[Senate Hearing 118-134]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 118-134

                    NOMINATIONS OF HON. ROBERT G. TAUB,
                 TANYA M. JONES BOSIER, DANNY L.H. NGUYEN,
                        AND KENECHUKWU O. OKOCHA

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS


                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

        NOMINATIONS OF HON. ROBERT G. TAUB TO BE A COMMISSIONER,
          POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION, TANYA M. JONES BOSIER,
  DANNY L.H. NGUYEN, AND KENECHUKWU O. OKOCHA TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, 
               SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

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

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





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-706 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024












        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MITT ROMNEY, Utah
ALEX PADILLA, California             RICK SCOTT, Florida
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                   David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
                  Claudine J. Brenner, Senior Counsel
        Annika W. Christensen, Senior Professional Staff Member
           William E. Henderson III, Minority Staff Director
              Christina N. Salazar, Minority Chief Counsel
                  Andrew J. Hopkins, Minority Counsel
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                   Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk










                            C O N T E N T S

                                 ------                                
Opening statements:
                                                                   Page
    Senator Peters...............................................     1
    Senator Lankford.............................................    12
    Senator Hawley...............................................    15
    Senator Carper...............................................    18
Prepared statements:
    Senator Peters...............................................    25

                               WITNESSES
                      Thursday, September 7, 2023

Hon. Robert G. Taub to be a Commissioner, Postal Regulatory 
  Commission
    Testimony....................................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Biographical and professional information....................    31
    Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics.................    48
    Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    51
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    67
Tanya M. Jones Bosier to be an Associate Judge Superior Court of 
  the District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................    69
    Biographical and professional information....................    71
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   103
Danny L.H. Nguyen to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 
  District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................   108
    Biographical and professional information....................   110
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   130
Kenechukwu O. Okocha, to be an Associate Judge Superior Court of 
  the District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................   136
    Biographical and professional information....................   138
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   160









 
                    NOMINATIONS OF HON. ROBERT G. TAUB,
                 TANYA M. JONES BOSIER, DANNY L.H. NGUYEN,
                        AND KENECHUKWU O. OKOCHA

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

                                     U.S. Senate,  
                           Committee on Homeland Security  
                                  and Governmental Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 
room 562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Peters, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Carper, Hassan, 
Sinema, Ossoff, Blumenthal, Lankford, Scott, Hawley, and 
Marshall.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

    Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order. Today we 
are considering four nominations, Robert Taub to serve as the 
Commissioner for the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), as 
well as Tanya Jones Bosier, Danny Nguyen, and Kenechukwu 
Okocha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the 
Appendix on page 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would like to welcome each of the nominees and to your 
friends and family members who are joining you today, which I 
think are all behind you. Thank you for being here as well. 
Certainly, congratulations on your nominations, and thank you 
for your prior public service, and your willingness to fill 
these important positions.
    The Postal Regulatory Commission and the D.C. Superior 
Court present these nominees with very different roles. Both 
are essential to the functioning of the Federal Government, as 
well as to our nation's capital.
    The Postal Regulatory Commission is an independent agency 
that serves as the U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) regulator, 
providing oversight and accountability. Robust oversight is 
especially important as the Postal Service continues to 
implement the Postal Service Reform Act passed last year and 
makes other plans that could impact Americans.
    This bipartisan commission is most effective with a full 
complement of commissioners who have a diverse perspective but 
who are all committed to ensuring transparency and 
accountability for the Postal Service.
    I am pleased that we are considering Mr. Taub's nomination 
today and also look forward to receiving and promptly reviewing 
the nominee for the last upcoming vacancy on the Commission.
    The D.C. Superior Court functions as the State level trial 
court in the nation's capital. The court handles some of the 
highest case volumes in the country, deciding matters that 
impact the freedom, the livelihoods, and the safety of 
individuals and families all across the district.
    Unfortunately, the Superior Court continues to struggle 
with high judicial vacancy rates. Currently, 12 of the 62 seats 
on the court are vacant, placing serious burdens on current 
judges, and delaying resolutions for parties before the court. 
I am grateful to have three nominees here before us today who 
are willing to take on this very challenging role of a D.C. 
Superior Court Judge, and I hope that we will soon see several 
of these seats filled and start to close that gap.
    Welcome to all four of you before the Committee today. 
Today's hearing is an important opportunity for the Committee 
to learn more about your qualifications and how you plan to 
serve in these important new roles. It is the practice of this 
Committee to swear in witnesses.
    If you would, please all stand and raise your right hand. 
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this 
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you, God?
    Mr. Taub. I do.
    Ms. Bosier. I do.
    Mr. Nguyen. I do.
    Mr. Okocha. I do.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. You may be seated. Our first 
nominee is Robert Taub, nominated for a third term as 
Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission. Mr. Taub has 
served on the Commission since 2011, and as its chairman from 
2014 until 2021. He brings more than 40 years of government 
experience at the State, local, and Federal levels.
    Prior to joining the Commission, Mr. Taub served as Chief 
of Staff to the former Representative John McHugh, and as the 
Principal Civilian Advisor to Mr. McHugh when he served as the 
Secretary of the Army. Earlier in his career, Mr. Taub also 
served in several leadership roles as a congressional staff 
member and as a Senior Policy Analyst for the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO). Mr. Taub, welcome. You may proceed 
with your opening remarks.

TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT G. TAUB\1\ TO BE A COMMISSIONER POSTAL 
                     REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Taub. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lankford. It is 
a pleasure to be here today, and thank you for the opportunity 
to appear, and for your consideration of my qualifications to 
be a Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Taub appears in the Appendix on 
page 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would like to thank President Biden and Leader McConnell 
for the opportunity they have afforded me through this 
nomination, and I am honored by their trust. I would also like 
to thank New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand for their 
kind support.
    While my wife and daughters, my siblings, and my 91-year-
old father could not be here due to commitments outside of 
Washington, I feel their presence with me today. I am grateful 
for the support they have provided me in my chosen career of 
public service. Like good families everywhere, they have lent 
me love, encouragement, and a good dose of understanding.
    When the Senate first confirmed me as a Commissioner, I was 
serving as a Senior Executive in the Department of the Army, as 
the Principal Civilian Advisor to Secretary John McHugh, 
helping him oversee a workforce of more than 1.2 million people 
and manage an annual budget over $200 billion. I had arrived at 
the Army with Secretary McHugh, having served as his Chief of 
Staff in Congress and his leading staffer on postal issues 
within the House Oversight and Accountability Committee. Over 
the course of my 40 years in public service, I have worked in 
bipartisan fashion to craft solutions to many public policy 
issues, particularly the challenges confronting our Postal 
Service.
    I served as Chairman of the Commission for more than six 
years, from December 2014 to January 2021. During those years, 
the Commission improved its efficiency and effectiveness in 
carrying out its mission, as measured by budget savings and 
timeliness of work, and achieved improvements in employee 
satisfaction and engagement as measured by the Federal Employee 
Viewpoint Survey (FEWS).
    If confirmed, I would work with my fellow Commissioners to 
achieve further improvements. The Commission is the regulator, 
not the operator, of the Postal Service. Why a regulator for 
another government agency? Unlike almost any other Federal 
entity, the Postal Service operates in a commercial marketplace 
with a large contingent of captive customers, given its market 
dominance over certain products and services.
    The law provides the Postal Service statutory monopolies 
over mailboxes and the delivery of letters. The public interest 
role of a regulator in this case is clear, a need to protect 
the captive customers, ensure fair competition, and enforce 
transparency and accountability of the Postal Service.
    The need for a strong postal regulator has never been more 
critical. Despite billions of dollars in legislative relief 
from last year's postal reform bill, as well as a modified 
price caps system that the commission finalized in 2020, the 
Postal Service is continuing to lose billions of dollars.
    Revenue and volume are dropping, even while the Postal 
Service has lowered service standards and moved to twice a year 
or more rate increases. At the same time, the Postal Service is 
undertaking the most massive transformation of its network in 
decades. The Postal Service's strategic plan has the potential 
to help its operations and revenues, but how well the plan is 
implemented will affect how much help it provides.
    The important task of improving the financial condition of 
the Postal Service remains daunting. I want to assure this 
committee that I appear before you today with few delusions as 
to the difficulties that lie ahead. I believe I have a clear 
understanding of the serious and numerous challenges that 
America's postal system faces. But the fact is, for all the 
challenges the Postal Service faces, it still plays a vital 
role in our economy, our society, and how Americans across this 
land communicate.
    The Postal Service is the one government agency that 
touches every American, serving 165 million households and 
businesses on a typical day. It facilitates trillions of 
dollars in commerce.
    For 248 years, our Postal Service has provided universal 
service at a uniform price, no questions asked. Very few in 
this country go to their mailbox or local post office wondering 
if the mail will be there. It is always there. It has always 
been there.
    If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to focus my 
executive and management skills on ensuring transparency and 
accountability of the Postal Service and fostering a vital and 
efficient universal mail system.
    I would bring to the job 40 years of public service, 
achievement, and experience, and I pledge to work with all 
stakeholders to address the current difficulty. There are no 
easy answers but answer we must.
    I promise you, if confirmed, my priority will be along with 
this Committee, the entire Congress, the President, and my 
fellow Commissioners, to engage in a constant search for the 
discovery and effective implementation of solutions. I am truly 
honored to be considered. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Our next nominee is Judge Tanya Jones 
Bosier. Judge Bosier has served as a Magistrate Judge on the 
District of Columbia Superior Court since 2017.
    Previously, she served as Assistant General Counsel for the 
District of Columbia Courts, and as the Assistant General 
Counsel for the District of Columbia Department of Human 
Services.
    Earlier in her career, Judge Jones Bosier served as a Law 
Clerk for the District of Columbia Superior Court Judge, and 
then as an Assistant Attorney General in the District of 
Columbia's Office of the Attorney General.
    She has received a Juris Doctor (JD) from the American 
University, Washington College of Law, and her Bachelor of Arts 
(B.A.) from Syracuse University. Judge Bosier, welcome. You may 
proceed with your opening remarks.

TESTIMONY OF TANYA M. JONES BOSIER\1\ TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE 
           SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Ms. Bosier. Good morning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Jones Bosier appears in the 
Appendix on page 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Peters. Good morning.
    Ms. Bosier. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Paul, and 
Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you 
today as you consider my nomination to be an Associate Judge of 
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I would like to 
thank you and your staff for your dedication and diligence in 
preparing for this hearing.
    I would like to thank all the members of the District of 
Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, especially its former 
chair, the Honorable Emmitt Smith, for recommending me to the 
White House.
    I am profoundly thankful to the President Joseph Biden, for 
nominating me, and I wish to recognize Chief Judge Anita Josey-
Herring for her leadership and encouragement, and former Chief 
Judge Robert Morin, who appointed me as Magistrate Judge of the 
Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 2017.
    I am here today as a recipient of unwavering guidance and 
support from my village of colleagues, family, and friends, 
many of whom who are watching online. I would like to 
acknowledge my parents, Bernard and Yvette Jones. My mother is 
here with me today. My parents have overcome unthinkable odds, 
raising me when they were very young adults.
    They worked tirelessly to satisfy my precocious curiosity 
about the world. They instilled the values of education, faith, 
hard work, and service. Without their steadfast support, I 
would not be here today. I would like to acknowledge my 
brother, Paul Jones, sister, Tamara Adams, brother in law, 
Demarco Adams, nephew, Aiden, and the newest addition to our 
family, four month old niece, Riley Simmons.
    Thank you to my extended family members in Florida, 
Georgia, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, as 
well as my friends here in the District of Columbia, for their 
confidence in me. I owe great gratitude to my colleagues on the 
Superior Court bench, especially the talented group of 
magistrate judges for availing of their time to me when I call.
    I reserve special acknowledgment for my husband, Victor 
Bosier. For nearly 22 years, he has been the wind beneath my 
wings as I pursue a career in public service. His patience and 
understanding are unmatched.
    Thank you to my children. Victor James Bosier, a proud 
member of the United States Army, and Taylor Bosier, a junior 
at the University of Tampa. They are my greatest achievements 
and sources of inspiration for everything that I do.
    It is a joy to watch them chart their own paths and answer 
the call to their destinies. It is an honor and privilege to be 
considered for a position as an Associate Judge on the court, 
where I have appeared for over 23 years.
    While attending American University Washington College of 
Law, I served as a Judicial Law Clerk for the Honorable Judge 
Bush. While still a law student, I had the privilege of serving 
as a student attorney in the American University Washington 
College of Law's Domestic Violence Clinic, representing and 
advocating survivors of abuse before the court.
    In my first job, after graduating from law school, I 
returned to Judge Bush's chambers and served as her judicial 
law clerk. I was fortunate to witness firsthand the 
characteristics and the level of dedication required to be an 
exemplary jurist.
    After my clerkship, I worked for the Office of the 
Corporation Counsel, now named the Office of the Attorney 
General for the District of Columbia. For 14 years, I served in 
various capacities, from attorney to section chief, 
representing the interests of the District of Columbia, where I 
developed a swath of knowledge in several areas of law.
    I returned to the court to serve as an Assistant Attorney 
General in the Court's Office of General Counsel immediately 
before my appointment to the bench. Since 2017, I have been a 
Magistrate Judge on that bench, serving in the family court, 
civil, criminal, domestic violence, and probate divisions. I 
preside over thousands of cases and some of our highest volume 
calendars.
    I am a public servant. I have demonstrated my commitment to 
public service as I have progressed through my career in the 
court, from a judicial intern, student attorney, law clerk, 
prosecutor, assistant attorney general, and now with a 
magistrate judge.
    If confirmed to be an Associate Judge, I will continue to 
diligently serve the community that I have been a part of for 
over 23 years. Superior Court is my legal home. I look forward 
to answering any of your questions. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Our next nominee is Danny 
Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen is currently an Associate General Counsel at 
Booz Allen Hamilton.
    Previously, he served as a Trial Attorney in the Criminal 
Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and as an 
Assistant United States attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office 
for the District of Columbia.
    Earlier in his career, Mr. Nguyen worked at the law firm 
WilmerHale and as a law clerk on the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Columbia.
    Mr. Nguyen received his law degree from the Georgetown 
University Law Center and a bachelor's and master's degree from 
the University of California, Los Angeles.
    Mr. Nguyen, welcome to our Committee. You may proceed with 
your opening remarks.

  TESTIMONY OF DANNY L.H. NGUYEN\1\ TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE 
           SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Mr. Nguyen. Good morning, Chair Peters, Ranking Member 
Paul, and Members of the Committee. Thank you and your 
hardworking staff for holding today's hearing. I am honored to 
be here today as you consider my nomination to serve as an 
Associate Judge on the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Nguyen appears in the Appendix on 
page 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I was extremely grateful in 2020 when I was nominated by 
former President Donald Trump, and I am similarly grateful to 
President Joseph Biden for renominating me earlier this year. I 
want to thank the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and its 
chair, the Honorable Mary Johns, as well as its former chair, 
Judge Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White House.
    I am also thankful to Chief Judge Anita Josey-Herring and 
the judges of the D.C. Superior Court for their support 
throughout this process, and to former Chief Judge Robert Morin 
for encouraging me to apply for a judgeship on this esteemed 
bench.
    I cannot say enough about how appreciative I am for my 
family, colleagues, and community who have supported me 
throughout my entire career. In particular, I want to thank 
Judge Reggie Walton of the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia, who is here today, for his invaluable 
mentorship and guidance in both work and life.
    I also want to thank former United States Attorneys Ronald 
Machen, Vince Cohen, Channing Phillips, and Jesse Liu. I had 
the honor of serving as an Assistant United States Attorney 
under each of these exceptional leaders, and I appreciate their 
support and encouragement over the years.
    I am very grateful for the support of my brother Matt, as 
well as my extended family, who are all watching today's 
hearing remotely. I am the proud husband of Gwen Stamper, an 
accomplished attorney in her own right, and an even better 
human being.
    Every day, on top of juggling life as a professional 
parent, she always finds a way to make me laugh, keeps me 
grounded, and inspires me to be a better person than I was the 
day before. I would not be sitting here today without her love 
and support.
    More importantly, she is a wonderful mother to our two 
children who are here today, Blake, who is two years old, and 
Paxton, who was born just six weeks ago. The two of them bring 
us a level of joy and fulfillment that we never knew existed.
    I am so blessed to have all of them here today. However, I 
cannot talk about who I am as a person and who I will be as a 
judge, if confirmed, without talking about my parents, Vinh 
Nguyen and Huong Lam. My parents escaped Vietnam on a boat in 
the late 1970s after the fall of Saigon. After spending several 
months in a refugee camp in Malaysia, they came to the United 
States with almost nothing in tow.
    While my parents knew a college education would open doors 
for them in their new home, they could not afford to get one. 
Not only did they have little money, but my mom was seven 
months pregnant with me when they arrived in the States. They 
had no choice but to make ends meet.
    Through hard work, persistence, and sacrifice, they did 
just that, and my parents were able to give me the education 
and the life that they never had for themselves. They gave up 
so much so that I could have so much more.
    Although they are unable to attend today's hearing, they 
are here today as they are every day, through the values of 
hard work, persistence, and sacrifice, values that have served 
me well in my career and that will serve me well if I am 
confirmed as a judge. I cannot thank them enough.
    I have been a part of the District of Columbia legal 
community my entire 17 year career. I have had a diverse 
practice that includes appearing before the D.C. Superior 
Court, as well as Federal district courts across the country.
    These experiences have enabled me to work on a wide range 
of civil and criminal matters that touch upon many different 
areas of the law. I also have had the opportunity to work with 
people from different walks of life, from different 
neighborhoods of the district, and from different parts of the 
country.
    I believe that this broad range of experiences has prepared 
me well to handle the broad range of matters that come before 
the judges of the D.C. Superior Court. I hope to have the 
opportunity to join them and help further the mission of the 
court to ensure equal access to justice for the members of our 
community.
    Thank you again for considering my nomination, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Our final nominee is Mr. 
Kenechukwu Okocha. Mr. Okocha has served as an Assistant United 
States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District 
of Columbia since 2011.
    Since 2019, he has served as the Office's Deputy Chief for 
the Sex Offense and Domestic Violence Division. Mr. Okocha 
previously served as an Assistant District Attorney at the Dane 
County District Attorney's Office in Madison, Wisconsin, from 
2008 to 2010.
    Mr. Okocha received his JD from the University of Wisconsin 
Law School in 2007, and his Bachelor of Science (B.S.) from the 
University of Wisconsin in 2004.
    Welcome to the committee. You may proceed with your opening 
comments.

