[Senate Hearing 118-378]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-378
NOMINATIONS OF ANN C. FISHER,
ASHLEY E. POLING,
CARMEN G. IGUINA GONZALEZ, AND
JOSEPH R. PALMORE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF ANN C. FISHER AND ASHLEY E. POLING
TO BE COMMISSIONERS, POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION, AND
CARMEN G. IGUINA GONZALEZ AND JOSEPH R. PALMORE TO BE
ASSOCIATE JUDGES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
__________
JULY 25, 2024
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-405 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
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Claudine J. Brenner, Senior Counsel
Annika Christensen, Senior Professional Staff Member
Devin M. Parsons, Professional Staff Member
Gauri Verma, Research Assistant
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 Carper............................................... 1
Senator Peters............................................... 12
Senator Butler............................................... 17
Senator Marshall............................................. 19
Senator Hassan............................................... 22
Senator Hawley............................................... 25
Senator Rosen................................................ 28
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 33
WITNESSES
Thursday, July 25, 2024
Ann C. Fisher, to be Commissioners, Postal Regulatory Commission
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Biographical and professional information.................... 36
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 57
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 60
Letter of support............................................ 82
Ashley E. Poling, to be Commissioners, Postal Regulatory
Commission
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Biographical and professional information.................... 87
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 109
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 112
Letters of support........................................... 139
Carmen G. Iguina Gonzalez, to be an Associate Judge, District of
Columbia Court of Appeals
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 141
Biographical and professional information.................... 143
Letters of support........................................... 169
Joseph R. Palmore, to be an Associate Judge, District of Columbia
Court of Appeals
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 176
Biographical and professional information.................... 178
Letters of support........................................... 211
NOMINATIONS OF
ANN C. FISHER, ASHLEY E. POLING,
CARMEN G. IGUINA GONZALEZ, AND
JOSEPH R. PALMORE
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Peters,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Carper, Hassan,
Rosen, Butler, Hawley, and Marshall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper [presiding.] Good morning, everyone.
I am Tom Carper. I used to be the Chair of this Committee
for a number of years, and privileged to whenever he gets
detained, to have a chance to pinch it for a few minutes.
Today, we all serve on a bunch of different committees, and he
needs to be with meeting his responsibilities in another
committee for short. While I think he will rescue you-all from
me very soon, but we will get started until he can arrive.
Today, we are considering four nominations, Ann Fisher, and
Ashley Poling, to serve as Commissioners on the Postal
Regulatory Commission (PRC) for additional terms. Also, Carmen
Iguina Gonzalez, and Joseph Palmore to be Associate Judges (AJ)
on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Welcome to each
four nominees. Some of you I have known for a long time. To
your friends and family that are sitting back, if you are a
friend or family of one of our nominees, would you raise your
hand? All right, good. Thank you. If you are a friend or family
and you do not want to be identified. [Laughter.]
All right. I do not know, do you have any parents here? Any
parents of these kids up here in any event? Parents? Yes. Thank
you for raising these young people and providing for them good
values and good examples so that they might want to serve our
country as they do.
But we welcome all of our nominees and friends and family
who have joined us for this hearing today. Congratulations on
your nominations, and we thank you for your willingness to
serve, to continue to serve in what are important roles.
Postal Regulatory Commission is a bipartisan body, as you
may know, that provides independent oversight of the U.S.
Postal Service (USPS). Postal Service plays an essential role
connecting communities across our Nation, and the PRC plays an
essential role in ensuring that the Postal Service is
effectively carrying out its public service mandate.
Commissioners Fisher and Poling. Glad to see you back,
again. I talked with Senator Collins yesterday. We had the
opportunity at a celebration of the life of former Senator Joe
Lieberman. Susan and I were there, and a bunch of our
colleagues were there. But we talked about you and she said how
proud she was of having worked for you--or was it the other way
around? [Laughter.]
We are grateful for your work on the Commission, both of
you over the last five years. I would add that we are also glad
to welcome you back as former Committee staff members.
Turning to our judicial nominees, Ms. Iguina Gonzalez, and
Mr. Palmore. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, serves
as the highest State-level appellate court here in our nation's
capital. Currently, two of the court's eight associate judge
seats are vacant, slowing cases and delaying resolutions for
the parties and for the court. We welcome, again, each of you.
Today's hearing is an important opportunity for this
Committee to learn more about your qualifications and how you
plan to serve in these important roles, and in some cases, how
you have already served in these important roles.
My script here says that I am to recognize Senator Paul. He
has not yet arrived, and I am sure when he does, he will be
recognized and have a opportunity as Ranking Member, senior
Republican on the Committee, to speak.
I understand we got to swear in our witnesses. Is that
true? I am going to ask the four of you to stand, if you will.
Thank you. Are you ready? I am going to ask the four of you to
raise your right hand, please. Do you swear that the testimony
that you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you, God?
Ms. Fisher. I do.
Ms. Poling. I do.
Ms. Gonzalez. I do.
Mr. Palmore. I do.
Senator Carper. You may be seated. Thank you. Not every
committee for those who are witnesses, guests, not every
committee swears their witnesses. But when they have dubious
backgrounds and we are not sure of their character, we will
have them take the oath, just to be sure. I am kidding.
Our first nominee is a woman who needs no introduction in
this room. Ann Fisher nominated for second term as a
Commissioner on the Postal Regulatory Commission. She began her
tenure as a Commissioner in August 2019, after being confirmed
by the Senate by voice vote.
Ms. Fisher has served in the Federal Government for 31
years since the age of 8--is that right? No, that's a typo.
During her 12 years on Capitol Hill, she held several senior
roles, including Deputy Staff Director of this Committee. She
began her tenure at the Postal Regulatory Commission in 2007 as
its Chief of Staff, and later served as the Commission's
Director of Public Affairs and Government Relations.
Ms. Fisher is a graduate of the University of South Dakota
with a Master of Arts (MA) in economics, and she has a Bachelor
of Science (BS) in mathematics from Minnesota State University.
Welcome, Ms. Fisher, you may proceed with your opening
remarks. Thank you. Please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ANN C. FISHER,\1\ COMMISSIONER,
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Fisher. Thank you, Senator Carper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Fisher appears in the Appendix on
page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am honored to appear before you today as a nominee for a
second term at the Postal Regulatory Commission. I am also very
grateful to President Biden and Leader McConnell for nominating
me.
Though my family was not able to join me today, I want to
thank my husband Dave, and my daughters Dagny and Reagan for
their endless love and support. I would also like to thank my
parents, Paul and Cathryn Rehfuss of Yankton, South Dakota, who
led the way for me as longtime civil servants. My dad as a
counselor for the South Dakota Department of Labor, and my mom
is a registered nurse for the South Dakota Department of Social
Services.
This May marked my 31st year of Federal employment, all but
two of those years involving work on postal issues. My career
began in the U.S. Senate, working for Senator Larry Pressler of
South Dakota. I also had the privilege of working for Senators
Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Susan Collins of Maine. It was
during my final four years in the Senate that I served as
Deputy Staff Director to Chairman Collins on the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).
Together, after countless postal reform hearings and
endless bill negotiations, we were able to celebrate passage of
the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. In 2007,
I moved over to the Postal Regulatory Commission to serve as
Chief of Staff to then Chairman Dan Blair. I later became the
Commission's public affairs and government relations director,
and in 2019 I was appointed by President Trump to serve as a
commissioner.
Throughout my career, I have always found tremendous value
in meeting with postal employees and various stakeholders
within their own environment. This past year, I met with plant
managers at postal processing and distribution centers (P&DC)
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and Fargo, North Dakota. I
visited with postmasters at post offices in Sioux Falls,
Harrisburg and Brookings, South Dakota. Topeka, Kansas and
Kansas City, Missouri. In Topeka, I also toured a new style of
facility called a local distribution center (LDC).
