
Mr. DeJoy. Quickly.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you. OK.
Mr. DeJoy. Ten days, less than 10 days.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you
very much for the direct question, direct answer.
The gentleman, the young gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Burchett, is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I
appreciate your all's leadership on this issue. I consider you
all both good folks and good friends.
Mr. DeJoy, I think the last time we talked, I yelled at
you. So, I will try not to do that this time. I am very
passionate about my constituents and the problems that they are
having. And thank you for being here.
I want to start by discussing some issues my constituents
continue to have with the United States Postal Service. These
are folks in Knoxville, and they cannot get mail picked up or
delivered for over a week. In some instances, businesses cannot
send invoices and receive payments. And since I have been in
Congress, it just seems to progressively get worse. I do not
know if that is due to my leadership or what, but mail delays
are hurting families and small businesses in our community.
How is the Delivering for America plan addressing service
performance?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, sir, first of all, I am not aware of the
particular problems in Knoxville, but I can give you a
description of where we have issues or how they are happening.
But I will say the Delivering for America plan is having a
tremendously positive impact on mail delivery.
Today, 98 percent--as I said in my opening remarks, 98
percent of the American population, 98 percent receive their
mail and packages within three days. Fifty percent of the
mail--first-class mail and packages--get delivered a day in
advance. So, we have--when I got here, the network is what was
really holding up and--you know?
And when you look at next-day, a day late on the service
standards that we have, if you are a day late, it is 99 percent
of mail and packages get delivered.
Now, we have our retail--our retail--we fixed a lot in the
network. It is costly, but we fixed it, and it is running, and
everything is--everything is moving. There is no longer a
``tail of the mail,'' which was about 10 days when I got here.
Our retail and delivery networks throughout the land were the
most impacted by the pandemic and where--I mean, they're
massive, 31,000 retail centers, 19,000 delivery units, almost
300,000 carriers going to 165 million delivery points.
The more certain--so this is an area where we had a
tremendous amount of turnover, changing population habits. More
people moved into the mountains. More people are working from
home. Some small post offices had their delivery addresses
triple in 18 months, triple. And we have been racing to, you
know, to staff and to clean up some operational habits that
developed throughout the pandemic, and we are going to--we are
going to get there.
Mr. Burchett. OK. Let me ask a few more questions, if I
may, and it goes on what you said. You said that they are
increasing these things. But the Postal Service has built out
capacity of 60 million packages a day, yet you only carry 28
million a day. Can you explain why the Postal Service sees so
much excess capacity at a time when volume continues to
decline?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. So, if you remember in 2020, in the fall of
2020, the peak of 2020, where we had millions of packages
running around the Nation for weeks before they actually got
delivered, that was because we lacked any type of capacity. The
30 million packages we were doing, we were using, were mostly
being done by hand. We had--so a lot of inefficiencies there.
We had to come up with a methodology quickly to not
experience that again the next peak, and one of the ways we did
it was to create annex locations and put 250 sorting machines
in it. And it is a geographical span. So, we are looking at the
yield. We have to cover the area. Does not mean that we are
running them, but if we got that many packages, 60 million, we
could process them.
There is peaks and valleys of volume. So----
Mr. Burchett. Let me interrupt you. I am going to run out
of time, and I see where you are headed with this. But could
you give us a brief explanation of hardship delivery, and what
percentage of hardship delivery requests are approved?
Mr. DeJoy. I would have to get back to you on that.
Mr. Burchett. Could you get back to me on that, please?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burchett. It seems like everybody in the industry is
forging ahead with--in this economic environment, they put a
pause on expanding operations. But the Post Office, the Postal
Service continues to move ahead with investments in new
equipment and facilities. Are you getting your money's worth
for those investments, and who is paying for them? Is there an
expected timeline for a return on this investment?
And I am out of time.
Mr. DeJoy. Well, so, yes, there is a timeline. We plan to
roll out a new network over the next three to five years is
what our strategy. And we have a tremendous, embedded
infrastructure that has been significantly deteriorated. We
have deferred maintenance of $6 billion, $7 billion. And this
is really what the expansion is.
And at the end of--when we get done with this, right now,
we have 400 locations that we move mail and packages across the
Nation in. We are going to move that into 60, into 60
locations. We are just going to be consolidating.
So, we will get--you know, we spend--we are getting our
money. We have to execute, and that is another thing. The
increased yield to 60 million is the operation. The
organization is operating more professionally with more
organized manner because we have to compete with the commercial
marketplace to get our package business.
But yes, I'm pretty confident that we have a very
deliberate process. We have a long-term plan that sets
parameters that we work through and guide. And our investments
are reviewed and competed. We are not the same bureaucratic-
type of organization we were in the past because we have to
move. If I do not get this done, if we do not get this done in
a short timeframe, we are going to run out of money.
Mr. Burchett. All right. I have run over my time. I
apologize, Mr. Chairman. If you can have your folks get back to
me this time, I would appreciate that.
Mr. DeJoy. I will do that. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Burchett. And I won't yell at you. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
The distinguished gentleman and Ranking Member of the
Committee, the gentleman, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling
this important hearing.
Mr. DeJoy, more than 2,000 postal carriers have been
assaulted or robbed since 2020, and the Postal Service
announced just last week that 305 have been targeted since or
in the first half of Fiscal Year 2023. So, these incidents,
according to the Postal Service, are increasingly becoming more
prevalent. The problem is getting more serious.
And yet, despite this increase in crime targeting letter
carriers, the Postal Service's announced actions last week to
address postal crime seem to me to be very light on proactive
protection for letter carriers. The Postal Service's proposal
focuses on hardening physical infrastructure, which is, of
course, helpful in terms of preventing mail theft, but it
really doesn't do anything to help keep the postal workers
safer when they are out on the rounds.
One option seemed noticeably absent from the plan that
would both reduce mail theft and protect the postal workers,
which is to allow postal police officers to protect the letter
carriers by not confining them solely to the physical
facilities of the Post Office.
For more than 50 years, the postal police officers have
been responsible for protecting customers, property, and
employees. But on August 25, 2020, the Postal Service abruptly
declared that postal police officers would no longer be allowed
to perform patrols to prevent mail theft or to protect letter
carriers unless the theft or violation takes place directly on
Postal Service premises.
And that just seems baffling to me. Prior to this point,
the postal police performed their duties wherever mail theft
would occur.
So, Mr. Postmaster, given the increase in attacks on letter
carriers that we are hearing about and seeing within our
districts and the increase in postal theft, why has the Postal
Service continued to prevent postal police officers from doing
their jobs and keeping postal workers and our mail safe by
traveling to wherever the problem is taking place?
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman, Ranking
Member.
First thing, with regard to the things that we are doing
right now, our carriers travel in the line of crime. So, if we
reduce crime at these particular locations, we lose the
availability to commit crime by stopping the arrow key,
hardening the boxes, they will--they will venture into less of
these types of activities. And that is one of the reasons that
we are looking at proceeding in this manner.
With regard to the postal----
Mr. Raskin. Could I just follow up on that then? I mean, it
seems to me that it is a little counterintuitive if the
officers are assigned just to the physical station----
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. And it becomes clear that the
letter carriers are exposed----
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. That will deepen their
vulnerability to being attacked, robbed on the road, assaulted,
and so on.
Mr. DeJoy. So, with regard to the postal police, I mean, I
travel the Nation. I enjoy my interactions with the postal
police. They are awesome. And if I had 60,000 of them, I would
come to you and ask for the authority to do what you are asking
us to do.
I do not. I have 600, and I do not have the authority to
patrol the streets. And they have not done that in the past.
The concept that they were out patrolling the streets,
protecting the carriers is not really what was true. It was not
authorized to do. We do not have the legal authority to do
that.
We did have randomness throughout the country in just about
everything that we did before this management team took over,
but that is not what their role is. They are not allowed to do
that.
Mr. Raskin. So, OK, you are saying you do not have the
statutory authority to----
Mr. DeJoy. That's correct.
Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Deploy them to protect the mail
routes and letter carriers. I was not aware of that. Because I
thought they were doing that before.
Mr. DeJoy. No, no. No, and I also only have 600. And I--the
places where they are is where the mail and our people are,
right? And this is--you know, this is where they need to be.
Mr. Raskin. So even if you know that there are certain
letter carriers being targeted in particular places out on the
road, particular routes that are being subject to organized
criminal attacks----
Mr. DeJoy. So, I can assure you, if we know somebody is
being targeted, the United States Postal Inspection Service is
all over it, and they will also--we have relationships with
local task force that help us throughout the--you know,
throughout the country and so forth.
We are--you know, it is a big country, and we are a small
group. I only have about 600 of those guys, too. But we have
established local relationships. We have a good relationships
with Federal law enforcement in these areas and also local law
enforcement.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, good. Well, I hope we can work
together to use existing resources that you have to the fullest
extent to keep the mail and the letter carriers safe.
And thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
I would now recognize the policy Chairman, the gentleman
from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for five minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. DeJoy, for being here.
The Postal Service has continued to lose money, and you
originally claimed that the Postal Service would break even in
2023, but that obviously has not happened. Do you have a new
estimate for when the Postal Service might be able to break
even?
Mr. DeJoy. We are trying to reconcile that right now. The
reason--there's three reasons, three basic reasons we did not
make our targets.
No. 1, CSRS administrative action was in our plan. That was
$3 billion in our current P&L this year. No. 2, inflation was
way above what we predicted inflation to be in that plan, and
we--although we have been raising prices, it is always in
arrears, our inflation, and that is to the tune of $2 billion.
And then we have tried to, in the middle of the process of
doing this, we needed to focus first on getting, you know,
keeping service up and getting into a position where we could
start making tactical moves like moving significant--we have
moved significant amount of volume off of air to ground. It's
going to drive about $1 billion out of our run rate.
So, these are the things--and the place was just a little
more broke than we were coming six months into this and do it.
But you know, we need to move, and we can get back on track
with this. I see where targets of money are for us to get just
by improving our operational performance and growing our
business. But we are behind. We are not happy with it, but
there were significant events that we needed to deal with.
Mr. Palmer. You made some significant changes. Actually,
you answered my next question about the impact of inflation,
and I guess I also wonder about how things have impacted your
work force participation, having enough people to do the jobs
that need to be done. Have you had any difficulty in getting
people to work?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I would say it is different in different
functions and areas. Within our plant processing operations,
first of all, I have converted--we have converted 125,000
people from pre-career to full-time positions within the United
States Postal Service. And that dramatically reduces our
turnover rate, and it endears the individual to the
organization for long-term career employment.
So, from that standpoint, for the most part, our employee
availability today is pretty high. Other than in certain areas
that the two-percent that we are having a problem on delivery.
Delivery, carriers is our toughest area right now.
Mr. Palmer. You made some pretty significant changes to the
Delivering for America plan, and just very briefly, do the
changes take into account the probability of a lower volume of
regular mail and packages, the potential for a downturn,
possibly even a recession in the economy? Have you taken that
into account, particularly for the short term?
Mr. DeJoy. So, we do forecast for that. What I would tell
you, sir, is we are in the process of repairing a 15-year atom
bomb that fell on the place. So, a quarter or two in terms of
our long-term strategy is not going to change the
infrastructure rehabilitation that we need to do, and we have
confidence that in the long run, the country will get through
its economic problems, and we will be back to business.
And we need to--the United States Postal Service needs to,
and it is in the PSRA, we need to deliver mail and packages
together in an integrated manner.
Mr. Palmer. I want to quickly transition to something else,
and that has to do with the pensions for your employees. And
the Post Office is required, they are limited in what they can
invest in to just Federal Treasury bonds, and you have got $298
billion in assets in the employee pensions.
If you had had the opportunity to have the same investment
strategy as the Federal Employees Retirement Plan, Civil
Service Retirement Plan, some of the projections I have seen,
it could be $1.2 trillion. And I just--I wonder what the
barriers are that keeps the Postal Service from adopting a
different model, even the model of the Federal employees, and
is this something that we ought to be looking into in this
Committee?
Mr. DeJoy. So, this is one of the big, big initiatives that
our chairman, Roman Martinez, asked our OIG to take a look at,
and it is about--instead of being at a deficit, we'd be at $700
billion. It changes the whole dynamic of what the organization
needs to do. It would be a legislative requirement, just like
CSRS was an administrative requirement, the same thing. When we
take postal funds, because all our money is raised by selling
postal products. And then we have to--we put it into the
Federal, you know, Treasury--Federal Treasuries to manage for
our retirement.
We have the same thing with CSRS. When the Postal Service
was established in 1970, we think like we did not do a very
accurate job of accounting for what liabilities should have
stayed with the Federal Government and what liabilities they
gave to us for our long-term retirement plans. And both of
those things would significantly change the demands on our
cash-flow, which we know--my personal opinion is mail is no
longer a monopoly. The delivery of mail is no longer a
monopoly, right? It is an obligation.
We have $40 billion of mail, probably cost us $65 billion
to deliver to 163 million addresses. So, we have to get our
fair share of the package business, and that's what we're
trying to do in aligning these things. And these are financial
burdens that we have that we believe we shouldn't.
So, anything that this Congress can do to address both CSRS
reform and any portion, any portion of our retirement
investment to have a little more commercial appeal to it would
be extremely helpful to the organization's long-term
sustainability.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the witness, and I thank the chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you
very much.
The gentlewoman from Vermont, Congresswoman Balint, is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Balint. Before my line of questioning, I request
unanimous consent to insert into the record an article from
Government Executive that appears to run counter to earlier
testimony.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection, that will be entered into
the record.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
According to this article, Mr. DeJoy, the union said it had
regularly conducted carrier protection and community policing
patrols to ensure the safety of letter carriers and other
Postal Service personnel, which seems to run counter to what
you said earlier. Do you wish to clarify?
Mr. DeJoy. I stand by my statement. You can pick who you
want to believe.
Ms. Balint. That is all you got?
Mr. DeJoy. That is all I got.
Ms. Balint. OK.
Mr. DeJoy. What do you want me to say? We have people that
say a lot of things about the Postal Service.
Ms. Balint. Mr. DeJoy, thank you for being here. I
appreciate it. I am from a rural state, from Vermont, and I
know that the Postal Service is an absolutely essential service
not just to Vermont, but to rural America, and protecting the
Postal Service is one of my top priorities in Congress.
Now, according to Pew Research, 91 percent of Americans
have a favorable view of the Postal Service, which clearly
makes it the most popular Federal agency, which is saying a
lot. And Vermonters, like my community members, know that their
postal workers are working incredibly hard in difficult
circumstances to ensure that letters and packages get delivered
on time.
And I have talked to many Vermont postal workers and
community members. We know that the postal workers are going
above and beyond to make sure that our rural communities are
getting their letters and packages, and I am very grateful for
their hard work. But despite these efforts, Vermonters are
still struggling with service delays in mail and packages, and
I want us to continue to work together to make sure that we
support postal workers and ensure that Vermonters get their
mail on time.
Now my concern is that, Mr. DeJoy, the Delivering for
America plan calls for removing back-end operations like letter
sorting from most post offices and relocating these operations
to massive new sorting and delivery centers. And many
Vermonters that I hear from on a regular basis, they fear that
the opening of these sorting and delivery centers is a first
step toward closing their local post office. So, I am wondering
if you can assure the public that your plan will not result in
reductions to retail operations or hours of service.
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you. Our plan for the sorting and delivery
centers is, in fact, something that is going to save service
throughout the Nation. We have a 50-year-old mail delivery
operation that is geared for twice the mail--a tenth of the
cubic volume with our package deliveries.
Now we need to run mail and packages together, and we also
have a terrible transportation system that feeds----
Ms. Balint. Mr. DeJoy, I am sorry to interrupt. So, I just
want to get to the heart of the question, which is will your
plan result in reductions to retail operations or hours of
service? That is really the question. That is what Vermonters
care about.
Mr. DeJoy. So, the rolling out this network will not result
in reduction of retail operations.
Ms. Balint. I appreciate that. Thank you.
The reason why I am so fiercely protective of the Postal
Service is because it is not just Vermont. It is rural America
that absolutely depends on postal operations. Without continued
attention to our rural areas, I really feel that our
communities are going to continue to suffer, and this is not
good for the democracy. It is not good for our economy. It is
not good for rural America.
So, I want to make sure, will you commit to maintaining the
size and work hours of the postal work force?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not--I could not possibly commit to
something so broad as that. I would not even know how to
understand what you are asking me to commit to. We----
Ms. Balint. Let me rephrase, Mr. DeJoy. Do you understand
that rural America is in a different situation with needing
postal service?
Mr. DeJoy. So, I understand--so now the question is in
context with rural America?
Ms. Balint. That is exactly my question, which we are
making sure that people----
Mr. DeJoy. OK. We--we are, in fact, trying to change rules
with our union. So, we are adding people into rural communities
because we're well aware that we have problems in staffing in
those particular areas. And there is a number of things we are
doing with old legacy processes that we have and looking to
incentivize people to make deliveries.
And in fact, the S&DC network will enhance that. There are
better working conditions. It has further reach. So, there are
a lot of good things to that. But the organization is just
genetically committed, and it is not just--it is all the way
through management and myself, committed to servicing every
address that we are supposed to service.
And we have gone through a tough time financially and a
tough time in the Nation with the pandemic. And we are
recovering, and we are recovering with a great deal of energy
and precision. And we know--we have special measures now on
rural areas that are hotspots that deal with just the sound of
trouble so we could begin to start working on it.
So, we are very committed. I'm very committed. And rest
assured--I mean, we are going to do the best job we can under
the current circumstances to continue to serve in these areas.
Ms. Balint. I appreciate that. I just--I want to just make
it really clear that rural America is in a very different
situation than many other parts of this country, and we need a
vibrant Postal Service regardless of how many individuals are
in that area.
So, thank you very much. I appreciate you being here today.
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
The gentleman from South Carolina, the gentleman Mr.
Timmons is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I am
not on this Committee. I am not even on the Subcommittee or the
full Committee. This issue is so important to me to have an
opportunity to talk with you that I wanted to waive on.
I started this process in 2017, when I was contacted by
folks in my hometown of Laurens, South Carolina, about our post
office there. The Postal Service removed the drive-up boxes
completely. They put a mailbox out front where elderly folks
have to call in to the post office for folks to come out and
retrieve their mail or deliver their mail. I do not know how
that is feasible from a personnel standpoint, but the drive-up
boxes have been there for a long time.
The second issue is the location of the post office is on a
United States highway, U.S. 221. It is at the top of a hill.
So, when there is a lot of traffic at that post office, there
are a limited number of parking spaces right in front, and they
are all full. People are sitting in a U.S. highway, trying to
turn in at the top of a hill. It creates a tremendous safety
issue. I have got a record of the incidents that have happened
there. So, it is an unsafe location.
So, we have asked for consideration of relocating that post
office, and in 2018, April 2018--and you acknowledged receipt
of that on April 30--a letter was sent to U.S. Postal Service
from myself, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senator Tim
Scott, the local mayor, the city council chairman, and a number
of other constituents, asking for just a meeting to look at
that post office, just to come up--some personnel that worked
for you, just to come up to Laurens to look at that post office
situation and address some of the issues. Maybe the drive-up
boxes, maybe the post office itself.
You came and spoke to the Republican caucus a couple of
years ago down in the Visitors Center. I met with your Chief of
Staff. I handed him a detailed note, whispered in his ear, told
him the issue, and asked for a meeting with U.S. Postal Service
personnel in Laurens to address this issue.
I am here today because I have not heard from you guys at
all. You refused to meet with me. You refused to have personnel
from Atlanta or Columbia come to meet with me. I named two post
offices this year. I met with the legislative liaison, people
that came up for the post office namings in my district and
asked them. We have heard nothing.
So, I am here asking you for a commitment to have personnel
from the U.S. Postal Service come and meet with me about an
issue that is so important that a United States Senator got
involved.
Mr. DeJoy. I think I remember the incident, and from my
understanding is you have been given an answer since 2018.
Mr. Duncan. That answer is we are not willing to meet with
you.
Mr. DeJoy. No, the answer was an explanation of what the
situation was and what the changes that you were requesting and
that we could not help you.
Mr. Duncan. No, sir. The answer was if a customer of the
U.S. Postal Service has a complaint, we do not meet with
Federal officials. I represent 770,000 Americans who expect
their mail--you all have a great job, and you do a tremendous
job. But I represent a large constituency that expects me to be
their representative with an agency of the Federal Government
and at least have a conversation. And you are not even willing
to come up and visit and take a look, eyeballs on the
situation.
Mr. DeJoy. I will visit with you any time. I do not know if
I'm going to go to where you are.
Mr. Duncan. You do not have to, but send somebody. Nobody
has come to us.
Mr. DeJoy. Sir, I believe we have sent people.
Mr. Duncan. No, sir, you have not.
Mr. DeJoy. I believe we have sent people.
Mr. Duncan. You have not.
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Mr. Duncan. Because I would have been there.
Mr. DeJoy. I will take another look. I will take a look at
it. I'm thinking I'm recalling this situation, the specific
request properly, but I will take a look at it, and I'll call
you myself and tell you whether----
Mr. Duncan. Will you commit to have somebody come to
Laurens and take a look at it on the ground with me, and we can
actually walk through the situation there, talk to law
enforcement about the issues?
Mr. DeJoy. OK. But that's fine. But I believe--from 2018,
there have been a lot of people involved in making decisions
about access and postal access before me, right? And I have--
I'm trying to transform the organization. I'm assuming--I
cannot believe that they have not--they made improper
decisions----
Mr. Duncan. I will provide you the documentation where they
have not, if you would like to see that.
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Mr. Duncan. Second issue----
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Mr. Duncan. I have got a commitment you are going to send
somebody. We are going to take a look at it, hopefully with me
present. We can look at that issue.
Second issue in my district is Savannah Lakes Village. It
is a development. I know you all have a lot of developments.
They are building out. U.S. Postal Service actually delivers
mail to houses within that development. But new houses that
have been built since whatever the date is where a new policy
went into play, the postal delivery service drives by houses to
deliver to the house next door, but they won't deliver to the
new one.
And this development, all the land was sold prior to the
rule that you guys had about new houses in the development like
that. This should be grandfathered in. There is an issue with
trying to build a cluster box, but the Postal Service won't
even meet with this group. This is not just a town hall. Just
meet with stakeholders and see if we can reach a solution to
this.
But I cannot believe that a postal delivery person would
drive by a house, deliver mail to the next door, maybe the
second house down, but will skip a house that was recently
built in a development where the land was all sold prior to the
rulemaking of the U.S. Postal Service. Can I get a commitment
that you guys will meet with the folks in Savannah Lakes
Village? It does not have to be the local postal operators, but
nobody will come and have a meeting with stakeholders there.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. So, there's a lot of things you would not
believe, right? And there's a lot of requirements on us that I
cannot believe, right, that we are trying to straighten out and
balance what our service is, what the rules, what the legacy
rules are in terms of what we do, and what every individual
American wants in terms of service. And it is almost an--you
need a magical power to do it, right?
So, why he passes that collection box and so forth, there
is probably a rule that says that is what we do.
Mr. Duncan. And that is ludicrous. Your guys behind you are
shaking their head and----
Mr. DeJoy. Probably. I agree. There is a lot of ludicrous
things. I could give you a list 1,000 miles long.
Mr. Duncan. I get that, that there are other developments.
This is not a unique situation. But something needs to change
because Americans expect to have their mail delivered.
I am way over time, Mr. Chairman. But thank you for
committing to actually look at some of this with me.
Mr. DeJoy. I will. And I just want to remind you that when
we--when we got here, we had $153 billion negative balance
sheet and were losing $10 billion, $11 billion, $12 billion a
year.
Mr. Duncan. But that postal delivery person is still going
into the neighborhood, driving right by a house. How can they
not stop? I get it.
Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
And Mr. General DeJoy, I was aware of the gentleman this
morning. Perhaps this is new or not new, necessarily to you,
but I have committed to the gentleman that I will engage your
appropriate government relations people and that we will sit
down next week.
I think it is important that under whether it is Mr. Mfume
or myself, that this Subcommittee personally takes the
responsibility to effectively meet with the gentleman from
South Carolina and your staff, and so I would ask that you not
have to call yourself, but that rather your government affairs
people would be in touch with us. We will set up that meeting.
I think part of what you are trying to do is to run a large
operation, and what the gentleman from South Carolina is trying
to do is to make sure that he effectively deals with you and
you with him. So, I would just let you know on the public
record, whether it is Mr. Mfume or whether it is myself, we
will engage in a positive way to make progress.
And I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his time.
The gentleman yields back his time. Mr. Timmons yields back
his time.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton,
is now recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeJoy, first, I want to note one of my own top Postal
Service priorities, helping to prevent mail theft and attacks
on Postal Service employees. I have introduced the Postal
Service Security Camera Act, which would require that, subject
to appropriations, the public service install security cameras
at each postal facility to protect Postal Service employees,
customers, and property.
So, Mr. DeJoy, would cameras help with the ongoing and
highly publicized thefts of mail?