 TESTIMONY OF KENECHUKWU O. OKOCHA\1\ TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE 
           SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Mr. Okocha. Thank you, and good morning, Chair Peters, 
Ranking Member Paul, and esteemed Senate Committee Members and 
staff. I am incredibly honored, humbled, and thankful for your 
consideration of my nomination to be an Associate Judge on the 
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Okocha appears in the Appendix on 
page 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would also like to thank the District of Columbia 
Judicial Nomination Commission, particularly the chair, Mary C. 
Johns, for recommending me to the White House. I thank 
President Joseph R. Biden for nominating me.
    I also thank Chief Judge Anita Josey-Herring and the judges 
of the D.C. Superior Court for their assistance and 
encouragement. I wish to further thank my current and former 
colleagues at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of 
Columbia, and especially the current U.S. Attorney, Matthew 
Graves, for his leadership, as well as former U.S. attorneys 
Ronald Machen and Vincent Cohen for hiring and training me. 
Jesse Liu for promoting me, and Channing Phillips for his 
constant guidance.
    I reserve special things for my current and former 
colleagues in the Sex Offense and Domestic Violence Section. 
Sharon Marcus-Kurn, the Section Chief, has taught me important 
lessons on leading attorneys. The Honorable Kelly Higashi, the 
section's former Chief, and Mark O'Brien, my fellow Deputy 
Chief and former supervisor, have shown me how to advocate for 
victims. And my former colleague, Kenya Davis, has been a 
mentor to me throughout my time in the section.
    I also thank my lifelong friends and colleagues, many of 
whom are here today or watching at home, for their support. I 
am the proud son of Nigerian immigrants, Augustine and Aneneosa 
Okocha, who made the fateful decision to come to the United 
States for a better life and to pursue their education. Their 
hard work and determination culminated in obtaining PhDs in 
physical and counseling education. They are here today 
supporting me like they always have and always will.
    I cannot thank them enough for their many sacrifices they 
made in rearing me, educating me, and advocating for me. Their 
story and influence is truly my North Star, and it has 
instilled in me the values of service and betterment of the 
community which I hold sacred. Their personal achievements, 
contributions to their communities, and the successes that they 
have nurtured from their children are the quintessential 
representation of the American dream.
    I also thank my three sisters who are also here today, my 
older sister, Nonye, she has taken care of me and trailblazed a 
path for me and my other sisters. My immediate older sister, 
Fy-Fy has long been one of my closest confidants, advisors, and 
friends. My younger sister, Zia, who I used to watch over, has 
grown into a strong, confident woman, and peer.
    All of my sisters have taken on my parents values and 
becoming physicians and healing their fellow community members. 
I thank them for taking time away from their families and 
important work duties to come and support me here today.
    But I reserve my greatest thanks and appreciation for my 
partner, my loving and supportive wife, Cherri Okocha. Her 
strength, her beauty, her devotion, her care, and her 
discipline invigorate me daily. She massively balances my needs 
along with those of our children and the demands of her career, 
working for the United States Army intelligence in a truly awe 
inspiring way.
    Falling in love with her was the best thing that happened 
to me. In large part because our love brought forth the 
greatest sources of my pride and joy, my two children. My 
oldest is a rambunctious, jovial 4 year old boy full of energy, 
and even at this young age, constantly displaying care for his 
family.
    My youngest, a whip, smart three year old girl with a 
commanding presence and confidence. My family is truly the 
foundation upon which I built my professional career. 
Faithfully with the values my parents instilled in me, I chose 
a career in the law. For over 15 years, I pursued justice for 
my fellow community members as a prosecutor. My career has 
brought me a wealth of experience.
    I have tried over 50 cases in three different 
jurisdictions, and since working for two years as an Assistant 
U.S. Attorney in Madison, Wisconsin, I have spent nearly 13 
years as an Assistant United States Attorney at the United 
States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia.
    I have spent much of my time in the U.S. Attorney's Office 
advocating for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, 
in turn, helping some of the most serious sexual abuse cases, 
and also supervising the districts adult non-fatal felony 
violent crime, domestic violence cases.
    It is truly an honor and privilege seeking justice for 
these vulnerable children, women, and men. If confirmed, I 
would relish the opportunity to continue my commitment to 
public service as a neutral arbiter, ensuring the protection of 
rights and faithful administration of the law.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 
today, and I look forward to answering any questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. There are three questions that 
the Committee ask of every nominee, so I am going to ask each 
of you to just respond briefly with just a yes or no. After I 
read the question, I will start with you, Mr. Taub, and we will 
just go down and move as quickly as we can.
    First, is there anything you are aware of in your 
background that might present a conflict of interest with the 
duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
    Mr. Taub. No.
    Ms. Bosier. No.
    Mr. Nguyen. No.
    Mr. Okocha. No.
    Chairman Peters. Second, do you know of anything personal 
or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and 
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office for 
which you have been nominated?
    Mr. Taub. No.
    Ms. Bosier. No.
    Mr. Nguyen. No.
    Mr. Okocha. No.
    Chairman Peters. Last, do you agree without reservation to 
comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before 
any duly constituted Committee of the U.S. Congress, if you are 
confirmed?
    Mr. Taub. Yes.
    Ms. Bosier. Yes.
    Mr. Nguyen. Yes.
    Mr. Okocha. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Mr. Taub, the Postal Regulatory 
Commission plays a critical role in conducting oversight of the 
Postal Service, as you have talked about, and I mentioned in my 
opening comments.
    Things including prices, on time delivery service, and 
whether the Postal Service is providing prompt, reliable, and 
efficient service to every single community all across the 
country. For example, the PRC recently began a public inquiry 
to seek more transparency on proposed changes to the postal 
network.
    The PRC's oversight work here is absolutely essential. We 
must ensure that any Postal Service changes will not have any 
negative impact on the services that they provide and the 
customers that they serve.
    My question to you, are you committed to ensuring the 
Commission acts as a strong regulator, including taking 
proactive action on these emerging issues? If confirmed, how 
are you going to work to this goal? If you could talk about 
that for the Committee, we would appreciate it.
    Mr. Taub. You got it, Chair. That task of providing 
transparency and accountability to the United States Postal 
Service is the key mission of why the Postal Regulatory 
Commission exists and was created. I had an opportunity as a 
lead House staffer to help craft the 2006 law that transformed 
the Postal Rate Commission, which was a relatively weak rate 
recommending body, into the Postal Regulatory Commission.
    I have a deep familiarity with the goals and expectations 
that the task before the Commission, recognizing that the 
Postal Service is 100 percent part of the Federal Government. 
It is not quasi private, quasi government, or quasi anything. 
It is 100 percent part of the Federal Government, operating 
with not one but two statutory monopolies over letters and 
mailboxes, with a huge amount of captive customers.
    The public interest role that the Commission plays is vital 
to ensuring the public interest is met. The Commission, as you 
noted, has proactively stepped forward to undertake an inquiry 
as to the Delivery for America Plan. This is the most far 
reaching plan that is being implemented as we speak.
    If one listens to some of the Postal Service information on 
this, it may be the most fundamental change to the network 
since Ben Franklin was Postmaster General. This is not a time 
for the Commission to think big thoughts or step back.
    We have to be using our authorities, recognizing we are the 
regulator, not the operator, to ensure the American public has 
transparency and accountability. That is exactly what we are 
doing with that public inquiry you mentioned.
    Chairman Peters. Right. Judge Jones Bosier, as a Magistrate 
Judge, you have a direct experience with a high volume of cases 
that are now facing the D.C. Superior Court.
    My question for you, ma'am, is how have you learned to 
manage your caseload efficiently, while also ensuring that 
everyone who comes before you gets a meaningful opportunity to 
be heard, and how will you use that experience in this new 
position?
    Ms. Bosier. Serving as a Magistrate Judge for the past 
seven years, I have been assigned to each of the five divisions 
at Superior Court. I ensure that I am prepared. That means 
being familiar with any Supreme Court guidance and precedent. I 
do ensure that the litigants have their opportunity to be 
heard.
    I am respectful when I am on the bench. I preside over each 
manner with a level of humility and respect the dignity of the 
litigants. With respect to the attorneys, I do make sure that 
they are prepared, and they understand my expectation as not to 
cause delay.
    It is very important for the court to reach a timely 
resolution, so I set expectations out early, and ensuring that 
if there are any barriers that might cause delay, that it is 
addressed at the outset. If there are any continuances that are 
requested, I don't make wholesale decisions.
    I make sure that there really is good cause or excusable 
neglect to warrant such a continuance. In the various matters 
that I presided over where the majority of the litigants are 
pro se, I do ensure that I speak clearly, trying not to use 
legalese so that they can understand my ruling, and ultimately 
of course become compliant and to follow through on the court's 
orders.
    Superior Court, fortunately, also has a wealth of resources 
within the courthouse and also within the community. In 
instances where there are additional services needed and, or 
legal questions that as a judge I cannot answer, I am always 
willing to direct the pro se litigants to those resources. If 
confirmed, I will continue to preside over my matters in the 
same way.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Okocha, you 
both have extensive experience trying cases in D.C. as 
prosecutors. My question for both of you, what challenges do 
you anticipate facing as you shift from your role of advocate 
to the role of an impartial adjudicator? How are you preparing 
to make this transition, if confirmed? Mr. Nguyen, we will 
start with you.
    Mr. Nguyen. Yes, Senator Peters. Fortunately for me, I have 
had to make this transition one other time in my career, after 
practicing law for three years at WilmerHale as a defense 
attorney working on complex financial matters. I then became a 
law clerk for the Honorable Reggie B. Walton.
    As an attorney at WilmerHale, my job was to be a zealous 
advocate for my clients. My job was to look at the facts and 
look at the law, and then always ask myself, what is in the 
best interests of my client.
    As a law clerk, I essentially sat in the shoes of the 
judge, and I had to be neutral and fair minded and ensure that 
all the parties through the written submissions had a full and 
fair opportunity to be considered and to be heard.
    I think my ability to make that transition back earlier in 
my career, I was able to do that by bringing a sense of 
humility to the role.
    I think humility is important because humility means 
recognizing that you are not necessarily the smartest person in 
the room. It means recognizing that you may not have all the 
answers to all the problems that come before the court.
    It certainly means understanding that just because you have 
always done something one way does not mean it is the right 
way.
    I think if you ask my friends, colleagues, and opposing 
counsel, they will tell you that I have always brought a sense 
of humility to the work that I have done and that I am somebody 
who always leans on the perspective of others to help inform me 
on what the right decision is.
    I expect that, if I am confirmed, that I will rely on that 
experience, when I made that transition from defense attorney 
to law clerk, and bring a sense of humility to the bench so 
that I can make that transition from being an advocate to being 
a neutral arbiter.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Mr. Okocha.
    Mr. Okocha. Yes, Senator. I would agree with my co-nominee 
that humility is important. I would also add that it is 
important to network with those who have gone before you.
    I have a number of colleagues who used to work at the U.S. 
Attorney's Office who do work at D.C. Superior Court.
    If I were confirmed, I would talk to them about their 
experience and learn more from them as well. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Senator Lankford, you are 
recognized for your questions.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

    Senator Lankford. Chair, thank you. Thank you to all of 
you. Thanks to your families that actually came as well. It is 
a big day for everybody, and it is not a day that you wake up 
and go, oh, I am so excited I am going to be in a congressional 
hearing today.
    No one loves this day, but thanks for walking through this. 
All of you have been through a long process on this. Mr. Taub, 
you have been through this multiple times, so you are the 
experienced guy in this.
    I am going to be able to press on a couple of issues. 
Postmaster General DeJoy was in a House oversight hearing 
recently and he was talking about the Regulatory Commission. I 
am sure you have seen some of the quotes on it. There seems to 
be a battle back and forth between the Postmaster after the 
Regulatory Commission.
    He made this statement. He said, we are very committed to 
getting the Postal Service back on track and moving forward. 
That is why interference from the Postal Regulatory Commission 
is not helpful. It is going to put this whole plan in jeopardy, 
speaking about the Delivering for America's Plan.
    Perspective wise for you, I am not saying that you are 
putting the whole plan in jeopardy. Where do you disagree with 
the Delivering for America, that plan? Where are the areas 
where we can work together?
    Because with the Postal Service in such great debt right 
now and accelerating on it, we have to have a Postmaster 
General and all that is going on in the Postal Regulatory 
Commission actually pulling the wagon in the same direction at 
some point. So where do we go from here?
    Mr. Taub. Senator, first of all, nothing that the 
Commission has done by opening up that public inquiry has done 
absolutely anything to stop, alter, change the Delivery for 
America Plan. What the Commission was deeply concerned about--
recognizing we are not the operator----
    Senator Lankford. Right----
    Mr. Taub. That is the responsibility of the Postal Service, 
is to provide transparency for the American public. The Postal 
Service is moving out, consolidating service centers, opening 
up new ones.
    There is huge impacts on cost, revenue, employees, and 
frankly, customers in terms of their delivery. All we are 
simply doing is opening up an opportunity for us to get more 
information on this operational plan. In terms of the 
Commission and our role, I would be more concerned if we had an 
operator who says we are the best thing since sliced bread, 
because I think then we are not doing our job.
    There is a natural tension between the regulator and the 
operator, but I can assure you the Commission is not interested 
in getting on the work room floor being the operator, but we 
have a statutory responsibility to provide transparency and 
accountability.
    Senator Lankford. We do need both full and well on it 
because there are obviously major issues. You know this full 
well because you are tracking these issues. Third quarter, this 
year, Postal Service had a $1.7 billion loss. We are headed 
toward an $8 billion loss for the entire year. Perspective 
wise, why are we having losses like this? How does this get 
better?
    Mr. Taub. Very disconcerting. The Postal Service had 
announced in that Delivery for America Plan previously that 
they were going to break even this year, and to date they have 
lost $5.8 billion. They could be on track to lose billions 
more.
    Why? I think there is a variety of factors going on. 
Certainly, inflation is some of it. It is not quite clear what 
else is driving it. Our role is to shine some spotlight to try 
to get to some root causes, but very disconcerting in light of 
the fact particularly that the Congress enacted legislation a 
little over a year ago to provide $57 billion of relief.
    Senator Lankford. The Postal Services has had some unique 
vulnerabilities on inflation that I think a lot of people do 
not know. Inflation, you go back to last year when it is so 
high, and if you look over just the last three years, inflation 
in the United States has gone up about 16.5 percent just in the 
last three years.
    My understanding for the labor contracts, that at the end 
of the year in December, there is a look back to say, if the 
increase in pay did not equal inflation, then there is a bonus 
that is given at the end of the year.
    Literally the Postal Service is very exposed to inflation, 
that if inflation goes up automatically, every single labor 
cost goes up dramatically. You have had a 16 percent increase 
in inflation over the last three years.
    That is a pretty big hit on it. As you mentioned before as 
well, you have had two rate increases in the last year, but we 
have also got a packaging conversation that is happening right 
now because packaging was supposed to be the element that was 
going to actually save the Postal Service, but that is not 
actually balancing out at this point.
    The running joke is, the Postal service used to be letter 
carriers that also handled some packages. Now they are a 
packaging service that also carry some letters on it. What is 
going to happen to make the packaging side of things better and 
make that actually more profitable?
    Mr. Taub. That is really part and parcel of the Delivery 
for America Plan. The Postal Service is really looking to 
transform its network in a major way to, as you said, in a very 
over generalized description, become more efficient at the 
package and have letters on the side, shall we say.
    But there is huge cost to invest in that change. There is 
storm clouds there, as you indicated, because as opposed to 
that continuing increase we are seeing in the last several 
years on competitive product revenue and volume, there are some 
decreases going on there, let alone the unrelenting loss of 
first class mail, which is their bread and butter.
    Very concerning and troubling storm clouds, shall we say, 
particularly after the immense amount of balance sheet relief.
    Senator Lankford. We will continue to be able to follow up 
on this. For the judges, thank you for stepping in the service 
again. I apologize, I do not have a lot of time to go through 
stuff. Mr. Okocha, I do want to be able to ask one quick 
question, though, just as a follow up on some things. By the 
way, beautiful introduction of all your family.
    There was in 2017, you wrote a piece that I want to be able 
to ask you and get some additional clarity on. You said 
prosecutors are one of the few attorney positions in which 
cases initiation, dismissal, or settlement are determined by 
the lawyer and not by the client. For me, it is liberating and 
fulfilling to have my idea of justice as the sole consideration 
when making those decisions.
    Now, I understand as a prosecutor making that statement, 
but if I am in front of you in a case and you are the judge, 
and I know you have written my idea of justice as the sole 
determinant of that, that makes me nervous on it. Help me 
understand that as a judge.
    Mr. Okocha. Yes, Senator. What I would like to say with 
regards to that statement, when I say the sole determiner of 
justice, I mean within the facts in the law. When you are 
determining justice, you have to determine the facts, see what 
the law is, and attribute those facts to the law. Your 
interpretation of that would be determining what justice is in 
that case. You do not ignore the facts. You do not ignore the 
law. You apply the facts of the law.
    Senator Lankford. OK. Yes, obviously that is essential. It 
is the baseline of the American Republic, is to be able to have 
the opportunity for every person to be equal under the law. No 
one comes to any court, at any time, in any level and it is 
based on the preferences of that court that particular day.
    But whether you are in Seattle, Oklahoma City, or 
Washington, DC, you know the law is going to be applied equally 
to every single American citizen on that. That would be 
exceptionally important as one of the key standards I look for 
in every judge, to be able to say, they know their 
responsibility.
    I cannot be a judge. I am a legislator. I am not asking the 
President to write law. That is not his responsibility. It is 
to be able to execute the law. For every judge, to be able to 
be able to carry out what the law says on it--essential. Thank 
you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator 
Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to 
all the nominees. Thanks for being here. Mr. Taub, if I could 
start with you. I want to talk about an issue in my home State. 
Just over a month ago in August, Knox County in Missouri was 
struck by an enhanced fujita scale (EF-2) tornado, destroyed 62 
homes, also destroyed the Baring, Missouri Post Office, I mean, 
almost completely. It leveled it.
    Current reports are that that post office will not be 
rebuilt. Now, you can probably understand my concern with this. 
This is a small rural community, much like the one that I grew 
up in, and the post office is, as you know, is a lifeline to 
these communities. It is contact with the outside world.
    Of course, it is a delivery mechanism for medical supplies. 
It is absolutely vital that our rural communities have access, 
like everybody else, to regular postal service. I realize what 
your role is on the Regulatory Commission, and it is primarily 
an oversight role, but let me ask you, do you agree that the 
Postal Service should prioritize rebuilding rural post offices 
in a timely manner so that we can keep the flow of mail and 
other services available to everybody across the country?
    Mr. Taub. 110 percent, Senator. This has been an area that 
the Commission has actually been concerned about in providing 
oversight. It is suspended post offices where the Postal 
Service, for emergency reasons, suspends a post office. We have 
found, unfortunately, over the years that they tend to drag 
their feet as to making that decision on reopening.
    To underscore how much I agree with the concern, Senator, I 
was born and raised in Northern New York State, in the 
foothills of the Adirondack Mountains. I was Chief of Staff for 
decades to Congressman John McHugh, who represented that area.
    It is 14,000 square miles, one of the largest House 
districts East of the Mississippi. A lot of those communities 
may not have had much, but what they did have was a post 
office, and that is critical to binding our nation together.
    Senator Hawley. Absolutely. I am glad to hear you say that. 
I think it is absolutely vital that we keep these rural post 
offices open, and that when they are faced with challenges, 
particularly natural disasters, that we rebuild them as quickly 
as possible. I don't have to tell you, for many of these 
communities, if you say your post office is not going to be 
rebuilt, it is almost a death sentence.
    You are saying to the community, we are just going to cut 
you off from the rest of the world. We are going to cutoff your 
ability to get to the prescriptions you need, to get the 
information you need, to get the deliveries that you need.
    I am glad to hear you say that. I hope you will work with 
me as it relates to Baring, and I may have more to follow up 
with you about that.
    Mr. Taub. Happy to you, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Great. Thank you so much. Mr. Okocha, let 
me ask you, I notice that you have served on the Board of 
Directors of a Foundation called the Green Lighting Institute. 
Is that right? Have I got that right?
    Mr. Okocha. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Since 2021 looks like.
    Mr. Okocha. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. You were previously a legal fellow at the 
same institute. The website of the organization says that it 
focuses on, I am going to quote it now, the intersection of 
climate action, racial justice, and economic equity. Have I got 
that right?
    Mr. Okocha. I believe so, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. OK, fair enough. All right. I assume that 
you are also familiar with the Supreme Court's recent and 
widely reported, much commented upon decision Student for Fair 
Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard. You know about that case?
    Mr. Okocha. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Yes, that is the case that held that 
Harvard and some other universities, that their admissions 
programs that took into account race based factors were 
unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection 
Clause.
    All right, I am asking you this because I want to ask you 
something that the Green Lighting Institute said about that 
case. The Green Leaning Institute said that that ruling by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, striking down consideration 
of race in college admissions, that is an accurate rehearsal of 
what the opinion is, that that decision is a willful disregard 
of America's racist history. Let me ask you, does that 
represent your view?
    Mr. Okocha. Senator, I am not familiar with that statement. 
I can tell you, Senator, that I did not aid in crafting that 
statement. I can tell you that I recognize that as SFFA versus 
Harvard is the law of the land, and that if I were confirmed as 
a judge, I would apply that law. I would apply the law in SFFA 
versus Harvard.
    Senator Hawley. OK. Very good. Let me ask about one other--
it is a lengthy statement but let me ask you about one other 
piece of it. Same statement from the Green Lighting Institute, 
that same case.
    The statement is, we need race conscious solutions, race 
conscious solutions to the longstanding and persistent 
structural barriers caused by systemic racism.
    Now, the reason I am asking about that is that is exactly 
what the Supreme Court says in the fair case the universities 
may not do. Does this reflect your view of the law?
    Mr. Okocha. Senator, I am also not familiar with that 
statement. I can tell you that, if confirmed as a judge, I 
would apply the binding precedent that you spoke of as SFFA 
versus Harvard, if a case of affirmative action were to come 
before me.
    Senator Hawley. OK. That is what I wanted to drive toward 
because obviously you can think whatever you want about the 
case. I have been known to criticize Supreme Court cases quite 
vociferously if I think that they are wrong. But of course, the 
position that you are going to have, should you be confirmed, 
will be different.
    I want to be sure that whatever your views may be on any 
number of cases, that whether you like it, or hate it, or 
whatever you think of the precedent, if it is binding 
precedent, that you will apply it faithfully. Your testimony 
today is that you will, whatever your views may be. Is that 
correct? I have that right?
    Mr. Okocha. Yes, Senator, without a doubt.
    Senator Hawley. OK. Let me ask you about something else 
unrelated to this but related to your work as a prosecutor. You 
said earlier that you have experienced prosecuting cases 
involving sex abuse. The materials you submitted to the 
Committee, I noticed that includes sexual abuse of minors. I am 
wondering if you have ever prosecuted a case involving child 
sex abuse material (CSAM).
    Mr. Okocha. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. My question is on that. Reflect a little 
bit on your experience in these horrible cases. Do you think 
that criminal penalties against those who are convicted of 
child sex abuse material, distributing it, having it, making 
it, using it, do you think that those penalties ought to be 
strengthened? Do you think we are doing enough to punish and 
deter the people who engage in that kind of terrible behavior?
    Mr. Okocha. Senator, what I can tell you is that I do not 
believe that that is my province. I think that is the province 
of yourself and of the legislatures to determine what the 
maximum sentences should be with regard to those crimes. But I 
can tell you that as a prosecutor, I have worked hard to make 
sure that people who do commit those crimes are held 
accountable.
    Senator Hawley. Very good. I will have some of the 
questions for those of you I did not get to ask a question. I 
am sure you are very disappointed I did not get to ask you 
questions, so I will submit a few for the record. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Senator Hawley. Senator Carper, 
you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

    Senator Carper. Thanks. Thanks so much. Delighted that we 
are having this hearing today. Mr. Taub--nice to see you, and 
to our nominees for judgeships. In earlier days, I was a 
recovering Governor, and in an earlier day I was privileged to 
nominate for eight years men and women to serve on the courts 
of Delaware, which actually do have national and international 
prominence.
    The issue of judicial, the qualifications of those we 
nominate to serve on the bench is something that is important 
to us in governance and certainly important to me, although I 
am not a not a lawyer. For too long, we have delayed hearings, 
reporting nominees out of this Committee so that they can 
actually go to work. We have a vote on the floor and go to 
work, put on the bench here in Washington, DC.
    I am delighted that we are here having this hearing. I hope 
we can move these nominations along. Thank you for your 
willingness to serve. I want to say, on a personal note, Mr. 
Nguyen, I am the last Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S. 
Senate, and the President is about to leave this weekend to go 
to Vietnam.
    I still have a great soft spot in my heart for the people 
of Vietnam who came here and have been become great citizens in 
this country, millions of them, and I am delighted that their 
relationship after a very tough, this bitter war, that it has 
been succeeded by a much better relationship between Vietnam 
and our country.
    We have now U.S. naval ships that call into ports in 
Vietnam that we used to. We have not just, I think they are our 
number 10 trading partner in the world. But things have changed 
a lot for the better. With that in my mind, members of your 
heritage, that we are delighted to welcome you today. I 
remember when I was in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War.
    I remember the best day of the week was when we got mail, 
and we got it faithfully and we got it throughout our 
deployments there to that part of the world. Mr. Taub, thank 
you for all that you have done. Your service.
    With respect to the Postal Service, I throughout my time in 
the Senate, I worked with a number of my colleagues on this 
Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to improve the 
accountability service and the financial solvency of the Postal 
Service.
    Commissioner Taub, you mentioned in your testimony that the 
Postal Regulatory Commission provides accountability and 
oversight of all U.S. Postal Service operations and that the 
need for a strong postal regulator has never been more 
important. I could not agree with you more.
    While Congress has taken critical action to improve the 
accountability of the service, the financial solvency of the 
Postal Service, there is still work to be done to make the 
Postal Service something we can all be proud of. My ask is that 
you work to put the service back in the Postal Service, so that 
confidence is restored, and our constituents feel good about 
putting their letters in the mail, packages in the mail, 
knowing that they will arrive and arrive on time.
    Question, if confirmed, Mr. Taub, can you describe how you 
will work with the Postal Regulatory Commission to ensure that 
Postal Service is meeting, and hopefully one day exceeding, 
delivery service standards in all parts of our country?
    Mr. Taub. Thank you, Senator. Service oversight of their 
performance is one of the most critical tasks that the 
Commission was created for, with your key help and work in the 
2006 law particularly, transforming that old Postal Rate 
Commission to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
    One of our responsibilities every year is what is called an 
annual compliance determination, where we look back and make 
sure all the rates and fees that were in effect were in 
compliance with the law. But the other aspect that we have to 
do every year is look at service standards and say where they 
met.
    I can report to you, our most recent report, nearly half of 
their market dominance service standards did not meet 
performance and we ordered corrective action. We have asked for 
detailed reports drilling down into the root causes.
    The Postal Service is reporting back. Also, last year's 
postal reform bill tried to move the ball a little further and 
directed that the Postal Service create a dashboard that they 
had to create in consultation and working through our review 
and approval at the Commission.
    We did that in the last year. That dashboard of the Postal 
Service is up and running, providing more weekly information 
and data than existed before. We are continuing to look at ways 
that we can push the Postal Service to continue to focus on it, 
because it is in their name, it is Postal Service.
    Why else is it a government agency than to provide 
universal service to the American public? Yes, the solvency of 
the Postal Service is important. Their ability to provide more 
a competitive environment in which they are operating is 
important.
    But at the end of the day, it is they are 100 percent part 
of the government because of service to the American public, 
and that is our important task, to help oversee that.
    Senator Carper. Good. I am glad to hear you say that. To 
continue with the Postal Service, in the summer of 2022, last 
year, I heard, my staff and I in Delaware heard from thousands, 
literally thousands of Delawareans about delayed mail delivery, 
missing packages and letters, and mixed delivery, with some 
individuals not receiving mail for weeks at a time.
    I heard it from some of my neighbors in Wilmington. Too 
many of them. Following the outrage from dissatisfied 
constituents, the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) actually conducted an audit that looked at 
efficiency in mail delivery at three post offices and one 
distribution facility in Delaware.
    The Postal Service OIG report showed significant areas of 
concern for the facilities and validated the concerns that our 
office had heard from so many Delawareans up and down the 
State. Alarmingly, the Postal Service OIG shared with our staff 
and me that the Delaware facilities that they audited had some 
of the worst results they have seen across the board.
    My staff and I have been told that the Postal Service is 
implementing the recommendations outlined in the OIG report, 
but we have concerns about how timely and complete these 
recommendations have been implemented.
    If confirmed, I would just ask, how would you work with the 
Postal Service to ensure that the agency is implementing the 
recommendations outlined in the Postal Service OIG report in a 
timely and efficient manner?
    Mr. Taub. Senator, the service performance is critical. 
What you observed in Delaware is not an anomaly or anecdotal. 
As you said, not only did the Inspector General (IG) go into 
those three offices, but I can attest, based on the national 
perspective over a year, the Postal Service in well over half 
of the products, first class, periodicals, marketing mail, 
service is not where it is supposed to be.
    That is why we have ordered them to get into, deep dive in 
these numbers, come back with a report, where in the process is 
this breaking down, and report on us where it is being 
improved. We are on that. We are going to be reviewing that 
report when it comes in as part of the look back to this past 
year.
    If it is not where it needs to be done, again, the law 
empowers us to continue to order corrective action. But I think 
both are looking at it, the Inspector General from their lane, 
and also last year's reform bill that ordered the Postal 
Service to put more of a spotlight on service through that 
creation of a dashboard that we helped oversee. All of the 
above is going to hopefully move the needle forward.
    Senator Carper. Good. Thank you. To our judicial nominees, 
I would just say again, thank you for your willingness to serve 
in these important posts. I think it is, I would use the word 
shameful, in the way that the city has delayed consideration of 
nominees for judicial posts in the District of Columbia too 
often and in past years.
    I want to commend our chairman, Senator Peters, for 
bringing you before us today. Hopefully you set the stage for 
moving your nominations, for justice delayed is justice denied. 
We want to make sure that these positions are filled, filled 
with well-qualified jurors.
    Again, we appreciate your willingness to serve in these 
capacities and for being here today. My other Committees that I 
have the privilege of chairing is Environmental Public Works 
(EPW) Committee, and we literally wrote major portions of the 
bipartisan infrastructure bill. It is the law of the land today 
and we are doing oversight hearings today with respect to the 
water pieces of the drinking water, wastewater across the 
country.
    I need to go back and do my day job right now. But Mr. Paul 
and Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today, and 
our thanks to all of you. Great to see you. Thanks so much.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Carper. This is part of 
your day job, too, my friend. [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper [continuing]. Sit right here----
    Chairman Peters. That is right.
    Senator Carper [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, now I am just 
another guy.
    Chairman Peters. Yes. Those were the good old days. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Taub, the Postal Regulatory Commission is responsible 
for regulating postage rates or prices, as you well know. In 
2020, the PRC adopted rules to modify the rate system, but 
since then, the Postal Service has repeatedly raised rates, 
taking advantage of its authorities under that system. But this 
is concerning for certainly many customers and constituents of 
mine.
    My question for you is, what are you currently doing on the 
PRC to monitor how these changes are affecting affordability 
and service for the average customer? If confirmed, what would 
you do to focus on affordability and examine the entire rate 
system?
    Mr. Taub. That is one of the key objectives that the law 
lays out for the market dominant rate setting system, the price 
cap based system that you described. There is nine somewhat 
conflicting objectives in law that the system must achieve.
    As you noted, at the end of 2020, the Commission, after an 
extensive review of notice and comment revised that system, 
capped a consumer price index (CPI) based price cap system, but 
went back and tried to recognize where we identified 
deficiencies. We are fully committed to not waiting, as the 
2006 law mandated, a decade, but within just a couple of years, 
we are going to do another full comprehensive review.
    Are these nine objectives of law being met? Affordability, 
as you mentioned, is one of them. Financial sustainability is 
another. High performance service standards--there are nine 
that must be met. We are going to balance all that, get the 
experience. We put in place the rules at the end of 2020.
    The Postal Service first implemented those changes about a 
year later in 2021, 2022. Right now, we only have about a year 
or so. How much of this is driven by CPI? Certainly, well over 
half of those increases are CPI itself. The Postal Service 
since the 2006 law could implement rate changes more than once 
a year. They had not chosen to do that.
    There is nothing in our rules of 2020 that modified that. 
But we are concerned. We are looking at it. One of the other 
aspects, trying to get ahead of the curve and not wait for this 
review to start in two years, we just opened a proceeding to 
look at, are there ways to incorporate in that CPI price cap 
system a mechanism to recognize when service is not being 
achieved, and maybe ratchet back the rate of authority if 
services are not achieved.
    It is an open docket. We are getting comment. But again, 
one of those things that rather than wait for this more 
comprehensive review, we are planning now and looking at it.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Mr. Taub, the PRC is an 
independent agency, and as a strong regulator, must certainly 
maintain sufficient independence from the Postal Service. The 
PRC's budget is of course a very important part of that, and 
the Postal Service Reform Act has made changes, giving the PRC 
more budget flexibility so that it can regulate the Postal 
Service even during times of a government shutdown, which 
hopefully we won't have, but we always have to be prepared.
    These provisions were meant to maintain the PRC's 
independence and ensure strong oversight. My question for you 
is, if confirmed, how would you work to ensure that the PRC 
maintains full independence, understanding that obviously the 
Postal Service also plays a role in respecting that 
independence. But how do you intend to maintain that?
    Mr. Taub. In terms of the budget process, I have somewhat 
of a unique perspective, having served as Chairman of the 
Commission for more than six years. From 1970, when we were 
created, until the 2006 law, we got our budget directly from 
the Postal Service.
    The nine President appointed, Senate confirmed Governors 
could only modify the bottom line amount by unanimous written 
decision. That process worked well for 38 years, but in the 
2006 law, the Commission was put into the appropriation 
process.
    As chairman, I can tell you that was a disaster for the 
stability and viability of the Commission. We were deferring 
investments in staff and information technology (IT). More than 
90 percent of our budget is just for staff salaries and run.
    Thanks to you and your colleagues, last year's reform bill 
reverted back to that process that worked well since 1970. We 
are in the second year of that right now. Last year, the 
Governors did not modify the budget that we put forward. We are 
talking about a budget of $20 million out of the Postal Service 
fund of $78 billion, a small amount to recognize the important 
task we have, and we were digging out of a hole--that we are no 
longer flatlined.
    We are going through that process the second time. The 
Governors are new. Folks who had not been at the Service before 
that, and so more to follow. But I would observe, in the 
previous process that had existed, we did not have a Postmaster 
General who was openly stating there was no need for a postal 
regulator and that it should be abolished.
    I am unaware that the nine Governors, either collectively 
or individually, have publicly disavowed that perspective. 
While they review our budget right now, and again, the law 
would require all nine in writing to modify that amount, we are 
in a bit of a different ecosystem than existed before.
    We need to stay in communication with you all to make sure 
the Commission has the resources to do its job.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal, 
you are recognized for your questions.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for 
holding this hearing. Thank you all for your past and your 
public service in the future. Commissioner Taub, I note that 
you highlight in your testimony the 95 percent on time delivery 
performance.
    The Postal Service is an independent agency, but that does 
not mean it should be unresponsive to people who have 
complaints or questions, which frankly, I have found to an 
absolutely astonishing degree in two instances, and I am not 
holding you personally responsible.
    But for example, in Ridgefield and Litchfield, which are 
two towns in Connecticut, officials contacted me about the U.S. 
Postal Service amending leases to reflect changing needs there, 
and possibly giving up its leases when it no longer needed the 
property, and it could be used for a much more productive 
purpose.
    But State postal officials were completely resistant, not 
amenable at all, to those kinds of changes. I am wondering what 
recourse I have as a United States Senator when those postal 
officials tell me, in effect, to go pound sand, not to mention 
the town officials who were given no satisfactory answer.
    In East Haven, another town in Connecticut, elderly and 
disabled residents of a certain road were unable to get mail 
delivered to their homes. Literally, no delivery to their homes 
because a sidewalk was installed, which meant their boxes were 
knocked up against the street. They were given the runaround.
    We resolved this issue only after I sent a letter and got 
on the phone with State postal officials repeatedly. I will say 
that my call in that instance was among the most antagonizing I 
have experienced as a United States Senator trying to get 
constituents' needs met.
    My question to you is, first of all, will you help me on 
Ridgefield and Litchfield, with those leases? Do you have the 
power to help as a Commissioner?
    Mr. Taub. Senator, the Commission, as it was created, is 
independent, separate from the Postal Service. As the 
regulator, we have final authority over the rates they set, the 
products they offer. We oversee service performance.
    However, Congress under the statute, reserved operational 
matters to the Postal Service itself. There is a nine President 
appointed, Senate confirmed Governors kind of operate as a 
board of directors. They hire and fire the Postmaster General. 
We do have a complaint process that is available to the public 
if they feel the Postal Service isn't operating in conformance 
with the law.
    But that being said, the Postal Service is 100 percent part 
of the government. They are not quasi-private, quasi-anything. 
They are, Article 1, Section 8, clause 7 of the Constitution is 
rooted in the Post Office. At the end of the day, this Congress 
has oversight and legislative authority.
    As someone who spent nearly 20 years of my own career in 
the House of Representatives as a staffer, it saddens me to 
hear that you are not getting the kind of responsiveness from 
the United States Postal Service that should be happening.
    Yet our toolbox, given the structure under the law, is 
somewhat limited, but I certainly would welcome any opportunity 
to meet with you and your staff and explore ways that, whether 
it is us, the Inspector General, could help you make sure your 
constituents are getting the service that not only they deserve 
and expect, but are required to have, universal service.
    Senator Blumenthal. I welcome that response. Again, I am 
not blaming you in any way for this resistance, and I 
understand that these people are busy, and they are not elected 
and they think they are doing their job.
    But I think that whatever the means, whatever the levers 
are--and you have said, I think, in your testimony that one of 
your priorities is to enhance and expand communication of 
accurate information to postal stakeholders, policymakers, and 
the general public, which I think is a great goal.
    But you do have some oversight responsibilities. If you can 
speak to us about ways we can make the Postal Service more 
responsive within the confines of what your authorities are, 
that would be great. I appreciate it. Thank you.
    Mr. Taub. Yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. To all of the other nominees, good luck 
on the bench, and what you are doing is tremendously important. 
I know well the work of the Superior Court here. It is like our 
State Court in Connecticut.
    It is the face and voice of justice to everyday people. 
They cannot get into Federal Court all the time. What you do is 
provide them fairness and justice. I thank you and congratulate 
you on your nomination, and hopefully your confirmation. Thank 
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, 
to each of our nominees, for joining us today and for your 
willingness to serve in very challenging and very important 
positions.
    The nominees have filed responses to biographical and 
financial questionnaires,\1\ and without objection, this 
information will be made part of the hearing record,\2\ with 
the exception of the financial data,\3\ which is on file and 
available for public inspection in the Committee\4\ offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The information on Mr. Taub appears in the Appendix on page 31.
    \2\ The information on Ms. Jones Bosier appears in the Appendix on 
page 71.
    \3\ The information on Mr. Nguyen appears in the Appendix on page 
110.
    \4\ The information on Mr. Okocha appears in the Appendix on page 
138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hearing record will remain open until 12.00 p.m. 
tomorrow, September 8th, for the submission of statements and 
questions for the record.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               [all]