At each of my stops, the postal employees I met were all
very proud and hardworking people, several with decades of
experience at the Postal Service under their belt. Most were
familiar with the Postal Service's high-profile Delivering for
America (DFA) plan and happy to share the benefits of this plan
with me. I sensed their hope that the 10-year DFA plan would
deliver what has been promised; long-sought financial stability
for the Postal Service coupled with service excellence.
The facts are that since 2007 the Postal Service has
suffered a history of financial net losses while losing 48
percent of its mail volume. Incredibly, despite the Postal
Service Reform Act's (PSRA) removal of the Service's $57
billion liability for past due retiree health benefits, the
Postal Service is still left with a net deficit of $23.1
billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 due to ongoing financial
issues.
Together with my fellow Commissioners, I work to foster a
vital and efficient universal mail system. During my interview
with committee staff in advance of today's hearing, I was asked
how the Commission might help the Postal Service become
financially stable. I responded that the Commission has the
ability to provide the Postal Service with additional rate
setting authority, but that alone is not enough to return the
Service to a State of financial viability.
Indeed, there are legitimate questions as to the effects of
the much-accelerated pace at which the Postal Service is
increasing rates, given how much mail volume it has and is
being lost. A key aspect of the Postal Service's financial
viability is cost containment and management.
While the Commission has no direct role in Postal Service
operations, it can provide transparency and analysis to ensure
the Postal Service is doing its due diligence and being held
accountable. Currently, at the Commission, we have opened
dockets aimed at providing transparency into the DFA plan,
inefficiencies in the processing of flat-shaped mail, and
service performance measurement.
Ultimately, though, the question of whether financial
sustainability can be achieved while maintaining high levels of
service will depend on sufficient demand for postal products.
This is something that posts around the world are facing right
now. It is my hope that the Commission's current review of the
Postal Service's price elasticity of demand will allow for a
better understanding of the issue.
While my statement has focused on postal finances, the
Commission also actively monitors, reports on, and makes
recommendations regarding Postal Service performance. In
certain parts of the country, DFA-related adjustments have
caused historic service performance lows. I expect to hear on
this issue from Members of the Committee this morning, and
welcome any questions you may have for me.
Again, I thank President Biden for nominating me, and I
would be honored to continue my role as one member of a team of
Commissioners dedicated to ensuring the transparency and
accountability of the U.S. Postal Service.
Senator Carper. Ms. Fisher, thank you for joining us. Thank
you for your service for quite a few years now. And both here
as a member of our Senate family, and more recently, in serving
on the Postal Regulatory Commission.
Next is Ashley Poling, also nominated for a second term on
the Commission. We yield to you. Yes, I think you began your
tenure as a Commissioner, I want to say it was in August, 2019,
after being confirmed by a Senate vote. Previously, you served
in several senior roles in the U.S. Senate, including Director
of Governmental Affairs on this Committee.
Ms. Poling received her Juris Doctor (JD) from Elon
University School of Law in North Carolina, and her Bachelor of
Arts (BA) degree in English from the College of William & Mary,
where our youngest son received his bachelor's degree. We have
great memories visiting William & Mary there. I remember my
staff back in Delaware, has just been admitted to law school
there. The bond there that continues to tighten. Wonderful
place to get an education.
Welcome, Ms. Poling, you may proceed with your opening
remarks. Thank you for joining us, and thank you for your years
of service. You are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF ASHLEY E. POLING,\1\ COMMISSIONER, POSTAL
REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Poling. Thank you, Senator Carper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Poling appears in the Appendix on
page 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also going to say thank you to Chair Peters and
Ranking Member Paul, who will probably be joining us later, as
well as the other Honorable Members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting me here today to discuss my nomination for a
second term as a Commissioner on the United States Postal
Regulatory Commission. I would like to thank President Biden
and his administration for placing their confidence in me, and
I am honored to be here.
I would also like to recognize my incredible support system
of family, friends, mentors, and team members who are either
here today, in person, or who are watching from all over the
country. My parents, Lindy, and Barclay, led incredible careers
of their own as public servants, and they have taught me
everything I know about doing all that I can to make a
difference in the world through their amazing guidance.
I am also particularly grateful for the powerful female
friendships in my life, and thank those extraordinary women for
their unshakeable support. All of you have made a powerful
difference in helping to shape the person I am today.
Finally, I would like to thank the hardworking men and
women of the United States Postal Service for their remarkable
work in maintaining this essential public service. The Postal
Service is a critical piece of national infrastructure and an
important lifeline to individual customers and small businesses
in all areas of our country that use it to conduct financial
transactions, vote in local and national elections, receive
essential medical items, and buildup their home businesses.
This organization visits every American address six days
per week, and has existed since the time of the Founding
Fathers. Yet, in the last several years, the confidence of the
American people in their public Postal Service has begun to
slip. In 2021, the Postal Service lengthened service standards
for a portion of mail and packages, despite having more time to
deliver the mail. Service performance began declining in 2023
and has continued its decline this year.
During my first term as a Commissioner, I worked diligently
with my colleagues on a variety of initiatives intended to help
the mailing community, members of the public, and Congress,
better understand why service performance often did not meet
their expectations. I believe transparency and accountability
in this area is now more essential than ever.
It is important to explain why service is so significant to
me, personally. Before coming to the Commission, I worked on
postal policy for United States Senators representing rural
America. Much of what I learned about the importance of the
Postal Service in rural communities came from my time on the
ground in the States of Montana, North Dakota, and Michigan,
talking to constituents about how much they rely on Postal
Services, including access to their local post office. For that
reason, I have also been committed to helping resolve issues
with suspended post offices.
While some post offices are suspended due to extreme
weather events or safety issues, and reopened fairly quickly,
others remain in the purgatory of suspended status for years or
even decades. While the Commission does not have any direct
authority over post office suspensions, my colleagues and I
have provided substantial transparency regarding this issue
through our annual compliance determination.
If confirmed for a second term, I will commit to continuing
to hold the Postal Service accountable for resolving post
office suspensions in a timely manner and in accordance with
the law.
Despite the ongoing decline in mail volume, the Postal
Service delivers nearly half of the world's mail. Total mail
and package volume remains in the billions of pieces every
year, and the postal stakeholder community continues to be
strong, accounting for over $1 trillion of commerce.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the important role
that the Commission plays in giving a voice to Americans'
concerns about the future of this essential public service.
Frequent engagement with the whole postal community remains
crucial.
I would also like to express my belief in the importance of
collaboration and bipartisanship in creating and enforcing
effective postal regulation. As I am sure all of the Committee
Members here know, there is no Republican or Democratic way to
deliver the mail. I pledge to continue working with my
colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to provide critical
oversight of the Postal Service for the benefit of all
Americans.
We stand at a meaningful moment in postal history as the
Postal Service pursues extensive nationwide reforms to its
network and operations. It is critical that the Commission hold
the Postal Service accountable for meeting its statutory
obligations. Throughout these changes, including maintaining
high quality service, there is no more important time than now
for a strong and engaged postal regulator.
While my colleagues and I have accomplished a lot during
the last five years, there are still substantial changes left
to meet and much work to be done to preserve the vital
institution that is the United States Postal Service.
I thank you for your time and for considering my
nomination. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Ms. Poling. We have been joined by
the real Chair of this Committee, Senator Peters. Before I turn
the gavel back over to him, I want to thank you both for your
presence today and for your service on the Commission.
People say to me, why I have always been really interested
in the Postal Service. As the last Vietnam Veteran serving the
U.S. Senate, and I remember three tours over there, and the
best day of the week was the day the mail came. For my
colleagues and me, then it was important for those men and
women who are serving in uniform today around the world. They
still get mail and they said it's a great lifeline.
I think we are going to turn next to Carmen Iguina
Gonzalez. Ms. Gonzalez is currently counsel at Kaplan Hecker &
Fink LLP, where she handles complex civil litigation and
appellate matters. In addition to maintaining pro bono practice
representing individuals in nonprofit organizations, she also
serves as Director of the Howard University School of Law Civil
Rights Clinic.
Previously, Ms. Iguina Gonzalez served as a senior staff
attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Immigrants' Rights Project. Earlier in her legal carrier, I am
told she worked for the law firm, Jones Day, and for the ACLU
of Southern California. Ms. Gonzalez also earned her BA magna
cum laude from Harvard University, and her JD magna cum laude
from New York University School of Law.
That's pretty impressive. When I was in grad school, I
could barely spell those words, or I just pronounce them. But
very impressive credentials after law school. She clerked for
Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, on U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and for Judge Steven Reinhardt on the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and
Justice Sonia Sotomayor--never heard of her--on the Supreme
Court of the United States.
But we welcome you, Ms. Iguina Gonzalez. You may proceed
with your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF CARMEN G. IGUINA GONZALEZ,\1\ COUNSEL,
KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you, Senator Carper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Gonzalez appears in the Appendix
on page 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good morning. I am honored and humbled to appear before you
today as you consider my nomination to be an associate judge of
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. I thank you for
holding this hearing.
I also wish to thank the District of Columbia Judicial
Nomination Commission and its chair, the Honorable Marie Johns
for recommending me to the White House. I thank President
Joseph Biden for nominating me.
I also wish to take a moment to thank the chief judge and
the associate judges of the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, who are actually here today, for being so generous
with their time.
Senator Carper. Would they raise their hands? Have them
raise their hands. All right. Back in the cheap seats.
[Laughter.]
Go ahead.
Ms. Gonzalez. For being so generous with their time
throughout this process.
I am the person and the lawyer I am today because of the
people in my life who have supported me along the way, and I
want to take a moment to acknowledge them. First, I want to
thank my husband, Jason Alcorn, who has been my best friend and
partner for over 20 years.
For your love and constant encouragement. I can never thank
you enough. To my children, mis nenes, Lucas and Gabriela, who
are here as well----
Senator Carper. Would you ask them to raise their hands?
How old are they?
Ms. Gonzalez. Nine and four.
Senator Carper. Oh, good. Welcome.
Ms. Gonzalez. You fill my days with joy and laughter. It is
the greatest privilege of my life to be your mom, and I am so
proud to have you here with me today.
Next, I wish to thank my parents, Dr. Luis Iguina and Dr.
Gloria Gonzalez, who traveled from Puerto Rico to be here.
Senator Carper. Would you ask them to raise your hands.
Bienvenido.
Mrs. Gonzalez. Gracias.
Ms. Gonzalez. For over 40 years, my father worked as a
doctor at the San Juan VA Medical Center----
Senator Carper. The VA Center.
Ms. Gonzalez. The VA Center.
Senator Carper. Good for you. Thank you for your service.
Ms. Gonzalez. Caring U.S. veterans in Puerto Rico, and my
mother's own medical career was dedicated to caring for
children. Thank you both for instilling in me the values of
hard work and dedication to family.
To my siblings, Antonio, and Elena, one of whom is also
here.
Thank you both for being the best cheerleader a little
sister could ever have. To my husband's parents, the Reverend
Dr. Paul and Shodie Alcorn, you exemplify a life centered
around faith and service. And to my extended family in Puerto
Rico, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Maine, and my friends and
colleagues all over the country, thank you for your
unconditional love and support.
As I sit here today, my mind is on my grandmother, who
raised three children on her own, and worked her way through
law school by attending classes at night. As a young girl, I
sat by her side in her small office and watched as she helped
her neighbors. I learned from my grandmother that to practice
law is a privilege, and to serve our community is the highest
calling. Those values have led me throughout my career and have
been shared by so many of the wonderful lawyers I have had the
privilege to work for and with.
I had the great privilege to serve as a law clerk for three
remarkable jurists. Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, the late Judge Steven
Reinhardt, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Each in their own ways,
taught me what it means to be dedicated to the fair and
impartial administration of the law, and committed to that
vital promise engraved over the entrance of the Supreme Court,
``Equal Justice Under Law.'' If I am fortunate enough to be
confirmed, I very much look forward to upholding those values
as an associate judge on the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals.
My own career in the law has been broad. In addition to my
clerkships, I have worked in small and large nonprofit
organizations and law firms, and taught at a large Midwest
public university and a private historically black colleges and
universities (HBCU) here in D.C. These experiences have
afforded me extraordinary opportunities to work on matters,
presenting questions about corporate law, statutory
construction, administrative law, criminal law, and more.
Each opportunity has fueled my love for the law and my
respect for the institutions charged with upholding it, which
now in turn fuels my passion for judicial service. I wish to
serve as an associate judge on the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals to serve the community of Washington, DC.
I carry with me the lessons of my grandmother helping her
neighbors, my parents caring for those who most needed care,
and the judges that I have worked for. I became a lawyer
because I wanted to be of service. Courts are integral to that
work, not only because of their role in maintaining the rule of
law, but also in ensuring that every person who walks through
the courthouse doors is treated fairly and with dignity. It
would be an honor to serve the District of Columbia in that
vital role.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks for the folks you have
mentioned; grandmother, other members of your family, other
folks that you have worked for work with who have helped
prepare you for this moment.
I used to be Governor Delaware, and as Governor, I was
privileged to nominate people to serve on a variety of courts,
including court of chancery, which has an international
reputation, supreme court, and others. I know how important the
role of the judiciary is in our State, and certainly here the
district.
For too long, the seats have not been filled, and not been
filled properly. They have been, in some cases, left vacant for
not just months, but years, which I think is shameful. The
Senate has a responsibility to meet, all of Democrats and
Republicans and to fill these seats, get with confirmed folks
in all.
We have been joined here by Senator from California,
Senator Butler, who's just returned from a bipartisan bicameral
Congressional Delegation (CODEL) trip to Mexico, where she met
with the President of Mexico, and the newly elected President-
elect in Mexico. A woman that would be a first, and who's
actually Jewish. That would be a first, and Senator Butler, how
was that CODEL?
Senator Butler. It was an incredibly enlightening
experience. I had a wonderful time learning from the leaders of
Mexico and spending time with our U.S. Ambassador, former
Senator Ken Salazar. I think the partnership that we can build
between the leaders of both countries targeting the root causes
of migration, and working together on issues of border security
are all great opportunities in front of us. Thank you for
leading the CODEL, Senator.
Senator Carper. It was great. We will do it again. Maybe
the next time we will actually make it to Columbia, where we
are flying military air with and the Army's providing military
air support of our congressional delegation. 11 of us and some
staff. We made it as far as the first part of our journey,
which was to meet with the leadership of Mexico, one of our
strongest partners in our most valuable relationships.
The airplane that flew us down to Mexico was downed and
could not make it to Columbia, and so, we had to cut short.
It's like a day, night double-header. We made it to the first
part of the double header where we will have to go back to
Columbia some other time. But thanks for being a big part of
that and building an even stronger relationship.
Senator Peters is going to be joining us short shortly. But
before he does, I think we may get to hear from our final
nominee, and that's Joseph Palmore, and he's nominated to be
Associate Judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Mr. Palmore is currently a partner at the law firm of
Morrison Forster, LLP, where he co-chairs the firm's appellate
and Supreme Court practice. Previously, Mr. Palmore served as
an assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ) and held senior legal positions at
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
He received his AB magna cum laude--some smart people here
at this table--and he went on to receive his AB magna cum laude
from Harvard, and a JD and MA from the University of Virginia.
After law school, Mr. Palmore served as a law clerk for Judge
John Gleeson on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge Dennis Jacobs on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Welcome Mr. Palmore. Good to see you, and your family, and
other guests. You may proceed with your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH R. PALMORE,\1\ PARTNER, MORRISON
FOERSTER
Mr. Palmore: Thank you, Senator Carper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Palmore appears in the Appendix
on page 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am honored to appear before you today as you consider my
nomination to be an associate judge on the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals. I thank you and your staff for holding the
hearing.
I also want to thank the District of Columbia Judicial
Nomination Commission and its chair, the Honorable Marie Johns
for recommending me to the White House. I want to thank the
chief judge of the court and the judges of the court for being
so welcoming through this process, and for coming today. I am
also grateful to President Biden for nominating me.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge some important
people in my life, several of whom are here today. I cannot be
more fortunate to be married to Dr. Tara Palmore. I would not
be sitting here before you today without Tara's steadfast
support and encouragement.
Senator Carper. Now, would you ask her to raise her hand?
Welcome. How are you? Thanks for your willingness to share this
with all of us, the people of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Palmore. We have three sons, two of whom are here
today.
Senator Carper. Would they raise their hands?
Mr. Palmore. Yes. Simon and Teddy are here.
Charlie is away at summer camp, so could not make it. All
right. All three of them make me proud every day.
Senator Carper. We have three sons as well. People ask me
what I am proudest of in my life, and I always say, raising
three boys, with a big assist from their mom.
Mr. Palmore. My mother, Sandra Palmore, is also here today.
Her status is my biggest fan. Gave me the confidence to
become the first lawyer in our family. She also taught me the
importance of education. She was not able to complete her
college education right out of high school because her family
couldn't afford it. But she went back to school at night when I
was a boy. Attending my own mother's college graduation at the
University of Texas at San Antonio is one of my proudest
childhood memories.
My father, Russell Palmore, passed away on December 28,
2023. Just as the Judicial nomination Commission process was
beginning. Despite the loss, I decided to proceed because I
knew that's what my dad would have wanted. He was immensely
proud of my professional accomplishments and told me over the
years he thought I should consider becoming a judge.
I have been an appellate litigator for more than 20 years.
I served as Deputy General Counsel of the Federal
Communications Commission, where I oversaw all litigation
involving the agency. I then served as an assistant to the
Solicitor General, where I had the honor of representing the
United States before the Supreme Court. My docket was diverse,
and split between civil and criminal cases.
For the last nearly 10 years, I have served as co-chair of
the Appellate and Supreme Court practice at Morrison Foerster.
I have represented clients in Federal and State appeals all
over the country. I have also engaged in substantial pro bono
work, and now chair of the firm's pro bono committee.
I would like to finish my remarks by noting where my legal
career started by clerking for Judge Dennis Jacobs on the
Second Circuit Court of appeals, for John Gleeson on the
Eastern District of New York, and for the Honorable Ruth Bader
Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court. They modeled for
me what it is to be an excellent judge, hard work, fidelity to
precedent, mastery of the factual record, respect for all
parties, timely decisionmaking, and clearly written opinions.
I have lived in the District of Columbia for more than 20
years and raised my family here. I love this city and its
people. With your advice and consent, it would be an honor for
me to return to public service in a new role as an associate
judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, and I
welcome your questions.
Senator Carper. Yes, you bet. Thanks for that testimony. We
have been rejoined by our Chair of the Committee. Before I turn
it over, Senator Marshall, welcome. Glad that that you could
join us to today.
Again, I just to say to you and to Ms. Iguina Gonzalez, how
important I think it is to fill these vacancies on the bench. I
mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, that in our State, and I know in
the State of Michigan, the Governors are very much involved in
nominating people. Those nominees, nominations never come
before the Congress. So, folks get nominated, goes to the
approval process in Michigan, Delaware, or wherever, and folks
serve on the bench. To have vacancies that may be not just
months, but in some cases years to that have been filled, that
justice delayed is justice denied.
We can do a better job. We need to do a better job. I want
to applaud this man right here and his staff. We are making
sure that we do something about it. Not just talk about it, but
actually do something about it. Thank you.
With that, I am happy to turn the gavel back over. Thank
you for letting me return to my previous glory as the Chair of
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Good luck, everybody. I leave you in very good hands. Thank
you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Chairman Peters [presiding.] Thank you, Senator Carper.
Thank you for doing an amazing job. You have done this before,
clearly not your first rodeo. Thank you for helping out. You
can tell it's a crazy day. We are running around, all of our
Members are trying to multitask. Sometimes that goes better
than other times. So, appreciate your indulgence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three questions the Committee asks of every
nominee. I am going to ask each of you to respond briefly with
a yes or no. We are going to start with Ms. Fisher. We will
work down the dais there. 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?
Ms. Fisher. No.
Ms. Poling. No.
Ms. Gonzalez. No, Senator.
Mr. Palmore. No, Senator.
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 to
which you have been nominated?
Ms. Fisher. No.
Ms. Poling. No.
Ms. Gonzalez. No, Senator.
Mr. Palmore. No, Senator.
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 Congress, if you are
confirmed?
Ms. Fisher. Yes.
Ms. Poling. Yes.
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Palmore. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Peters. Very good.
My first question--and Commissioner Poling, by the way,
welcome back to the Committee from your extensive experience
here. This is not an unfamiliar place for you to be. My first
questions for you, as well as Commissioner Fisher, the Postal
Regulatory Commission plays a critical role in conducting
oversight of the Postal Service, including prices, on-time
delivery service, and whether the Postal Service is providing
prompt, reliable, and efficient services to every community
across our country and to every address across our country as
well.
My question for both of you is what steps have you taken to
ensure the Postal Service maintains a high level of service and
accountability for customers? If confirmed for a second term,
how would you continue to ensure the Commission acts as a
stronger regulator in conducting oversight for the Postal
Service? For this one, I will start with you Ms. Fisher and Ms.
Poling after that. OK, Ms. Fisher.
Ms. Fisher. Thank you, Chair Peters. The Commission, while
it cannot force the Postal Service to make its service better,
we certainly can provide an extensive amount of oversight and
transparency in this area. We do, on an annual basis, collect
their service performance information from across the country,
and make that public, and make recommendations as to how we
believe they could improve upon it via our annual compliance
determination.
We also collect and report on quarterly data, and most
recently, weekly data according to the Postal Services' own
website. But what we are doing now that I believe is most
important is we have opened a docket to look at how they
measure their service performance. This is an area where we can
do something. We are in the beginning of examining the extent
to which their numbers are accurate, reliable, and
representative of the system as a whole.
The DFA has made significant changes to the way the Postal
Service transports the mail, moving it around the times of
delivery, and we believe that the service measurement system
may not be as accurate as it had been previously.
The docket is just in the early stages. If we get to a
point where I believe we find that it is not representative of
the system as a whole, we could ask for modifications to the
way that they measure the service performance. I am committed
to staying on top of this services of paramount importance to
Members of Congress, and it has not been where it needs to be.
Chairman Peters. Very good. Thank you. Ms. Poling.
Ms. Poling. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you, to
be back here in the Senate. Yes, so I guess where I would start
is, first of all, I know that there has been a lot of
frustration from you-all on the Committee with the level of
service that has been occurring since 2023. I really do
appreciate that and understand it having worked for Senators
from rural America on my time with the Committee, and also just
understanding that you need to go back to your constituents and
be able to tell them where their mail is.
I would say a few things that I think the Commission has
been doing really well particularly on the service front. We do
have limited authorities, but I think we are doing as much as
we can with what we have. In April 2023, we opened a Delivering
for America public inquiry (PI) docket. In that docket, that's
where we are able to examine the scope of what the Postal
Service is doing through this plan. As mentioned earlier, this
is one of the most extensive changes we have ever seen to the
transportation of mail and packages around the country. So,
oversight and transparency is critical.
We have opened that docket, we have asked a series of
questions through it. Something, I think, that's really
innovative that the Commission has done more recently is we
actually issued our first show cause order for an advisory
opinion. We have never done that before in the Commission's
history. In that order, we were asking the Postal Service to
either submit an advisory opinion to us.
Just to clarify what that is, whenever there's a nationwide
or substantially nationwide change in service, the Postal
Service is supposed to submit one of those to us at the
Commission for our review. When we filed the show cause order,
we gave the Postal Service a period of time to get back to us
and neither file one or to tell us why they were not filing
one.
Unfortunately, they did not file one. I am hopeful they
still will. I know that is something that is still being talked
about, but I actually do believe that that advisory opinion
process would be the best way for us to continue our service
oversight over the Postal Service. I think it will really
provide, I think, an ability to have an independent neutral
analysis of what is going on with this plan. We really need to
understand what's happening with it, and I really believe that
we can do a thorough job with our team of experts at the
Commission.
You also asked, Mr. Chair, about what would we do in the
future as a regulator? I think, we have a lot on our plates. We
are trying to do more and more with data and transparency. I am
really excited about some of the dashboards we have at the
Commission that we have been working on since coming to the
Commission and appreciating in my former role as a
congressional staffer, how important accessible reports are.
I have worked especially on bringing more mapping and
things like that to our reports and making sure infographics
are more understandable and just really making sure that people
can really take away something in a few minutes from something
they are seeing on our website.
In addition, you talked about rate-making. That's a huge
part of what we do. Everyone has heard in the postal community
and has been talking about the number of rate increases and how
they have been going up. We have heard a lot from the mailing
stakeholder community. I can tell you we talk to them often.
That is actually one of one of the biggest reasons why I
have very much supported us opening our review of the market-
dominant rate-making system two years early. That was a
unanimous decision by the Commission, and I think we are all
looking forward to examining that. We actually just received
our first public comments in that docket. In addition, the
Postal Service continues to have volume losses and to have
significant financial problems. I really think this will be a
good opportunity for us at the Commission. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Senator Carper, you are
recognized for your questions.
Senator Carper. Yes, thanks very much.
I mentioned earlier I am the last Vietnam Veteran serving
in the U.S. Senate, and kind of relates to my great affection
and interest in the postal issues. We used to fly 12-hour
missions. We fly them off to the coast of Vietnam and Cambodia.
At the end of the missions, we come back, debrief, and my crew,
13-man crew, oftentimes had dinner together at an outdoor cafe
on the base where we were located. They had Armed Forces Radio
piped in on the speakers so we could actually hear music from
America.
One of the groups that was pretty big at the time, it was a
British group, I think, called Led Zeppelin. I think they had a
very successful album called The Song Remains the Same. I am
channeling that song as I sit here with the Postal Service. The
Song Remains the Same. Senator Peters and I have worked for
years along with members of our staff, along with you, trying
to make sure that we have a Postal Service one that we can be
proud of that provides not just mail services for folks that
are deployed around the world in our armed forces, to meet the
services for our constituents, and across the country.
One of the things that we do, every one of us in the
Senate, in the House as well, we all have constituent services
operations. As you know, we take a lot of pride in our
constituent services operation. We actually send out a survey
at the beginning of every month to constituents who contacted
my offices in Delaware and ask them about the quality of the
service they are getting. It could be from the VA, it could be
the Department of Transportation, could be in Postal Service.
The Postal Service usually leads the hit parade in
unhappiness that we measure from our constituents in terms of
folks that are reaching out to us by phone, by mail, by email,
to say that the service is not what it should be. We have
worked on legislation to try to help to try to stabilize the
operation of the Postal Service and their finances.
We are still facing a situation where the quality of
service is evaluated by people who contact my office every
month. The quality of service, is not getting better. In many
cases, getting worse. We find that we are losing money more,
maybe more than ever. That's not a good combination.
It's not all on the Postal Service. It's not all on the
people who work there. It's not all on the Commission. It's not
all on us on this Committee. But we have to find a way to a
better place for the people we serve, and frankly, for the
people who work for the Postal Service.
But with that having been said, could both of you Ms.
Fisher, Ms. Poling, could you share your insights on strategies
of the Commission could adopt to generally improve the
financial stability of the Postal Service? How do you envision
pushing for innovation and improvements in efficiency within
the current regulatory framework to help the Postal Service
better serve its customers? Please, Ms. Fisher, would you go
first?
Ms. Fisher. I don't know that we could, alone, improve the
financial viability of the Postal Service. You laid out what is
the significant problem. Their volume continues to decline both
in the market-dominant and competitive area. Market-dominant
volume has been decreasing steadily for several years, and this
past year, at nine percent decrease. It never rebounded fully
from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Competitive had been
growing, but this past year it decreased by two percent,
despite the relief of a $57 billion liability that the PSRA
accomplished, which many, I think thought would be a big piece
of solving the Postal Services financial problems. They still
have a tremendous amount of unfunded liabilities; a huge loan
from the Federal financing bank, workers' compensation, and
continued serves and FURS liabilities.
We can assist them to a small degree through rate
authority, but much of the rest depends upon the public's
desire for their product. As I just laid out, that's waning. I
wonder if it's time to potentially revisit the entire business
model of the Postal Service. That's something the Commission
made several recommendations to the Congress several years ago.
It's a tough nut to crack. You need to try and discern what
the public truly wants and needs from their Postal Service. A
lot of different countries are looking at this right now. Some
are considering days of delivery. Some are considering lowering
service standards. I am not saying that's the answer here.
Lowered service standards certainly does not seem to be what
the American public wants, but these are things that it may be
time to revisit.
Senator Carper. OK. Thanks very much. Ms. Poling, take
about a minute and respond, and then I am going to say one
other thing and turn it back over to our Chair. Go ahead just
one minute, please.
Ms. Poling. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I will ask you to respond in greater length
in responses for the record. Go ahead.
Ms. Poling. OK. That sounds good. Thank you so much. I will
just quickly say then, I think when you ask primarily about
financial stability of the Postal Service. I think the greatest
way that the Commission can have an impact on that is probably
through our rate-making authority. I mentioned earlier that we
have opened our review of the rate-making system two years
earlier.
I really do think the goal of the system is really to find
ways, right, to find this balance between keeping the Postal
Service self-sustaining and also finding incentives to reduce
cost. I think that's something we will be able to examine in
greater length as we go into this new rate-making review.
I also think it's important to say that in our recent rate
or rate order that we put out, we actually did put in there
that we do believe the Board of Governors should exercise their
discretion when they are raising these rates. I do believe this
system will give us a chance to really look at this in greater
detail. But that is something that we have said.
Again, I think one thing that is a real benefit of this
enacted system from 2021, the one we are currently under, is
that we do have the ability to revisit it every five years, if
not earlier. I think that's something we are doing right now.
The last thing I will say is we do have a financial report
of the Commission where we are really able to examine the
revenue and costs of the Commission on an annual basis. I will
be happy to give you even more in my questions for the record.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. Before I turn the gavel back over to our
Chair, before he pulls it out of my hand, one of the things we
have tried to do for years to find, how the Postal Services is
the only entity in the country that goes to, basically, every
door, every post box in the country at least five, six days a
week. How do we take that and make that part of the business
model that actually generates enough revenues to be sustaining?
One of the things that we hear from time to time is vote by
mail. Some States, they have a fair amount of vote by mail, in
other cases not so much. I felt forever that there's actually
revenues opportunities for the Postal Service through vote by
mail. Frankly, hopefully at the same time, we will get more
people to vote. That would be a good combination; vote by mail,
increase revenues of the Postal Service, and make sure more
people are reading the constitutional responsibilities as
citizens.
With that, I return it to the Chair. Thank you so much for
letting me sit in your seat for a while. Thanks.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Carper, as always.
Senator Butler, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUTLER
Senator Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me take the first minute because I do think there's a
little bit of a pattern that you are going to see in our
questioning from the Committee. To me, it's just at the top of
my remarks, just congratulate Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Palmore,
their families their friends. None of us get in this room by
ourselves, and to just know that you all are being supported
both physically here in person and also virtually online. Maybe
your son is thinking about you at summer camp. If he's anything
like my daughter, probably not. But just congratulations to you
all.
Congratulations on your nominations by the President. Thank
you for your service that has earned you that nomination. You
hopefully, if confirmed, will be up an incredibly important
part of the judicial system in one of the busiest, most
backlogged communities in the country. Your service is
definitely in high demand and needed definitely. Appreciate it,
and seeing here even if you don't get a lot of questions
directed your way. With that, I will turn my questions back to
the conversation at hand.
The Postal Service, as you all, you both know, Ms. Fisher
and Ms. Poling, it is one of the most present ways in which our
government shows up at the door of our constituents. Though for
States like mine, California, who today are experiencing
thousands of acres on fire, it is an incredibly important
service and lifeline for so many. When Postmaster DeJoy was
here just a few months ago, he and I had an exchange about a
number of post offices in my State that have been closed for
several reasons. Nevertheless, it has been in some instances
years since those post offices have been reopened. It remains a
critical, important point of conversation for me in a way in
which I can serve my constituents.
I am trying to get to really quickly, both of you have been
serving on the PRC. What I would love to hear about is what
have you been doing to ensure that the needs of rural Americans
have been considered in the plan and execution of the strategy
that Mr. DeJoy, and the leadership of the postmaster general,
have been deploying to ensure that those communities aren't
overlooked.
People think about California as this big urban place. It
is one of the most diverse States in the country relative to
language as well as geography. And so, talk to me about your
service up till now focused on rural communities. I am happy to
start, Ms. Poling, with you this time.
Ms. Poling. Thank you so much, Senator Butler. Appreciate
the question. Rural America is near and dear to my heart. When
I was working here on the Committee, I actually worked for
Senators from North Dakota and Montana, Senator Heidi Heitkamp
and Senator Jon Tester. I have spent a lot of time out in those
States really connecting with constituents and understanding
what it is that they are dealing with.
The post office matters everywhere. I always think that's
important to say, but there is a special connection in rural
America that is different, I think, and it really is such a
central part of those communities. Rural America has been front
of mind for me ever since starting at the Commission because it
was a huge part of my work here in the Senate for those
Senators.
I think, service is something I have talked about a little
bit today with what we are doing with our public inquiry docket
on the Delivering for America plan, making sure we are asking
questions where we can. There, I already mentioned, I think, an
advisory opinion does need to be filed, and I think that gives
us a chance to really assess what is going on all over the
country, especially in rural America, to your point.
But in terms of something I think personally that I have
done at the Commission, specifically related to rural America
several years ago, the Postal Service length and service
standards for portions of First-Class Mail and periodicals, I
supported unanimous advisory opinion for the Commission. But I
did provide an additional commentary, and I provided that
commentary because the Postal Service did not reach out to
examine the impact that this lengthening of service standards
would have on rural Americans. They also did not look at how it
would impact the elderly or low-income Americans.
I wrote a separate statement about that and saying that
that was something I really felt had to be looked at. That's
something that still concerns me to this day. We have to
understand what's going on in these different communities. I
can tell you that I will remain dedicated to this. I really
hope we have the opportunity to assess what's going on in this
plan through an advisory opinion. I really think the Commission
can contribute greatly to your understanding of what's going on
in California, but all over the country.
Senator Butler. Thank, Ms. Poling. Ms. Fisher.
Ms. Fisher. I agree with you. Every State has a rural part
of the State or multiple rural parts of the State, including
California. I have visited over the course of my career, a
number of different places, small town in Wyoming that was
served just maybe three times a week because of the level of
rural it was.
When I worked for Senator Collins, there were people who
lived on islands and received mail somewhat sporadically by
boat. I traveled with my family down into the Grand Canyon once
we were backpacking, and I saw donkeys carrying mail down to
the base of Grand Canyon.
The Postal Service makes it happen, but I am concerned as
the Postal Service evolves and under the Delivering for America
plan. That not enough attention is being paid to how that plan
may impact the most remote areas of the country.
They have a new service called local transportation
optimization, which has changed the amount of times that the
postal trucks will visit the different post offices. The
further out a post office is, the less it may be visited and
have the mail picked up or delivered. That would directly
impact the rural citizens.
I think your concern on behalf of your own constituents,
but every member who has rural citizens, has the right to be
concerned. They are the ones in the most rural areas who are
most reliant upon the Postal Service. They may not have an
Amazon delivery driver, the United Parcel Service (UPS), or
Federal Express (FedEx) stopping by on a regular basis. That's
a heart for me as someone who grew up in South Dakota is very
aware of rural needs of citizens. I keep my eye on this, and I
am committed to continuing to doing so.
Senator Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Butler. Senator
Marshall, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARSHALL
Senator Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We will start with Ms. Poling. This is your second term, I
believe. Over the last four years, Congress has given USPS $120
billion. How much money will we lose this year and what's the
projection for the fiscal year right now?
Ms. Poling. I appreciate the question. I think probably the
best people to ask that question is the Postal Service. I want
to make sure I get you the right number. We lost $6.5 billion
dollars last year, the Postal Service, which is very
concerning.
Senator Marshall. Why wouldn't I ask you that question? Do
you feel like that's not a fair question?
Ms. Poling. No, I just want to make sure I am getting you
the right information. If that's OK, Senator, I would love to
get back to you on that.
Senator Marshall. OK. What's the fiscal projection for this
year of losses?
Ms. Poling. I think we are already at about $4.5 billion
right now.
Senator Marshall. Do they present a budget to the
Commissioners and then you go through it once a month, item by
item?
Ms. Poling. That's a really good question. That is not how
the process works currently. As you know, from the PSRA, our
budget process changed at the Commission. We actually are right
now in the throes of our budget as it stands. We present that
budget to the Board of Governors, and that's how we work on our
budget for the Commission. But no, they do not present us with
a budget every month. We do meet quarterly with the postmaster
general.
Senator Marshall. They go through the budget then?
Ms. Poling. They do give us basic updates then. Yes.
Senator Marshall. Basic?
Ms. Poling. Yes.
Senator Marshall. I have never been a part of a board where
I did not feel responsibility for that budget and going through
it month by month, but that's not--I get it. What is the
overall customer satisfaction in the Postal Services the past
three or four years? What's the trend?
Ms. Poling. I would say in terms of satisfaction, I think
it's been very frustrating these past few years.
Senator Marshall. It's the wrong direction?
Ms. Poling. Yes.
Senator Marshall. Do you all review the patient--I am a
doctor, the customer satisfaction----
Ms. Poling. It's OK. I understand.
We do. We actually have a customer experience metric. We
have a report that examines service performance in greater
detail than our annual compliance determination, which is our
statutorily required report. That is filed every year. We do
look at customer experience there, and then constantly, right,
we are looking at service metrics throughout the country. We do
get quarterly service reporting from the Postal Service----
Senator Marshall. Thank you. That's good. I just want to
make sure you are reviewing him.
Ms. Poling. Yes.
Senator Marshall. Ms. Fisher, Kansas is now the sixth worst
in the country when it comes to on-time mail delivery. Sixth
worst. It sounds like we are not the only State. Certainly,
it's a crescendo of concerns from my folks. There's been a
recent inspector general report that audited their operations.
They address staffing shortages. We do not need to go into
detail on those, but they describe a lack of compliance with
standard operating procedures (SOP). A lack of compliance with
standard operating procedures. If you were approved for this
position, what could you do to hold those people accountable,
to get them to follow the standard operating procedures?
Ms. Fisher. Unfortunately, those are operational issues
that are solely under the control of the Postal Service. But my
hope is that they will file, as they have promised, an advisory
opinion with us that will allow us to look in much greater
detail in all the major operational changes they are making
throughout the country.
I was down in Topeka a couple months ago and had the great
fortune to land on the day a series of twisters made its way
through the city, which was something new for me. But I visited
the local distribution center, which was impressive. But they
also spoke of problems they were having with delays, hiring
shortages, et cetera. I think there's a great lack of
communication from the top-down.
Senator Marshall. Thank you. I will go back to Ms. Poling.
How can you impact that they are not even following their
standard operating procedures? Why haven't you impacted that so
far?
Ms. Poling. Thank you, Senator. I would echo, for us,
right, we are the regulator. They are the operator. There is
definitely a distance between what we can do with some of the
things in terms of operations. What we can do is provide
transparency and accountability.
Senator Marshall. Tell me about the accountability. What
does that look like? How do you hold them accountable?
Ms. Poling. The powers we do have at the Commission exist
through our reporting, primarily through our annual compliance
determination. That is statutorily mandated by Congress. That
was established under the 2006 bill. That allows us to issue
directives when the Postal Service is not following things as
they should.
Now, primarily, that deals with rates and service. When it
deals with standard operating procedures, I think that really
is getting squarely into their jurisdiction with operations.
Senator Marshall. Who do they answer to then? They do not
answer to Congress. They do not answer to you. These people
that you are describing, who do they answer to?
Ms. Poling. I think it's an excellent question, Senator.
Frankly, I think there should be a lot more oversight of the
Postal Service. I think that there needs to be, we have
experienced it. I will use service as an example. I know it's
been impacting you. I have read about the audit, right, in
Kansas City. I understand that you-all are dealing with that,
and it's very frustrating for your constituents. As I
mentioned, I worked for Senators for rural America myself. But
that's somewhere, right, where it might be impactful to allow
the Commission to potentially have more authority when it comes
to the advisory process.
Senator Marshall. That would require legislation?
Ms. Poling. It would, indeed.
Senator Marshall. OK.
Ms. Poling. Yes.
Senator Marshall. Would you agree with me--I think this
goes to either one, Ms. Fisher or Ms. Poling, if we have time
left to answer the question, that volumes are going down, and
there's worse customer satisfaction which leads to less
volumes, which leads to worse customer satisfaction. This is a
circular problem.
Ms. Poling. Absolutely.
Senator Marshall. At the end of the day, if you have a good
product, the customer satisfaction's going to go up. We have to
have accountability, accept the responsibility, is what I am
trying to say here.
Ms. Poling, would you agree with that? That the Postal
Service has to accept responsibility for the decreased volume
because of customer satisfaction issues?
Ms. Poling. Absolutely. I think it's something that really
needs to be looked at in depth. I think the Commission, I know
I have said this several times, but I think our ability to
analyze what's going on with delivering for America through an
advisory opinion would be an excellent way for us to understand
what's going on and what the impact is on customers all over
this country.
Senator Marshall. Mr. Chair, I would just ask for an
opportunity to sit down with your staff and our staff, and help
me to understand a little bit better how we could make the
Postal Service more accountable to somebody. It sounds like
right now, that they are not accountable to anybody.
Chairman Peters. We would be happy to have that
conversation.
Senator Marshall. Thank you.
Chairman Peters We will look forward to that, Senator.
Senator Hassan, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Chair Peters. I want to thank
you and the Ranking Member for holding a very important
hearing. To our nominees, thank you for your willingness to
serve. I want to say to Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Palmore, I too am
going to be asking questions of the Postal Service, but please
know how grateful I am to you for your willingness to share
your expertise and your skill. Congratulations to you and your
families for stepping up to serve in this way. It's really
important.
Let's start with questions to Ms. Fisher and Ms. Poling.
Earlier this year, the Postal Service announced its plans to
move some operations from the Manchester, New Hampshire
processing and distribution plant to Boston, which would cost
employees their jobs and likely slow down delivery times. It
may be just 50 miles from Southern New Hampshire to Boston, but
I can tell you what the traffic looks like, and it's not good.
Several other States are facing the same potential challenge of
postal operations in their States, being moved out of State.
In response to pressure from Congress, Postmaster General
(PG) DeJoy announced that he would pause operational changes
until January 2025. I continue to have concerns about any
future plans to move operations from Manchester to Boston. As
current members of the Postal Regulatory Commission, what have
you done to conduct oversight of Postmaster General DeJoy's
mail processing facility reviews, including the one in
Manchester, New Hampshire? We will start with you, Commissioner
Fisher.
Ms. Fisher. Thank you, Senator. We have not directly looked
into your situation. Though, I am very well aware. This is a
concern that's pretty broad based across the country. The
Postal Service services, obviously trying to create
efficiencies, but have they looked into, or have they
adequately analyzed the impact this is going to have on the
customers? Clearly, there's going to be a change in days to
delivery if you are taking what came out of a plant in New
Hampshire and transporting that elsewhere to neighboring
States.
We can best look at it through the filing of an advisory
opinion. Commissioner Poling and I have cited that a couple
times. They have assured us, and they have assured the
Committee that they are going to file an advisory opinion soon.
That will give us broad latitude to look at exactly what's
happening in New Hampshire and ask many more questions.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Ms. Poling.
Ms. Poling. Thank you, Senator Hassan. Yes, I think we have
been doing the most that we can. As I have gotten into a little
bit today with the authorities we have. Do I think we could do
more? Yes. I think that we are doing, as I mentioned earlier,
we are pushing as hard as we can to have this advisory opinion
filed. That, is really the place, because all of these pieces
that you-all are talking about fall under this Delivering for
America Plan.
But with that being said, we are still asking questions
through the docket. We are still asking chairman's information
request (CHIRs), and sometimes Commission Information Requests
(CIS), and we will continue to do that. I think we have,
though, to make sure that we are getting answers from the
Postal Service on what is going on. I know all of you have been
very active. I have read all of your letters----
Senator Hassan. Let me stop you there, just because I have
a couple more questions and running low on time. But I just
want to make this comment. You also should shine a light on how
they are going about making these decisions. It was clear on
our earlier hearing that they were not talking to employees,
who are not robots. They are actually really well-informed
professionals who have been doing this a long time.
Ms. Poling. Yes.
Senator Hassan. They need to be talking to employees. They
need to know how long it takes to drive from Manchester, New
Hampshire down to Boston at the height of rush hour, or right
now, any time of day. They need to understand the realities on
the ground. There has been nothing convincing in their
responses to us that they really have done the kind of due
diligence they should do before this decision.
Now, let me move on to another issue. Postmaster General
DeJoy is also pushing something that you just mentioned, Ms.
Fisher, his local transportation optimization plan, which would
reduce how frequently trucks pick up mail from a plant. I
understand that the Postal Service Inspector General (IG)
opened an inquiry into how the Postal Service is implementing
this plan, due to concerns that the Postal Service may be
working with cheaper contractors who may not be reliable and
may not follow Postal Service security protocols.
My office has heard concerns, for example, about the Postal
Service terminating several long-standing contracts with a
reliable New Hampshire-based trucking company. Has the Postal
Regulatory Commission evaluated the impacts of the local
transportation optimization plan on the security and timely
delivery of the mail? We will start with you, Ms. Poling, and
then Ms. Fisher, and please try to be brief.
Ms. Poling. Yes. I would say we have not been able to look
at that, in depth, because again, this is a part of the
Delivering for America plan. I think I am hopeful that we could
get more into that data and those details. One of the features
of an advisory opinion process is there is a public hearing as
well. It very much mimics the legal process. I think that's one
way we could do it.
I also wanted to say I greatly appreciated you sending over
some of your questions ahead of time to us. That was very kind.
While the Postal Service is really responsible for the people
and hiring the people who carry the mail, one way we can ask
about that is through our annual compliance determination, if
that has an impact on service and how it is delivered in a
timely fashion. That is one place we can address it.
Senator Hassan. All right, thank you. Ms. Fisher.
Ms. Fisher. I understand what you are saying. I echo what
Commissioner Poling said. I do know what you are talking about
with the contractors. I have heard at a separate facility, a
problem, it was quite rural, with actually finding contractors
to bid on the mail. Sometimes they had no one to pick up the
mail. That's a problem. I hope we can look into this as part of
the advisory opinion process, and really appreciate you raising
it.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. This is drilling down on the
details that matter. Again, I am a member from another rural
State, too. This is critical.
Last quick question. We are just weeks away from the first
mail-in ballots for the November elections going out to voters.
In some States, those ballots have to be delivered in a timely
way to ensure that they arrive on time and that these votes
count. What can the Commission do to help ensure that the
Postal Service is prepared to deliver mail-in ballots in a
timely manner? Will you commit to working with me in my office
in the coming months to conduct appropriate oversight here? I
will start with Ms. Fisher and then Ms. Poling.
Ms. Fisher. There really is nothing that we, as the
Commission, can do to ensure this. I do know, though, we have
asked the Postal Service a series of questions through our
Delivering for America Act about their plans for the election
cycle.
They are the same as they have been before, as expeditious
as possible, movement of the mail; doing all clears in the post
offices and the plants at the end of each day, having employees
and paying for overtime, running extra trips with the trucks.
But I am very concerned about the impact of the slower delivery
times with delivering for America and how that may impede
election mail delivery.
Senator Hassan. Right. With your indulgence Mr. Chair, I
will just get Ms. Poling to comment quickly.
Ms. Poling. Thank you so much, Senator Hassan. Yes,
election mail is incredibly important. We have to be focusing
on that. One feature of the PSRA, actually, was creating a
dashboard that the Postal Service has. One of the things the
Commission recommended for that dashboard was including
election mail on it. We can analyze it in a greater fashion
when we get to the annual compliance report, but we will be
doing all that we can to continue to ask questions through our
current PI docket.
Senator Hassan. I will just note that when I talk to Postal
Service employees who are on the ground in the processing
rooms, what they know at election time is when they see
ballots, they prioritize them. Right? That's why some of the
Postal Service's Delivery for America plan is so misguided
because by putting in rigid requirements all the time, what
they are doing is saying to a group of postal employees who see
a stack of ballots coming in and know that there's one more
group that needs to come in before the truck should go out.
What the Postal Service is telling them to do is just get
the truck out no matter what they know is coming. When in fact,
in States like mine, we have been highly successful in getting
absentee ballots in on time because Postal Service employees on
the ground, citizens of New Hampshire, know what's at stake and
they get their job done.
Again, this is about being in touch directly with
employees, and I would really hope that the Commission, not
just the Service, will focus on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thanks to
all of the nominees for being here today. Congratulations to
you.
Ms. Gonzalez, if I could just start with you. I was just
looking at your resume here. It's very full. You look like
someone who's very busy. You are a counsel at a law firm
presently, Kaplan Hecker & Fink. Is that correct?
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator. That's correct.
Senator Hawley. Also, a co-director at a civil rights
clinic at Howard. Is that correct?
Ms. Gonzalez. That's correct.
Senator Hawley. It does not look like to me you have a lot
of free time. I imagine that you choose what you invest your
time in very carefully. Is that fair to say?
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. You are also on the board of a group called
the Immigrant Justice Corps. Do I have that right?
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Let me just ask you about this group that
you are a part of, that you are a board of directors, a member
of, and the positions they have taken. They have taken a lot of
positions. You have taken a lot of positions when it comes to
immigration policy, including saying recently that President
Biden's recent policy to restrict temporarily some of the flow
across our Southern Border--when on a given day there are
multiple thousands of illegal migrants crossing. The President
said that after there were multiple thousands on any given day,
he would temporarily restrict, somewhat, the flow, but which by
the way, I think is way too late in the game. He should be
doing much more.
Your group, however, has been exceptionally critical of
this. They have said that any restriction of the flow across
the Southern Border is an abhorrent betrayal of American values
and is inhumane, cruel--and inhumane to be precise. Tell me
about that. Is it your view that any enforcement of our
immigration law, that if we have anything other than an open
border, the policy is cruel, inhumane, and an abhorrent
betrayal of American values?
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do not
believe that statement to reflect a request for open borders. I
have never taken that position. I can tell you I am not
familiar with that particular statement. I can tell you why I
joined the board of the organization, and it is because I
believe in its mission to provide quality counsel to
individuals who are going through removal proceedings.
It was an idea that was inspired by the late Judge
Katzmann's study about the efficiencies of providing such
counsel to individuals who are going through removal
proceedings. I understand that the organization engages in
advocacy and policy, and that if confirmed, my role as a judge
would be to put any such advocacy and policy aside----
Senator Hawley. Let me just ask you, I do not mean to
interrupt you, but my time is going to tick down here quite
quickly. I just want to get clear on this. Is it your position
that restrictions on the flow of illegal migrants, just to be--
well, let me just ask you this. More fundamentally, do you
believe we have a crisis at the Southern Border?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I do not believe it is my position
to opine on such policy questions. I think those policy
questions are very important for----
Senator Hawley. But you are a member of a board of
directors. You are a director at an organization that has taken
many such positions. It seems to me you have taken a position.
Your organization certainly has. You represent them. You are a
member of that board. You choose your time very carefully, as
we established just a moment ago.
They say that any restriction on the flow of illegal
migrants--I want to be clear about this, illegal migrants--is
abhorrent, it is a betrayal of American values. It's cruel and
inhumane. Is that your position,
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I am not familiar with that specific
statement.
Senator Hawley. June 5, 2024. It's a press release from
your organization.
Ms. Gonzalez. My affiliation with the organization does not
commit me to every position it takes on law and policy.
Senator Hawley. So, this is not your position?
Ms. Gonzalez. No, Senator.
Senator Hawley. You disagree with this?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I joined the organization to support
its mission to provide counsel to individuals going through
removal proceedings----
Senator Hawley. OK. Let me ask you about that since you
bring that up. You have also advocated for providing counsel,
in fact, taxpayer-funded counsel to every asylum seeker at our
border. