[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-140
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-720 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
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
Michael Cloud, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
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
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 10, 2024................................ 1
WITNESSES
----------
Mr. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Ms. Tammy Hull (Minority Witness), Inspector General, United
States Postal Service
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Letter, August 13, 2024, from the Georgia Delegation to the
U.S. Postal Service; submitted by Rep. McCormick.
* Letter, August 22, 2024, from the U.S. Postal Service to the
Georgia Delegation; submitted by Rep. McCormick.
* Article, Politico, ``Deadly Delivery Highlights Falsified
USPS Heat Records''; submitted by Rep. Casar.
* Audit Report, ``Measuring Performance of Sorting and Delivery
Centers'', U.S. Postal Service, Office of the Inspector
General; submitted by Reps. Crockett and Lee.
* Letter, June 27, 2024, to Postmaster General DeJoy; submitted
by Rep. Mfume.
* GAO Report, U.S. Postal Service Inspection Service Should
Document Its Law Enforcement Workforce Decision Making
Process; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Article, Government Executive, ``Fed Agencies Could Save $6
Billion by Electrifying their Fleets''; submitted by Rep.
Raskin.
* Letter, May 11, 2022, from former Chairwoman Maloney to
Postmaster General DeJoy; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Report, MDP Analytics, ``Critique of USPS Elasticities'';
submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Statement for the Record, Kevin Yoder of Keep Us Posted;
submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Statement for the Record, Marie Hobson Clarke of Envelope
Manufacturer's Association; submitted by Rep. Raskin.
* Statement for the Record, Chuck Mulidore of the National
Association of Postal Supervisors; submitted by Reps. Raskin
and Connolly.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Resolution, from APWU, September 16, 2022; submitted by Rep.
Tlaib.
* Report, U.S. Postal Service, Office of the Inspector General,
Delivery Operations-Undelivered and Partially Delivered
Routes; submitted by Rep. Frost.
* Letter, August 17, 2024, from Dorchester Resident; submitted
by Rep. Pressley.
* Letter, April 10, 2024, from Roxbury Residents; submitted by
Rep. Pressley.
* Letter, May 3, 2024, from Somerville Resident; submitted by
Rep. Pressley.
* U.S. Postal Service FY 2025 Performance Targets; submitted by
Rep. Raskin.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Palmer.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Donalds.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Perry.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Greene.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Fry.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. DeJoy; submitted by Rep.
Connolly.
* Questions for the Record: to Ms. Hull; submitted by Rep.
Perry.
The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
----------
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. James Comer
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Foxx, Grothman, Cloud,
Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Perry, Timmons, Burchett,
Raskin, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Mfume, Porter,
Brown, Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, Tlaib, and
Pressley.
Also present: Representatives Clyde, McCormick, and
Budzinski.
Chairman Comer. The hearing of the Committee on Oversight
and Accountability will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone here today.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Welcome to today's hearing of the United States Postal
Service.
I want to thank you, Postmaster General DeJoy, for
appearing before the Committee today. And I also want to thank
Post Service Inspector General Tammy Hull for being here as
well.
It has been 3 1/2 years since Postmaster General DeJoy
issued the Delivering America [sic] plan and 2 1/2 years since
the Postal Service Reform Act was signed into law. This law may
have eased the way for the Postal Service to reform its
business model, but it left the details to Mr. DeJoy.
Mr. DeJoy has withstood terrible character attacks by
Democrats to include demanding he be tried for treason. I give
Mr. DeJoy credit for delivering a plan to fix the Postal
Service. Time and space have been provided for him to carry out
this work.
The difficulty of this task has never been underestimated
as it involves completely transforming the U.S. Postal Service
into a modern enterprise. This transformation requires
competing with some of the most innovative companies on the
planet while fulfilling the universal service obligation to
deliver the mail, which is a financial challenge.
And Mr. DeJoy started with an organization that had been
allowed to fall into disrepair. And I do not think I need to
remind anyone on the Committee about the disrepair the Postal
Service was in prior to Mr. DeJoy's appointment as Postmaster
General because this Committee has legislative jurisdiction
over the Postal Service, and we had many hearings where former
Chairman Elijah Cummings and then-Subcommittee Ranking Member
Mark Meadows joined together in publicly criticizing Mr.
DeJoy's predecessor for never even coming up with a plan to
reform the Post Office.
However, the Postal Service's financial solvency today
continues to be a major concern. The Postal Service is
hemorrhaging red ink. This year's loss was almost $10 billion.
Next year's loss is projected to be $6.5 billion. And with each
loss comes an explanation of how much of it was out of your
control.
Inflation caused by President Biden's out-of-control
government spending is one factor, but it is not the only
factor. When you predicted the Postal Service could break even,
did you not foresee some of these other issues? This includes
the civil service retirement obligation, which may be as much
as $14 billion.
In Mr. DeJoy's testimony, you stated, sir, how you often
have been burdened with excessive oversight, to include letters
from Congress. Believe me, nobody is more aware than I am of
the concerns and frustration about the Postal Service from
Members of Congress than me. I cannot walk down the hall
without one of the 434 colleagues of mine giving me a Postal
Service horror story. But it comes with the territory.
And while this Committee is charged with oversight of the
Postal Service at an operational level, we are all Members
representing our constituents. And the people of western
Kentucky have not been immune to problems that seem to stem
from efforts to change postal operation. For example, in
Crittenden County, Kentucky, the Postal Service was delivering
bills after they were due, and after being told the County of
Crittenden was the problem, it turned out the problem lay with
the Postal Service. And as the postal network changes, large
amounts of mail from western Kentucky sat in Louisville before
finally being sent to Nashville to be sorted.
When problems like this occur, Members are going to
continue to reach out to the Postal Service, just as I did.
There are positive signs, such as increased revenue and
reduced work hours, but we are eager to hear where all this is
going. And there are things that Mr. DeJoy is trying to do in-
house that would be better left to the private sector.
The Postal Service has added over 100,000 career employees,
but personnel costs and retirement expenses are huge
liabilities. This is not going to work unless we look for ways
to do more with fewer people. That is what the theme of this
last election and I think the theme of this new administration
is going to be--how to make government more efficient.
We must also address election mail and ballot delivery. We
appreciate the effort of Mr. DeJoy and your employees in
delivering election mail and ballots during this year's
election cycle, as you have done in every cycle since you have
been Postmaster General. But the job is to get mail and
packages from point A to point B, and it is not to serve as de
facto election authority. And while the Postal Service gains
revenue delivering election mail, it also creates an immense
burden, not just in terms of resources, but also reputational
risk.
This Committee, and then the House, recently passed
legislation requiring barcoding on ballots, that was sponsored
by Ms. Porter from California, our Democrat colleague.
This bill will add much needed, but not complete,
transparency to the ballots as they travel through a portion of
the postal network. But when extraordinary measures kick in,
there is a gaping hole as ballots are no longer scanned
regardless of whether they have a barcode.
And in California, for example, ballots can be accepted
long past election day as long as they are postmarked. It
leaves postal employees in the position of applying this
postmark.
To me, there is too much room for bad behavior in that
scenario, or the accusation of bad behavior. This issue must be
closely examined moving forward, particularly in considering
the patchwork quilt of election laws across the thousands of
election authorities. Some of these election laws impose absurd
expectations on the Postal Service. For example, allowing
voters to request a ballot that comes from a printer across the
country the day before the election. That is just not feasible.
In closing, we know the Postal Service has a job to do, but
so do we in Congress. We need you, Mr. DeJoy, to answer our
questions and give us reason to believe things will turn around
at the Postal Service, which is something that I think this
Committee hopes for in a bipartisan manner.
With that, I now yield to the Ranking Member for his
opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
DeJoy and Ms. Hull, for joining us here today to discuss the
state of the U.S. Postal Service.
When the Continental Congress established it, it was more
than just a horseback-driven system for sending personal
letters. The Post Office created the communications network
that made the Committees of Correspondence possible, that
integrated the strategies of military commanders with public
servants, and that established the national postal roads
transportation network.
The Post Office also promoted the free press by ensuring
the very low-cost distribution of news to the public at special
rates. A luminary no less striking than Benjamin Franklin--
inventor of the electric lightning rod, the lending library,
the volunteer fire department, and the bifocals--became the
first Postmaster General to improve delivery routes and to
speed up service to connect the new Nation.
249 years later, the Postal Service is still an essential
institution for Americans. Its mission is set forth in the
Constitution. It is laid out in specifics in Federal code which
charges the Postal Service with providing prompt, reliable, and
efficient services to patrons in all areas, and shall render
Postal Service to all communities.
During COVID, the Postal Service was ranked America's most
essential institution. People rely on the Postal Service to
transact critical business, including bank statements and legal
notices, life-saving prescription medicines, and notifications
of data breaches.
The Postal Service can reach every address in America--167
million residences, businesses, and PO Boxes. Its value is
essential to the economy and the society, especially to people
who live in the most hard to reach rural places.
Efficiency, reliability, and stability are critical to
meeting the needs of the public and required for ensuring the
long-term survival and adaptability of the Post Office.
The Postal Service has been operating in an unsustainable
manner for a long time. When President Trump named Postmaster
DeJoy in 2020, the Postal Service was then in need of reform.
In response, Postmaster DeJoy launched the 10-year Delivering
for America plan. He has stated repeatedly that the Postal
Service, quote, ``must operate in many ways like a private
business.'' Of course, some private businesses succeed, and
others go bankrupt.
Congress passed the bipartisan Postal Service Reform Act in
2022. This helped the Postal Service avoid imminent financial
collapse and gave Postmaster DeJoy runway to implement his plan
for success. The law helped the Postal Service progress toward
graduating from the GAO's high-risk list, which ranks
government operations most vulnerable to waste, fraud, and
abuse, and getting off that list is indeed hard to accomplish.
Despite all these bipartisan efforts, it seems that
Postmaster DeJoy has failed to use all of this new discretion
and resources effectively. His changes to the delivery network
have resulted in a disastrous decline in on-time delivery in
many regions of the country.
And we, Members of Congress, hear about it all the time
from our constituents: the lost paychecks, the bills that go
unpaid because they are never delivered, the business chaos,
the personal disruptions. Bipartisan concerns now about DeJoy's
plan changes prompted a delay in the activation of mail
processing in delivery hubs through the end of the election and
holiday season.
The Postmaster General anticipated that these delays would
be temporary and all in service of getting the Postal Service
to break even financially. Three years into his plan, however,
the financial condition of the Postal Service is astoundingly
bad and much worse than all of his initial projections.
Postmaster DeJoy projected in his original Delivering for
America plan that the Postal Service would reach break-even by
2023 or 2024. Instead, the Postal Service's net loss of $950
million from operations in Fiscal Year 2022 increased to a
whopping $9.5 billion net loss in Fiscal Year 2024. That is a
900 percent increase in the Postal Service's losses in a 2-year
time span.
Postmaster DeJoy's Delivering for America plan changed
delivery standards for first-class mail from 2-to-3 days to 3-
to-5 days. Mr. DeJoy claimed the new standards would make it
possible for the Postal Service to reach its 95 percent on-time
mail delivery goals nationwide. Yet today, not a single one of
the 50 Postal Service districts in the United States is meeting
the Postal Service's self-designed 95 percent service standard.
Meanwhile, the Postal Service increased prices for mail and
packages in July. Another price increase for packages will go
into effect, incredibly, in January of next year.
In other words, under Mr. DeJoy's leadership, Americans are
paying higher prices for worse service. More than 3 years into
Delivering for America's implementation, with more than 150
ongoing projects initiated to meet the Postmaster's goals,
customers are still seeing a decline in mail delivery service,
and they are paying higher costs for it.
The Postmaster General's plan is not working, but Mr. DeJoy
continues to drive everything in the wrong direction. In the
last month, the Postal Service announced its intention to lower
service performance targets for Fiscal Year 2025 by as much as
15 percent among certain first-class mail products--the lowest
performance targets ever, excluding the COVID-19 period.
Mr. DeJoy's leadership of the Postal Service is an alarming
example of what we may see coming in the next term: sticking to
the MAGA playbook of treating essential government functions
with cavalier recklessness and ignoring the differences between
a private sector company and the public good.
I do want to take a moment to recognize and applaud the
valiant efforts of postal management and employees to deliver
election mail during the 2024 election season. I also want to
commend Inspector General Hull for the office's exceptional
audit work during the election season to ensure the Postal
Service had ample resources and insights to promptly deliver
election mail and make adjustments where necessary.
When the Postal Service meets its mission, America
benefits. And my colleagues and I all want the Post Office to
work for our constituents and our communities. As the Postal
Service works to build a resilient operation, it must fulfill
its obligations to the people and ensure that we all have
reliable mail delivery as a pillar of a successful American
economy and society.
I look forward to today's interaction, and I yield back to
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Ranking Member yields back.
Today we are joined by the Honorable Louis DeJoy who has
served as Postmaster General of the United States Postal
Service since May 2020.
I would also like to welcome Tammy Hull, Inspector General
of the United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector
General, a role she has held since November 2018.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
And thank you all. You may take a seat.
Before we begin with opening statements, I ask unanimous
consent for Representatives Clyde and McCormick of Georgia and
Representative Budzinski of Illinois be waived on to the
Committee for today's hearing for the purpose of asking
questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
We appreciate you all being here today and look forward to
your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read
your written statement, and it will appear in full in the
hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes.
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.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we ask
that you please begin to wrap up.
I now recognize Postmaster General Louis DeJoy for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MR. LOUIS DEJOY
POSTMASTER GENERAL
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. DeJoy. Good morning, Chairman Comer, Ranking Member
Raskin, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to once again discuss the significant progress the
U.S. Postal Service is making in accomplishing the objectives
identified in the Delivering for America plan.
When I agreed to take the role of Postmaster General, the
Nation was in the beginning of a pandemic, and the Postal
Service was in an organizational crisis, facing a diverse array
of challenges that put the organization on an accelerating and
near-term trajectory to financial and service collapse.
The Postal Service had lost almost $90 billion, was
projected to lose another $200 billion over the next 10 years,
and was about to run out of cash before year end. Over 31,000
facilities were in shockingly horrible condition, with over $20
billion in deferred maintenance and were ill-equipped for
modern-day tasks.
We had not met our service standards in almost 10 years,
had not reduced work hours in over 8 years despite
significantly reduced volume. More explicitly, over 57 percent
of our 31,000 post offices did not cover the cost of the people
that worked at them, and 76 percent of our 235,000 delivery
routes lost money.
This all came to a crushing blow in peak holiday season of
2020, 3 1/2 months into my tenure, when we were overwhelmed,
which dramatically impacted service throughout the Nation for
many months. Services scores across the board sank into the 70s
for an extended period of time. We were a dysfunctional
organization with poor operational processes and discipline,
declining product volumes, and an alarming employment
practices. We were void of strategy, vision, and resources. Yet
as with today, we were high on demands, regulation, critique,
and resistance to change.
Oddly enough, there was not a plan in sight at that
particular point in time--anywhere from anyone to address the
issues, even though it was going on for over a decade. Within 4
months of my tenure, we produced the Delivering for America
plan, a plan that called for the men and women of the United
States Postal Service to raise the organization up from near
death and pursue operational, financial, and service
excellence. And we have been executing on that plan since,
through extraordinary times.
The 10-year DFA plan had five simple aspirational and
directional objectives we planned to accomplish. The plan was
developed in consideration of the laws and regulations that
governed the Postal Service at the time, not the ones we think
that should have governed it.
The plan also considered the failing condition and
trajectory of the organization, as well as its revenue losses
and opportunities, at the time of the release of the plan in
March 2021.
Finally, the plan, when developed and as it is being
implemented, considered the relevant attributes of our evolving
economy, geography, public policy, marketplace, and competitive
landscape as we knew it.
The plan's five objectives were focused on the following:
Objective No. 1, improve our operational precision and
organizational effectiveness. We have. After much
reorganization and sweeping operational infrastructure
initiatives, we have made great gains toward replicating,
throughout the Postal Service, the ingenuity and competitive
spirit of the best in private companies in America. The change
in culture combined with our commitment to public service will
serve us well into the future.
Objective No. 2, reducing our cost of performance. We have.
Reversing our loss trajectory by reducing 45 million annual
work hours, approximately $2.5 billion, and transportation
costs of over $1.5 billion annually, thus reaching the self-
held cost takeout goal of $30 billion over the 10-year period,
identified in the plan.
Objective No. 3, creating reliable and affordable service.
We have. By September 2023, service for most product categories
reached 93 percent on time and were well in reach of our stated
goals of 95 percent. And we still had some of the lowest
postage rates in the world. However, the cost to achieve this
under the existing infrastructure and service standards was not
sustainable.
Objective No. 4, growing our revenue with margin on our
products. We have. Revenue growth has exceeded our plan by over
$24 billion, with significant gains in competitive products
dramatically outpacing the projections in the DFA plan.
Objective No. 5, creating inspired, productive, and long-
term career paths for our employees. We have. By reversing
unfavorable practices with our pre-career work force, improving
our working conditions, and liberating and inspiring the
managerial work force to collaborate and simply do better.
In addition to all these initiatives and accomplishments,
there was another goal of which you are aware, Mr. Chair. Under
your leadership, and with former Chair Carolyn Maloney, as well
as with Chairman Peters and former Ranking Member Portman in
the Senate, we worked very collaboratively on the passage of
the Postal Service Reform Act, which among other things,
removed the unfair burden of prepayments required and enabled
the integration of our retiree healthcare benefits with the
Medicare system.
I again thank you and the Congress for your efforts in this
important legislation.
After 3 years, we are a different organization today. We
have initiated reforms in nearly every aspect of the Postal
Service, including operations, maintenance, logistics,
procurement, sales, marketing, technology, products, government
relations, communications, and personnel management.
We have repurposed or repurposed [sic] approximately 200
facilities, deployed $2.5 billion toward deferred maintenance,
hired or repositioned almost 1 million people, relocated or
installed over 1,000 conveyor systems, transitioned one of the
world's largest air cargo networks, packaged and delivered over
1 billion COVID test kits, and introduced a new multibillion
dollar product.
We did all this while delivering 400 million pieces of mail
daily, 6 days a week, to 167 million addresses spread across
half the planet under rules, regulations, and processes
designed by bureaucrats of the 1970's for a different social
and economic America.
I am proud of the work we have accomplished, and I am
impressed by the commitment, talent, and tenacity of our people
as they work hard to make the Postal Service the best in
commerce and public service for many years to come, a unique
opportunity we have and as the Congress intended when they
created us.
What we have not done, Mr. Chair, is break even. The
planned initiatives accomplished did not overcome the rescue
and recovery of our operations, the 20 percent inflation we
experienced, as well as the dramatic rise in our mismanaged
Federal Government retirement costs and other compensation
benefits. About 90 percent of our 2023 loss of $6.5 billion was
due to the substantial, unplanned, unable-to-be-forecasted
increases in our costs in these areas.
Nevertheless, under these conditions we still reduced our
projected 10-year losses from approximately $200 billion to
slightly under $80 billion. We are now taking additional
aggressive actions to further reduce our operating costs by $5
billion annually and grow our revenue an additional $3 billion
annually, as identified in my letter to the President and
congressional leadership on January 10, 2024. These initiatives
are in line with the requirements spelled out in the Postal
Reform Act to deliver mail and packages 6 days a week to an
integrated network.
This requires the continued realignment and equipping of
over 31,000 facilities, the rerouting of over 50,000 truckloads
a day, the effective utilization of over 200 aircraft routes a
day, and inspiring and changing the operational and
organizational culture of over 600,000 postal employees. I am
confident in our ability to accomplish all this.
We will also require the change to our service standards
and business rules to reflect the modern-day use of the Postal
Service and to continue to liberate us from the reckless
demands in regulation and mindset that has destroyed this
organization over the past 19 years.
The American people mailed 59 billion pieces of first-class
mail in 1999. Last year, they mailed less than 12 billion.
It is time for us to solve for the obvious, and that is
what we propose to do with our recent filing for an advisory
opinion with the Postal Service Regulatory Commission.
Since September 2023, when our service was in the 90's, the
rapid changes we have had to make have not come without
consequence in some areas of the Nation, and we apologize to
those impacted. This is the consequence of decades of neglect
and inaction. The lift we have is high, and the time we have is
little. So, we will carry on with caution, but we will carry
on.
Having said that, throughout the coming year, we continue
to deliver more than 50 percent of the mail and packages we
handle each day in advance of the current service standard. We
estimate we will deliver 85 percent on the day of the service
standard, and 95 percent will be delivered within 1 day of the
service requirement. On average, the American public will
receive their mail and packages within 2.7 days.
As you know, the basic mission of the Postal Service and
our fundamental statutory obligation is to provide high quality
postal services in a financially sustainable manner. Under this
structure, it is my job not just to deliver the mail tomorrow
but to transform the Postal Service into an organization that
can provide quality postal services in a financially
sustainable manner for years to come.
We are working feverishly to correct for the past; overcome
the economic, political, and competitive hurdles we face today;
and, yes, correct for our own missteps as we engage in this
massive task.
I ask you to keep in mind that there is no way to fix
service and our finances under the current regulatory business
model without dramatic changes to our operations and approach.
And then I would like to remind the Committee that I was
not appointed by President Trump. I was appointed by a
bipartisan Board of Governors.
Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Inspector General Hull.
STATEMENT OF MS. TAMMY HULL
INSPECTOR GENERAL
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Ms. Hull. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Raskin, and
Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss
our work.
I am proud of the work my office completed this year to
promote accountability, integrity, and transparency in the
United States Postal Service.
We conducted extensive field work around the 2024 election,
from late September through the week of the election, making
more than a thousand visits to processing plants and delivery
units in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We
reported issues our teams found in near real time to Postal
Service management, and we followed up with weekly reporting to
postal executives, the Board of Governors, and to Committee
staff.
Overall, the Postal Service was very responsive, and this
collaboration supported a successful election cycle. We will
issue a report summarizing our findings in the spring.
Beyond the election, we have continued to promote
transparency and accountability through our audits of the
Delivering for America plan and the Postal Service's response
to mail theft.
We have also fought fraud and abuse through our
investigations, finding and arresting postal employees and
outsiders who collaborate to steal checks, credit cards, and
use the postal network to traffic narcotics. Our data indicates
that we have thousands of actionable criminal complaints for
which we have insufficient resources to investigate.
To continue our critical oversight for the American public,
we need a budget that keeps pace with inflation and grows when
needed to address serious risks. We appreciate your continued
support in this area.
Next week we plan to issue a report on the early impacts of
the Postal Service's transportation optimization effort that
alters when collection mail is picked up at certain post
offices. Our report will identify service reductions that
resulted in the communities where the changes occurred.
Consistent with our previous work, this report will note the
critical need for increased transparency around these
operational changes and their expected impacts. We believe the
Postal Service needs to significantly improve communications
with the affected communities so that the American public has
accurate information about the changes they will experience and
the service levels they should expect.
Earlier this year, we reported similar concerns in our work
on the implementation of the Delivering for America plan. It is
important that the Postal Service keep communities and
employees informed as changes are made. This is especially
important when these impacts occur in under-served rural parts
of America that have limited options and rely most heavily on
the Postal Service. Cost cutting to achieve break-even
performance can result in disparate impacts to these
communities. Accurate, timely, and transparent information
about how plan changes will impact these communities is
critical to preserve trust in America's Postal Service.
While these initiatives roll out, financial challenges for
the Postal Service continue. Our work has identified the need
for the Postal Service to provide updated financial information
as it implements its plans. The Delivering for America 2.0
update did not include projections on whether or when the
changes will lead to break-even results. These financial
projections are essential for key decision-makers to better
understand the tradeoffs the Postal Service is making,
especially as it advocates for legislative changes to its
pension and workers' compensation programs. Our recent work
discusses how these programs are costly obligations, and it
would be helpful for all stakeholders to better understand what
it will take for the Postal Service to be financially solvent.
While the Postal Service has not provided updated long-term
financial projections, it has provided some cost-savings
estimates associated with specific parts of its plan. Our
future work will provide oversight assessing whether it fully
realizes these projected savings.
We at the OIG are committed to our efforts to provide
transparency and promote accountability for service performance
and financial solvency. America needs a strong Postal Service,
and the Postal Service owes clarity to the communities it
serves about its plans and their projected impacts.
I appreciate the time to discuss these issues and your
support. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
We will begin our questions. The Chair now recognizes Dr.
Foxx from North Carolina.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank both
of our witnesses for being here.
I think my colleagues on both sides have done a good job of
expressing our concerns about the status of reforms and
performance of the Post Office.
Mr. DeJoy, as you know, my district, and many areas across
the Southeastern United States, were hit hard by Hurricane
Helene at the end of September. The storm brought catastrophic
flooding and widespread damage that did not spare postal
facilities in its path.
Can you tell me how many post offices in North Carolina
remain closed and how many have been reopened? And if you do
not have the answer readily, it is OK if you give it to me
later. And how long do you expect the closed post offices to
remain closed?
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you, Congresswoman Foxx. I believe we have
about 10 post offices now that still are without service. We
have mobile--you know, mobile units that we have put in place.
I will tell you that when the hurricane hit, we lost about
30 post offices and were down about--not able to get to about 3
million delivery points, and subsequently progressed down to
about 20,000 right now that are closed.
Ms. Foxx. Put on your mic.
Chairman Comer. In fact, we have had a couple people, and
myself included, having a little trouble hearing you all. If
you could pull the mics closer and speak into the microphone,
that would help. Thank you.
And I am sorry to interrupt you, Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. That is OK.
I want to go on to another local issue. The Fleetwood,
North Carolina, post office, very small facility in a fast-
growing community, is too small for the mail volume it
receives. And we understand many of the Fleetwood routes are
run out of the Boone post office nearly 18 miles away, which is
delaying the delivery of mail and costs mail carriers time and
the UPS [sic] money.
My staff was told the Fleetwood post office could not be
moved to a larger facility--although one is available--unless a
disaster struck the post office. Well, it was destroyed by
flooding.
Can we now expect the Fleetwood post office to be moved or
rebuilt as a larger facility so that the long and wasteful
transfer of mail to and from the Boone post office can be
eliminated?
It has been a constant source of frustration for many of my
constituents, and I am going to follow up on this, Mr. DeJoy,
because I have other questions to ask you.
You stated a few years ago your goal was for the Postal
Service to break even by 2023. However, as we have heard today,
the USPS continues to lose money each year and is on track to
close this year with a $9.5 billion loss.
Is the Delivering for America plan still up to the task of
helping the Postal Service finally break even?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. Look, we just issued Delivering for America
2.0, which is just reinforcement of the initiatives that we
have to improve operational performance, recognize the
diminishing mail volumes that we are handling in the
marketplace and reclaiming our position in the package
business.
So, our drive to, you know, to reduce costs, grow revenue,
so we can put more product into our carriers' bags, which have
to go to 161 million addresses, 6 days a week, by law, OK,
which is over half our cost, which is a pretty fixed
environment. So, we are pursuing these initiatives. We have
introduced new products that have grown package revenue
significantly and have other products coming down the line once
we get the network in order and the changes in the service
standards that we need.
So, absent other extraordinary issues that face us, this is
the best plan that I have seen around town in a long time. We
are planning--we will get $5 billion out of additional costs,
and we will grow our revenue by additional $3 billion. And if
the OIG wants to put a forecast in as to when we will break
even--she has those numbers--she can do it.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeJoy. You know, I use the post
office a lot. I send out a lot of mail every week from my
office from me personally. So, I am very acutely aware of the
service, the time, and the cost.
At what point do increases in postage rates start
destroying demand and decrease the volume of mail to
economically unsustainable levels?
And you have said you are going to raise postage rates to
the extent possible. How do you determine what constitutes,
quote, ``the extent possible?''
Mr. DeJoy. So, we have operated under a defective pricing
model for 15 years before my time. Mail volume had cut in half.
The PAEA froze prices due to inflation, and the mail volume got
cut in half, and we were not allowed to raise our prices, to
the tune of $50 billion that the organization did not--was not
able to raise their prices.
When I got here, we finally got the approval to raise
prices, and we had 20 percent inflation, of which I get to
charge prices after we incur the inflation. I am always in
arrears. Eighty--75 percent of the price increases that we
charge were due to inflation and were not at the inflation
rate.
An organization like ours which has labor and physical
distribution assets that is--would have been negligent not to
do any, you know, price increases, especially after 50 years.
We are trying to reduce our costs significantly, OK, and
grow our revenue to create an integrated mail and package
network that winds up funding the delivery of mail into rural
communities like yours. OK. That is the strategy we are working
on----
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeJoy.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. Right now.
Ms. Foxx. I am way over time. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, Mr. DeJoy, your plan promised Americans excellence in
delivery, but the Postal Service is now operating below its 95
percent target service standard nationwide in every single one
of the 50 postal districts in America.
The service performance in my state of Maryland, for first-
class mail, has remained significantly below the national
average, which is 89 percent. Maryland has not met the 95
percent service standard for at least 2 years.
Given that you have not been able to meet the current
target service standards, your new proposal to the Board of
Governors is not to work to improve service, to bring it up to
par, as I understand it, but instead to lower the service
standards further, especially in rural areas.
Do I have that right? Is this your approach to dealing with
this problem?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I disagree with the premise, and it is not
the approach. The approach deliver--85 percent, 90 percent of
mail and packages originate within 50 miles of the sites that
we are talking about for collecting and distributing
originating mail. OK.
All of that service into rural communities will be
advanced. OK. We are talking about single-piece, first-class
mail collected from these rural areas outside of 50 miles,
which is not only rural areas--there is also about half the
volume is urban areas outside of 50 miles of these plants, and
half the volume is in rural areas--may get a day less within
the 5-day window.
Everything else will get--they will still get their
medications which come in packages. They will still get their
other types of mail that come from shippers of products and so
forth.
Mr. Raskin. OK. But just to be clear, it is as if somebody
is getting a poor grade, and rather than trying to figure out
how to improve their performance, it is changing the grading
standard. Is that right?
Mr. DeJoy. I disagree with the premise. I give myself a
good grade.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I am just going by the numbers that
exist. I mean, isn't it the case that in all 50 postal
districts you have not lived up to the 95 percent service
standard?
Mr. DeJoy. First of all, 95 percent never had a target
date, right. We have never had--it is a 10-year plan, sir. It
was 25 years of destruction. It is a 10-year plan. OK. Right
now, as I said, 50 percent of first-class mail--of market-
dominant mail gets delivered a day in advance, 85 percent on
time, 95 percent within 3 days, which is better than the
service was when I got here.
And we are making dramatic change. We have moved a
million----
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. People around the Nation. We have
opened up 200 different facilities, right.
Mr. Raskin. All right. I appreciate all of that.
Ms. Hull, let me come to you, help me figure this out. Is
the Delivering for America plan actually improving timeliness
and reliability of service delivery for Americans?
Ms. Hull. We have not seen that so far. This past year,
there have been significant network changes in our work in--
particularly in Atlanta and Richmond saw some significant
service degradations when those network changes were
implemented, and also in the introduction of some of the
transportation optimization--local transportation optimization
in Richmond and what we are seeing now in some of the other
areas. Service has declined in those locations.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Mr. DeJoy, you said the Postal Service
would break even by 2023, last year, or 2024. We are in
December now. Under your leadership, the Postal Service has
increased the deficit by 900 percent.
Do you still realistically expect the Postal Service to
break even this year or next year, or when will it break even?
Mr. DeJoy. I expect to drive $5 billion of costs down over
the next 24 months and grow revenue $3-to $4 billion over the
next 24 months. I intend to, you know, try and negotiate with
someone on our retirement plan benefits and how they get
calculated and how they get invested.
We just filed for--with OPM to look at how the--we have had
like a 700 percent increase in terms of people that will be on
the plan that is inaccurate. We have investment issues. We have
workman's comp issues.
But these are things that take--most of them will take
actions from this Congress. I cannot do this myself. But what I
can do, we are doing. We are going to drive out costs, we are
going to grow revenue. And this is why we did not put a
forecast in for, you know, for when the break-even was, because
it is not something we can do ourselves.
All agencies do not put in what they are--how they are
going to use their--if they are going to break their budget or
not. We put it in at that particular point in time for a
variety of reasons and--but we are working to drive out costs
and grow revenue.
Mr. Raskin. So, do you regret now having set that break-
even point in 2023 or 2024, when you first set this out?
Mr. DeJoy. So, there is a lot of things I regret sitting
here. OK. What does--I mean, that was--I was here 3 1/2 months.
I had projections. I had an understanding of what the operation
was and should have been doing. Right.
I had a Board, we sat down, and we put something together
that said something that had been--something that lost $100
billion over the last 10 years, right, and was more broke than
one could even imagine, OK, we put a number together and we
went for it. And we got a lot done, and we are still getting a
lot done.
Mr. Raskin. OK. And can you break even without Congress'
help? Are you saying you need Congress' help to do it now?
Mr. DeJoy. I think it is good. Next year I will have
600,000 people on my payroll, maybe, 610. I have 720,000 on my
retirement plan. That is a problem.
Mr. Raskin. OK. So just to be clear, you are saying you
need Congress' help in order to break even?
Mr. DeJoy. I--well, I can continue to unwind service.
Right? I am telling you what I can get in terms of cost. If, in
fact, we get all those costs, and we have reasonable inflation,
and we have reasonable calculations of our workman's comp
costs, and we have reasonable calculations of our retirement
benefits, we have a chance.
I have a date and time and projection, but if I say that,
that becomes the whole discussion, what we did not get
accomplished, not what we got accomplished. So, I am a little
wiser being here in Washington for 4 years now.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time is expired.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Grothman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Always great to talk about the Postal Service. I used to
collect stamps. Just to give you a little history, the last 3-
cent stamp was in 1958, the Mackinac Bridge stamp. So, there
you are.
Now, you said that your first-class stamps are lower than
other countries. I was not aware of that. Could you give us a
little story as to where the first-class stamp is today in,
say, Canada or Mexico or the U.K.?
Mr. DeJoy. U.K. is about 2 bucks--2 bucks for a stamp.
Paris--Europe is in the $2 range, $1.50.
I am sorry.
Mr. Grothman. What is Canada and Mexico?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not know. I have a--I can get you a chart,
but we are at the bottom---we are down with Ecuador and
countries like that. Most of the industrial world is in the
$1.50-plus range.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Overall--well, next question. Are there
any requirements with regard to electric vehicles for the Post
Office?
Mr. DeJoy. There is no--we have a plan to deploy electric
vehicles. We have a commitment to buy--we have a plan to buy
106,000 vehicles over the next 5 years, of which 66,000 will be
electric.
This year we took in 28,000 vehicles, of which 22,000
vehicles were gas vehicles. Next year it will be about 50/50.
And then the following year on the acquisitions we have, we
will be----
Mr. Grothman. Do you have any statistics as far as the cost
of gas versus electric?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, you know, Congressman, I was in the
crossfire of a whole bunch of issues and did not agree to put
electric vehicles into our fleet until we had, you know, the
appropriate cost benefits to the organization.
The IRA program, which was approved by this Congress, gave
us $1.9 billion for infrastructure costs and gave us $1.2
billion for new vehicle costs, of which we have put together a
plan that does, in fact, work for the Postal Service with that
particular--with those particular, you know, cost structures.
We are buying, you know, special-purpose, long-term
vehicles that will last us 20, 25 years, at a relatively good
cost with the IRA offset, and all my infrastructure will be
paid for this set of vehicles coming out.
We are studying the charges now as it moves forward. We
have our routes are set up for this type of service. Some of
these vehicles we do not have to charge for 3 days.
And the costs, I believe, when I look back at the cost of
improvements that we get, it's only when we get out to the cost
of it all--let us say a battery lasts 10 years. There is cost
benefit to us on maintenance and fuel and so forth for the 10
years. It is when you go to buy that new battery using today's
battery costs that it puts us over the--could put us over the
return aspect.
Mr. Grothman. Given your druthers, would you rather have
gasoline-powered vehicles, if your sole goal was to save money?
Mr. DeJoy. So, my need was to have vehicles, like, now,
like, 5 years ago, so----
Mr. Grothman. Yes. Just straight up and down, if we wanted
to save money in the next 10 years, would you feel better if we
said it will be all gas?
Mr. DeJoy. I feel good where we are. I feel good where we
are. We--I mean, we----
Mr. Grothman. Well, that cannot be right. It is half of
each. But which is less expensive? They cannot be identical.
Maybe they are identical. I do not know.
Mr. DeJoy. Once--look, this is a time constraint. Once
installed, the places that we are installing them--we could not
put electric vehicles everywhere, and we could not put electric
vehicles in overnight. OK. But once installed--and if you do
not have--you offset the capital costs, which we have, it is a
pretty decent thing. It is a nice vehicle, we have better
monitoring on it, and it is, you know, lower in maintenance.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I will give you another question, because
I am almost running out. We were talking this morning. Do you
have any people in the Post Office which you would refer to as
DEI professionals, people that are focused on that sort of
thing, either with regard to people you hire or with regard to
government contracting?
Mr. DeJoy. Congressman, this is a hardworking, focused,
boots-on-the-ground organization. We, you know, we have--we
have our normal--in terms of a plan, we have our diversity
goals, but that is just handled by a basic H.R. department. And
we are a diverse group of--diverse organization mostly focused
on delivering mail and packages----
Mr. Grothman. Yes. But does that--yes. Does that affect who
you hire or who you promote?
Mr. DeJoy. I mean, we pay it--we pay it--you can look at my
organization and look at and see what the--make your own
judgment on it. But I hire and relocate people based on
intensive evaluation of their performance. And I believe most
of the organization, you know, does that.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time is expired.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton from Washington, DC.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeJoy, I have written to the Postal Service many times
in recent years about issues in the District of Columbia,
including mail being stolen, burned, or otherwise destroyed,
lost, or not delivered.
Recently, I asked that the Postal Service hold a community
meeting with me and my constituents in Ward 5. The Postal
Service waited for weeks before responding and eventually told
my office it was in the so-called black period before the
election and could not hold a community meeting with an elected
official, even though my request was placed weeks before the
blackout period started.
I then requested that the Postal Service contact the
relevant stakeholders to hold the meeting without me during the
blackout period. This never happened.
My office has contacted the Postal Service since the end of
the blackout period and still has not received a substantive
response about this meeting request.
So, Postmaster DeJoy, will you direct the Postal Service to
work with my office and hold this meeting as soon as possible?
Mr. DeJoy. I will immediately look at--get into it, and
most likely that will be the outcome. I need to understand what
the circumstances is, but we need to do a--this is an
organization that has a lot of complaints against it, and its
people get somewhat averse to extensive communication, which is
something that we are trying to change here.
But we have begun going out with different congressional
and state and local people and trying to amass a communication
process that not only resolves problems, but also teaches the
people that we are engaging with the problems and reasons as to
why, you know, why we are doing things, and hopefully build
some equity and understanding of the problems that we face,
that despite the accusations, we do a tremendous amount of
communication, tremendous amount of communication.
Often, we are not clear enough in our communication or
people do not like the answers to what we communicate, but I--
you know, we will engage and embrace that. And I will
personally look into your situation and get back to you in a
couple days.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. DeJoy and Ms. Hull, as you know, mail
theft has exploded in recent years. Between 2019 and 2022,
there was an 87 percent increase in reports of mail theft from
mailboxes and a 543 percent increase in letter carrier
robberies.
An audit issued this year by the Government Accountability
Office stated that the number of U.S. postal inspected service
investigations into serious crimes nearly doubled between 2019
and 2023, an increase driven by robberies of letter carriers.
I ask unanimous consent to enter the GAO report titled,
U.S. Postal Service: Inspection Service Should Document Its Law
Enforcement Workforce Decision-Making Process.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
In the District of Columbia, my constituents are continuing
to experience mail theft, including check fraud. Postal theft
endangers our hardworking postal employees and our constituents
who have had money stolen and are missing important packages
and mail.
Ms. Hull, what is the effect of the rise in mail theft on
letter carriers' safety, health, and well-being?
Ms. Hull. Yes. I think the mail theft explosion is, as you
said, very concerning and definitely has an impact and raises
issues with letter carrier safety.
We also, similar to GAO--I think before the GAO report that
you mentioned, we issued a report on the Postal Service's
response to mail theft and are continuing to do local visits.
We have done Queens, New York; we did Chicago; we have done San
Francisco.
Washington, DC, may be a place where we go also to look at
what the Postal Service is doing to address mail theft.
Ms. Norton. I have introduced a bill to require the U.S.
Postal Service to install security cameras at each postal
facility to protect USPS employees, customers, and property.
The Postal Service retains its own law enforcement body,
the U.S. Postal Inspector Service, that is tasked with
investigating and preventing postal crime. For more than 50
years, postal police officers have been responsible for
protecting postal employees, customers, and property.
The Postal Service employs approximately 450 uniformed
officers around the country. These officers defend the Postal
Service mission around the clock, 7 days a week.
It is more important now than ever that the Postal Service
retain the ability to adequately investigate postal crime.
All right.
Chairman Comer. OK.
Ms. Norton. However----
Chairman Comer. Go ahead.
Ms. Norton. However, in 2020, soon after Mr. DeJoy became
Postal General [sic], the Postal Service, and here I am
quoting, declared that ``postal police officers should no
longer be assigned to investigate or prevent mail theft or
protection of letter carriers,'' end quote, except in cases
when the theft or violation occurs directly on Postal Service
premises.
I have co-led on legislation to reverse this directive.
Ms. Hull, how does this----
Chairman Comer. I am sorry. I am going to have to--it is 2
1/2 minutes over, but we can submit that question about the
police officer to the Inspector General if that is OK.
Is that OK, Mr.----
Mr. Raskin. I agree.
Chairman Comer. OK. We will do that, Ms. Norton, if that is
OK with you.
All right. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Burchett from Tennessee.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeJoy, how many unions do you deal with within the
Postal Service?
Mr. DeJoy. Directly, seven unions and management
associations.
Mr. Burchett. Seven. All right. And tell me, what is the
Delivering for America program?
Mr. DeJoy. What is it?
Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeJoy. The Delivering for America program is a set of
strategies to try and reverse the trajectory that the Postal
Service had when I arrived and bring it--improve service and
improve its profitability.
Mr. Burchett. OK. On your website it says it is an
organization in financial and operational crisis to one that is
a high-performing group.
Do you believe that the plan which was introduced 4 years
ago has made the Postal Service high performing?
Mr. DeJoy. I think, sir, after 20 years of crises, it takes
a little bit of time to stabilize the organization, but I
believe that this organization now is heading in that
direction. And I know I have experience in running and
competing with excellent organizations.
Mr. Burchett. Well, here in Fiscal Year 1924, you lost $9.5
billion.
Mr. DeJoy. That is right. I have lots of rules.
Mr. Burchett. Do what?
Mr. DeJoy. I have lots of rules.
Mr. Burchett. OK. But that is $9.5 billion, though, that
was lost. I think that was dramatically higher than the loss in
Fiscal Year 1923, which was just--I say ``just'' but I am from
Tennessee--that ``just'' is not justified because that is a
heck of a lot of money to our folks. Fiscal year 2023 was $6.5
billion.
How do you explain the increase if this is Delivering for
America?
Mr. DeJoy. I have fixed prices. I have fixed service
requirements----
Mr. Burchett. Define to me what a fixed crisis is.
Mr. DeJoy. Price, fixed prices.
Mr. Burchett. Price? OK. OK. I have got----
Mr. DeJoy. I had 20 percent----
Mr. Burchett. I have got hearing aids, and I have trouble
hearing. My wife says it is selective, but now I have no
excuse. And she is right, I do not.
Mr. DeJoy. We have 20 percent inflation, and we spent a lot
of money trying to get service where it needed to be, and that
is something that we have, you know, because of our--not
getting some of the reforms that we wanted, and the inflation,
we have had to, you know, take a different, you know, a
different approach now.
Mr. Burchett. When do you think the American taxpayer will
see a return on the 5-year delivering for America program?
Mr. DeJoy. Well----
Mr. Burchett. And do you think we will ever break even? Let
us just be honest.
Mr. DeJoy. Listen, I am working at this with a whole bunch
of people pretty hard with that aspiration. But I came in $100
billion into a $300 billion losing trajectory.
Mr. Burchett. Right. Look, I love the post office. Before I
got to Congress, I was very active in the eBay trade. If you
left a truck parked in front of my house very long, parts were
probably coming off and getting sold on eBay, but are the rules
and regulations included in your program tailored to enable the
post office to keep up with the private sector?
Mr. DeJoy. No. We have a postal regulatory commission. We
have some very, very specific--you know, my--how I move my
freight and my mail and packages can all be tied to the pickup
time and the collection box 30 miles outside of Roanoke,
Virginia. OK? There is all sorts of, you know, different rules
and longstanding practices and business processes that need to
be--that need to be changed, and we are, in fact--you know, we
are, in fact, changing them.
Mr. Burchett. OK. Let me cut into that. In my district, the
Maryville office, I felt like they needed a significant
overhaul. They keep getting stuck with temporary postmasters
and after temporary postmasters. Could you commit to my folks
in east Tennessee that we can improve this situation? Because--
and I get it, it is the daggum Federal Government. People get
moved upstairs when they ought to be kicked out, and I think
that is part of the problem, but if you would commit to that.
Mr. DeJoy. What post--where is it, sir?
Mr. Burchett. Maryville. It is pronounced Maryville if you
are from there. But you would pronounce it Maryville, m-a-r-y-
v-i-l-l-e. It is in Blunt County. Next right up to the Smoky
Mountains.
Mr. DeJoy. I get made fun of in the Senate when I speak.
Mr. Burchett. Well, east Tennessee is the only place in
America where people do not speak with an accent, sir. I
appreciate it.
And I would like to say for the record, Mr. Speaker [sic],
our brother Connolly is back. The Lord does answer prayers, and
I prayed for you, as many people did, and I am glad you are
back with us, brother. All kidding aside.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Welcome, Postmaster General DeJoy.
First of all, I want to thank you for coming up to Boston and
looking at the potential of relocating the general mail
facility there. I got a sense of how hard you are working at
some of these things, so I want thank you for that.
Inspector General Hull, thank you as well for attending.
Just to go back to the vehicle situation at the post office--
so, according to the Inspector General's office, the post
office has about 230,000 vehicles. I think you are second only
to the Department of Defense. Is that right?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not know what the Department of Defense
has, but we are up to 230,000 vehicles.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. OK. Fair enough. And the last time we
looked at this issue, we had almost a quarter of those vehicles
had exceeded their life expectancy of 24 years. Is that your
guess on that?
Mr. DeJoy. Life expectancy was 20, and they are all--when I
get done with 100,000 vehicles in 4 years, I will still have
100,000 vehicles outside their useful life.
Mr. Lynch. Right. It is pretty bad. I did have a chance to
see a demonstration of the new electric vehicle. The carriers
love it. You know, the letter carriers love it. The package
delivery folks, you know, rave about it. It has got a side
thing where it is a lot safer, they can deliver from.
They can actually take the packages out from the sidewalk,
so it is getting pretty good reviews from the people who use
it, not to mention it actually has seat belts and it has air
conditioning, which none of the vehicles, none of those 230,000
vehicles, believe it or not, had air conditioning, which, you
know, I can only imagine how it is down south trying to deliver
mail in those older vehicles. So, really pleased with the
progress that you have made there.
I know that we were able to give the post office about $3
billion in the Inflation Reduction Act. What is that going to
buy us in this current, you know, transaction in terms of--I
know Oshkosh is producing some of these vehicles. Is that
right?
Mr. DeJoy. So----
Mr. Lynch. These are U.S. produced vehicles, right?
Mr. DeJoy. U.S. produced vehicles.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. OK.
Mr. DeJoy. We had $1.9 billion for infrastructure, which
means buying charging stations, going out, implementing
charging stations in our new sorting and delivery centers right
now, and, you know, deploying vehicles there. We got $1.2
billion to use, and I--to use as an offset to the increase in
the electric vehicle price versus a standard vehicle that we
would have bought.
If an electric vehicle costs 75--approximately $75,000 and
a base vehicle would have cost $55,000, we applied a $20,000 to
that, and that kept us in--I did not wait--there was a lot of
discussion on that to keep us--we had to get the vehicles to go
in where we had already existing amperage, which is where we
went to our sorting and delivery centers. We needed a pretty
deliberate, you know, plan in terms of implementation, and so
forth, so that is working good. We also bought 10,000 Ford E-
transits which we are trying to get deployed. They are left-
hand drive, so when all of this is over, the next five, 6
years, so there is imbalances in terms of what we are doing,
but we are getting them deployed.
Mr. Lynch. OK. The other thing I wanted to ask you about
was informed delivery. So, you get an app on--the post office
offers a--this is a rollout, so it is not going completely
smoothly, but you have got an app here where you can actually
look at your mail before it arrives, when it comes into the
general mail facility, and it is not--it is not completely
available to everybody right now, and I am a little concerned
about that. Some addresses are not eligible.
But when you think about it, you have got 100--close to 170
million addresses and delivery points. Why can we not turn this
into a revenue stream for the post office? If everybody is
going to be looking, you know, potentially, you roll this out,
everybody is looking at what is coming in their mail, you know,
other companies will want to piggyback on that to advertise
when somebody is buying, you know, say a gardening product, or
something like that, there is--if other producers are trying
to, you know, sell their products into that same market, it--
this is what Amazon is doing basically.
Mr. DeJoy. One-hundred percent. When I came here, we had
about 30 million people on the servers. I pushed and worked
with the team and we are up to almost 60 million. Now, you need
other things to make it work. We need a good delivery system.
We need a good information system. We are redoing our whole
tracking and tracing and inform system. We used it during the
COVID test kit distribution, going to areas and give messaging
about ordering, and we had a click through percentage on that
when we sent--if somebody signs up for informed delivery, we
send an email. They open that email. It is a very, very high
rate.
That is how--and the click through rate was probably like
five percent, which is big in terms of marketing. This is the
whole--we need to use that, and we are building that out to
inspire a delivery, and I think we get this program set up
right and make the fixes that we need to make and how we move
mail and packages together in an integrated manner from five
networks we had when I got here down to one, OK, things will be
delivered and collected from residences that we are not even
imagining right now. People will use this. And that system will
be part of it.
Mr. Lynch. Yes. All these other Members are talking about a
revenue problem. We have a revenue problem here, so I am just
saying this has huge potential if we could focus on it. Thank
you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Before I
recognize Mr. Sessions, I recognize the Ranking Member for a
unanimous consent.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apropos Mr. Lynch's
comments, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an
article from Government Executive, dated June 1, 2023, titled
``Federal Agencies Could Save $6 Billion by Electrifying their
Fleets.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sessions from Texas for 5
minutes.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Postmaster General, welcome. I heard your comments. They
were well written. I think they were true. I do not think that
you would say that things went smoothly, but you did
acknowledge that they were on a plan. You did acknowledge a lot
of things that I believe are frailties that are being worked
on.
As you know, I engaged the Postal Service down in Texas
outside of Houston about major problems of delivery. That
happened and we got over it. Are there any more things like
that, that you foresee in the coming year as other people will
be coming online with this new system, or what do you think
there?
Mr. DeJoy. Just--I thank you for those comments and for
your patience while we went through Houston, which was--opening
in south Houston, which was--sir, the plan--the projects and
facilities that we are deploying are not revolutionary.
Mr. Sessions. They were a learning process for you. I am
simply--this is not being mean. I am simply----
Mr. DeJoy. No. No.
Mr. Sessions. Do you anticipate rolling that program out or
have you learned enough from----
Mr. DeJoy. We have already rolled out 11 sites with less
consequence. We had Georgia, Richmond, and this Houston one. We
have 11 other sites that are going. I am processing 1.7 million
packages in Indianapolis right now.
Mr. Sessions. Well, I do not know what else is in your
basket that you intend to do here. All I am simply saying is do
you have any----
Mr. DeJoy. I think we have significant mitigations in place
right now to not--to--first of all, we have to absorb the
capacity we deployed. The team is much more experienced in
being deployed. The staffing is much more stabilized. And I
think we will not be without error, but I do not plan to shut
down cities.
Mr. Sessions. Good. My conversation with you that you've
already begun is the process of emailing people about this
delivery. I think that that is exceptional. I think it will
work. As you know, there are lots of growth areas across the
country where the changes in the program, that started years
ago but nobody applied, about moving to cluster boxes from
mailboxes, I think that that could be utilized very well to let
people know they had mail somewhere.
I would like to turn this conversation now to a
conversation that is relatively new, and that is of a term
called DOGE. I am one of the three co-chairmen of the DOGE
caucus that is here, and essentially we are interested in
efficiencies, yes, efficiencies mostly, but on the other side
of that is saving money. It would be my request to you that the
post office find perhaps a better way to deal with those that
would wish to deal with you on this concept of moving the post
office during this period of time when there will be lots of
conversation about this and other matters of government
efficiency.
I have found in the past, not to be critical, that the post
office does not always place its highest priority off saving
money. I know you are busy, but I have had several
conversations where we have referred potential savings, and I
am not sure that we heard an answer back, so you are going to
get ready to see these things come publicly, and I just think
it would be good for you to establish with me or--because I am
generally your point of contact, a way that we can specifically
look at efficiency to hear your ideas and you hear ours to save
money on your side and also from us.
Mr. DeJoy. I am happy to engage in any discussion.
Mr. Sessions. Well, just--Peter knows, your staff knows,
that we sent these things to you, and they went down in your
organization. I have yet to hear things back. I want to thank
you for your time. I will be quite blunt. If we had your
reconfirmation up today, I would vote yes for you and your
team.
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Connolly from
Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our
two witnesses. And let me begin by saying to the Postmaster
General, I have been a critic, but I have to say I am persuaded
in your tenure and in your testimony today that you are
certainly committed to the Postal Service and in making it
viable. We are not going to agree on a lot and I am going to
remain critical, but my hat is off to your commitment, and I
thank you for that.
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Hull, the Postmaster General has got a
10-year plan called delivering for America. Is that correct?
And please speak directly into the microphone so we can hear
you.
Ms. Hull. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Louder.
Ms. Hull. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Connolly. OK. And did that plan include either a break-
even financial position by the end of it or even a slight
profit?
Ms. Hull. So, the initial plan did. They--the Postal
Service just released 2.0 the updated version of the plan, and
the updated version did not include that information.
Mr. Connolly. So, we had one in 1.0 but not in 2.0.
Correct?
Ms. Hull. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. Is that correct?
Ms. Hull. Correct, yes.
Mr. Connolly. And why was that? Why would we drop a
financial projection of either a slight profit or a break-even
and be silent about it apparently?
Ms. Hull. I am not sure about that. I assume there were
uncertainties, but that would be a good question for----
Mr. Connolly. Could it possibly be because the plan, in
fact, is not working?
Ms. Hull. That would be a great question for Mr. DeJoy.
Mr. Connolly. Well, how many rate increases have there been
in the last 2 years in the Postal Service?
Ms. Hull. I do not know the answer that question? There
have been several rate increases.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. DeJoy, do you know the answer to that
question? How many rate increases have we experienced?
Mr. DeJoy. I think six or seven.
Mr. Connolly. Six or seven. And what--normally the postal
regulatory commission, as I understand it, might approve one,
but six or seven would be a little bit out of the norm, would
it not? I mean, you made the point that we are below industrial
countries average, and that is a good point, but as you know,
that is not how consumers experience it. They experience it
whether they are businesses, package deliverers, or individual
homes--they experience it as inflationary relative to what they
were paying previously. And six or seven rate increases is a
lot.
Ms. Hull, the Postmaster General noted that--as did the
Ranking Member, that we are going to lose $9.5 billion
projected this year. Is that correct?
Ms. Hull. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. And it was $6.5 billion last year. Is that
correct?
Ms. Hull. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. That is a big increase. When you are losing
$9.5 billion in the midst of a 10-year plan, isn't it a little
difficult to say success?
Ms. Hull. I think financially there have been some serious
challenges, and that is why we are pushing for an increased
transparency into the finances of the Postal Service so that
those targets and the tradeoffs can be greater.
Mr. Connolly. What do you mean by transparency? For
example, would one of the elements of transparency be tell us
when you think we are going to break even or have a small
profit?
Ms. Hull. Just give some financial projections overall,
right, on the results of the plan.
Mr. Connolly. And that is kind of where I am going. Were
those projections included in DFA 2.0?
Ms. Hull. No. No, they were not.
Mr. Connolly. Why not?
Ms. Hull. No. I----
Mr. Connolly. I am asking you as the Inspector General, did
you inquire as to why that was missing? That seems kind of
important to me in any financial plan.
Ms. Hull. Right. Yes. When we issued our report on the
Delivering for America plan, it was prior to the 2.0 being
released, and so one of the recommendations that we made was
that the financial projections that were in 1.0 were not really
relevant anymore. So many things had changed, and so it was
really important for the Postal Service to release updated
financial projections. That recommendation, I think, is due to
be closing end of this year or early next, and so we did make a
recommendation to that effect in that report.
Mr. Connolly. It seems to me that has got to be an
important part of any plan if it is going to generate
confidence both in the consuming public and here in Congress. I
thank you both for being here today, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama.
Mr. Palmer. I am going to deviate a little bit from the
questions that have been asked, Mr. DeJoy. I have got a
constituent who reached out. And I am sure other Members of
Congress have constituents that raise concerns about the post
office, but his concern is about the current poor conditions of
one of the post offices in my district, the Meadowbrook Post
Office. For 3 1/2 years, he has tried to call the postal
inspectors to discuss this and has not heard back. Is it normal
procedure that the postal inspectors do not return calls from--
--
Mr. DeJoy. Not that I am aware of. We know they sometimes
do not give good information or might have been referred to a
facilities group, but inspectors usually respond.
Mr. Palmer. He has raised specific concerns about the
disposal of waste and trash that is accumulating in the parking
areas. I do not know the age of this individual, but for--I
have gotten concerns raised by--for another post office by some
of my constituents who are older, elderly, about access to
their post office boxes. They have, in this one particular
case, the boxes are outside, but in this particular post office
case, he says there is just regular trash, old furniture is on
the property. There is a hole in front and a backflow from
waters. Just indicative of a lack of maintenance of the
facility, and this guy says that he has been calling for 3 1/2
years and had not heard back. That is a--I hope he was not on
hold.
Mr. DeJoy. We have 31,000 facilities, all in disrepair. I
put $2.5 billion in over the last 3 years. If you give me this
location, I will check on it.
Mr. Palmer. I will have my staff reach out to you on that.
Let me ask you another question. I have got some concerns,
and I do not--for individuals, they can buy whatever vehicle
they want to, but the post office under the Green New Deal is
moving rapidly into EVs. What is the cost differential between
a gas-powered vehicle and an electric vehicle?
Mr. DeJoy. To buy the vehicle?
Mr. Palmer. Yes. To buy the vehicle.
Mr. DeJoy. For the vehicles that we need in terms of
special purpose vehicle, I would say--that we are getting
built, it is about $20,000. Coming on--off-the-shelf vehicles,
maybe $10,000 dollars.
Mr. Palmer. For an electric vehicle?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. I will need to check on that. I am concerned
about this, because I am looking at the minimum range. It is 25
miles. I am not sure--between charges. That is what I saw.
Mr. DeJoy. It is about 70, but our average use is coming in
around 25 miles, so we are looking at ways now to expand a
ratio between the vehicles and chargers, because we are in
close prox---you know, our average route is short, 20 miles, 15
miles, 10 miles in some cases.
Mr. Palmer. It is my understanding, though, that this
transition is going to be fairly expensive, and obviously, we
all have concerns about the physical condition of the post
office and----
Mr. DeJoy. So, what I would say is, Congress gave us $3
billion and we are using it wisely, and I think in my--I would
not have done it unless we thought it was financially, you
know, viable and good for the service. We needed vehicles. This
was the way we were able to move forward. And I think we worked
a good strategy of, you know, with regard to this.
Mr. Palmer. We will see how it works out, but I have
feeling, Mr. Chairman, we will be discussing this again. I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. Would you yield your last 40 seconds, if
you do not mind?
Mr. Palmer. I would be happy to.
Chairman Comer. Mr. DeJoy, there have been reports about,
you know, the new administration clawing back unspent COVID
funds, and things like that. Where are we with the funds that
were allocated in the postal reform bill that passed this
Committee in a bipartisan way? And then there were two pots of
money I am curious about. The pot with the postal reform bill
and the pot where it had the money and infrastructure bill for
the electric vehicles. Where are we on that?
Mr. DeJoy. So, this was done with the electric vehicles.
That was legislation that was passed.
Chairman Comer. Infrastructure?
Mr. DeJoy. Given to us. We have that money. We have made
commitments against that money to buy vehicles and to----
Chairman Comer. What percent have you spent? I know you
cannot spend it all at once, because they do not make enough
electric vehicles.
Mr. DeJoy. I would say we are--so there is commitment in
terms of planned commitment. That is all spent because that
is--and then there is commitment in terms of contract
commitment.
Chairman Comer. There you go.
Mr. DeJoy. Some percentage--I would have to get back to
you.
Chairman Comer. Let us know that.
Mr. DeJoy. With regard to the other one, I would like to--
the postal reform adjustment that was made, there was no cash
in that. That was strictly the reversal of the pre-funding----
Chairman Comer. Right. OK.
Mr. DeJoy--of the thing that----
Chairman Comer. Very good point.
Mr. DeJoy. Alright?
Chairman Comer. OK.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Krishnamoorthi from Illinois.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Mr. DeJoy, for your service. Mr. DeJoy, service standards have
unfortunately been going down during your tenure. According to
your own performance report for this quarter, I am holding this
up, it says national single piece first-class mail, 2-day
performance was 85.9 percent on time, which is a 4.9 point
decrease over the same period last year. That is what this
quarterly report says, right?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not remember exactly, but if you say so,
yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes, sir. And the price of a stamp was
55 cents in 2020, right?
Mr. DeJoy. Yep.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And the price of a stamp today is 73
cents, correct?
Mr. DeJoy. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. So, we have seen now six increases
during your time in office, and what bothers me, and what some
other people have pointed out, is not only has the price of
stamps gone up so much, you know, these forever stamps have now
gone up six times during your tenure. That is 46 percent during
a time when you say that inflation has gone up 20 percent.
Something else has gone up, and that is your compensation, sir.
Your total compensation was almost $481,000 in your first full
year of pay in 2021, and your total compensation in 2024 is
$561,000 all in. A 17-percent increase. Isn't that right?
Mr. DeJoy. I have no idea.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It is right here in your compensation
table and your USPS report.
Mr. DeJoy. You can study it. You pay more attention to it
than I do.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I doubt that, but let us take a look at
this.
Mr. DeJoy. I promise you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. During your tenure, sir, you have
earned--you have received over $2.1 million in compensation.
$2.1 million in compensation just during your tenure. So, what
bothers me is this: During your tenure, service standards have
gone down. Affordability of mail has gone down. Your
compensation has gone way, way, way up, and that is deeply,
deeply troubling.
Let me turn your attention to another issue which my
constituents bring this up to me all the time. Mr. DeJoy, when
the mail is not delivered for whatever reason, you are aware
that letter carriers are required to complete, quote,
``undelivered mail report,'' correct?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let me show you some of the undelivered
mail reports that have come to our attention. This first one
says, ``instructed to leave mail behind.'' Isn't that what it
says?
Mr. DeJoy. I cannot see that far.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Would you like us to----
Mr. DeJoy. I will take your word for it. I will take your
word for it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. Let me show you another undelivered
mail report. The report says, ``instructed to leave mail,
hundreds of flats.'' That is what this report says, right?
Mr. DeJoy. If you say so. I agree.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let me show you another undelivered
mail report--``instructed to leave mail behind by management.''
And then let me show you a fourth undelivered mail report that
came to our attention. Do you see this? At the very bottom it
says, quote, ``delivering for America,'' exclamation point,
question mark, ``laughable.'' Isn't that what it is saying?
Mr. DeJoy. That is what you are saying, so I will take your
word for it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let me show you some images and
pictures that came to us, which is highly unusual. We never
receive these things, but we received it recently. This is what
election week looked like in Des Plaines, Illinois' post office
with mail that was left behind. Election week. That is a mess.
Let us show you another picture. Palatine, Illinois. This
is in my district. Parcels piled on high. This is a complete
mess and completely unacceptable. This is not delivering for
America.
Mr. DeJoy. You think this is just new to my tenure, sir?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. This is leaving mail behind for
America.
Mr. DeJoy. You think this is just new to my tenure, sir?
You think this did not exist before I got here?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. This is during your tenure, sir. Let me
ask you a last--about a last topic. Are you familiar with--have
you walked the halls of Cannon where they show the pieces of
art from the high school art competition?
Mr. DeJoy. No.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. When you walk the hall from--it is
called the Cannon tunnel. There are pieces of artwork that are
hung there. All of us pick, through the high school art
competition, a winner and display their artwork for everyone to
see. It is one of our biggest sources of pride, for me at
least, and I suspect for a lot of my colleagues. Recently we
had a winner declared in my district, and my district office
took the art and sent it by priority mail through the U.S.
mail, and it was lost in the mail. It was lost in the mail,
sir.
It was one of the most challenging conversations we have
ever had with a constituent. A young teenager who worked her
heart out creating a piece of art, and we had to tell her we
are so sorry, the USPS lost your art in the mail. Sir, this is
just one story out of numerous stories in my district of people
losing mail or having their mail delayed. That includes
medications. That includes social security bills. That includes
small business payments.
Service standards keep going down, sir. Unfortunately, the
forever stamps, the cost of them keep going up forever. And the
losses and the salaries and compensation are piling up. When
you say in this report Delivering for America is working, I
respectfully submit you are oblivious to public opinion.
Delivering America [sic] is not working, and it needs to be
returned to sender. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DeJoy. What would be the alternative you would offer
right now?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. May I answer the question?
Chairman Comer. Sure.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I think you have got to live up to the
service standards that the American public expects of you.
Those are the service standards that you publish, that you keep
lowering on this piece of paper here. This is a joke. It says
here pre-sort overnight delivery of first-class flats. The
standard is 95 percent on time for 2024. This here, it is gone
to 80 percent. That is ridiculous. That is not overnight mail
anymore. That is kind of overnight. It might be a two-night. It
might be a three-night.
Mr. DeJoy. That is not pre-sort. Those standards would
not--that is not an accurate comparison. Pre-sort mail is not
at 80 percent.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It is right here.
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I do not know what you got there. Maybe I
take back everything I said I agreed to.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. First-class flats, overnight, 95
percent is the target on-time delivery for Fiscal Year 2024. Do
you not agree with that? Do you disagree with that?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not remember, so I will say OK.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. This is your enclosure from this
latest report, Fiscal Year 1925 market dominant performance
targets, first-class mail.
Chairman Comer. I am going to let you all iron this out
like we did with Ms. Norton. I gave you 2 1/2 more minutes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Hold on. Let me just finish my
sentence. This says first-class flats overnight, target
percentage Fiscal Year 2025, 80 percent.
Chairman Comer. All right. And we can--you can submit
additional record--additional questions at the conclusion.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ma'am, sir.
I will give you an action item. I know that you got a lot of
places, but I got a call from one of my bosses yesterday. He
went to the Derry Street in Harrisburg Post Office to buy a
roll of stamps, 100 stamps, and he was told we do not have any.
Now, that is one of the money making I think portions of your
business, I think we can agree. Is that something that is
endemic? Is that something that--is that associated with
personnel issues? Or are you not able to produce them enough,
or is that just a one off? What do you know about----
Mr. DeJoy. I have not heard that before.
Mr. Perry. You have or have not?
Mr. DeJoy. I have not. So, I will look into it.
Mr. Perry. OK. Please check for me. I want to talk to you,
I know there has been a lot made of this EV purchase, and
according to, I think, the postal museum, your current costs
for a traditional--what I will call traditional vehicle is
$11,651 and the cost for the electric vehicle is $59,000, so
that is a $47,000 increase or it is 66,000 vehicles, $125
million. Now, this might--this is probably your opportunity to
tell us----
Mr. DeJoy. That was the cost in 1987 when we bought them.
Mr. Perry. What is that?
Mr. DeJoy. That was the cost in 1987 when we bought the
LLVs.
Mr. Perry. OK. So, that is what the museum says, right? So,
I will take your word for it, right? And I am sure it is--since
1987 it has gone up. I do not--my bigger question is this, and
this might be your opportunity to be critical of this place, of
Congress. I think you stated that the subsidy from the IRA is
what makes the cost of the EV--it makes it worth the effort
charging, et cetera, making the change, the additional cost,
and so on and so forth. Is that--can you quantify that? What is
the subsidy, if you will, provided for each vehicle that the
post office procures?
Mr. DeJoy. As a--I think once in place in our particular
route system on--you know, we have 300----
Mr. Perry. Sir, I get that you have kind of done the
numbers, but that portends to me you that know the numbers. So,
what is the subsidy? You have done--look, this has been your
business even when you were in the private sector to a certain
extent, right? So, do you have a number? What does that look
like? Because with all due respect, I guess, you know, to a
certain extent, Congress is either mandating or incentivizing
the purchase, but the American people are paying for it,
whether they buy stamps or whether they pay their taxes, so I
am trying to discern what that cost is.
Mr. DeJoy. You gave us money to--for us to pursue a certain
initiative. We needed vehicles, right? So, we had $1.9 billion.
I purchased enough vehicles to deploy an infrastructure of $1.9
billion. OK? Then I had $1.2 billion to offset--to offset--for
vehicles. I used $1.2 billion to neutralize the increase from
electric--from gas vehicles on the purchase price to electric
vehicles. That is more or less----
Mr. Perry. Sir, I get the point. Look, I did not run the
numbers. I suppose we can. Maybe Ms. Hull can at some point.
What I am trying--when you say we gave you, yes, the U.S.
Congress, the U.S. Government took money away from the American
people who are also--and I am not saying this is your fault,
but they are buying--they are paying for the post office when
they buy stamps and buy service for delivery, so on and so
forth, but now they are also paying for this transition, and I
am trying to evaluate--I am trying to get you to help me
evaluate the worthiness, the additional cost. What is that
additional cost per vehicle?
Mr. DeJoy. If the Congress wanted us to pursue
electrification of our fleet----
Mr. Perry. Say that first part again.
Mr. DeJoy. If the Congress wanted us to pursue
electrification of our fleet, which is why they gave us----
Mr. Perry. So, let me ask you this then.
Mr. DeJoy. We used the money----
Mr. Perry. Let me ask the question a different way. If
Congress had not provided the incentive or the mandate or the
requirement, or whatever you want to call it, would you, as a
business manager, have pursued this effort on your own? Would
the payback be there? Would the financial--would the numbers
support the decision?
Mr. DeJoy. I would not have pursued it as aggressively and
deliberately as we had.
Mr. Perry. OK. Fair enough.
Mr. DeJoy. With the vehicles, we had 10 percent in electric
vehicles.
Mr. Perry. Let me ask you this question, because I am
running out of time here. I think you said at the Senate
hearing that 80 percent of your cost is labor. Does that
strike--does that seem right?
Mr. DeJoy. Seventy-five to 80 percent.
Mr. Perry. Seventy-five to 80 percent. So, I do not know
what your business model--and I say yours--the post office's
business model has lost in revenue over the past, like, 40
years. It is probably pretty high. Probably above 50 percent,
right?
Mr. DeJoy. Uh-huh.
Mr. Perry. So, you as a former private sector delivery guy,
would you, in a business that is losing money at that level,
then transition your contract employees to full-time employees
with the additional benefits and costs? Would that be something
that you would do as a private business?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I did it in the circumstances that I was
in. I had----
Mr. Perry. You did it now, sir, or you did it then?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I would make the business decisions that I
need to make looking at all the elements of the situation that
I am in, and that is what, in fact, I did. I did not just put
100,000 people on the payroll. I have 20,000 people less than
when I walked in the door. I am burning 45 million hours less
than when we got here.
Mr. Perry. I understand you have----
Mr. DeJoy. I had to hire 200,000 people.
Mr. Perry. With all the benefits and the associated costs
and that is the point, sir.
Mr. DeJoy. What is that?
Mr. Perry. I understand you are trying to manage this, but
I do not think in any other industry--look, I ran a business,
too. When I was hemorrhaging money is not the time I went out
and hired people because I could not afford to pay them. With
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. DeJoy. I came here during the pandemic. I need to
deliver mail to 167 million addresses. I could not hire people.
I compete with Amazon, UPS, and FedEx.
Mr. Perry. And some of that problem probably resides here.
Mr. DeJoy. All of it does. It does not reside with me. The
place was a mess when I got here.
Mr. Perry. Sir, if you could enumerate what could be done
differently here to help you, that would be helpful to us. I
yield.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Brown of Ohio.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I truly thank the Postmaster General for being here
today. The Postal Service is critical to the well-being of
economic success and peace of mind for people across America.
Congress took historic bipartisan action to reform and improve
the Postal Service in the 117th Congress, yet the USPS is still
lagging with underperforming response times, funding gaps, and
delayed upgrades. As it has been repeatedly stated according to
the postal service's own data, the on-time delivery rate in
some areas in my district is barely hitting 70 percent. These
are historically low service standards and far below the
expected and promised rate of 95 percent, and I think we can
all agree that this is unacceptable.
And as we all know, poor performance disproportionately
impacts low-income communities, which is also alarming. As you
know, the holiday season is referred to as peak season. The
surge in mail, cards, and packages for people across the
country make for an understandably busy time for the USPS, but
also a predictable one. So, last month the Office of Inspector
General issued an audit report identifying potential risks and
evaluating the Postal Service preparedness for this year's peak
season.
And 2024 might be the biggest year ever for holiday mail
deliveries. Black Friday had its biggest online year on record,
and all those packages and products are now making their way
through the mail system. This, of course, complicates efforts
to deliver the everyday mail people rely on for their health
and economic security.
These critical and life-saving deliveries do not stop
during the winter months. In fact, they are more vital than
ever. So, Postmaster DeJoy, how are you balancing the holiday
day surge with routine essential deliveries?
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. We
have added a significant amount of processing capability around
the country with conveyor systems and new plant openings, you
know, throughout the Nation. We also have redefined our
transportation methodologies and practices adding significant
carrier base across the Nation, and we have also done this with
trying--because of our stabilization efforts within our
staffing, we did not have to add--we were adding 50,000 people
a season when I got here. We added about 7,000 this year. So,
we are moving. We are moving product throughout the country in
a line.
My position on the service standards are they are not--the
service standards are measurement practices and service
standards are ludicrous and we are getting them changed. This
is why we filed something. But 50 percent of the mail and
packages will be delivered a day in advance in the set
standard, 85 percent on time, and 95 percent within a day. And
while we are making all these changes, that is a pretty good--
you know, a pretty good outcome for the magnitude of what we
are doing. We will watch this as it gets closer to Christmas,
and we will do accelerated processes to move it even faster.
Ms. Brown. Thank you very much. Every day people in my
community rely on Postal Service to get their social security
checks, disability benefits, and prescription medications. We
understand individuals waiting for their checks in the mail
face extra challenges. Receiving checks promptly can be crucial
for maintaining basic needs like keeping the lights on or
putting food on the table. These are people who are relying on
the timely delivery of their essential mail.
The data in my district show lower income communities
experience poor on-time delivery performance compared to
wealthier ones. So, Postmaster DeJoy, are you aware of the
disparities of delivery performance related to socioeconomic
status? And what is your plan to get service in historically
disadvantaged areas up to standard?
Mr. DeJoy. So, I am not aware of--I mean, we have a lot--
there is a lot of areas like this and a lot of new reporting
that was just put out in the last 2 years. Our goal this year
is a big transition year for all the different types of things
that we are doing and we put in for a new standard. But our
goal once the network is satisfied is to provide all 167
million delivery points with on-time service no matter where
they are.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. Well, I am very pleased that
you are here. I am disappointed by the USPS' delayed
implementation of major upgrades, its worsening condition and
persistent failure to meet its own on-time delivery standards,
particularly in low-income communities. I think we can agree
that this is no way to run a critical agency delivering
necessities to individuals in all of our districts, but again,
I thank you for your service and your being here to address
these needs and look forward to productive conversations on how
we can improve this vital institution.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Timmons from South
Carolina.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeJoy, thank you for being here today. I want to talk
to you about the next generation delivery vehicle fleet. I
represent Greenville and Spartanburg, South Carolina. Oshkosh
has decided to manufacture tens of thousands of NGDVs in my
district, and there was recent media reporting that the
incoming administration may cancel the contract, and I want to
walk through that, because I think that the media report was
inaccurate, and I think a very reasonable policy is on the
horizon that I am actually excited about.
So, the original contract was entered into in March 2022,
and the initial order was 50,000 NGDVs and a mix of 90 percent
internal combustion engine and 10 percent battery electric
vehicle. Is that correct?
Mr. DeJoy. I am not sure exact date, but yes, that was
the----
Mr. Timmons. Generally. How did you come up with the 90/10
ratio of internal combustion to electric vehicles?
Mr. DeJoy. We needed the design, and the acquisition had
been on the table for 6 or 7 years.
Mr. Timmons. So, why was it changed in March of--in
February '23 to go to 70 percent electric vehicles to 30
percent combustion engine?
Mr. DeJoy. Six years prior to my being here, the
acquisition of next generation vehicle was on the table. OK? I
came here. We needed vehicles. I pushed to put--I worked with
the Board and we put the purchasing people made the selection
and pushed to move forward of which 90 percent we bought--we
ordered the 50,000 vehicles and we said let us dip our toe and
look at what electric vehicles will do for us.
Mr. Timmons. You made a business decision to go----
Mr. DeJoy. I met with the Board. We made a business
decision.
Mr. Timmons. That was probably a good decision at the time,
right?
Mr. DeJoy. Right.
Mr. Timmons. So, why did Congress then force you to switch
that to 70/30?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, we had about 500 lawsuits. In order to buy
vehicles, I have to go through a whole bunch of different--I
have to file an SEIS report. I have to go through the EPA, I
have to go through all the state stuff.
Mr. Timmons. Sure.
Mr. DeJoy. So on and so forth.
Mr. Timmons. So, you were--it was against your business
judgment to deviate from the 90 percent internal combustion
engine and 10 percent electric vehicle and you completely
flipped to 70/30 electric vehicle to combustion engine. Why did
that happen?
Mr. DeJoy. I did not completely flip. It was a process that
went on over a number of months in dealing with all the
different activities we had, and eventually, eventually I would
not be at this particular point in time if you did not give us
the $3 billion.
Mr. Timmons. OK. So, if we switch back to 90 percent
combustion engine, and we fill the order, will that meet your
business judgment and will that allow you to deliver mail?
Mr. DeJoy. Will it allow me to deliver mail?
Mr. Timmons. Will it achieve the objective of getting you
new vehicles? Let us put it this way.
Mr. DeJoy. I think we are down this path. It is a good
path.
Mr. Timmons. I have talked to Oshkosh. They can switch back
to 90/10. They do not care.
Mr. DeJoy. I do not want to discuss my contracts here.
Mr. Timmons. OK. Well, I care about jobs in my district,
and I want to make sure that you get the new vehicles that you
need.
Mr. DeJoy. And I guess I helped you out here.
Mr. Timmons. Oh yes. Well, this is the thing. I do not want
to throw the baby out with the bath water. You need new
vehicles and there is no reason that we should spend a billion
plus more dollars to impose a Green New Deal mandate on the
post office, so we are going to work to switch back to what was
your best business judgment, 90 percent combustion engines, 10
percent electric vehicles, and we are going to work with----
Mr. DeJoy. Best business judgment at the time with----
Mr. Timmons. What changed in 10 months?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, a lot has changed in 10 months with regard
to the Nation's initiative to the--to electrification through
other initiatives that we have with regard to carbon burning.
We are a carbon burning pig. Right? We run around the country--
--
Mr. Timmons. All right. Let us put it this way. If the
incoming Trump Administration wants to switch back to 90
percent combustion engines, can they do that through executive
action?
Mr. DeJoy. I have my plan and we are proceeding with the
plan that we have unless, you know, something----
Mr. Timmons. Unless you receive direction from Congress and
the Executive branch. Because you are going to get it.
Mr. DeJoy. Direction is--I always get direction, right? It
has to be legislation.
Mr. Timmons. OK. Does it have--was it legislatively
mandated to switch from 90 percent combustion engine, 10
percent electric vehicle to 70 percent battery, 30 percent----
Mr. DeJoy. I was given $3 billion and I worked a process
and a methodology----
Mr. Timmons. When were you given $3 billion? In the
Inflation Reduction Act?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Mr. Timmons. OK. I do not think any American believed that
that reduced inflation, and that money needs to go back to
addressing our debt and our deficit and we cannot spend
recklessly.
Mr. DeJoy. Then you should not have passed it, sir.
Mr. Timmons. I did not vote for it. I can promise you that.
And guess what? Congress is about to fix it. So, I look forward
to working with the incoming Trump Administration to right this
ship and to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. They are out
of balance. I want to protect the environment as much as
anybody, but we got $36 trillion in debt. We run a $2 trillion
deficit. This is reckless, and we need to be competitive in the
global economy, and we cannot do that if we spend money we do
not have.
I am one of millions of Americans that had planned to
purchase a house that cannot because my 2 1/2 percent mortgage
is looking up at a 7 percent interest rate. This had
consequences. It hurt the American people and we are going to
fix this. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Casar from Texas.
Mr. Casar. Good afternoon, Mr. DeJoy. In August of last
year, I sent you a letter signed by 76 Members of Congress
asking for the Postal Service to proactively implement OSHA's
proposed rule that would protect workers from the extreme heat,
and the response was you declined. And that is frustrating and
confusing to me, so that is some of the questions I want to ask
you about today.
Being a Congressman from Texas, my letter carriers talk
about being able to fry an egg in their un-airconditioned
vehicles on a hot day. Coming from Labor, before I was an
elected official, part of my job, tragically, was to organize
funerals and memorials for workers that work in the outdoors in
places like Texas that when they get denied a water break or
overstress in the heat can get hurt or die.
The proposed OSHA rule, to be clear, would apply to most of
the private industry and to the Postal Service, and it is
pretty simple. It would just require that when the temperature
gets above 90 degrees workers are able to take a 15-minute
break every couple hours and have water readily available to
them. We know how important this kind of protection would be
for postal workers on any given day.
We know that people like Eugene Gates, who was a Postal
Service--long-time Postal Service employee, long-time letter
carrier--tragically lost his life due to heat stroke carrying
mail in Texas in the 104-degree heat last year. Also, the case
for Wendy Johnson, a USPS worker in North Carolina who lost her
life inside of a metal USPS truck in 95-degree heat just this
last year, and that is just two of over 170,000 American
workers who were injured and killed because of heat stress on
any given year.
You could have agreed to use the proposed Department of
Labor rule that has gone under extensive review, but instead
you declined any voluntary changes. Essentially, the letter
said that OSHA would have to force the USPS to do this kind of
protection for USPS workers. So, I would like an explanation to
it, but then my first question for you is also in your
response. You said the Postal Service already has a heat
prevention plan for workers, and in the letter, quote, ``that
it is recognized as extremely successful.''
The current USPS plan has a mandatory annual heat illness
training for workers which is supposed to allow letter carriers
to take breaks to cool down from the heat. But last year the
press investigated and reported that there were thousands of
letter carriers across at least ten states who did not receive
the training, but they were--they found fake records saying the
Postal Service had provided that training. So, do you think I
have summed this up appropriately, Mr. DeJoy? Do you have
concerns about what you have heard about in the press about the
fake records about heat protection for workers? And can you
talk to me a little bit about----
Mr. DeJoy. We investigated that. We do not believe that the
records were fake. They were batch loaded. They were batch
loaded instead of individually loaded. So, we think the press
report was inaccurate was my briefing on that situation.
With regard to the OSHA, it is something that is in process
of being studied. We have our own program, which has been here
for decades and has been reviewed and negotiated and with the
involvement of our unions, and so forth, and it has been--it is
recognized as a good program. If the OSHA plan comes out and
gets approval, we will evaluate aspects of that and maybe
incorporate it into our plan. So, certainly we have many, many
carriers that go out in heat, in areas of heat, and we have
these unfortunate issues often where people have underlying
health issues that have this unfortunate outcome that we have.
But we feel we are, you know, getting new vehicles with air
conditioning in them will be a big help. We are pushing to do
that. But we will study the plan, but at the end of the day, we
have--we have a lot of things, and a lot of things have been
around for a long time. There is a lot to change.
Mr. Casar. Understood, Mr. DeJoy. I think amongst all those
things, we know that the lives and health and safety, including
of your employees with underlying health conditions, which, of
course, is so many Americans, should be of tantamount
importance. And so, whether or not this Politico investigation
across multiple states showed falsified heat records or not, I
hope that you will reconsider this decision, because some
places in Texas are not going to get the new vehicles for
years. And that is if Members of the other side of the aisle do
not try to defund those vehicles.
And so, I hope you will take a look, with worsening
summers, with two of your own employees having died here, that
we take this really seriously and you reconsider. I can tell
you right now, if I was sitting that side of the desk, I would
raise my hand and swear an oath that I had spoken with your own
employees who told me they have been reprimanded for going off
route to get a drink of water and they have gotten in trouble
for trying to take a break.
And whether or not that is your intention, I hope that you
really look into it and do everything you can. I know that is
not your intention, to be clear. I know it is not your
intention, but I hope you that do something about it. Honestly,
it would really, really make a big difference. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins from
Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. DeJoy, welcome back before Congress. My goodness. Mail
delivery, I think all of us should acknowledge, is a very
personal thing. And therefore, you know, as representatives of
our constituents, we receive--all of us do, 435 offices we
receive the most heartfelt messages from our constituents with
very personal interactions with their post office and their
mail carrier, and we take those communications seriously.
I have to say, good sir, that you have been--you have been
strong, man. 4 1/2 years on a thankless job appearing before
Congress. And, you know, attacked from both sides of the aisle.
I do not know if that is good or bad, but it is certainly
consistent when it comes to Mr. DeJoy appearing before
committees of Congress in both chambers of House and the
Senate. So, referencing my acknowledgement that mail delivery
is a very personal interaction with the Federal Government,
would you agree with that, Mr. DeJoy? Historically?
Mr. DeJoy. I think it is--there is a quality auditor at the
end of every delivery.
Mr. Higgins. Speak into the mic just a little bit.
Mr. DeJoy. There is a quality auditor at the end of every
delivery, which is your constituents--everyone's constituents.
And my customers.
Mr. Higgins. I am just saying that, especially, per se, our
elders, many of our elders across the country whom we love and
respect, their personal interaction with their government, that
they love, every day is commonly limited to how they get their
mail and maybe some brief exchange with their carrier.
So, my father used to say that, ``son, if you take care of
the small things in life, you will have established some habits
wherein the big things take care of themselves.''
So, I would like to talk to you about a small issue that I
think is reflective of the kind of challenges my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle face and on a regular basis from my
constituents. And I want to hear how you can deal with this.
I have a small town of Henderson--it is under 2,000
people--in my district, and in October of last year, they lost
their contract postal unit, their CPU. So, it had been
considered the post office in the town for a long time, but it
was actually a private contract with the post office, and the
guy retired. So, we ended up with about just 50 or 60 addresses
with no post box, you know, had no delivery mechanism at their
address. You know, they had no means by which to receive their
mail other than driving to the post office in the next town
over.
And that is still the case. We have not been able to
recontract with a new contract postal unit. I spoke with the
Mayor--I have been speaking with the Mayor since then, his name
is Sherbin Collette, a great guy. We are trying to fix this
problem.
So, I am going to ask you, a cluster mailbox, I looked up
the prices. The nicest, most expensive ones to service, you
know, 60 to 80 people, with smaller drawers and larger drawers,
would cost under $50 grand. The city has the land and has
parking space out there. The courthouse and the city--the city
services there are not--they do not have Postal Service. They
have to drive to the next town.
Cannot we just solve this simple problem by having a
cluster mailbox installed in little Henderson, USA, and
reassure America that you are willing to fix the small things?
Mr. DeJoy. So, Congressman, we have--my first--you know,
there is a saying, you do first what is necessary, right. And
trying to get our internal system of operating and moving mail
around the country is the first thing that we--I have got to
work on.
We are looking at our whole retail process, both in terms
of large communities and small communities, and how do we
address these things. And we have lots of----
Mr. Higgins. Well, we have the answers. I mean----
Mr. DeJoy. No, but putting a cluster box----
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Install a cluster mailbox and
deliver it right there at town hall.
Mr. DeJoy. But we do not install cluster boxes. The
developers or the cities and so forth, those are the people
that do that. And then whether you get mail delivery there is
another set of rules that get--that I agree are quite--quite
specific.
Mr. Higgins. Well, I am going to yield. My time is expired.
But, Mr. DeJoy----
Mr. DeJoy. I will look into this.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. I ask your commitment to just
work----
Mr. DeJoy. Is it Henderson?
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. With my office.
Mr. DeJoy. Henderson, you said?
Mr. Higgins. Henderson, Louisiana. It is 50 or 60 Americans
that cannot get their mail. Especially my elders I am concerned
about. You know, they have to drive an entire town over to that
post office.
Seem like we should be able to fix that in a year and a--in
over a year. I am looking forward to working with your office
personally. Let us just resolve that issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it cannot be overstated how vital the Postal
Service is to this country. It is the only mail delivery
service that reaches every single address in the United States.
Yet what is being seen during Postmaster General DeJoy's time
is slower deliveries, increased costs, poor and even deadly
conditions for employees, and an erosion of trust in this
institution.
From what I am hearing in my district in Pittsburgh, the
Postal Service's unresponsiveness has added to that distress.
Just this year, 15 of your employees working in my district
reached out to my office with complaints of an abusive and
hostile work environment. They came to my team because they had
nowhere else to turn to at the Postal Service. They had made
their complaints, they had gone to those above them, and they
still got no help.
Those workers sent letters to every one of my office
locations because they were so used to being ignored and
unheard. It is completely unacceptable to have so many
employees reaching out for help and for no one at the Postal
Service to do anything about it.
So, my question, Mr. DeJoy, is, do you have a formal
process to address employee complaints, and is it just being
ignored, or do you have a way to address these issues?
Mr. DeJoy. Congresswoman, we have--the Postal Service has
long-standing practices on how to deal with complaints within
the organization, going up to the--going up through my
organization, or if there is harassment or other things like
you are saying, they go, just pick up the phone and call the
OIG.
Ms. Lee. So, they were ignored? You have the processes, but
they were ignored?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not know what incidents--you need to give
me more specifics. I doubt that they were ignored.
Ms. Lee. OK. Well, I doubt that any of my constituents made
that up, but I will definitely connect our teams so that we can
get those directly to you. We would actually love the
opportunity to do that.
Can you commit to improving and creating a process or
outlining us what it is and actually listen to take action to
improve the working conditions of Postal Service employees?
Mr. DeJoy. I have spent--I have converted over 100,000
people to full-time positions. I have made the workplaces
significantly better in many of our operations. I have----
Ms. Lee. Mr. DeJoy, I am really sorry, but your employees
do not agree.
Mr. DeJoy. I bet you a bunch of my employees do agree.
Ms. Lee. Well, the ones in my district do not, so I will
not speak to ones outside of my district. But the ones that we
have spoken to in my district----
Mr. DeJoy. The 15 you are talking about?
Ms. Lee [continuing]. Currently do not. Oh, I am certain
that we can get more, and of course we will direct them right
to you.
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Ms. Lee. Thank you so much.
Another issue from my district, not of those 15, involves a
local tax collector, a job that is an important local
government function and relies on timely and accurate mail
delivery. Not getting those bills on time or at all can mean
late fees or missing out on pay-early discounts.
One of the problems is mail that is coming back as
undeliverable. Yet this person did not get the return-to-sender
until a year later, way past the time needed to catch and fix
this issue.
So, to be clear, something will be mailed out. It would not
be returned to sender within a year, so long outside the window
that they could remedy any of the issues for incorrect address
or whatever.
Can you explain how it would take over a year to receive a
return-to-sender piece of mail?
Mr. DeJoy. If there are--there are processes that we have
that are manual processes that have, you know, tens of millions
of pieces of mail going through. And there is a reliability
rate that is not a hundred percent. So, that could--that could
happen, and it can get stuck in a casing or in a mailbox or--I
mean, in a machine or something like that.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
So, this constituent has complained to the Postal Service
multiple times about both the return time and the undeliverable
addresses themselves. My office has also brought the problem to
both the local and Federal-level Postal Service offices, and it
still has not improved.
The most recent response from the Postal Service is that
they consider the problem solved because they no longer
received any complaints.
Do you know why they are not receiving the complaints
anymore?
In order to make a complaint, the constituent has to speak
to a manager. Yet every time she goes to the office, no manager
can be found.
Mr. DeJoy, why is there no follow-up process for customer
complaints to make sure a problem has actually been solved?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, we do have significant follow-up for
customer complaints. We have over 3,000 people in our call
centers. We have, you know, people within our retail centers--
our 31,000 retail centers--for methodologies to file
complaints. So----
Ms. Lee. So, just to be clear, is it just a difficult
process----
Mr. DeJoy. Well----
Ms. Lee [continuing]. And is it intentionally difficult to
just pretend that the problems have been solved or do not
exist? Because, again, they are marking these as no longer
being a problem or considered solved because they are no longer
able to complain.
Mr. DeJoy. Well, we do have mistakes made and we do have
people that do not do their jobs effectively, right? But I do
not think that is intentional.
Ms. Lee. Yes, I think there are people who maybe do not.
Mr. DeJoy. As does any organization of our size.
Ms. Lee. Certainly. Thank you so much. I am reclaiming my
time. But I just wanted to say, the Postal Service is not going
to improve its major problems until they actually listen to
their customers and their employees. Right now, it is clear
that you are not doing that.
It is unacceptable that such a vital part of our country
function has become so unreliable and controversial. They need
to do better for the American people. I thank you so much for
your time, and I yield back.
Mr. DeJoy. And I disagree with your premise.
Ms. Lee. I understand.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
I will recognize myself now for my questions.
Postmaster DeJoy, we hear--you know, everybody has ideas on
how to make the Postal Service better. My concern, as you know,
is the hemorrhaging of cash.
As I said in my opening statement, I appreciate the fact
that you were willing to take this job on. I appreciate the
fact that you have a plan and you are trying to implement that
plan. That is what we want. That is what we want with DOGE.
That is what the American people want. They want people trying
to make government more efficient. I think you are trying to do
that.
When we talk about efficiency, especially Members on this
side of the aisle, we think of privatization, and you will have
people say, oh, we should privatize the Post Office. The
problem with that is nobody wants the--to deliver the mail to
every house in America 6 days a week and to operate all those
retail postal facilities. There is no private company in the
world that wants that. So, a lot of my friends in my party need
to realize that. There is no private company that wants to do
that.
But there are private companies that are interested in mail
sorting. There are private companies that are interested--which
is where I think a lot of the problems are, from people on both
sides of the aisle. You know, there is issues with mail getting
lost and mail--you know, sorting the mail.
Are you open to any, you know, any type of privatization,
any type of pilot projects or anything like that with different
facets of the Postal Service?
I know you--we privatized the logistics of the mail, but
are there other areas of privatization that you would be open
to--partnerships and things like that?
Mr. DeJoy. So, we--we cut--first of all, when Congress or
an administration asks me to have a discussion about
initiatives, as I did in the first administration when I came
in and the next administration that came in and this
administration, and all the Congresses, I will work with you to
understand what it is that you want us to consider. And I will
work very hard to either identify that we can do it or to say
that it is just not going to work for us.
Let me say, when I came in, we had 500 different places
with contractors, our people and so forth, doing random things,
OK, in terms of how to process that. I have to get that down to
225 fully functional operations with high precision. I think I
can do that. OK. But we have a lot of rules and a lot of, you
know, critique and resistance.
I just went to move five percent of the local canceled
mail--five percent of the mail from 60 locations into a major
sorting center--sorting centers close by so we can handle that.
I had, like, 20 Senators stop me.
Chairman Comer. Right, I understand.
Mr. DeJoy. I had----
Chairman Comer. Oh, I know. They all called me. They all
called me.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. Senators calling me about what mail
machine I was moving----
Chairman Comer. Right.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. Out of a plant.
Chairman Comer. Right. Right. And I know that. Believe me,
I know that. I cannot go to the bathroom without a Senator or
Representative stopping me and giving me a postal horror story.
But at the end of the--where we are now, do you think your
reorganization plan is working? Do you think that we are going
to improve performance and cut our losses?
I mean, the goal of the Postal Service is to break even,
and we are not doing that.
Mr. DeJoy. We no longer have a monopoly. We have an
obligation. We have $39 billion----
Chairman Comer. I know as much about it as anybody.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. Worth of mail that costs us $75
billion to deliver it. I have to reduce the $75 billion to $70-
or something. I have to grow our package business. I got to
move everything together. That is the deal.
I think that we can be vibrant. We can serve the American
people. We can cover a lot of our costs, OK, and then we could
look at things in the Congress that--I have $10 billion of
unfunded mandates, things that you require us to do, that cost
us money.
Chairman Comer. Well, in our postal reform bill that we
passed in a bipartisan manner out of this Committee, which
became law, you know, we provided funding and we changed a lot
of the liability obligations that you had. And, you know, we
have tried to help the Postal Service. It has been, you know,
it has been disappointing, the losses.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, but you also mandated that we deliver to
167 million----
Chairman Comer. I understand.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. Addresses 6 days a week. Do you
know what kind of cost that is? Mandating and legislating 167--
--
Chairman Comer. I do, I do. But, again, if there is a way
that we can make this thing break even, if there is something
legislatively that we can do, I am more than willing to try to
help with that.
But, you know, the days of bailouts and handouts are over.
I mean, the American people spoke loud and clear. And, you
know, as I say--I jumped in on Mr. Palmer's questions. I worry
about that EV money sitting around, that it may be clawed back.
I think there are lots of areas where there is going to be
significant reform over the next 4 years, and there are--I am
just--you know, I am on your side. I am----
Mr. DeJoy. I think you should reform the regulations.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. The advocate. My grandmother
spent her career as a mail carrier in Red Boiling Springs,
Tennessee. I am on the side of the Post Office.
But I am telling you, there are lots of ideas that I do not
know whether they would be advantageous or not to the Postal
Service, but there are a lot of ideas out there about
significant changes. And I just--I hope that you are given an
opportunity to implement these reforms.
The problem is with the losses. And, you know, I am over--I
gave Mr. Raskin 2 1/2 minutes extra, and I am going to ask one
more question to the Inspector General.
Ms. Hull, in light of the losses this year and projected
losses next year, does the Office of Inspector General have any
ideas or solutions as to how we can limit the losses or even
get to the objective of trying to break even?
Ms. Hull. We have done some work, particularly in our
research area, where we have identified where some of the
costly obligations that I spoke of earlier related to the
Postal Service, particularly around the retirement funds and
that area. We are also doing some research work that should
come out, I think in the spring or early summer, on other posts
around the world.
The problems the Postal Service has experienced are not
specific to the United States. Posts around the world have
struggled----
Chairman Comer. Well, are postal rates too cheap? Is that
anything that you thought about? I mean, is it--are they too
expensive and that is limiting the--I mean, these are
questions----
Ms. Hull. Yes, right.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. You all need to look into if
you haven't.
Ms. Hull. Yes. We did----
Chairman Comer. And if an obligation for retirement--
obviously that is a huge expense, a huge liability--should we
be hiring more people at the Postal Service? I mean, you know,
are there private sector solutions? These are things the IG's
Office needs to look at----
Ms. Hull. Yes, definitely.
Chairman Comer. And again, I will say this: This Committee
has jurisdiction over the Inspector General. I have found there
are good Inspector Generals, there are average IGs, and there
are poor IGs----
Ms. Hull. Uh-huh.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. And we are trying to work with
the new Administration on identifying which is which and--you
know, so we need the IGs to work with us, because finally this
town is fixing to get serious about being more efficient. So,
we will be in communication with that.
My time is expired.
Ms. Hull. Definitely. I look forward to meeting with your
staff on that.
Chairman Comer. OK.
Yes?
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask you about that?
You piqued my interest with the comment about the IGs. Is that
something that we are going to do as a Committee, looking at
the different IGs?
Chairman Comer. I mean, if--I keep up with your
correspondence and stuff.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Chairman Comer. I mean, if there are issues with IGs, we
can certainly talk about it. I mean, we have--there are--you
know, I think there are good IGs, just as I said, there are bad
IGs, and there are some IGs that have never been given
information that they have requested, like the CIGIE.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Chairman Comer. Or like the SIGAR--SIGAR IG.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I am delighted to hear it, and I would
love to participate in that with you. I know our Members are
very interested in making sure we get the good ones to stay.
Chairman Comer. All right. The Chair recognizes Ms.
Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
The United States Postal Service is much more than a
delivery system. It is a lifeline. People depend on it for
medications, checks, ballots, and much more.
But, Mr. DeJoy, your leadership has placed this lifeline at
risk. Your decisions to diminish services and consolidate
processing plants have had devastating impacts on my
constituents in the Massachusetts 7th.
One constituent from Somerville reports missing checks and
legal documents, describing how she repeatedly contacted USPS
only to have her cases closed with false assurances.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this
constituent letter from May 2024.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Pressley. Another constituent in Grove Hall waited for
time-sensitive letters regarding her Social Security disability
benefits that never arrived.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this
constituent letter from August 2024.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Pressley. These are not isolated incidents. More than
80 Roxbury residents signed a letter to my office regarding the
understaffed local post office. Here is an excerpt: It is
common for customers to have to wait 30 to 45 minutes for
service, and frequently no one is at any of the windows. The
building often feels abandoned.
They go on to describe delivery services and issues: Mail
service in the surrounding ZIP Codes has been similarly
terrible for years now. Despite truly wonderful mail carriers,
we frequently experience issues such as mail delays of 2 to 4
weeks, lost mail, misdelivered mail, and mail left outside of
mailboxes.
One constituent even reported being unable to pay their
rent due to the delivery of a late Social Security check.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this
constituent letter from April 2024.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Pressley. Mr. DeJoy, maybe Congress should pass a law
that forces you to receive all your income and prescriptions
via postal mail.
Would you think it acceptable to have to wait a month or
more to pay your bills or to take your medication, yes or no?
Mr. DeJoy. I----
Ms. Pressley. Do you think it is acceptable, yes or no?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not think it is acceptable.
Ms. Pressley. OK. Thank you.
And I am just curious, having listened to your testimony
earlier today, and since you agree this is not an acceptable
cadence of service, what grade would you give yourself?
Mr. DeJoy. I would give myself an ``A.''
Ms. Pressley. OK. I--well, we--I vigorously disagree with
that assessment.
Mr. DeJoy. I knew you would.
Ms. Pressley. I would certainly give you a failing grade.
Mr. DeJoy. I knew you would.
Ms. Pressley. What immediate actions will you take to
restore reliable services in communities like Roxbury, Grove
Hall, and Hyde Park, and Somerville in my district?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, in terms of general actions, it is the
same actions and efforts that I have taken since I walked in
the door here 4 years ago, to try and improve the Postal
Service. I will take--my staff will take down the names of the
cities you asked about and I will look into them specifically.
Ms. Pressley. All right. During unannounced visits to
Roxbury and Grove Hall branches--I want to transition into work
force for a moment--I saw firsthand that workers are
demoralized and under-resourced, leaving communities under-
served.
I am grateful to the American Postal Workers Union for
raising the alarm on this and standing up for their members.
On your watch, Mr. DeJoy, the USPS has been undermined
across the board and even prompted audits of postal operations
throughout Boston neighborhoods.
Ms. Hull, after complaints from my office and others in the
Massachusetts delegation, the Office of the Inspector General,
in fact, launched an investigation. I look forward to reading
their forthcoming report on these audits.
In the meantime, how can my constituents, who continue to
struggle unjustly with USPS services, when they have concerns
around--where should they communicate, via hotline, website, or
other means?
Ms. Hull. Yes, our hotline is definitely open and
available. We get a number of hotline complaints, probably this
last year, about 350,000 complaints. We use those complaints--
we obviously cannot respond to every single one, but we use
data analytics very effectively to identify hotspots around the
country.
Ms. Pressley. What is the hotline?
Ms. Hull. Our hotline--you can go to our website at
uspsoig.gov, and there is a hotline form. All those complaints
come in, and we look at all of them, using data analytics to
identify where hotspots are occurring, and use that to inform
where we do audit work and investigative work as well.
Ms. Pressley. All right. Thank you very much.
You know, it is, in fact, the collective action of my
constituents and those from communities across the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts that brought attention to these issues, and I
am proud to stand alongside them.
And, Mr. DeJoy, we certainly will keep the pressure up
until we see a restoration of equitable, reliable services,
because every community deserves exactly that.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Clyde from
Georgia.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for waiving me on. I appreciate that very much.
Postmaster General DeJoy, I am not here to blast you, OK? I
am here to try to make things better as best we possibly can.
But first I want to talk about a little bit of frustration that
have come from the folks in my district, and so you will just
have to bear with me just a moment, sir.
All right. As you can see in this chart behind me, when the
consolidation of the Palmetto facility in Georgia occurred,
postal delivery rates went from over 80 percent down to 36
percent. And now up--as of July, the last data I personally
have, we are now up at about 76 percent.
So, from the bottom at 36 percent, you know, going up to 76
percent, that is a 40 percent increase, and thank you for
putting resources into that effort. We highlighted it, and it
is getting better. I appreciate that.
Back in August, I wrote a letter to you, when things were
still not where they should be, and it talked about the Postal
Regulatory Commission and the fact that in this entire
consolidation effect--or effort, we had not seen the Post
Office reach out to the PRC to get an advisory opinion.
Now, I will tell you that my letter went to you--to you
directly--on August the 13th. OK. By chance, did you read that
letter?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not remember, sir.
Mr. Clyde. OK. All right.
Mr. DeJoy. I get a lot of letters, sir.
Mr. Clyde. Well, I will commend you on this. We got a reply
on August the 22d. I do not think any agency has ever replied
to Congress that quickly, and so thank you for that.
Now, my concern, though, is that the person who actually
signed the letter, the reply, was Mr. Scott Kennedy, the
government relations representative and not yourself. I would
much have preferred your signature on this response. But it
talks about acknowledging that a Postal Regulatory Commission
advisory opinion was not sought, OK, and that they would be
doing that going forward.
Do you find--I mean, is a Postal Regulatory Commission
opinion, is that important to the Post Office?
Mr. DeJoy. It is required----
Mr. Clyde. Yes, it is, you are right.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. When we think we are going to have
significant changes in service on a national basis.
Mr. Clyde. OK.
Mr. DeJoy. This was not intended to be a significant change
of service, as consequential as it became locally, but even
such, it was not on a national basis. It would not--this--I put
a half a billion dollar plant in Georgia. We had 10--I have
18,000 workers in Georgia that work in some of the worst
facilities I have ever seen in my life--and I have been in a
lot of places around the world looking at facilities--and this
is what we intended to try and fix.
And we had significant issues unrelated to the plant, and
we--it was awful, I agree, but in the long run, we will have
great service in all of Georgia because we are touching six or
seven different plants down there.
Mr. Clyde. OK. Do most post offices still have a slot that
say, ``local mail only,'' and is that mail itself processed at
that post office for local delivery?
Mr. DeJoy. No. No post office is actually--other than in
election and extraordinary measures, all mail that is collected
at post offices go to someplace else to be processed.
Mr. Clyde. OK. All right. This is a text message from one
of my constituents directly to me, and it says, ``Is there
anyone in your group of folks that can put a knot in the tail
of the Postal Service about the poorest possible service being
provided to us? I cannot get a bill paid or bills received on
my end on time for anything in the world.''
He says, ``I am not sure what the issue is. We and many
others around here get our bills late, our payments we make do
not show up to the places we mail to, and we personally get
rent checks that are mailed to us from across town that will
show up a month late. It is absolutely terrible. Not just a
small issue but huge. Even our tax commissioner said to pay
taxes online because of the issues with the mail.''
All right. And so, I am trying to figure out a way that
local mail can be delivered locally where it does not take a
month to get local mail, and I would like your input as to how
we can make sure that happens.
Mr. DeJoy. Georgia has had--especially in the Atlanta
area--has had the worst service in the Postal Service for many,
many, many, many years, which is one of the reasons why we
chose to--it was a growing state--we chose to put the
significant investment in this particular area. And we--as part
of this transition, we are having problems, but we are also
cleaning up a lot of those types of things that were--were
happening in these 10 separate facilities and so forth.
We are very committed, I am very committed to getting, you
know, Georgia, all these locations, to follow the service
standards that we are seeking now, you know, to change, because
the service standards that we have are not achievable for the
dollars that we have to spend. And, in fact, I think they are
kind of ridiculous.
We will--we are making requests that will--and my
expectation is that we will have reliable mail service in the
area, and we will also have improved retail operations with
expanded services in the retail centers that we have, you know,
throughout the Nation.
This is a big, big makeover, both--not only in terms of
facilities and infrastructure, in terms of schedules and how we
route mail and so forth, and even in the expectations of our
people.
We did things very randomly. Now we are asking everyone to
work a specific function in a specific manner to a specific
schedule to a specific productivity rate. That is a big change
to put on an organization.
Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you for that. I personally visited
the postal center in Palmetto, and I saw the plan of all the
various, different, multiple postal offices, or postal
buildings, consolidated into one.
But, look forward to working with the Postal Service to
make sure that it meets that statutory requirement up here of
93 percent. Thank you, sir, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett from Texas.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to talk about cars, cons, concepts of a plan, and
compensation. I am going to actually start with the cons.
There has been mention of DOGE and how that is going to
come into play, and I am curious to know, just yes or no,
Inspector General Hull, quick question, have you found that if
the Post Office was to cut its work force by 75 percent, that
that would somehow fix all of the problems within the Post
Office, yes or no?
Ms. Hull. No. We have not done any work in that area like
that.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you.
Postmaster DeJoy, are you anticipating that a 75 percent
cut in your work force would solve all of the problems of the
Post Office, yes or no?
Mr. DeJoy. No.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, it is interesting, because my
colleagues seem to be so excited because there is a new sheriff
in town, and the co-sheriffs of the DOGE Committee, more
specifically, Mr. Ramaswamy, has actually proposed cutting 75
percent of our Federal work force to try to rein in some of the
spending.
Now, I want to talk about cars, because cars have been
discussed a lot as well as it relates to spending. And I want
to know from you, Postmaster General, can you tell me
approximately what is the lifespan of one of your postal
vehicles?
Mr. DeJoy. So----
Ms. Crockett. And I know you have various vehicles----
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. So, let me just say the letter
carrier vehicles that they drive.
Mr. DeJoy. The letter carriers have a few different
vehicles. Commercial, off-the-shelf vehicles will last us 6, 7
years.
Ms. Crockett. OK.
Mr. DeJoy. The special purpose-built vehicles that we had,
the LLVs that we had, lasted--were supposed to last 20. They
wound up; we are using them 30. New vehicles that we are
buying, the special-built, special-purpose vehicle, we expect
to last longer than 20 years or longer.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, as we are comparing the various
costs--and there has been a lot of conversation about the fact
that there are electric vehicles, and it is my understanding
that the electric vehicles are the ones that now have air
conditioning, correct?
Mr. DeJoy. All the vehicles now have air conditioning, but,
yes.
Ms. Crockett. OK. You know, earlier it was brought up, and
the reason that I care so deeply about the vehicle situation is
that my constituent, Eugene Gates, was brought up earlier, who
lost his life. This was somebody who did not need extra hours
of training on how to properly hydrate because this was someone
who dedicated almost 40 years of his life to the Post Office.
The reality is that the working conditions were not
working. That is just the reality. This is someone who had done
this job for so long.
And I am going to be honest--and I know that your office
has received letters from us regarding Mr. Gates, but I am
concerned, as my colleague, Mr. Casar, laid out, that we still
have not figured out how to modernize and make sure that the
working environment is going to work for our postal employees.
So, for instance, as you are rolling out these new
vehicles, have you decided on a way to prioritize where these
vehicles are going to go, and does that overlap with the areas
in which we know, say, experience the most extreme heat
conditions, such as in places like Texas? Have they been
prioritized?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. So, we are not filling the whole need,
right. So, there is a process of replacement of vehicles that--
--
Ms. Crockett. Let me--and I am going to have to cut you,
because I have got to get to a few more things and I am running
out of time. So, I am just curious, are we prioritizing? Even
if it means that you are going to swap out--let us say, the
vehicles are not necessarily----
Mr. DeJoy. I want to give you----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Being swapped out in Texas, but
we know that in another area they do not experience the extreme
heat, so we move those vehicles to those areas and make sure
that the vehicles that are going to keep our postal employees
safe are put into those areas that they are needed the most.
Has that been a consideration?
Mr. DeJoy. We consider heat--a lot of the country gets heat
and----
Ms. Crockett. I understand. We get extreme heat, is what I
am saying.
Mr. DeJoy. I will get you the process. I would say that it
would not satisfy you to see that just Texas is getting any
special deference. We have a bunch of procedures that--and
plans that we--strategies that we have to deploy vehicles. Let
me get those for you.
Ms. Crockett. OK. I would appreciate that.
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Ms. Crockett. As it relates to Delivering for America, it
feels as if it is more a concept of a plan than an actual plan
because, as you stated earlier in your testimony, you have
projections and clearly those projections were completely off.
But even as I have had my team, as we have sat here, really
comb through and make sure that we did not miss it, Delivering
for America, correct me if I am wrong, does it deal with drones
at all?
Mr. DeJoy. No.
Ms. Crockett. OK. So, when we are talking about
modernizing, do you not believe that it would be incumbent upon
your organization to consider something like drones? Because,
as I have stated before, not only do I currently represent
urban Dallas, Texas, area, but I lived in East Texas, and I
know what it looks like when you are trying to deliver, say, in
rural America. And I know that there are other organizations
that are doing things such as drone deliveries which, number 1,
if you do not have the work force that you need, it is very
helpful. Number 2, it is a lot more efficient because now you
are talking about homes that are separated so far. And as you
have heard from some of my colleagues in rural America talking
about the delivery problems, I do not know how we can talk
about modernization of any part of Federal Government and not
talk about drones.
We talk about it when we are talking about the border. We
talk about it when we are talking about our military. And I am
just asking that if we are going to talk about a plan that
really is looking at modernization, we look at something like
drones. Especially if DOGE gets their way and they start to get
rid of some of your work force, this potentially would be
something that you would need.
And the final thing that I have to say--I know I am a
little over, but I am just asking for a little bit of leeway--
is on the compensation piece. I will be honest with you and
tell you that, before walking in today, I was completely
unaware of the fact that your compensation was so high. All I
know is that, as it was laid out before, your compensation has
gone up approximately 17 percent since you have been in this
post, and you consider yourself to have a grade ``A.''
I am just curious to know, on average, when we look at our
postal workers, such as workers like my constituent, Eugene,
who had been with the Post Office and literally gave his life
of service to the Post Office, and--he had been there for
almost 40 years--on average, are we seeing that there is an
increase in compensation to the tune of approximately 17
percent, in the same time span as you have been with the Post
Office, for the average postal employee?
Mr. DeJoy. I think that over the last 4 years--I mean, I do
not know that it is a relevant comparison, but I think wages
have gone up about 15 percent.
Ms. Crockett. OK. And my final question really quickly, is
that----
Chairman Comer. Look, I am sorry, Ms. Crockett, you have
gone 2 1/2 minutes over. We will let you submit that.
Ms. Crockett. OK.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. McCormick from Georgia.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Chair. Very kind of you to bring
me on to this Committee today to ask some very tough questions
on a tough situation that we have right now.
My home state is Georgia, last in services rendered right
now. I know you know that we dropped below 40 percent on time
and we are now up to 75 percent, which is kind of an
achievement, but nowhere close to where we need to be.
My personal experience in the last year is I had two
certified letters, one to me from my tax returns from two miles
away, certified. It took 4 months and a congressional inquiry
to make it to my house. Four months, certified.
The other one, I sent a letter to approximately 11 miles
away, to an address I have sent plenty of things to. I
certified it because I was worried about it, worried about it
because it was a check made out to somebody else, certified.
The due date came and went. I went down to the post office
and asked where is my letter? They did not know.
And then when it finally came back to me as undeliverable
to this address, which they cannot explain still, I got charged
$6 bucks for a letter to be certified, that could not be
delivered, and there is no explanation.
When I asked to see management, so they can explain it to
me, they did not have time for me. I came back later, I said,
``Can I speak to--as a Congressman, to try to help them fix
this problem?'' You know what their response was? We do not
have time.
I am glad you took time to be with me today because I want
to address this from a personal and a nonpersonal issue.
When you talk about the future of the Post Office, I used
to, as a little kid literally say, the Post Office is the one
part of the government that I trust. On-time deliveries, they
do not lose stuff.
In the last 4 years, your reputation has destroyed that--on
your watch--destroyed that.
Businesses--almost every single business I know that wants
to send a check out will not use the U.S. Postal Service
anymore. I will not use the U.S. Postal Service anymore. That
is on your watch.
The two major decisions I have seen you make, which is on
the distribution centers and on employee hiring, have done
nothing to mitigate this in real time ways.
I do not understand why you give yourself an ``A'' grade,
as you just stated, when it comes to the delivery.
We have--I want to read this into the record, Mr. Chair.
This is a letter from the entire Georgia delegation----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
And your response, which I appreciate the response from
your staff. But when you talk about--I went down and talked
to--well, I tried to talk to my local postmaster. Could not get
ahold of him. Even when I stood there and said, just tell when
I can--I will leave my number, have him call me back. Never
called me back.
That is your environment that you fostered in Georgia and
other places in the country. And it is not isolated to just
Georgia either, by the way. I know businesses in California
that will not use the U.S. Postal Service because of theft,
real time theft. It has never been--your reputation is done,
whether you admit it or not.
In the military, if I have a skipper who things are going
bad for, they are a good military officer, but you know what we
do when things go wrong repeatedly, we relieve them. You know
what you do when a CEO repeatedly fails and their business
model falls apart and nobody wants to use that business anymore
and it becomes nonprofitable, you fire them. You know what we
do in government when organizations fail over and over and over
again and become unaccountable and are not going in the right
direction and have actually ruined the very business model that
you seem to hold as a standard?
Because you are not going to expand postal service when you
have a reputation for not delivering on time, not keeping the
mail accountable on your watch. You, sir, do not get an ``A''
grade. You cannot give yourself that grade.
Mr. DeJoy. I just did.
Mr. McCormick. You cannot.
Mr. DeJoy. I just did.
Mr. McCormick. You cannot grade your own paper, sir. I have
been to medical school----
Mr. DeJoy. Well, then----
Mr. McCormick [continuing]. I got my MBA. You cannot. I am
sorry. You are graded by the United States people, and they do
not use your service anymore. You bankrupt us----
Mr. DeJoy. That is not true. That is not true. Our service
on packages is growing----
Mr. McCormick [continuing]. You bankrupt this through your
reputation only.
Mr. DeJoy. Our office is growing.
Mr. McCormick. Through your reputation, you are responsible
for the fall of the Postal Service----
Mr. DeJoy. No. This Congress----
Mr. McCormick [continuing]. And the lack of accountability.
Mr. DeJoy. This Congress is responsible for the fall of the
Postal Service.
Mr. McCormick. It does not--oh, so it is Congress'----
Mr. DeJoy. I am trying to fix--I am trying to fix----
Mr. McCormick. On your watch.
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. The Postal Service.
Mr. McCormick. With all the AI----
Mr. DeJoy. Before my watch the same stuff happened, worse.
Mr. McCormick. With all the AI, with all the computer
systems, you are worse than if I took a horse----
Mr. DeJoy. You are talking to yourself.
Mr. McCormick [continuing]. And picked up the mail and
delivered it two miles down the road. That is you.
I hope you got that on camera. This is the response that
the Postmaster just gave Congress when he does not like what he
hears. Literally covered his ears and gave himself the grade of
``A.'' And with that, sir, I rest.
Mr. DeJoy. Good.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Mfume from Maryland.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member,
for getting us to this point.
Mr. DeJoy, good to see you again. I think the first time we
sat across from one another like this was 4 years ago. And one
of the colleagues on the Committee that day said, ``Why does he
want this job?'' I did not have an answer then, and I really do
not have an answer now, except that if you believe you can do
something, you try to do it, and if you cannot, you fail, and
everything else takes care of itself.
I was the first one to call for your resignation 4 years
ago, and your supporters were the first to call for my
resignation. So, the fact that we are still here I think says
something. I do not know what it says, but we are here.
Couple quick things. Your very first predecessor, Benjamin
Franklin, was the first Postmaster. He said in his first
comments to the country that when the post offices are closed,
people will suffer.
It was true then; it is true now. And, remarkably, over all
those many years, the Postal Service has retained a 90 percent
approval rating. That is according to the last Pew poll which
was done in 2020. Unfortunately, since then, that rating--
favorability rating has declined somewhat. And, you know, it is
interesting that the Post Office is actually older than the
country. 1775.
So, what you hear today, and I think what you heard over on
the Senate side the other day, is an effort for a lot of
Representatives, and I guess Senators, to express what we hear
a lot of times and what we try to do about it when we get an
opportunity to talk to you.
Now, I did not come here with gloom and doom. I want to say
that I have been very active in interacting with your office.
Whenever we have a problem, I am on the phone, I have got a
staff person, we have got letters going out. And fortunately,
we got a real good Postmaster for the city of Baltimore,
LeGretta Goodwin. Do not know if you know her or not. She is
doing a hell of a job; conscientious, very responsive, and
tries every day, not to be perfect, but to help us in that city
get closer to perfection.
We have got and had several post office job fairs over the
summer. There is a lot of interaction. There is an actual
council that involves local and private business and government
that she heads up that I think is the right way to go. It is
the right model, let me just say that.
One thing that I want to talk about that I absolutely
support, and then I have got several questions that I am going
to ask that you find a way to have someone on your staff to get
back to me about, because there is not enough time in these
short windows to answer difficult questions.
But I want to make sure that I am on the record again that
I support the conversion to electronic vehicles. I mean, we
have got 230,000 postal vehicles, and I believe, because of the
carbon footprint that those vehicles alone are responsible for,
that we have an obligation as a government to try to find a way
to reduce emissions.
Now, I do not force that on anybody. I think the government
is wrong when it mandates that you, him, and her, as consumers,
have to buy electronic vehicles. That is--I would never do
that, but the government is a consumer, so, yes, I think the
government has a larger responsibility, which is why that $3
billion was included in the Inflation Reduction Act so that you
would have the money to be able to start the conversions.
And whether it is 90 percent or 70 percent, as was argued
earlier, I think that is up to you with the direction of
Congress. And one of the things you did not say was that you
started out the way we mandated, and then we said, no, change
this, and, how come you are not doing that? So, there is a lot
of finger-pointing going around.
I just want, for the record, to know that these vehicles
are important, and I do not know how you undo contracts. I
would not want to be in your position where you let so many
contracts and now people are telling you to go and change
those.
If you, sir, could do me a favor and get back to me on
three issues that, as I said, we do not have time for now,
unfortunately.
Robberies. I am so sick and tired of postal delivery
persons being robbed at gunpoint and knifepoint, being chased
with bats, because we have got fools and clowns out here who
are breaking the law, who want the arrow key, because they know
if they get the arrow key, they can open all these multiboxes
and they can steal. They steal from the poor, they go to high-
end communities, they steal, and they have no concern for the
life or the safety of those postal delivery persons, men and
women that have been beat up and assaulted across this country.
And what concerns me is that it is increasing.
I am also concerned about the increase in the Forever
Stamp, because that stamp started out as a way of people to be
able to save money. You purchase at this price, it is good
forever, and you are free of the price increases that tend to
come about in the interim. So, that is very concerning,
particularly since we have had six increases in 2 years.
And the final thing that I really would hope that I can get
some response, but also kind of cooperation with myself and
maybe with other Members of Congress, are these thefts that
occur that affect senior citizens where their Social Security
checks are being stolen, where their mail is being delivered
late, when they respond to pay a bill and charged a late fee
not because they have done anything at all but because of the
delivery systems back and forth, and the theft of medicine that
so many senior citizens rely on through the mail.
Those are important issues that I would like to believe
affect all of us. I know they are on your desk, and your staff
has been fortunate in, I think, finding a way to get back to
myself and others with at least some semblance of what is going
on.
And so, all that you hear today being expressed from all of
us is a lot of frustration, but there are things that ought to
be pointed to, as I did a moment ago, that where there is
progress, that progress ought to be highlighted.
So, I do not know if we will see each other 4 years again
from now, sitting across like this, or that things may have
changed, but I do want to thank you for coming here.
And I get back to that original question, why does he want
this job? Because I remembered what it was like 4 years ago
when you walked in the door, and you are going to catch hell
because you are not God and you cannot fix everything
overnight. But understand that the frustrations are real
frustrations from the people on this committee--Democrats, and
Republicans--who want to get back to that 90 percent approval
rating, when Americans trusted the Postal Service more than any
other fixture of government.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the time.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Langworthy from
New York.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeJoy, I spoke with the USPS in January of this year
and wrote a letter to you in February expressing serious
concerns with the transfer of mail operations from the Buffalo
Processing & Distribution Center to the Northwest Rochester
Processing & Distribution Center. My constituents and I shared
serious concerns about USPS' claims that these operational
changes will enhance on-time delivery rates and reduce delivery
times.
Simply put, forcing mail sent to and from addresses in
Buffalo, New York, to be processed through the Rochester
Processing & Distribution Center, over an hour and a half away,
introduces numerous opportunities for delay.
As expected, your test sites in Atlanta; in Houston;
Richmond, Virginia, they all reported delays, with USPS
attributing them to bad weather and other factors.
Mr. DeJoy, western New York is no stranger to severe
weather, especially in our winter months as we are experiencing
now, which frequently disrupts travel. Just last week, a
snowstorm shut down parts of the New York state throughway and
led to travel bans and advisories throughout Erie and
Chautauqua Counties.
My constituents are rightfully worried that, under your
modernization plan, they will not receive their critical
medications, their important packages, or even bills on time.
So, Mr. DeJoy, considering the frequent severe weather
disruptions in regions like western New York, what specific
changes or improvements are you planning to implement under
your modernization plan to ensure timely mail delivery,
especially during adverse weather conditions?
Mr. DeJoy. So, with regard to the transfer of the mail
processing, the outgoing mail processing from Buffalo to
Rochester, that was a totally different process that went on in
Richmond and Atlanta. Atlanta and Richmond were completely
built new plants and consolidation of a bunch of local
operations.
We have, since announcing that, looked at the whole--there
was like 50, 60 plants that were in this cancellation chain--
moving of canceling--canceling outgoing mail. We have gone
about it a different way now and followed 3661 to deal with the
mail differently. And some of these plants we are not going to
move the original cancellation, and Buffalo happens to be one
of them.
So, that mail will stay in Buffalo, and we are going to
deploy other practices to aggregate and consolidate outgoing
mail. So, you will still receive that local turnaround cancel--
--
Mr. Langworthy. Yes, I am grateful that that plan was
scrapped, but it was of great concern.
My constituents are not just worried about the absurdity of
local mail traveling hundreds of miles to reach a destination
perhaps two miles away. They are also alarmed by your plan to
outfit the Postal Service's fleet of electric vehicles.
Mr. DeJoy, this may not be an electric vehicle hearing, but
let us be clear. Sending electric, mail delivery vehicles to
rural communities, which I represent, in the dead of winter is
a disaster waiting to happen. You are going to leave my
constituents stranded without their mail when these vehicles
break down in freezing temperatures, and worse, you will end up
spending more on gas-powered rescue vehicles to save them.
So, nevertheless, the Post Office received Federal funding
for electric vehicles and charging stations through the
Inflation Reduction Act. Do you plan to maintain a fleet of
gasoline-powered vehicles to service rural routes?
Mr. DeJoy. Every--sir, every--we have extensive studies
with regard to the temperature deviations that we can withstand
on all our routes, and there is a relatively small portion of
our routes--I think 20 percent or less--that we would not put
these vehicles in.
We look at every route with regard to whether it needs
four-wheel drive or two-wheel drive, whether it can use a left-
hand drive or a right-hand drive. So, we have diagnostics on
every single route in the country, and we have--and we will use
that information appropriately to deploy our--the type of
vehicle that we deploy. And we have many, many emergency backup
procedures that are put in all of our locations.
So, I think--and I am pretty certain--that we will deploy
these vehicles, and they will be more effective than the old
vehicles that we have that are breaking down everyplace.
Mr. Langworthy. Boy, I hope you are right.
I want to use my remaining time here to discuss a district-
related issue. The town of Woodhull, New York, a very small
rural town in my district with a large Amish community, has
been waiting for over 3 years for the post office to reopen.
Unfortunately, extreme weather during the aftermath of
Hurricane Debby--the community was once again flooded--brings
this to light, the people of Woodhull and what they have--the
sacrifices and the burdens that they have been stressed with
over the last 3 years.
Do you have any updates on the Woodhull, New York, post
office, and will you commit to working with me to ensure my
constituents in Woodhull, that they can get their post office
reopened?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. I do not have an update. I can get you an
update, and I will work with you. We have many of the--we have
these situations where we lease most of our post offices. And
when issues happen, there is probably too much negotiation that
goes on to get the post office--post offices opening, and that
is something that----
Mr. Langworthy. Three years is a completely unacceptable
timeline.
Mr. DeJoy. It happens, I know----
Mr. Langworthy. Well, it----
Mr. DeJoy [continuing]. All over the place.
Mr. Langworthy. But, you, sir, can fix it.
Mr. DeJoy. And I am--we will look at it.
Mr. Langworthy. And I am going to hold your feet to the
fire on that because this is unacceptable----
Mr. DeJoy. OK.
Mr. Langworthy [continuing]. That these people have been
without a post office, having to travel 20 miles to go to their
nearest post office. It has been 3 years, and we have got
nothing but the runaround from the USPS. And enough is enough.
You know, you were supposed to bring business principles into
the Postal Service. This is unacceptable to my constituents.
And all of my colleagues here understand the importance of
the U.S. Postal Service. Our constituents rely on the USPS to
run as efficiently as possible. And I hope that USPS is doing
everything in its power to ensure that all Americans receive
their mail in a timely and efficient manner, and I really hope
that you will take some of what I had to say into account.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Before I recognize Ms. Tlaib, I think Mr. Mfume has a
request.
Mr. Mfume. Yes, I have a unanimous consent request, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. DeJoy, I wrote you back in June--sorry that I did not
bring this up earlier--requesting assistance of USPS for the
Parren J. Mitchell postal building. It is a facility that has
been standing since 1966, in dire need of repair, expansion, or
relocation, and it is the gateway out of Baltimore City into
Baltimore County.
So, it is a January--or June 27 letter. I ask unanimous
consent, Mr. Chairman, that it be entered into the record.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you again and thank Mr. DeJoy.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much.
It is not just, of course, our Amish neighbors, but it is
even communities like the city of Detroit. And if you can,
Postmaster General, I do not know if you have a pen on you or
anything, can you write down this? It is called Joyfield
Station in Detroit. Everybody--great, everybody is writing it
down.
It has been years that I have been, you know, trying to
have you all move with urgency about the lack of staffing. The
fact that my residents are getting mail every other day there--
and, again, I do not think it is because our, you know, workers
there are not working hard enough. I really think it is some of
the changes that have been happening.
And also, kind of to piggyback, I think one of my
colleagues mentioned about how to actually put complaints
forward and where does it go, it has changed, and it has really
become very much a struggle for many of my residents that rely
on the Postal Service.
So, Joyfield Station, please, we need to talk about what is
going on there.
Postmaster DeJoy, what is universal service obligation?
What is that?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, it is a really undefined--relatively
undefined----
Ms. Tlaib. No, I think it is authority set by Congress,
right?
Mr. DeJoy. A long time----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, well, it is still law of the land. So, it
is actually binding standards for prompt, reliable, affordable
services, correct?
Mr. DeJoy. As I said, undefined.
Ms. Tlaib. No. It is pretty defined. If you want, I can get
the law--get the standard for you. But it is actually part of
your job to know what that is. So, I--my question, then, is
what are we doing to fulfill the universal service obligations
under the U.S. Postal Service?
Mr. DeJoy. Everything. First of all, the recent legislation
put into the universal service obligation as far as I see it
delivering 267 million addresses 6 days a week. We are
investing. We have committed over $15 billion into repairing
the horrible conditions that we had, equipping our facilities,
equipping our carriers.
Ms. Tlaib. I understand. Postmaster General, it is very
rare when you see both sides of the aisle in this Committee
actually agreeing.
Mr. DeJoy. I do not think when it concerns----
Ms. Tlaib. No. No, no, no. It is still delayed. There is
issues. But I am telling you it is delayed. People are seeing
some of the changes with your 10-year plan actually result in
some really extreme decisions--you know, cases where folks are
not getting their mail. It is really important.
So, yes or no, will your 10-year plan lead to closures of
any more of the postal facilities that our constituents rely
on? How many more?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I have not closed any retail centers.
Ms. Tlaib. Did you close 200 mail processing plants?
Mr. DeJoy. I have not closed 200 mail processing plants.
Ms. Tlaib. 200 mail processing plants you did not close?
Mr. DeJoy. No, I did not do that.
Ms. Tlaib. OK. Let me tell you, what is this about--so are
you planning to close 200?
Mr. DeJoy. I am planning to open bigger buildings and
consolidate.
Ms. Tlaib. What they call the mega plants? This is
important for my colleagues. So, 60 mega plants that you want
to do?
Mr. DeJoy. We will have 60 regional processing and
distribution centers and about 170 local processing and
distribution centers across the Nation, and we are closing
about 180 annexes that did random things around the country.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. So, I read in, I do not know, somewhere in
Wyoming, did you hear about this? Where they have to go as far
as, like, Denver to get their packages if they were not home?
And, you know, the Postal Service came to there, knock knock,
they were not home. They have to travel 45 minutes away to go
get their package?
Mr. DeJoy. I am not----
Ms. Tlaib. Not aware of that.
Mr. DeJoy. Not aware of that.
Ms. Tlaib. OK.
Mr. DeJoy. We have got post offices all over Wyoming.
Ms. Tlaib. I understand. Something is happening though,
Postmaster DeJoy----
Mr. DeJoy. Something has been happening for 20 years.
Ms. Tlaib. Postmaster DeJoy, I know I have only been here 6
years. I have never gotten this many complaints about our
Postal Service until you were in--became in charge. Trust me, I
know our Chairman and some other of my colleagues are seeing
the same thing. Not only are they directly impacted, but our
constituents are obviously feeling the same changes. It is
really important. This is an important question, and Inspector,
I may ask you the same.
Can you tell me the total cost of noncompliance with the
American postal workers and letter carriers union contracts?
How much has it cost us in some of the noncompliance actions?
Mr. DeJoy. More than it should have, but that has been
going----
Ms. Tlaib. How much?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not know off the top of my head.
Ms. Tlaib. This is Oversight Committee. You have got to
be--how much?
Do you know, Inspector? How much did it cost us that
Postmaster DeJoy's leadership in noncompliance and union
contracts?
Ms. Hull. I do not know the answer to that, but we are
going to be doing an audit into that area upcoming this year.
Ms. Tlaib. What is it? Like $5 million? What is it?
Mr. DeJoy. It is probably--it is in the millions.
Ms. Tlaib. It is in the millions.
Mr. DeJoy. But it has been in the millions for a long time.
Ms. Tlaib. You know, DeJoy, at the beginning, the postal
workers were, like, OK, we see what you are going to try to do
with this 10-year plan, yes or no, and then they changed their
mind because they said we are going to--they actually--they are
not in support of you. I do not know what you were saying. They
actually passed a resolution calling for your resignation. Did
you know that?
Mr. DeJoy. When?
Ms. Tlaib. The American postal workers, if I may submit it
for the record, Mr. Chair, APWU, ``American Postal Workers
Union convention adopts a resolution to remove Postmaster
General DeJoy September 16, 2022.'' Would you like me to get
you the resolution?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not think they renewed that request in
their last----
Ms. Tlaib. Can I send you this?
Mr. DeJoy. You can send it to me. I am aware----
Ms. Tlaib. Who do you think many of us are talking to? We
are talking to the workers. We are talking to our neighbors.
Mr. DeJoy. And I talk to the workers also.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. They said, quote, ``because of delayed mail
and undermined public confidence in the Postal Service,''
verbatim from that resolution. Postmaster DeJoy, you do not
have----
Mr. DeJoy. I have seven unions.
Ms. Tlaib. I understand that.
Mr. DeJoy. That was one.
Ms. Tlaib. But Postmaster DeJoy, we are not making this up.
You are making it out like Members of Congress. There is too
many of us that are telling you the same thing.
Mr. DeJoy. I am not saying that----
Ms. Tlaib. Honestly, it is not political, because guess
what? Both Republicans and Democrats are giving you the same
stories.
Mr. DeJoy. Well, I say Republicans and Democrats are
significantly responsible for the condition of the United
States Postal Service when I arrived here.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, maybe it is because you do not know the
answer----
Mr. DeJoy. These issues have been manifesting themselves
over the last 20 years.
Ms. Tlaib. Maybe it is because you do not know the answers.
We are asking you questions. You do not even know how much in
2024 through the grievance tracking system--how many complaints
have you had in the grievance tracking system? How many?
Mr. DeJoy. I----
Ms. Tlaib. Really important to know. How many grievances
have been filed under your leadership?
Mr. DeJoy. I interact with my unions all the time.
Ms. Tlaib. But you cannot say they are in support of you.
You do not even know how many grievances were filed. I will
leave it at this, because----
Mr. DeJoy. Well, grievances have to do with----
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for being generous at this
time. I called for this hearing and I told the Chairman this is
one area that impacts all of our districts. Every corner of our
country, every part of our country is impacted by this
literally the Postal Service. We got to do better.
You are a public servant. You are not in the private sector
anymore, Postmaster DeJoy. You have a higher standard. The
public relies on you making the right decision. And please, for
the love of God----
Mr. DeJoy. As they do you.
Ms. Tlaib. For the love of God, put the universal service
obligations in your office. Print it out. That is literally
supposed to be your guidance to the standard.
Thank you. I yield.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeJoy, as I am sure you know, cluster--I want to talk
about cluster boxes. Cluster boxes, they resemble PO boxes at a
local post office. Sometimes we see apartment complexes use
them. Where I live uses them as well. I know that USPS
sometimes encourages communities to install cluster boxes. Mr.
DeJoy, can you tell me more about how you decide when you
encourage a community to use the cluster boxes? What factors
are considered? Does the recommendation just go through you or
the local postmaster? Can you talk a little bit about that?
Mr. DeJoy. No. So, rules were established, I think, 15
years ago with regard to home delivery that any new
developments, and that is a wishy-washy definition as to what a
new development is, because we often get into conflicts with an
expansion of an old development, whether it is a new
development or not. That we would not be going to the doorstep.
We would put cluster boxes in--that there be a requirement
that the developer put the cluster box in for the new
developments. And that has been an organizational business rule
for at least 15 years, I believe.
Mr. Frost. Thank you. Ms. Hull, your office helps to make
sure USPS is doing its job properly. Do you--have you all
provided any kind of oversight or do you know of any oversight
that happens with the cluster boxes and the request that goes--
that go to communities on these?
Ms. Hull. We have not done that in a while, I do not
believe. We have done some work probably five, 6 years ago in
that area, but I do not know that we have done anything really
recently.
Mr. Frost. I think it would be good to look into this,
especially looking at patterns. The reason I ask is I have two
communities in my district, Richmond Heights and Carver Shores.
These neighborhoods have virtually no apartment complexes, yet
they are being asked to consider cluster boxes.
My neighbors in central Florida and myself were concerned
that the more wealthy suburbs of my district that are also
spread out are not being asked to consider cluster boxes. And I
bet you can guess what the demographic is of these two
neighborhoods. These are predominantly Black neighborhoods in
my district.
The Orlando postmaster has been completely nonresponsive to
us and our office reaching out multiple times to ask why these
two traditionally Black neighborhoods with pretty much no
apartment complexes are being considered for cluster boxes so
people have to walk out of their damn house to go to the box to
go get their mail. I think we need to get together and talk
about it. Obviously, we cannot get a meeting with the Orlando
postmaster, so I want to ask both of you if you can commit to
meeting with me on cluster boxes?
Ms. Hull. Sure. We are happy to.
Mr. Frost. You, too, Mr. DeJoy?
Mr. DeJoy. She said we. We are happy.
Ms. Hull. I am speaking for myself.
Mr. DeJoy. That is why I did not answer.
Mr. Frost. Yes or no, Mr. DeJoy?
Mr. DeJoy. I will meet with you.
Mr. Frost. OK. I think we need to get together on this,
because it is important. The USPS is supposed to be delivering
for America, and I want to make sure we are thinking about
people like Richmond Heights and Carver Shores.
I want to turn to delivery for rural communities. I have a
community, unincorporated mobile community in my district. As I
understand it, the standard operating procedure is for mobile
home communities is to either have a park office or manager
distribute the mail to residents if there are not proper
mailing addresses or clear delivery points. Ms. Hull, in 2022,
your office looked into undelivered and partial routes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer for the record the
report titled ``Delivery Operations: Undelivered and Partially
Delivered Routes.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Frost. The report revealed issues with a lack of
internal data collection and included that, quote, ``the actual
number of undelivered and partially delivered routes is
unknown,'' end quote. USPS agreed to improve on this by May
15th of next year. So, Ms. Hull, I do think this could be
implemented early or needs to be. Could you share a little bit
about how these target dates were chosen.
Ms. Hull. Yes. Initially I think there was some
disagreement with us on the recommendation that we made as it
related to those undelivered routes, and so I think we went
through what we call the audit resolution process, accelerated
up the chain. We got to agreement, but it took a while to get
there, and so I think that is why there was a delay in the
actual implementation day.
I do want to commit to you, though, that we are going to
follow up on that once that action is taken, because clearly,
the Postal Service intends to deliver mail to every house,
every day. You have heard the postmaster general express that
today. And it is very concerning to us when deliveries are not
made, when actual delivery points are not serviced in that way.
Mr. Frost. I appreciate it. I look forward to meeting on
cluster boxes. To put it frankly, we do not want predominantly
Black communities of lower socioeconomic status being asked to
consider these cluster boxes when other communities that are
built in a very similar way are not being asked to consider
them either. So, I look forward to talking about that, and I
think this is definitely has room for oversight from your
office as well.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Porter from
California.
Ms. Porter. Good afternoon, Postmaster DeJoy. How many
pieces of election mail did your agency handle this year?
Mr. DeJoy. About 99 million, 100 million.
Ms. Porter. 99 million? OK. And Republicans, Democrats,
Independents, we are all seeing people use mail-in ballots and
they all deserve peace of mind that their ballots got delivered
safely and quickly. What percentage of ballots did the Postal
Service deliver within 3 days, this election cycle?
Mr. DeJoy. From voters to--from--excuse me. Are you asking
me from voters to election officials?
Ms. Porter. Yes.
Mr. DeJoy. Ninety-nine-point-five percent.
Ms. Porter. Yes. So, we have something like 97.7, so we are
in agreement that it is a really, really high number. You did a
terrific job. It is impressive. I will not say anything--well,
I will go ahead and say the cringe thing. Mission accomplished.
But here is the fine print. The Postal Service to do that
had to do a lot of extra work, so can you say more about what
kind of extraordinary measures the Postal Service had to take
to deal with that influx of election mail, ballot mail and to
get them delivered on time?
Mr. DeJoy. So, thank you for the question. I mean,
basically, first to put it into perspective, we could be 99.5
percent on time and accurate and still lose that .5 percent,
which could be 10,000 ballots, which is a huge issue in
elections. So, we--the last couple days, 10 days before the
election, we deploy extraordinary measures, which means a whole
bunch of extra transportation between plants. It means, you
know, inspections throughout our facility and work very closely
with the Inspector General's team that is out there, constant
meetings and review of everything that is going--everything
that is going on.
And then when we get down to the post office, we actually
never send a mail back to the plant. So, we did about 2 1/2
million ballots where it came into the post office, got
delivered, we hand stamped it and sent it right back out, so it
was delivered in less than a day. That is a very nonstandard
process. That is very expensive. And it is very nerve-racking.
Ms. Porter. So, what would make your job and the job of the
hard-working people who work at the Postal Service, what would
make it easier?
Mr. DeJoy. How about standard ballot box?
Ms. Porter. Yes. Say it again for everybody in the back.
Mr. DeJoy. How about a standard ballot envelope with a bar
code on it.
Ms. Porter. A standard ballot envelope. So, one of the
things those envelopes would have would be a USPS compliant bar
code, which would make it easier and more quickly could scan
all that. Having it clearly demarcated as a ballot, as official
election mail, making sure the envelopes are not weird sizes,
that the font is not weird, all of those things slow down and
add to the Postal Service burden.
You have--clearly are aware, Postmaster DeJoy, of my bill
called the Vote by Mail Tracking Act. It passed out of this
Committee unanimously. It passed the House. It is now awaiting
consideration in the Senate. And it is a bipartisan bill to
make sure that all ballot envelopes meet these benchmarks.
These design elements would really, really help make sure that
we can get the mail--election mail delivered efficiently and
quickly. You support this bill?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. We provided the technical assistance and
the design of the envelope, and so forth, and we would support
it. We think it is----
Ms. Porter. Yes. So, I really want to push the Senate to
act on this bill in the remaining time. We do not need to put
our Postal Service and let them--you guys are good for all
weather, but we do not need you to weather this. There are over
8,000 different election officials doing different things with
ballots and with envelopes. This would focus on the envelope
while still allowing local ballots to view--to be as they need
to be. Senators need to hear from Americans that they want
their ballots delivered quickly and that they stand with USPS
in making it happen. So, please let the senators hear you on
this bill.
In closing, Postmaster DeJoy, I just want to reinforce to
you how strongly I support your efforts to make sure the U.S.
postal police have the resources they need to keep our mail
carriers safe as they are delivering more and more high--all
our packages and high value packages, especially in the holiday
season. I know that their safety is a top concern for you, so I
want encourage you to address that. I also want to thank you
and encourage you to continue to work on your efforts to deal
with so-called porch pirates and package theft.
I know this is something that requires a lot of
adjustments, but I think the Postal Service is really the gold
standard for that and I would like to have Congress act on my
Porch Pirate Act to get your competitors up to that same level
of safety for packages.
Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Mr. DeJoy. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I have been
hearing, over the last couple years, more complaints from
constituents about issues with the Postal Service than probably
any other issue. And the problem is significant, as I am sure
you know, because it is not just letters that are delivered by
mail.
It is critical documents, tax refunds, work permits, green
cards, all sorts of immigration documents, and it is a
significant problem. And I want to talk a little bit about that
and see where we are.
My office has worked on 100 cases, approximately 100 cases
of lost or stolen mail that includes passports, work permits,
green cards. We have 40 open or recently closed lost check
cases that represents $3.8 million of lost--of stolen checks.
We have been able to get about $700,000 back, but there are
many checks that are stolen multiple times. I know this is a
problem you are aware of and I know that you are doing what you
can both on your side, Mr. DeJoy, and through the Inspector
General's office.
But I would point out that New York is ranked the highest
out of any state in mail theft related check fraud and New York
City is the worst metro for package theft in the United States
with $945 million in losses last year.
Now, Ms. Hull, the Office of Inspector General does not
regularly publicize the data on mail theft complaints submitted
to the office. Can I get your commitment to audit my district,
the tenth district of New York, and provide us with information
on where the investigations, any of the investigations have
gone?
Ms. Hull. We can definitely work with you and your staff on
what we are doing in your district already. If there is a need
to do some more audit work, we will work with you all on that.
We have a number of complaints in New York and have worked--I
think we have about 125 open investigations related to mail
theft right now in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens. So, we are
doing--we do a lot of work in New York and we are happy to talk
further about that.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you for that. I also sent a letter about
18 months ago, in March 2023, to you, Mr. DeJoy, urging the
Postal Service to increase its attention on mail theft. I got a
one paragraph letter response from government relations which
referred my concerns to the postal inspection service and have
heard nothing since that. Since you do also oversee the postal
inspection service, what more can I expect you to do on this
issue?
Mr. DeJoy. When was the date of that letter, sir?
Mr. Goldman. March 30, 2023.
Mr. DeJoy. About that time, we rolled out Project Safe
Delivery, which are a bunch of initiatives across the country
both in terms of visits into major cities like New York where
we team with local prosecutors and local police departments and
do, like, a raid of the city to find mail related theft, and we
have--we have resulted in, you know, a lot of follow-up
investigations and some arrests. We are implementing new--we
have 80-year-old locks and keys. We are implementing new----
Mr. Goldman. Yes. That is a whole other issue.
Mr. DeJoy. We have gotten control over our key mechanisms
from the standpoint of we used to have thousands of people
controlled. We are down to about 60 across the country. And we
are instituting new locks, electronic smart locks, and then
also dumb locks, which the digital mechanism is within the lock
itself.
Mr. Goldman. I think all these efforts are important. I
mean, the problem is that the problem is getting worse, not
better. And I do not know many more details about the project
that you are describing, but this is an ongoing problem and
with the Delivering for America where the service is getting
worse, and costs are going up, and more mail is being stolen,
you put it all together, and it is not a very good outlook.
And I fully expect to hear back from you and to coordinate
with my staff and you, Ms. Hull, to determine what is going on
with this mail theft and what we can do to curtail it.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Budzinski from
Illinois. Did I pronounce that right?
Ms. Budzinski. You did. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Raskin, for holding this important hearing and
for giving me the opportunity to waive on to this Committee for
the hearing. I appreciate that. Postmaster General DeJoy and
Inspector General Hull, thank you for being here and listening
to the concerns that many of my colleagues are sharing
regarding the recent proposed changes to the Postal Service.
I represent Champaign and Springfield processing
distribution centers in Illinois. Under your Delivering for
America plan, both of these facilities would be downsized and
consolidated into the St. Louis and Chicago distribution
centers. This means my constituents' outgoing mail would have
to travel hundreds of miles, additional miles, before even
being sent out to their final destinations. With the current
degree of service already substandard, these changes are just,
quite frankly, unacceptable.
This is an even more concerned--this is even more
concerning given the findings in Inspector General Hull's
report following the implementation of these changes in
Richmond, Virginia, which found that these changes, quote,
``contributed to a decrease in service performance for the
Richmond region that continued 4 months after the launch.''
So, my first question is to Postmaster General DeJoy. Can
you promise my constituents in central Illinois that they will
not see declines in on-time mail performance if there is a
change in operation at the Champaign and Springfield
distribution centers? And I would really appreciate just a
simple yes or no.
Mr. DeJoy. They will not experience what we experienced in
Richmond.
Ms. Budzinski. So, no, they will not.
Mr. DeJoy. They will not experience----
Ms. Budzinski. Additional delays. OK. That is encouraging.
Postmaster General DeJoy, the Champaign processing and
distribution center also employs over 200 career and pre-career
postal employees and the Springfield processing and
distribution center employs over 170 workers. According to the
mail processing facility review, there is expected to be a net
loss of over 100 employees at the Champaign processing and
distribution center and over 30 at the Springfield processing
and distribution center.
How are you ensuring that all of these employees are
provided with other employment opportunities given that there
will be no processing and distribution centers in central
Illinois following these changes?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not--if you got that data out of a filing
that we had, the intent of the plan, No. 1, is to also bring
other type of--if we, in fact, make that move for that
particular--those particular locations, we will be also driving
package delivery business into that location. So, our intent is
that people will have jobs in those particular areas. We will
work with attrition. We have a lot of attrition at the Postal
Service, and we will work through attrition.
I have also got to go back. Some of these locations we are
evaluating with regard to the new 3661 we just filed and they
may or may not be continuing in that direction. That was a big
study we did to try and get our hands around where do we get
savings from? But I can follow up with you on that if that is--
if one of the--people are going to be OK.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes, I think that is one of my bigger
concerns is employees and making sure that they can stay within
their areas that they are working, and that is the true
commitment that they have, that they do not have to be
concerned about their employment situation.
Mr. DeJoy. We are very, very--I have been very, very
committed to that since I walked in the door to make the right
moves as we are taking this transition so people feel secure in
their jobs, which is why we converted a lot of people to full-
time.
Ms. Budzinski. OK. I also wanted to talk about, Postmaster
General DeJoy, your regional transportation optimization plan
as well. As you know, if enacted, this plan would limit the
number of times post offices located more than 50 miles away
from a regional processing and distribution center have their
outgoing mail picked up to just one time per day.
The Postal Service has admitted that these changes will
create up to 24 hours of additional delays for predominantly
rural regions, and that is particularly the region that I
represent in down-state Illinois. In the third quarter of the
last fiscal year, on-time delivery rates for three to 5 day
first-class mail in down-state Illinois was only 68 percent.
Given that one-third of my constituents are already getting
their mail late, how can you justify further delaying their
mail simply because they do not live within a 50-mile area of a
larger city?
Mr. DeJoy. Well, we need to--we need to reshape the Postal
Service, because we are losing a lot of money. There was 59
billion pieces of single piece first-class mail in 1999. There
is less than 12 now, and it is going down. What I will say, in
this plan, right now we have trucks going out in the morning
empty and coming back empty, then going back at night empty and
coming back empty.
What we are proposing in this new plan for those further
areas, we go out and deliver and pick up the mail at the same
time. Then we will accelerate it through the system.
Ninety percent of the mail throughout the Nation,
especially on delivery, delivery going into these areas, will
be accelerated. It is just the pickup of single piece first-
class mail that will be delayed tops 24 hours in a one--so it
is 2-day might go to 3-day, 3-day might go to 4-day, 4-day
might go to 5-day, but nothing is going beyond the 5-days,
because we will fly it or do something else.
I think it is a--all these decisions are tough. Where do we
get that we can stop tens of thousands of trucks running around
empty throughout the Nation by doing this? And we--and some of
these areas, like your area, where it is remote, but it has got
population and has package business in and out, we articulate
the worst of the situation. I think there is some other
opportunities for those----
Ms. Budzinski. Yes. And I know I am out of time. I just
want to say that these changes cannot be made on the backs of
rural America, and that is my very big concern, that the focus
is on these urban cities, these big cities, at the detriment
and at the loss of services for rural parts of our country.
That is a very big concern. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired. That
concludes all of our questions, and I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today, for your testimony.
Ranking Member Raskin and I are going to yield--are going
to skip closing statements in lieu of votes being called a
couple of minutes ago, but we had several Members, I know Ms.
Norton and Ms. Crockett that had additional questions that we
are going to send you.
Ms. Hull, I know we have questions for you as well. As you
can see, everyone cares about the Postal Service. We want to
see the Postal Service be successful and efficient, so we will
be in touch with you and I am sure we will have lots of more
communication this next Congress.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, could I just do a UC requests?
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Let us see. Several here. I ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record the statement from Chuck
Mulidore, the Executive VP of the National Association of
Postal Supervisors; a statement from Kevin Yoder at Keep Us
Posted; and a statement from Marie Hobson Clarke from the
Envelope Manufacturer's Association providing comments on the
status of the Postal Service.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Raskin. And I would like to ask UC to enter into the
record a report from MDP Analytics dated March 24----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Raskin. And unanimous consent to enter into the record
a submission from the U.S. Postal Service to the Postal
Regulatory Commission including Fiscal Year performance targets
for each market dominant product. And finally, a request to
enter into the record this May 11, 2022, letter from former
Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney to Mr. DeJoy that she sent following
the Committee's April 4 hearing on the postal service's
electric vehicle procurement, which highlights the postal
service's original analysis of the costs and benefits of EVs,
underestimated cost savings from EVs, and used outdated gas
prices.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. With that, and without objection, all
Members will have five legislative days within which to submit
materials and submit additional written questions for the
witnesses, which we will have, and we will forward those to you
all for your response.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]