Mr. DeJoy. So, the thefts of mail are not actually
happening in our plants and facilities, where cameras would be
mostly used. If they were put on the streets over these areas
of crime, certainly it would help in terms of investigation. I
do not know how much--they do serve as deterrents to crime,
sometimes.
So, but I think within our facilities, our plants, we have
good visibility of what is going on there. It does not prevent
events from happening. It just identifies what happened
afterwards. But certainly, cameras on the streets and so forth,
which many cities and locales are doing, is--does make
criminals think twice, if they are actually thinking that day.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. DeJoy.
I would like to turn to the Postal Service Reform Act now.
It allows the Postal Service to enter into agreements with
state, local, and tribal governments to provide noncommercial
services that provide enhanced value, do not detract from core
postal services, and provide a reasonable contribution to
public service institutional costs.
This provision is intended to give the Postal Service
opportunities to increase revenue and better serve communities
as a one-stop shop for certain registration and services. The
provision also authorized the Postal Service to experiment with
different products. Consistent with existing postal law, the
Postal Service currently performs non-postal services for the
Federal Government.
Since enactment of the Postal Service Reform Act, the
Postal Service has not used this authority. So, Mr. DeJoy, do
you think new authority is an opportunity to provide expanded
services to the public, while at the same time bringing in
needed revenue?
Mr. DeJoy. So, Congresswoman, I do. There is a step to our
rehabilitation process in terms of fixing our number-one
revenue generator, which is delivery of mail and delivery of
packages and selling more aggressively into the package market.
Concurrent with that, we will be starting to look at what do we
do with our retail? How do we make our retail environment more
vibrant?
We sell now--I mean, I love our Priority Mail bags and
Hallmark cards, but that's not going to drive where we need to
be to maintain this massive network, and we have a lot of
ideas. But with those ideas, needs to come--I need to have
those ideas identified, resourced, have a project plan, and so
on and so forth. And that is on the table.
We are relooking at our whole salesforce right now in terms
of how I align people, the organization to pursue projects so
they do not have haphazard starts and go into the wrong time.
So, I appreciate the wisdom of the Congress to put that in. I
understand what its intention was. But this is a journey for
us. That is a new initiative, and I can assure you that we will
have resources dedicated trying to figure out just how we
capitalize on the opportunity.
Ms. Norton. So, what kinds of non-postal services might the
Postal Service pilot or explore?
Mr. DeJoy. So, I think one of the things that has been--the
way I look at it, we have an infrastructure, and it is
everywhere, right? And it has a front door, and it has arms and
legs attached to it that could take something anywhere and so
forth. It could be used to meet. It could be used to stock
products. It could be used like we did in the kit program, the
COVID test kit program that we worked--where we delivered 700
million COVID test kits. That was using our particular network.
Once you have a--you know, the ability to have
infrastructure in these areas, what are, in fact, the services
that one could provide? We know we already have digital
identity. We know we already have--you know, we do passports.
But there's a lot of different types of services that the
communities can use that we would be interested in looking at
within the framework of what our regulatory responsibility is.
And with the--with the vision that business breeds
business, activity brings activity, and so forth. It is just--
it is something we are in our infant stages of looking at. How
do we repurpose our whole retail network so it re-establishes
as vibrant? So, we are looking at shared workplaces with small
businesses. We are looking at lockboxes. We are looking at
stocking crucial infrastructure, critical parts, and product
deliveries for hospitals and service centers and so forth.
There is a lot that we can do, and just looking at some of
the service that are needed in the commercial marketplace, but
are less available in some of these other locations. I think
that is a good role for us to play with our physical
distribution capabilities and our retail stature and presence
everywhere. And we are going to--we are going to chase after
this stuff.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing
today.
And much like the gentleman from South Carolina earlier, my
focus today will be very localized. Mr. Postmaster General, I
want to say thank you for the work that you are doing. I really
appreciate you being here today.
We have been in communication recently. There is a post
office that was burned down in Longs, South Carolina, in 2021
in June, and at that time, the Post Office or the USPS
committed to completing a finished replacement of that post
office by early this year. If you look at the site as it stands
now, nothing is there.
There are mail trucks that facilitate as much as they can,
but there is nothing there. There is no building. There is not
even a breaking of ground at that site. And we had reached out
very early with some frustration, quite frankly, that we were
not getting--look, one of the roles that we have, and when I
was in the state legislature, if I called an agency, somebody
would get back to me within 24 or 48 hours. Our role is to
facilitate accurate information to the people that we
represent.
And, quite frankly, for a little bit there, we were not
getting anywhere with your staff about what was going on, what
was causing these delays? Why has ground not been broken? Why
make a commitment in 2021 to a completed post office in early
this year, and we have not even started?
And so we are trying to facilitate that information. So, I
do appreciate last week your office responding to a letter that
we had written, informing us that a lease was recently executed
for the construction of a new post office. Do you know of any
instances other than Longs, South Carolina, where offices have
been destroyed or damaged and not rebuilt in a timely manner?
Mr. DeJoy. Sir, I could not list specifics, but there are a
lot of instances that existed at--around the organization that
were conditions that resulted from events, from neglect, from
time, and so forth, and there is a long, long list of things we
need to fix. And so, I'm not going to articulate them all here,
but I can give you--I have $7 billion of deferred maintenance,
$7 billion of deferred maintenance.
So, you know, and we also did not have money in 2020. So,
but I'm glad we have it under lease, and I'll take a look at
that when I get back to the office, and we will see if we could
move it along, right?
Mr. Fry. No, I appreciate that. And I think we will go over
some other stuff here with my remaining time, but to me,
facilitating accurate information and being a help to
constituents is my top priority. And I know that I share that
with other people, particularly as Ms. Balint said from
Vermont, particularly within rural communities.
Right now, there are some complaints about them not getting
the service that they need. And so, how we can fix that, how we
can partner together is absolutely crucial because we want to
be that resource for our constituents. We want to make the post
office look good, but that communication requires two people,
right? And if it is just coming from our offices and not with
you, that is a big problem.
Recently, the mayor of Marion, South Carolina, contacted my
office. And this is completely different, changing lanes here.
And here is an excerpt of the letter that he sent: ``With USPS
permission, the city of Marion would go in and dig up all the
old plants in front of the property at our expense. We have an
excellent garden club in Marion. The ladies in the group have
advised me that they would be happy to replant the area.''
Look, I think the underlying issue here is that they want
to make their town look beautiful, right? And so, they are not
getting--I guess there is an existing policy that would
prohibit clubs or organizations from beautifying the USPS
property. Is that in existence and why?
Mr. DeJoy. Sir, we had 900 policy manuals that have not
been updated in 30 years, in the process of going--going
through them right now. What I would say is, I'm aware of the
communication problems that we have had from the field back up
to headquarters. I have reorganized to eliminate that, to have
direct communication from our headquarters right down in
authority and responsibility, and we're working on making those
changes.
We're also working on improving our voice with all our
constituents and stakeholders. That is something that is--I see
it--I'm the number-one critic of our organization. You just go
over to headquarters and ask them. But we are making great
changes in that, but it is going to take time to make itself,
you know, through the whole--you know, the whole country.
And it is unfortunate the way, as you move into areas that
are less concentrated, we seem to--it seems to be the last one
impacted on these things.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for your time. And Mr. Chairman, just
briefly, in conclusion, I would welcome the opportunity--there
are several other local issues that I have, that have been
expressed to me. I would welcome the opportunity to work with
your staff to at least get good information on a policy that
exists, a problem with performance maybe, whatever the case is,
but our role is to advocate and help further those discussions
and to get our constituents accurate information as to why.
And so, if we can continue that dialog, as evidenced by
your recent letter to me, I would really appreciate that.
Mr. DeJoy. Sure. And my government relations person, Peter
Pastre, is here and would be happy to reach out to you.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
I would like to note on both sides of this aisle, we have
taken the time to effectively, professionally provide our
feedback, and I want to say thank you to the Members for
maintaining that high level of professionalism, along with the
Postmaster General in his response. And I thank them and
recognize that.
Now the gentleman yields back his time.
Then now we would go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Casar.
Mr. Casar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Postmaster General,
for being here.
I am a brand-new Member of Congress, and here in the first
few months, I expected to get lots of emails and notes about
healthcare trying to navigate--or about veterans trying to
navigate the healthcare system, expected to get lots of notes
of folks trying to navigate the immigration system. But what I
have been surprised by has been the number of letter carriers
and postal workers reaching out directly to my office about
concerns in their workplace.
I had asked my staff coming up to this hearing to start
giving me a summary, and the list was longer than what I could
put in five minutes. So, I asked just for five examples of
constituents who are Federal employees, who are USPS employees
about their issues.
One of them, a worker having an allergic reaction,
potentially with life-threatening consequences, being pushed to
go out and deliver the mail in the midst of that allergic
reaction.
Second, people reaching out being injured on the job and
not--and their supervisor approving continuation of their pay.
But then, as that request went further up the food chain, that
request being denied.
Third, a postal worker in San Antonio sending us photos of
him holding a thermometer in his vehicle, and the thermometer
showing 136 degrees.
Fourth, a constituent reaching out, saying that they had
been injured on the job as a postal worker, an injury that
required surgery, and them reaching out to us trying to get
help because they were not able to get help at their workplace
getting that surgery covered.
Fifth, workers having their real concerns about ADA spots
being removed at their workplace, and they being workers that
rely on those parking spaces with disabilities.
And the list goes on and on and on. And obviously, those
are really concerning issues to me because not only is it the
right thing for us to do to provide a great workplace for all
Federal employees, but we know it affects the mail.
And so, could you comment, Postmaster General, on what it
is you are hearing? Are these issues that are really just
affecting my office, or do you see these things as more
systemic and something that your office is trying to take on?
Mr. DeJoy. So the consequence of 15 years of bad
legislation, dramatic change in the economy, a Great Recession,
the reduction of mail, and no money in the organization put
stresses throughout the whole organization, which deteriorated
just about every relationship, piece of equipment, individual,
and it all winds up, the biggest impact comes down to the
people that are working in the plants and delivering the mail,
right? We are all stressed. That is the way it is, and that is
the organization I came into.
I can tell you that we have made tremendous gains in trying
to work through that, and that is what the Delivering for
America plan is, in fact, doing. It is improving our
operations, improving our dialog.
I've spoken myself to 8,000 supervisors about if you--when
you are thinking, when you are talking to your people, right,
treat them like you want to be treated. When you are giving
them direction, OK, when you are disciplining them, when you
are having a bad day, these are conversations I had with our
supervisors. Because there was a tension throughout the
organization that had--was allowed to develop because of the
conditions.
Mr. Casar. And I appreciate that you all are taking it on.
And again, I want to----
Mr. DeJoy. So, so to get to the--you know, four of the five
things I do not think are systemic. I believe they could
happen. We are continuing to work on training on these types of
interactions. There is confusion in a lot of the work rules.
But I think systemically, we are improving, and most people
come to work each day, do their jobs, have good interactions
with their management, and they go home.
But we do have these types of issues. The one situation,
the situation with the vehicle, yes, we know that is an issue.
That is why I've been trying to buy vehicles for two years now.
Mr. Casar. Good. And in Texas, where somebody could show a
136-degree thermometer----
Mr. DeJoy. We are on our way.
Mr. Casar [continuing]. I hope that we will be able to say
that that is not OK.
Mr. DeJoy. Well, it is--it is----
Mr. Casar. Mr. DeJoy, just because I am running out of
time. I appreciate and I want to make sure that our next
conversation, we could actually lay out what it is that we are
getting done so that we can be responsive to people.
Some numbers shown to me by my team were that for noncareer
employees, we used to have a turnover rate of 40 percent. That
is climbing higher up. I hope that we are able to address that.
Again, I do not know if the number--I would be interested
in you verifying the number. Folks in my San Antonio office
relaying to me that two out of every three new employees are
turning over before the end of the year in the San Antonio
office. Again, if those are not right, would want to hear that.
But if they are, would want to know that we are trying to
intervene to make sure that we are retaining employees, moving
them over to those career positions, as you noted today, and
making things better.
Mr. DeJoy. That--that is a statistic that is not
representative of what this management team has done, OK? When
we came--I've converted--we have converted 125,000 pre-career
people to full time. First of all, they were called noncareer
when I got them. We changed the name, called them pre-career,
and converted them.
Now we are coming off of the pandemic--these numbers, the
way they are calculated, many people get these out of the OIG
report. I have 650,000 employees. They sampled 100 people,
sampled 100 people. This is the type of statistics I need to
deal with.
Mr. Casar. Understood. And would love to dig in with you.
For example, in that San Antonio office, if we are having two-
thirds of new employees turn over before the end of the year,
then we could probably agree let us try to do something about
it now.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Casar. Thank you. Appreciate you.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
The distinguished gentleman, Mr. Edwards, from North
Carolina, is recognized.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeJoy, thanks for being with us this afternoon, and
thanks for your service to our country.
I cannot think of many positions one might hold in our
Federal Government that would be less enviable than yours. I
can tell you that while the Postal Service is not a perfect
system, I know many of the hard-working men and women back at
home that serve the Postal Service, and I know them to be
professional, dedicated, hard-working people that operate in
obviously an imperfect system.
I would like to turn our attention to elections for just a
moment. With the heightened emphasis on absentee ballots or
mail-in ballots, whatever a state wants to call those,
particularly through the pandemic, and many of the aspects of
our election system being called into question, the Postal
Service has been called into question. And I know in serving in
the North Carolina legislature, that we have attempted on a
number of occasions to pass legislation that says there has to
be a time that there is a cutoff to receive absentee ballots.
North Carolina, just a couple of years ago, extended that
to nine days, which in many folks' eyes creates question. And
so, our effort has been to eliminate the question about when
the cutoff should be and pass legislation that says that an
absentee ballot should be received by a board of elections by
the close of business on an Election Day.
But unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there that
say that the Post Office is so incompetent that they would be
disenfranchising voters if we had a cutoff time. What could I
take back to those folks to give them confidence in our system
that the Postal Service is, in fact, capable of allowing states
legislators to create a specific deadline?
Mr. DeJoy. So, I want to be careful here. I'm not opining
on any rules or anything, but I'm going to tell you about the
United States Postal Service and their performance in
elections. And we have had very, very good performance in
elections, and the people--and this, this was before I got
here.
The organization was committed to delivering--and the
people see a ballot on the floor in a plant, they dive on it to
get it delivered. What we have done, as we improve our
processes, which we have, where significantly the overall mail
system, the flow through of ballots is, in fact, better. We
have set up a separate organization to monitor this all year
long and interact with different agencies.
And we have been the most consistent thing in the election
process for the last 10 years. States and election boards
change all the time, change the rules. So, if we get a mail
ballot in time, we will deliver it in time, 99-point-whatever
percent of the time.
And I would suggest, like we have said when we give counsel
on this, mail it a week in advance. Let us not wait until the
last minute. You are going to send your mother a Mother's Day
card, and you want her to get it on Mother's Day, you do not
send it the day before.
So, from that standpoint, that's what we looked at. We have
worked with the previous Chair and the Committee on a standard
mail piece for elections with barcodes. That would be something
that is--how do you want to--I cannot pay for it. The Postal
Service cannot pay for it. So, how do you implement something
like that?
But I think from the standpoint, as you have seen,
historically, that we are pretty reliable in getting it done,
and we will get more reliable because our whole system is going
to get more reliable as we roll out the rest of the processes
in the DFA plan.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that. Can you tell us, are there
any specific procedures that are changed during an election to
handle absentee ballots?
Mr. DeJoy. That are changed just for an election?
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, it is--so we have a number of different
agreements with different courts and so forth that we have
decided. But it really comes down to that we put more emphasis
on hunting for the ballot if we get our hands on it. It is
called ``extraordinary measures,'' and we do keep post offices
open later. We do more trips. We do whatever that we--we do
more of everything. It is just a matter of moving mail and
packages.
We coordinate with some offices where to bring stuff. We do
some turnaround in the post office that we normally would not
do. I mean, one of the big misunderstandings all the time is
the postmark. We do not postmark everything, and a lot of
places think that we do, and that is--so we try and postmark a
little more and so forth.
So, there is a heightened awareness. Our board, we have a
committee, a board committee that kicks in, looks, chaired by
Governor McReynolds. We have part of our organization that I
set up when I came in that is standing all year round, not just
for elections, to coordinate specific issues. So, we have it in
advance. And we do go the extra mile to make sure during the
elections that every ballot we could possibly deliver on,
rescue, we do.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. DeJoy, and thank you for your
service.
Mr. Chair, I yield.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
The distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms.
Stansbury, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member.
And thank you, Mr. DeJoy, for being here with us today.
I want to start out by thanking all of our USPS staff. I
see some of your staff sitting behind you, but of course, all
of our postal workers and letter carriers not only in my
district, but across the country, who day in, day out deliver
the mail across all of our communities and are really the
backbone of our communities.
I represent New Mexico's First congressional District,
which includes the Albuquerque metro area and over a half dozen
rural communities, and issues around rural postal service are
really crucial for the communities that I represent. In
particular, as we have been heading into this hearing, we have
been hearing from a lot of our letter carriers about issues
around new policies the Postal Service is implementing around
rural compensation. And so, I want to focus my attention
especially on these issues.
The first question I want to ask you, Mr. DeJoy, is how
much consultation the Postal Service did with rank-and-file
rural letter carriers before deciding to implement this policy?
Mr. DeJoy. The recent policy on rural carrier pay
adjustment?
Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
Mr. DeJoy. About 10 years' worth.
Ms. Stansbury. Can you please characterize that? Because
what we heard from folks who work in our district is that they
did not find out about it until it was actually being
implemented.
Mr. DeJoy. So, the--this was a decision that was made in
2012 through arbitration between the union and the Postal
Service, and we worked for seven, eight--I think by 2019 we had
the structure of it decided, how it was going to be rolled out.
We did a sampling that year of 4,000 routes and came up
with some adjustments that needed to be made, and then in
consultation with the union, our H.R. department, we began to
roll the process out to across the Nation. So, from my--I do
not know that every single detail as to how this got
communicated, but it was not--I cannot imagine it was not
effectively communicated to everybody.
Now the result of it is, you know, is unfortunate the
result of it because a lot of it has resulted in the
aggregation of mail decline over 10 years impacting the rural
carrier at one shot.
Ms. Stansbury. And Mr. DeJoy, you know, I think among the
many concerns, in addition to, in fact, what you just
highlighted about not knowing how it was communicated down to
the rank-and-file, is the impact that it is going to have on
rural carrier pay. Are you aware that 66 percent of our
carriers are actually going to lose pay in their paychecks
because of this adjustment?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, I am. And what I said was, I mean, I'm
aware of my H.R. department and the union representatives
working to deliver the message across the ranks of the
organization. I'm not aware of the specific detail of what they
were--was said. And yes, that----
Ms. Stansbury. But finally, Mr. DeJoy--I apologize for
interrupting, but because there is short time. I think that
something of this significance that is going to affect 66
percent of our rural carriers and rural coverage of our mail
service, certainly the tone gets set at the top, and how that
gets communicated, it affects the livelihoods of our carriers.
It affects our communities. It affects local economies.
So, my question is, in addition to improving communications
with the staff of the Postal Service, what plans has USPS put
into place to ensure that this does not affect recruitment and
retention of carriers as well as actual service delivery in our
rural areas?
Mr. DeJoy. So, we have worked with our union leadership,
and we are, you know, continuing with our recruiting aspects,
which have been, you know, significantly enhanced. I do not
believe that--not to minimize anything. I do not believe the
cut is 60 percent on it, and I believe that all the
participants were told and know that this has been coming.
It is an unfortunate consequence. But on the same token,
you know, we need to align the compensation for the work that
is being done. And that is, in fact, what----
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. DeJoy, while I appreciate your business
approach to the solvency issues of the Postal Service, our
postal workers are members of our communities. They need a
living wage. They need safe working conditions. We need to
ensure the livelihoods of our communities.
And part of the job, as a Federal agency, is to ensure that
we are adequately paying and ensuring the safety and safe
working conditions of our workers. And I do want to note that
the issues that Mr. Casar brought up are systemic. Because I
hear about them every day--of our postal workers' unsafe
working conditions, crime issues, being out alone, long hours,
not enough postal workers.
And so, these policy changes that are being implemented at
the top and not adequately communicated and consulted with the
rank-and-file letter carriers are a problem in our communities.
And so, Mr. DeJoy, I appreciate your service, but it is crucial
that we make sure that our postal workers on the ground have a
voice, that they are communicated with clearly, and that we are
supporting our postal workers.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. DeJoy. So, I disagree with the premise, and I can
assure you that----
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman--excuse me, General. Excuse
me, General. The gentlewoman has yielded her time back.
Do you wish for the gentleman to extend your time to
receive an answer back from the General?
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, that is at your discretion.
Mr. Sessions. Well, I am willing to give the gentlewoman--I
think the gentleman does not seek that time. Thank you very
much.
Mr. DeJoy, when a Member yields back their time----
Mr. DeJoy. Got it.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. That time ends, and I appreciate
it.
I thank the gentlewoman. She yields back the time.
The distinguished gentleman, the Chairman of the full
Committee, Chairman Comer, is recognized for five minutes.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Postmaster General, it is good to see you here today. I
know we talk often. We have talked often over the past year and
a half. We have come a long way in really, what I consider, one
of the most, if not the most, bipartisan accomplishments last
year in the Congress, certainly in this Committee, and that was
passing the postal reform bill.
As I said then, and I will say it again now, I think you
are the right person for the job. You have taken a lot of
bullets, and it is a tough job. It is a big bureaucracy. You do
something that no one in the private sector wants to do, and
that is deliver the mail six days a week to every single
address in America.
I would like to talk about one of the centerpieces of your
plan has been the network modernization. And with respect to
your plan, you are the only Postmaster General since I have
been in Congress that even came up a plan to reform. The last--
your predecessor always talked about a plan but never came up
with one. I like to remind people about that.
But one of the centerpieces of your plan is the network
modernization, and that, as I understand it, involves
constructing large facilities in urban areas and running your
network from that to a smaller number of facilities.
Could you help me understand what the benefit of this will
be in terms of savings, manpower needs, improved performance,
et cetera?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, sir. So, first of all, thank you for your
leadership and partnership in passing the legislation. It was a
really wonderful thing to be a part of and long overdue. So, I
thank you for your leadership.
Right now, when we look at national distribution, we move
mail and packages to 420 different locations that have been
haphazardly put together over the last 15 years. We want to--
and that disaggregates mail. It creates 55,000 trucks a day
that run across the country at 30 percent full, and plus, we
were flying a lot of air, doing a lot of air.
So, we are collapsing this--aggregating this into 60
locations, converting those other locations, if they were
contractors, in-sourcing a tremendous amount of work. But at
the end of the day, we had a $10.6 billion transportation
budget. I plan to get $3 billion to $4 billion out of that. We
have a significant amount of adjunct labor, nonproductive labor
in these accessorial places and a significant amount of
overtime. I plan to get $3 billion to $4 billion out of that.
And then there are other types of operations. Our local
transportation to feed our delivery units has not been
addressed in 40 years. It is different. We are going to fix
that, and there is a couple of billion there.
Chairman Comer. With respect to the facilities that will
not be used, what are you going to do with those?
Mr. DeJoy. So, as I said, I have not adequately articulated
that this is not a consolidation. We have built up a number of
leased annexes over the last--and contractor sites and took
little functions that could not fit in an existing plant and
put them in there, right? Those are the places that we are
closing out.
All our postal facilities, I'm investing significantly in,
bringing them back up to stay, putting the right equipment in
them, redoing employee amenities. You are going to have--we
have 226 locations local processing centers that will be fed
from these 60 processing centers, and then we are going back to
all these plants that were closed down over the last 10 years
and reinvigorating them and putting our sorting and delivery
centers in.
And we are modernizing the way the distribution needs to be
today for the cubic volume that we move, right? Today, 60, 65
percent of the cubic volume we move are packages. It is not
little letters. Yet we still run the place like we are moving
letters, and then we rehandle all the packages. So that is what
we are trying to redo.
It is pretty, actually, I wish I could say it is ingenious.
It is not. It is obvious.
Chairman Comer. Right. And with that, this is my last
question, and feel free to take all the time you need to answer
it because I think it is an important question. The Postal
Reform Act that we passed provided you with an infusion of
cash, and we changed some of the liability that was strapped on
the Post Office. This was, in my opinion, the last-ditch effort
to try to put the Postal Service in a position to where it can
do what it is supposed to do, and that is be self-sustaining.
Now with mail volume continuing to decline, how do you see
this moving forward in the future to where we can get to a
position of self-sustainability within the Postal Service?
Because I have been on record many times. I support the Post
Office. My colleagues on the Republican side, we all have
concerns with certain aspects of the Postal Service. But as a
Democratic Member mentioned, it is very important in rural
America, and no private company wants to deliver mail six days
a week in rural America.
So, what is the future with respect to the fact that we are
going to continue to see declining mail volume? How can we get
the Postal Service to where it is in a position of
sustainability to where Congress will not have to infuse any
more cash in the future?
Mr. DeJoy. How much time are you going to give me?
Chairman Comer. However much time the Chairman will allow.
Mr. DeJoy. So just--and I certainly appreciate your help. I
just want to be clear. From my standpoint of coming in and
changing the organization and what cash became available and
what was being infused into the organization, we did not--the
PSRA did not give us an infusion of cash, right? We had not
paid that liability in over 10 years, right?
It just kind of straightened out the old legislation, and
in fact, it pushed the--what we were obligated to pay to six or
seven years from now, right? We will eventually go to a pay-as-
you-go system. So that is what I'm racing. If we get back to a
pay-as-you-go system, we are going to have a big problem if we
do not make these changes that we are making, that we are
trying to make right now.
As you know--and this was a contentious issue on the bill--
an integrated mail and package network, right? There is two
things. There is two inefficiencies within the Postal Service.
The inefficiency of how we run the place, which was all over
the place. We got to fix that, right, and get at it.
And there is a lot money there, and there is a lot of
better working conditions for everybody that works there. I
mean, who would have put together a process that handles 25
million packages a day by hand? By hand, right? So, these are
the things that we are fixing. We will root out those issues.
There is a lot of money there, as I described.
But the mission is still inefficient. That is the other
inefficiency, the mission. Delivering to 163 million addresses,
whether you have 1 piece of mail or 10 packages and so forth.
That we have to do, and we commit to do it. But we have to do
that efficiently, by moving packages and mail together,
aggregated network, as was in the bill. We will leverage our
costs, leverage our conveyor system to every address. That will
produce better margins in the overall performance, and I
believe we can become the preferred delivery provider in the
Nation, and garner a good part of the package business, be the
greenest thing from an environmental standpoint.
I do not believe the American people want 50 trucks running
up and down their neighborhood streets, even in rural America.
And that, if we grow our package business, which we will or we
are, I think that is--you know, I need to get $2 billion to $3
billion of package revenue, get these costs out that I
identified, and I need to do it quick. I need to do it quick,
and I think we are close. We are close to solving these things.
Now there are other areas. We have a lot of unfunded
mandates. We have brought up the retirement thing and so forth.
This is not a walk in the park. But it is a close, and I will
be able to tell you what exactly operationally is too costly to
do, and we might have to come up with something else on that
part. But we are full steam ahead on trying to get this done.
And my hope is our regulator, the Congress, gets out of our
way because this is a crisis, and we need to move. And taking
surveys from every opinion, as our regulator wants to do, what
it is that we should do and flooding our airwaves with proven
methodologies that have not worked in the past is not helpful.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman, the distinguished Chairman,
yields back his time.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend Mr. Lynch, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member.
Mr. Postmaster General, welcome.
Mr. DeJoy. Sir.
Mr. Lynch. I do not think I have seen you since the
swearing in----
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. The signing ceremony at the White
House on the postal reform bill, which you were very helpful
with. You played a key role in getting that, and I had the
opportunity to work on that for about 10 years. So certainly
happy to see that in the rearview mirror.
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lynch. I wanted to talk to you about a piece of
unfinished business. So, I actually had offered an amendment to
the Jobs and Infrastructure Act to provide money for the Postal
Service to modernize its fleet. I think you would get like
237,000 vehicles. I think, besides DOD, you are No. 1. And many
of those are what they call long-life. I think that is the term
they use for those vehicles, where they are supposed to have
like a 20-year shelf life, but I think some of them are already
over 30.
Mr. DeJoy. That is right.
Mr. Lynch. So, we did provide in the Inflation Reduction
Act, we provided $3 billion in funding, and I know that in
December, you committed to ensuring that about 75 percent of
the next-generation delivery vehicles, which is roughly 66,000
vehicles, would be electric vehicles. And this is big not just
for the Postal Service, but bringing the charging
infrastructure into some of our rural communities and suburban
communities, as well as major cities. I just wanted to see if I
could get a little update from you on where we are on the fleet
modernization program?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, sir. So, thank you. And thank you for
assistance in both the legislation and also on the vehicle
funding.
As you know, in December, we made--we had been--you know,
we came out with 10 percent because we did not have a strategy
to change our infrastructure, and our delivery units could not
take on this. I'd be afraid to plug a coffee pot in some of
these places, let alone take a--we then moved forward after we
passed the reform bill, the financial projections looked a
little better.
And then the--because the capital and the benefit of it
from a financial standpoint did not come close in terms of
implementation where we were. After the $3 billion, I went to
the--I do not know if you know this--I met with the White House
to figure out, with John Podesta, to figure out in a different
environment, figure out, all right, we need to move forward.
With our mission in mind, how do we use these moneys
effectively to keep us in a stable rate?
I need to commit long out. I have to put these at over
1,000 facilities, right? So, and so forth. So, we came up with
a plan how to use the infrastructure money that was agreeable
and use the vehicle money.
We will start receiving electric vehicles, the first of the
commercial off-the-shelf, 40 transits, will start coming in
December of this year or January, 10,000 over the next--they
are left-hand drive, I need more right-hand drive. But those
will get us going.
Then, in the end of 1924, we'll start seeing--the end of
1924, but 1925, 1926, and 1927, 20,000 a year on the NGDVs, all
electric. Our first 15,000 will be ICE vehicles, which will
come in toward the end of this year and into next. But then it
is all, it is 100 percent electric vehicles.
On the infrastructure, I already have it underway. We have
close to 100 sites that will take about 100 vehicles each, and
it is our old plants, our old plants that were closed down. You
have the old postal family, you know, the old plants that were
closed down. What they have, they already have 5,000 amps in
them already and big parking lots with VMFs. And we are
reopening up, retooling, and putting the money in to create
the--put the charging stations in. I already ordered 14,000
charging stations. We have them in stock at Topeka in case
there is a supply chain crunch.
So, we are moving out, and those 66,000, as they come off
the line, we are going to have homes for them, and we are going
to put them in where the carriers are. It might be--I have a
parking lot for the first 1,000 in case the whole
infrastructure is not ready, but I have a new team on it that
has aggregated all the different functionality, and we are
going to really lead the Nation in this rollout. And it is
pretty exciting to be part of.
Mr. Lynch. That is great. Well, one thing I would just want
to say at the end--my time is almost up here. The pattern of
use for the postal vehicles, you know, you charge overnight,
right, and then you roll out in the morning. And for the
balance of the day until those vehicles come back, you have got
open charging stations. And I just want you to think about
whether the public might be able to have access to those
stations, those charging stations if it did not interfere with
the postal operations. It might be a great benefit to the
general community in which you are located.
Mr. DeJoy. So, the--you know, we have discussed that. I
know you have been interested, and other members here, in the
type of device and where it is located and when we charge. But
I think the point is, as I was saying earlier with regards to
Congresswoman Norton, we have an infrastructure. Whether it
requires a different type of charging station, if there is a--
this is a way that we can, you know, be more present in the
community, we will take a look at that. But we first got to get
our thing going----
Mr. Lynch. Right, right.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. Because this is a monumental task
that we are undertaking right now.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
And thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you
very much.
The distinguished gentleman, my friend from Louisiana, Mr.
Higgins, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Postmaster General DeJoy, we have met many times. It
occurred to me, I was looking at when you were sworn in, and
this must have been the longest three years of your life.
Mr. DeJoy. I was born in Brooklyn, so that was long, too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Higgins. I think you have earned an epitaph said,
``This guy never quit.'' You have hung in there, but I have to
say, some of the changes, I realize that you are dealing with
quite a complex machine. But some of the changes really are
beyond from a perspective of commonsense. They are beyond
understanding.
Like moving, shifting mail to your major hubs. Looking at
it on a map, and so I guess it looks like a good idea from that
perspective. But when you get down to the reality of taking a
piece of mail that is scheduled to be delivered half a mile
away from a post office and sending that mail 100 miles away to
a hub to have it distributed to come back, these are the kind
of things that when they are pointed out, they make no sense.
But I have to say that I believe that, from my perspective,
your biggest problem is regulations. You have been regulated to
death.
And let me point out regarding money, in 1980, a stamp was
18 cents. It is 63 cents now. So, you have gone up 45 cents for
a stamp. But in 1980, America's total debt was $1 trillion. It
is $32 trillion now. So, Congress is in no position to look at
the Post Office and say your rates have gone up too much. You
are receiving a tremendous amount of American treasure through
direct budgeting and appropriation, but it seems to me that
your problems come from regulation.
So, I ask you candidly if you had the regulatory
requirements of 1980 and the rates and budget of 2023, how fast
could you fix your problems?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, sir--and one quick point on the logistics
behind moving the mail is--has to deal with volume aggregation
and so forth. So that is why that process----
Mr. Higgins. But setting that aside, Mr. DeJoy, you say you
have a list, 1,000 pages of rules you have to follow, right?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. You were talking about why a mail carrier and
he cannot deliver to a house right next to another house. I
talked to an old guy, retired, he said--he said, Clay, used to
be maps and mailboxes determined routes and deliveries. It was
pretty much that simple.
And obviously, if a new resident had established a mailbox
at their home, they would just be added to the route in that
area. It was a decision made at the branch. It did not require
committee studies and tremendous regulatory review. It was just
a commonsense decision. Someone moved into the neighborhood.
They have a mailbox. They would get added to that route.
If you had that kind of command and control, I would just
think a guy like you could fix a lot of these problems to get
the Post Office busting even. I have to ask you about electric
vehicles, though.
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Mr. Higgins. I was not going to bring it up, but my friend
Mr. Lynch did. I think this may be the worst idea in the
history of bad ideas. I think we are going to look back on
this--I mean, utility vehicles must be robust and rugged. You
have to have--obviously, a postal delivery vehicle goes through
a lot. And as you observe American citizens that have electric
cars, they are really casual-use vehicles.
For instance, no professional hauler or tower--if you tow
boats, for instance--it is not going to have an electric truck.
You cannot go 70, 80 miles with it. So how do you intend to
make that work in your most rugged environments across the
postal system?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, that's a good point. Thank you for that
question. It was one of the reasons why we came out with only a
10 percent acquisition in the beginning, and it was a--right?
But I think we have come to a point where we have carved out
the right--we know every single route and what its
applicability is, right?
The durability of the vehicle is the same, and we know
every route where and what type of conditions. And at the end
of the day, from the way a vehicle works today, electric
vehicle, and what our route system is all over the--up to
Alaska and everything, we would never get--only about 70
percent of them would be--we would only get to about 70 percent
of the routes. And then there is different--different levels of
return on electric vehicles.
That 66,000 that we are moving in right now, we got the
sweet spot of sweet spots in terms of where they are going to
go, in terms of where they are going to be resident in these
facilities, and I think it is going to work--I mean, I did not
come in waving electric--you know, but----
Mr. Higgins. That makes sense.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. I think we are in a good place.
Mr. Higgins. That makes sense. Mr. DeJoy, my time has
expired. Thank you for your service.
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time. Thank you
very much.
The gentlewoman from Dallas, Texas, Ms. Crockett, is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is one of those moments where both sides of
the aisle want to come together and figure out what we can do
to fix the problems that exist within the Postal Service. And
so, I want to be clear that I support the Postal Service.
I have talked a lot about my mom because she currently
works for the IRS. But when I was a little girl, she worked at
the post office, and so she got her introduction into Federal
service at the post office. She worked as a part-timer. She was
a mail handler. She worked her way up and ended up in HR. So,
she kind of understands so many different levels of the post
office.
But as a Member of Congress, I get the calls about the
concerns. And so, I want to just kind of put some things into
perspective really quickly. I remember when I was growing up,
as a little girl I was taught how to write letters, something
that I do not know is going on now in schools, but the
difference was when I was growing up, we did not have the
Internet. Not when I was a little girl.
And so, it is my perception that once the Internet came
along--because I know I stopped sending as many letters--people
started using things like email instead. And what I feel as if
is going on with the Post Office is a lack of agility to adapt
to a changing environment.
And so I am curious to know, and it is really to follow up
a little bit more on what Chairman Comer was asking about, is
as we are thinking about the future of the Post Office, what
are the out of the box thoughts that we have as we are looking
at the fact that we didn't have the Internet before, which
meant that every time you wanted to put something in writing to
someone, you literally were either trying to do a telegram, a
fax, or you were actually just sending a letter. And I think
the preference was to send letters, right? But as you have
acknowledged, that is not where the bread and butter is for the
Post Office.
As someone who also lived in east Texas, which is a little
bit more rural than Dallas, I understand how thinly stretched
you all are. But what are your thoughts? I mean, and when I am
asking this, I am asking about, I do not know if there has been
thoughts about the potential of drones or whatever technologies
may be available, which then would not only reduce the carbon
footprint but also would make sure that you are not needing the
level of staff that is necessary to kind of do some of those
routes.
I did have a chance to sit down with the postmaster in my
area to talk about some of these things. He has talked about
the difficulties that he has had with hiring. He has talked
about some of the things that have been brought up as it
relates to the crime that has happened with a lot of postal
workers. And so, I am curious about that.
And also, and finally, I will kind of end on this note and
allow you to kind of elaborate on your thoughts. But in my
district, UPS, I believe it is--they are going to get me if I
am wrong--but they are now doing autonomous vehicle testings in
a route. And so, I know that those that I would consider to be
competitors of the Post Office seemingly are already, you know,
50 years ahead of us in kind of like what they are doing.
And so, if we are going to be, say, the preferred provider
as it relates to packages, like are you looking at what the
competition is doing as it relates to FedEx and UPS and trying
to figure out how do we stay or even get kind of on the playing
field with them? And I will allow you because I am just curious
about the future.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. Well, thank you. Thank you for those
thoughts.
First, Congresswoman, we are about 15 years behind in every
operating and modern-day technology and logistics thing that we
do, and we have to--that is our bread--and we have to get our
mainstream business working right, which is moving mail and
packages across the country and delivering to the American
people together. And there is a huge, huge benefit for us in
terms of cost and revenue and a big benefit to the American
people in terms of timely service into the rural communities
and so on and so forth. That is job No. 1. We have a broken
operating model and a broken business model.
The second thing is, in terms of how do we reimagine our
retail centers around the Nation that will be able to build on
this increasing commerce. We will become, if we pull this off,
an enabler of commerce, right, and things will get delivered
that do not get delivered now because it is from the Postal
Service. And there will continue to be a growth in home
delivery, in e-commerce, and so on and so forth.
And we are there. We are pursuing a number of different
issues with that, and we are reorganizing our whole customer
outreach, sales, and marketing groups to actually devise, start
working on solutions for commercial business, for mailers, for
communities, and so on and so forth. So, we need to start
thinking like that as we are fixing, as we're mending this
broken thing. And we are going to have some good ideas from
that.
Now there are a lot of changes I would love to make, and if
I owned the place, I would make tomorrow, OK? But I do not own
the place and----
Ms. Crockett. I am out of time, but if you can just give me
one because that is why we are having these hearings. Because
if I have an opportunity to produce legislation, that is what I
want to do.
Mr. DeJoy. Well, yes. So, I would move faster is the first
thing on everything that we are doing. I mean, the plan is
baked. It is cooked. But we have a very, very large stakeholder
group that has very--there is a lot of lot of interest in many
things and have witnessed over 15 years what not moving--the
consequence of not moving forward. So----
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
The distinguished gentleman from Arizona, the gentleman, my
friend Mr. Biggs, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks for being here today, Mr. Postmaster DeJoy. I
appreciate the updates you have given us.
In 2018, the Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention
Act, or STOP Act, was signed into law. That law was intended to
prevent the shipment of fentanyl and synthetic drugs into the
U.S. through the mail by requiring advanced electronic data to
be included on all inbound international packages shipped
through the U.S. Postal Service. Private carriers have been
required to carry this electronic tracking information as well
since 2022.
However, last year, some of our Senate colleagues wrote to
your office and the CBP to express concerns about the issuance
of an excessive number of waivers issued to countries beyond
the scope intended by the law. And the GAO report from May of
last year, indicates that from Fiscal Year 2016 to 2021, mail
and automobiles were the two top conveyance types used for
drugs that were seized. In fact, the data in the report suggest
that CBP components made more than 225,000 drug seizures
concealed in mail parcels over this time period, and I would
like to submit that report for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection, it will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Biggs. And so, I am wondering if you can provide this
Committee with an update on the implementation of the STOP Act?
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you, sir. And I do not know if you
noticed, but I had many, many interactions with Senator
Portman, who was a strong advocate of the STOP Act, and we
actually was very much involved in the AED measurements, the
AED sampling. That is the electronic advanced notice----
Mr. Biggs. So, Postmaster DeJoy, we just have a short
period of time. I have other questions. So, can you be real
specific about the implementation?
Mr. DeJoy. The implementation--from the Postal Service
standpoint, we implement what the State Department and CBP tell
us to do, and we have specific operating requirements. Right
now, it is about 85--I think it is 85 percent compliance with
AED. But we brought on just last year, I think, recently--I do
not know if it was last year--27 new countries.
And every time we bring on new countries, we--they are
allowed a fragment, a steppingstone compliance methodology, and
that brings the overall average down. Many of----
Mr. Biggs. So, what is the number of waivers to countries
at this point?
Mr. DeJoy. I mean, according to the law, there is a lot. I
think almost everybody would be on a waiver right now, you
know? So----
Mr. Biggs. Be still my heart.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Biggs. So, what is the total amount of drugs concealed
through mail parcels last Fiscal Year that you interdicted,
that were interdicted?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I had--I just had--but we track it.
Fentanyl is probably up 30 percent from--and I'm talking about
overall----
Mr. Biggs. Can you get us specific numbers?
Mr. DeJoy. I can get you that. I have a whole list, you
know, marijuana, fentanyl, everything.
Mr. Biggs. Do you know if there is any--well, I mean, I do
not know this. But you said basically every country has a
waiver. And so, the question I was going to ask you is any
inbound mail coming from countries who have a waiver of STOP
Act AED requirements, sounds like all of them have some kind of
waiver. Is that what you said?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, if you read the STOP Act, we are supposed
to have 100 percent compliance.
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. DeJoy. You know, there's not 100 percent compliance.
So, we have different statistical sampling methods and so
forth.
Mr. Biggs. All right. Can you--so I'm hoping that maybe you
can get me some specific data?
Mr. DeJoy. I'll give you very detailed information on it.
Mr. Biggs. All right. And then I, along with everyone else,
will tell you that I have got a couple of local issues,
specific. So maybe someone on your team can get together with
me?
Mr. DeJoy. Absolutely.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Thanks for being here, Postmaster.
And I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
The Member, Ms. Lee, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Delivering for America plan, particularly the part
about the consolidation of sorting and delivery centers, is
intended to improve postal performance and finances. These
changes will most certainly have major effects on all our local
communities, and postal workers have raised concerns about
those impacts. But are those concerns being heard by
leadership?
Section 301 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement
Act requires the Postal Service to engage and share data with
these communities and stakeholders prior to implementing a
realignment or consolidation plan. Mr. DeJoy, how did the
Postal Service comply with this community engagement
requirement prior to the release of the DFA, particularly about
the restructuring of the facilities?
Mr. DeJoy. We made the determination that we complied with
every aspect of the law and regulations with regard to the
plan, as we roll it out. The plan is ideas, and as we move
forward, we communicate. We have had--I cannot tell you the
amount of communications that we have had with the Congress,
with other stakeholders. So far, we feel very comfortable in
terms of what we did.
Ms. Lee. In fact, the Postal Regulatory Commission recently
opened a formal public inquiry into the Delivering for America
plan to get more transparency and learn more about the impacts
on the postal community. Yet the Postal Service recently filed
an objection to this inquiry and requested it be withdrawn.
Mr. DeJoy, why is the Postal Service objecting to this
inquiry meant to make sure you actually engage with your
stakeholders and customers?
Mr. DeJoy. We engage with our stakeholders. We feel it is
our position that the Postal Regulatory Commission has
overstepped their authority, and we are an independent
organization, and we have--we are charged with the mission of
saving the organization, not the Postal Regulatory Commission.
The Postal Regulatory Commission sat over and watched the
destruction of the organization over the last 15 years and
actively participated in the destruction of the organization
over the last 15 years.
What we are trying to do is save the organization. I--what
goes on, why they do the things they do, I am yet to figure
out, and I'm a pretty smart guy.
Ms. Lee. Thank you for that.
If your objection is dismissed, will you commit to
participating in stakeholder forums and pledge not to take any
further steps to block or delay such a forum?
Mr. DeJoy. I did not hear the full question, but I am--we
have communicated extensively and will communicate extensively
to all stakeholders with regard to the reasonable amount of
description one can give in taking on and doing a massive
change that is done. At the end of the day, we are not
affecting service. We are not going to affect service. Service
will continue. Service is better now.
And it is because of the things that we have done within
the plan. We will reach all 165 million addresses we are
supposed to do. We will meet the service requirements, and so
forth. We just have to fix the chaos that exists within it that
was established over the last 15 years.
Ms. Lee. You have touted that the DFA has already reduced
projected losses for the decade by more than half. Yet the
Postal Service has already lost $2.1 billion in 2023. That is
75 percent more than expected by this point. How do you explain
this complete contradiction in numbers?
Mr. DeJoy. So, a couple of ways. No. 1, in our plan, there
is $3 billion in this year's budget, full year $3 billion of
CSRS reform that was planned that we have not--it is an
administrative order that we are advocating to get. That has
not happened.
We had almost $2 billion in inflation, which was not
expected, in excess of our projected inflation. The way we--we
bill in the future, we incur the cost currently. And then there
were additional costs that I kept in place so as we
transitioned, we did not impact service. And that was-- that is
going to be about another $1.5 billion.
So, we are not giving up on the long term. It was a big
task. The place a little more broke than we figured out in the
first five months of being here. But we are very, very
committed to getting this back on track and moving forward.
And that is why interference from the Postal Regulatory
Commission is not helpful. It is going to put this whole plan
in jeopardy.
Ms. Lee. Thank you for your comments.
I wanted to talk about electrifying, the effort to
electrify the fleet. But with time in mind, I will close and
say this. The Postal Service delivers for the Nation every day.
To be effective at this essential mission, it needs to get
feedback from its customers and stakeholders at every possible
juncture.
Cutting corners to save time or money often has long-term
harmful effects like erosion of trust and loss of customers. It
is baffling to me that such a cornerstone of our society has
become so politicized and controversial. The Postal Service
needs to improve transparency and do better for the American
people.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
The gentlewoman from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Postmaster General DeJoy, you testified that 98 percent of
the Nation's population is receiving their mail and packages in
three days or less. What percentage of mail is delivered on
time in rural areas in America?
Mr. DeJoy. I would say our overall standard of first-class
mail is--to the service standards is about 92, 93 percent right
now. Marketing mail is 95 percent.
Mrs. Boebert. OK. Those are pretty high numbers. So, I
asked that because I have heard from my constituents over the
past few years in rural America who are receiving terrible
service from the Postal Service. I know a lot of issues have
been brought up today, and we are working to get solutions with
you. So, thank you so much for being here and providing answers
so we can try to work through this.
But the struggles that we are seeing are veterans and
seniors not receiving important prescriptions in a timely
manner. Postal positions have been unfilled for long periods of
time. Local post offices have been closed or had extremely
limited hours. Packages have been seen piling up in lobbies.
Some people did not receive a single piece of mail for three
weeks in my district. Wait times exceed an hour in some places.
And to make matters worse, extremely poor customer service is
something that I am hearing a lot of.
Colorado City is south of Pueblo, went out with--went
without its contract post office for approximately six weeks
after the contractor who ran it quit because the Postal Service
was not honoring his contracts. People in my district literally
had to drive 30 minutes to Pueblo to get their mail, and just,
I think, you would agree that these things are unacceptable.
Now Postmaster General DeJoy, an estimated 15,000 rural
pharmacies were forced out of the Department of Defense Health
Agency's Cigna Express Scripts reimbursement plan, and this has
caused rural veterans across Colorado's Third District to rely
solely on the Postal Service to receive their prescriptions.
This has caused veterans to go without these prescriptions,
most of which are necessary for the quality of their life, for
upwards of weeks and due to the delay in this delivery.
Now this is not only happening in our rural areas, such as
Cortez, Las Animas, Del Norte, Meeker, Rangely, and just about
all of these mountain communities, but it is even happening in
major populated areas such as Grand Junction, Colorado, and in
Pueblo, as mentioned. What steps are you taking to ensure that
postal service no longer leaves our veterans going weeks
without important quality of life prescriptions?
Mr. DeJoy. So, specifically in Colorado, when I was made
aware of the issue--and I met with your two Senators--we put--
and we are doing this in all the areas, making--as I said----
Mrs. Boebert. I am sorry. When did you meet with the
Senators? If that is something you could recall.
Mr. DeJoy. A month ago, two months ago.
Mrs. Boebert. OK. OK.
Mr. DeJoy. But we--it really was from the January and
beginning of February activity that was out there that--and
we--I put a SWAT team out into the area, and we put 12 or 13,
moved 12 or 13 carriers up. We re-established contracts,
highway contracts in the area. We brought in--put additional
management in, I think, eight or nine different locations
around the mountain area, and we got the service flowing back
on, on time.
And as I said earlier, there is a lot of damage that was
done. And then coming through the pandemic, these remote retail
areas are the ones that are the longest for us to get back and
the toughest for us to get back into stable operating
condition. And we are working on it.
I think most of those areas in Colorado are significantly
better than they were before. I watch the days to deliver,
missed mail to delivery points, and so forth. So, I think--have
you had any recent----
Mrs. Boebert. Yes. So, we have had ongoing issues that have
been brought to our attention, and specifically, there was a
period in time in October 2021, when I reached to you
personally, and I was denied a meeting. We could not get----
Mr. DeJoy. You reached to me?
Mrs. Boebert. Yes. Yes, I did. And this was just about the
unacceptable service that we were seeing in La Veta at a post
office in my district, and a government relations
representative from Washington, DC, responded and said a lie,
stating that staffing issues were not impacting operating
hours. And they absolutely were.
So, I am glad that you reached out to the Senators and
spoke to them. I am grateful to hear what you are expressing to
this Committee about the commitments that you are making to
address these issues, and I hope to work with you personally in
the future and with your staff as well because this is
something that is very important to all Americans.
So, thank you so much for your time. And I yield back.
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barragan, is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Postmaster General, you are a popular guy. I asked for
a call from you as well and was denied that request. But let me
say thank you for being here and for answering questions.
And I want to thank you for in your testimony mentioning
the men and women of the Postal Service, and you say we owe
them our best efforts and a solid plan to address the problems
of the past and to chart a course. Your testimony also attaches
a second-year report, Delivering for America, and on page 11 of
that, it says--and I am quoting--``The well-being of our
635,000 employees is at the heart of Delivering for America. We
are investing in both our employees and the facilities they
work in.''
I cannot agree more. I am a huge fan of the Post Office and
the men and the women who provide service and who go in day in
and day out to deliver mail.
Mr. DeJoy, do you ever visit post offices, yes or no?
Mr. DeJoy. Frequently.
Ms. Barragan. Frequently. Have you ever visited any of the
USPS international service centers?
Mr. DeJoy. I have.
Ms. Barragan. Have you, by any chance, ever visited one in
Carson, California?
Mr. DeJoy. No, but I'm aware of it. Actually, I did visit
Carson--before it was an international center.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Do you believe that employees should have
to work in a facility that is below 30 degrees?
Mr. DeJoy. Nope.
Ms. Barragan. And do you believe that employees should have
to work in a facility that is close to 100 degrees?
Mr. DeJoy. Nope.
Ms. Barragan. I have to agree with you. I do not think
these are suitable working conditions, and OSHA, even though
they do not have a specific number, they have a temperature
range, and it is far well away from those. Let me tell you
about working conditions in that facility that happens to be in
my congressional district. I wrote you a letter about this,
which I asked for a phone call about.
I will say your staff, somebody did respond back. Now these
are working conditions that employees of the U.S. Postal
Service International Service Center in Carson, California,
have been faced with. From December 2022 through March 2023,
the employees were working in this facility that registered
temperatures as low as 28 degrees when it was cold, and the
building there was intended to be a warehouse, not really a
processing center. It does not have any kind of HVAC system,
and the electrical capacity there is not sufficient to run
enough heaters to regulate the temperatures in the building.
I, myself, went to visit it and joined the workers, the men
and the women, who were out protesting against these
unacceptable, unsuitable conditions. And so now that you have
been made aware of this, what are you committed to try to do to
fix this?
Mr. DeJoy. So, Congresswoman, we have plenty of facilities
like that around the country that have conditions that need to
be addressed, and we are out addressing them. That is----
Ms. Barragan. Are you saying you have a lot of facilities
where workers are working in unsafe conditions?
Mr. DeJoy. There are different types of conditions. There
are different types of conditions that they will make workplace
activities, produce the result we do not want in terms of
productivity and the employee experience. And that is a big
part of what the Delivering for America plan is about.
And we, in that particular facility, it was part of a
process where we leased it for a short term. We are getting out
of the building. We are going to close that building down and
consolidate it into our Los Angeles facility.
But we have what we have, and when conditions happen, and
we have people working there and mail flowing, we're not always
able to respond to these types of conditions the way we would
like to. That is the aggregation----
Ms. Barragan. Well, Mr. DeJoy----
Mr. DeJoy. That is an accumulation of 15 years' worth of
neglect that I cannot fix in two years.
Ms. Barragan [continuing]. First of all, it is not really
15 years of neglect.
Mr. DeJoy. It is.
Ms. Barragan. And I will tell you why. Because this was a
five-year lease. So, it has not been 15 years, and when they
entered the lease, they should have said, hey, there needs to
be safe working conditions here. And you basically have just
said, hey, there is unsafe working conditions, and that is what
it is.
That should not be the response of our country to the men
and the women who need to deliver and who do deliver for
America. The response really should be, and I hoping your
response was going to be, I am going to see how quickly we can
get the workers out of these unsafe conditions because nobody
should be working in degrees that is 30 degrees.
Mr. DeJoy. That is very unfair. That is, in fact, what I
have been doing. That is a very unfair accusation.
Ms. Barragan. You just said it is what it is.
Mr. DeJoy. I was explaining the status of the condition of
the organization when I arrived here and what we have been
trying to do over the last two years. And we recognize we have
facility issues, and we recognize that that is a facility
issue, and we are going to be moving it. But it is a big place
with a lot of people and no money, right? And we are trying to
fix it.
Ms. Barragan. Well, I hope that you will look at it more
closely to get a quicker resolution.
Thank you. With that I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
Without objection, Congressman LaTurner of Kansas is going
to be waved onto the subcommittee for the purpose of
questioning witnesses at today's hearing. The distinguished
gentleman from Kansas is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
indulgence.
Postmaster DeJoy, thank you for being here today.
Bringing the Postal Service back into the black is a
tremendous undertaking, and trust me when I tell you that every
Member of this Committee wishes you all the success in your
endeavors to do that. However, I do have some concerns with the
operations side of the USPS and would appreciate your
clarification and insight on a few things.
When we passed the Postal Service Reform Act just over a
year ago, we included a requirement for the Postal Regulatory
Commission, in consultation with the Inspector General, to
conduct a study of the causes of inefficiencies in the
processing of flats. The PRC report was recently issued, and
now the ball shifts to you to develop and implement a plan to
remedy the inefficiencies. What are you currently considering
to address these problems?
Mr. DeJoy. So we--my engineering staff is studying the
recommendations. We most likely will not agree with what it is
that their study identified. There seemed to be some blatant
misses in terms of what their assumptions are. But we will go
through that. We are going to get a response.
And overall, we are trying to----
Mr. LaTurner. Can you specifically say what you agree with
or disagree with?
Mr. DeJoy. I cannot. I cannot. But there is some basic math
was--or relationships were not accurate, just like their
pricing over the last 15 years.
Mr. LaTurner. Do you believe a moderation mechanism should
be in place to ensure rate increases do not result in volume
reduction, at least while you work on the flats processing
issue?
Mr. DeJoy. I think that is not practical at all.
Mr. LaTurner. You do not think that is practical?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. No, I do not think it will fix anything,
and--so, no. The answer is no. I think we need to continue--if
the pricing methodology that is in place today, OK, was in
place for the last 15 years, we would be $50 billion to $70
billion ahead.
So far, I have raised prices $5 billion, $6 billion, of
which 80 percent of that money has been the inflationary
environment that we have today. So, the discussion about price,
which is what got us into this situation that we are today, is
just like a nonstarter with me. I have been very, very--very,
very purposeful in speaking to the mailers about what I feel
the issue is and very purposeful in speaking with the board,
and the board recognizes this.
And the mail volume declines have gone on for 10 years, and
by us subsidizing, subsidizing industry who is--where is where
most of these complaints are coming for is not going to do
anything for them or do anything for the Postal Service.
Mr. LaTurner. One of the biggest problems for decades for a
variety of factors, controllable or otherwise, has been that
the USPS is a relatively high-cost organization. Is there
anything you think should be done to reduce costs that you are
currently considering that you are currently constrained from
doing? Is there anything you are considering that you are
constrained from doing?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, there is a lot of things I'm constrained
from doing. I went to change a two-hour entry time on
periodicals so I could aggregate mail moves, movement of mail,
and I got stopped by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Yet, for
the last 10 years, they watched the destruction of the
organization and did not do a thing.
So, there is plenty of things. I could move a lot faster; I
could move a lot faster in terms of--but the Delivering for
America plan has identified specific things that we are trying
to do with regard to our network and delivery and sales and
integrating the movement of mail and packages, and price is
part of it. Raising prices on market dominant mail is part of
the process. We have had a defective pricing model for 15
years, and we need to move--we need to move beyond that.
Mr. LaTurner. You mentioned periodicals. Since August 2021,
periodicals' rates have increased more than 32 percent, well
above inflation, as other costs continue to rise--paper, ink,
transportation, and the like. My constituents tell me these
increases are not sustainable.
Periodical volumes have declined 32 percent since 2018.
There is no other option for delivery, leaving these businesses
to cut staff or close their doors. Would you agree that we must
look for solutions other than raising rates?
Mr. DeJoy. And we are looking for solutions to get the
organization to where it is generating a profit. But for the
last 19 years, we have stapled--today, we tape a quarter to
every periodical we deliver. You know what that means? We lose
$500 million delivering periodicals.
So, I do not--I mean, a lot of that is because we have had
a defective pricing model for 15 years. Now we do have costs. I
tell everybody I know we have inefficiencies, and that is what
we are trying to drive out. And we are driving billions of
dollars out of the organization, and we will continue to
accelerate that cost reduction as we move forward.
Mr. LaTurner. Do you understand the very real issues that
this is causing for some of these companies that are struggling
with rising inflation, the rising cost of other things? Are you
sensitive to the idea rather than just--because it sounds like
what you are saying is stop whining. We had a bad pricing model
for 15 years. There is a little more to it than that.
Mr. DeJoy. I'm not saying that. I'm facing the realities,
sir. I'm facing the realities of what existed here, what was
allowed to exist for 15 years and the consequence that was
dealt to the organization that we are trying to fix right now.
And price is part of it.
If you had a defective pricing model for 15 years, what
would you propose is part of a tool in the toolbox to try and
fix that? You get new authority. I have a regulator. They
allow--they allow the prices that we charge based on whatever
it is that they look up in that room, OK? And we are using that
authority.
And most of that has to come--comes from inflation, right?
And you understand the inflationary impacts that we have had
over the last couple of years. So, what are we supposed to do
as an organization that's losing money, trying to dig out of a
hole? Suck it up and continue to subsidize the industry? That
is not what I was brought here to do.
Mr. LaTurner. Just I wish you would be more mindful of the
businesses that this is----
Mr. DeJoy. I am very mindful.
Mr. LaTurner [continuing]. That this is impacting.
I am over time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
The distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Garcia, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. DeJoy, thank you for being here, and I especially
want to thank all the women and men of the Postal Service, the
incredible folks. I know a lot of them in my community back
home. And our Postal Service, of course, we know, should
connect all of us. It does incredible service for so many,
especially folks that are seniors that might be at home or have
special needs, and the Postal Service is critical, we know, for
these folks especially.
Now we know that, unfortunately, for many Americans living
in poverty, especially those without stable housing, mail and
the delivery of mail is very difficult. So many rely on the
public benefits for survival, for timely distribution of
medication, of information. So, we want to continue to improve
our service whenever we can.
Many public benefits require a response within a limited
timeframe. We know in California recipients of services like
CalWORKS, Medi-Cal, CalFresh, only have 10 days to respond, and
not receiving mail in a timely manner is sometimes the reason
why a lot of folks lose SNAP or their food benefits. And so
that delivery of mail is really critical.
For people who cannot afford access to a P.O. box, the
general delivery service is the only way that they can access
essential mail, including food benefits, health insurance,
housing vouchers, and more. Now the issue of mail accessibility
is especially critical, and there is two issues that I wanted
to bring up to you, sir, that you would work with our office to
help address.
We know that there are barriers to voting
disproportionately for folks that are unhoused, that might be
immigrants, or folks that may not have direct access to mail.
And I have seen this firsthand in the city of Avalon. And
Avalon is a city in California that is on Catalina Island, a
very small community. And like other rural communities across
the country, they do not have home delivery.
This community operates on a P.O. box system, which has led
to Avalon residents struggling for years to access mail-in
ballots and to be accurately counted on U.S. Census forms. I
just wanted to flag this one issue. Mr. DeJoy, do you and your
team agree to help work with us on these Avalon concerns that
the council there, the community, this is their top issue with
mail delivery. They are having concerns. So, I wanted to flag
that for you.
It is a small island community off the coast of California.
It is a beautiful community, and they have been asking me to
really push on this issue. So, if I can have your commitment on
that, that would be great.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, well, my government relations people will
reach out to you.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir.
And then the second issue, Mr. DeJoy, that I want to talk
about, continue about accessibility. There is a really critical
issue in the city of Maywood. Now Maywood is a small community
in California. It is the most dense city west of the
Mississippi. It is a largely immigrant population, many Spanish
speakers. But again, if you can imagine the most dense city
west of the Mississippi, this is the small community that I am
discussing.
This is their number-one concern whenever I talk to the
city council or meet anyone in the community, that post office,
as you can see behind me--we will get you a photo--what is
missing is an ADA-compliant ramp to allow wheelchair access.
And so, what has been shown to me on multiple occasions is
seniors and folks in wheelchairs, they cannot access the post
office.
And now the building has stood for nearly a century, it has
remained ADA-noncompliant since the bill was passed into law.
It has been 25 years, and despite continued outreach from the
city of Maywood to USPS. Now we understand, in conversations
with your staff--and I do appreciate their work, by the way--in
conversations with your staff, they said, well, there are other
post offices that are near me--none, of course, in the city--
that they could use that have a ramp. That is not an acceptable
answer for the folks in this community. These are seniors.
These are folks in wheelchairs. These are folks that have a
hard time moving, and they cannot get up these steps.
They, physically, even seniors cannot physically, many of
them, get up these steps. And this is also a community that is
underserved. And so, I just wanted you to know that within the
city of Maywood, this is their number-one request of me as
their Federal representative is can you please get us an ADA
ramp for the post office.
So, I just wanted you to know that. And if, Mr. DeJoy, I
can have just a commitment? Your team, essentially, the
impression we have received has been we cannot help, and we are
compliant within the law. I do not find that to be an
acceptable answer.
Mr. DeJoy?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. So, I will--we will take a look at it. I
mean, it was a good pitch. So, we'll take a look.
Mr. Garcia. I figured since you would be here, I would give
you this pitch for these folks. And I will tell you that they
will be very excited if you are able to help them.
Last, just real briefly, I know that we have a longstanding
commitment with our veterans. The Post Office has traditionally
had a great relationship with veterans. I know that we have
seen a reduction of veterans within Postal Service work. Did
you want to maybe note why that is, and then what is our
longstanding commitment to veterans in this country as it
relates to USPS?
Mr. DeJoy. So, I mean, historically, I mean, veterans have
been a significant part of our work force. The--and it still is
a significant part of our work force. I believe we have over
70,000 veterans in the work force.
This type of--the economy is changing. Society is changing.
The number of veterans is changing, and the type of work is
different. We are trying to find ways to increase the
attraction to being a postal worker, and it starts with making
the improvements in the workplace that we are heading down and
being more vibrant in terms of our commercial application,
growing in the business, and being more creative in terms of
our services.
And I think, you know, people want to be associated with a
winner and so on, and we have had a lot of hard time over the
last 15 years. So, it has not been, you know, a pleasant place
to work, and we are trying to change that.
And I think, I know we have already had a consequence, a
positive consequence on it. There is still so much more to do.
We will continue to do it, and hopefully, we will attract all
sorts of different people.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. I know I am out of time. So, I
yield back, and I appreciate your answers and your commitment
just to help. Thanks.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
The gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Mace, is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. DeJoy, thank you for being here with us this
afternoon and answering our questions very directly, even some
of them that have been very tough.
I represent South Carolina's First congressional District.
We are the 10th fastest-growing district in the Nation. We have
seen explosive growth over the last couple of years, and in
fact, when tourists come to Charleston or Hilton Head Island,
South Carolina, they never want to leave. And so, they buy
houses and they stay there, which is great for our economy, but
also presents certain challenges in regards to postal service
and deliveries.
So, I have a few questions that I would like to ask on
behalf of my constituents. We receive complaints about mail
delivery almost on the daily from constituents, and we sort of
feel helpless at this point on being able to get them their
packages and everything. So, my questions are really just
specific to our demands in our district.
Despite the significant population growth in the First
congressional District, there has been a lack of new post
offices or additional postal routes being established to
accommodate our growth. And so, I would like to ask you today
should the Postal Service adapt to changing demographic
circumstances, yes or no?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Ms. Mace. OK. Thank you.
A postal worker from the Low Country--that is our nickname
for the area that I represent--called our office recently to
say they are not able to keep new hires onboard because their
routes are impossible to complete in the allotted time. And
even if they do complete them, it is often long after dark,
which has become a safety issue and a safety concern and can
result in increased postal crime and violence, which you know
is on the rise.
So, I would like to ask you if you think it is appropriate
for postal workers to have to work or take on those kinds of
risks, yes or no?
Mr. DeJoy. No.
Ms. Mace. Thank you.
My constituents' medications, we have heard stories from
constituents of their medications crystalizing in the mail,
becoming useless due to being left in warehouses, trucks, or in
the wrong mailbox. Is it standard Postal Service policy for the
elderly not to get their medicine on time, and when they
finally do get it, for it to have gone bad, yes or no?
Mr. DeJoy. No.
Ms. Mace. Thank you. Many of my constituents have called in
complaining of incurring late fees on bills due to late mail,
missing IRS refunds, missing sent payments. Is there any
reimbursement or plan for action for our constituents who now
have late fees on bills, bills that were missed because mail
was delivered late or was lost?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, there is no action for reimbursement, but
we are trying to improve mail service across the Nation.
Ms. Mace. And what about for those who have to repurchase
medication due to it being delivered late, is there--not being
able to be delivered on time?
Mr. DeJoy. There is no action to reimburse anyone.
Ms. Mace. OK. In the last year, we sent a letter to a
district manager to start a process to fix zip code lines in
Goose Creek, South Carolina, my hometown, to create a new zip
code for Cane Bay in our district. My constituents have wanted
this for years. And Mayor Habib of Goose Creek asks me about it
every time I see him, and to date, nothing has happened on the
U.S. Postal Service side of things.
So, I would like to know if you guys can get around to
helping us so we can get mail delivered better, faster, more,
particularly in this area on that front, or is it going to take
an act of Congress? What have we got to do to fix it?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I mean, zip codes are part of our
operational process and strategy, and we just cannot add them
whenever we want without looking at that. But we will take a
look--we always review requests.
Ms. Mace. And what is the criteria for getting--getting
that done? What criteria do you all use in the Postal Service
for determining new zip codes?
Mr. DeJoy. I think we actually stopped issuing new zip
codes a long time ago. So, I do not think there is a process.
Ms. Mace. So, what do we do? I mean, this is a whole area.
This is one of the most fastest-growing parts of our district.
I mean, it is just explosive. We cannot keep them from stop
building houses and mailboxes. So, what do we--what do we do?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, so we--I will take a look at it. I mean,
there's a lot of ways to solve for explosive areas than
changing a zip code. There is route adjustments. There is
facilities, as you request. I mean, we have--we are now looking
at, part of our transition is to look at all our routes.
We are going through a whole process of reevaluating all
our route structures, looking at where all our delivery units
are based, rolling out new facilities, accelerating the mail
moving through the system, and trying to make--stabilize the
work force and make everything and everybody happy. We are on
that path.
Ms. Mace. Yes. All right.
Mr. DeJoy. So, I'll look at your area. I'll look at the
Charleston area, and we will get--we will talk to you about it.
Ms. Mace. Cane Bay. Just remember Cane Bay. That will be
great.
I want to thank you, Mr. DeJoy, for being with us today. It
is our responsibility to hold the Postal Service accountable
and ensure it fulfills its mission with the utmost efficiency,
integrity, and care. Cane Bay.
Thank you.
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you.
Ms. Mace. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
We are almost there.
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Mr. Sessions. The distinguished gentleman, the Ranking
Member, would be recognized for any closing statement the
gentleman would choose to make.
Mr. Mfume. Yes, I have got a couple of quick statements,
Mr. Chair.
First, Representative Connolly, who we all referenced at
the beginning of this meeting, is not here now. He is still
dealing with the matter of the staff persons in his office that
were attacked, but he did have three questions for you, Mr.
DeJoy. And for the sake of time, I am not going to read them,
but I would ask unanimous consent that they be entered into the
record.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection, they will be entered into
the record.
Mr. Mfume. And staff will make sure your staff gets a copy
so that he might be able to get a response.
The other thing is that I referenced, also, earlier at the
beginning of our meeting, the letter that Mr. Connolly, myself,
and the Ranking Member, Mr. Raskin, wrote that you obviously
just got. And as you go through it, I want to call your
attention to something that jumped out at me, and it goes back
to something that Representative Raskin asked.
There are--this letter deals primarily with safety of
employees and trying to keep letter carriers and deliverers and
everybody else safe from the crazies that are part of our
society, and we reference the increases in the amount of theft,
both of mail and these keys that allow persons to have access
to cluster boxes and blue boxes and other things.
But what just caught my attention earlier, is that the
letter references a statement made by Frank Albergo, who is the
national president of the Police Officers Association of the
U.S. Postal Service. He did this before the Subcommittee on
September 7 of last year. And while there are certain
assertions, his conclusion, though, I found striking.
He said the Postal Service must effectively utilize all of
its resources to curb the plague of mail theft and to stop
attacks on postal workers, and what I do know ``is that Mr.
DeJoy has not done anything to rectify the problem.''
Now this caught my attention after I re-read it because Mr.
Raskin also asked the question about this association of police
that you have oversight over. I think it is 600 or so. Then I
heard you respond that you did not have statutory authority
given by this Congress to direct and regulate those
individuals.
So, I do not--I am a little concerned because it found its
way into our letter to you, and I do not know the gentleman
that made this statement who is the head of that association.
But if you do not have statutory authority to do what he says
you are not doing, it seems to me that this statement ought to
be dis--not disallowed, but not taken seriously within this
letter. Because we are trying to get real answers. We are not
just trying to throw blame and to throw people under the bus.
So, if you would--thank you--if you would not pay attention
to that one statement that is in this letter because it has
nothing to do, in my opinion, with what we are trying to do.
And now that I know that you do not have statutory authority to
do what he is saying you did not do, it really does not make
much sense.
So, I want to correct the record on that, and we will,
obviously, look forward to your response to the several things
that we ask you about that you do have authority over.
I want to thank you for being here. As I said when we
began, this all started, we were all wearing masks. And there
have been several persons on this Committee who talked about
how they shouted at you, cursed at you, and almost threw things
at you, but you are still here, we are still here, and we think
that some sense of progress is being made.
I think it would be fair to say that it is a tough, tough
job with very little sympathy and a lot of regionalism because
we are on the ground, and we hear what we hear from
constituents. And so, we are obligated to, when we have an
opportunity like this, to bring it before you.
But you should know, as the Chairman said earlier, we are
looking to work together to solve problems. And what you
inherited was a mess, and there were several organizations in
place that are part of the U.S. Postal Service that were
witnesses. They just stood around and did not do anything. We
are trying to do something. We want to be supportive. We will
be critical when we have to be critical, but the bottom line is
that we have got to keep making some sense of progress.
So, I am going to yield back. I may have some additional
questions later. If I do, I will transmit those in writing,
particularly as relates to electric vehicles and what we do and
how you reconfigure the assets that you have on the ground.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Mfume, thank you very much.
The Postmaster General, I think, was what I would describe
as professional. I believe that the interaction of this
Subcommittee and our guests were well reasoned and balanced. We
will work together on this side, Mr. Postmaster General, Mr.
Mfume and I. We recognize, and I think you have never thought
otherwise, that there is extreme interest in what you do. But
we need to work, as I have said and as you have heard today,
together. I think we need to do a better job on this side, and
I know we will work well with you.
I want to acknowledge the gentleman, one of our former
colleagues, Mr. Sodrel from Indiana, former Congressman who has
taken time to be here. Mr. Sodrel, like all of our witnesses
and other guests that we have here, their attention to the
details of what we are attempting to do to move this country
forward, including the Postal Service, is greatly recognized
and appreciated.
I want to thank the distinguished gentleman for his time.
Mr. Mfume and I, as soon as I bang down the gavel, want to come
down and shake your hand and offer our thanks for your service
to this great Nation.
This now completes the Subcommittee hearing with the
Subcommittee on Government Operations and the Federal Workforce
with today's hearing.
[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]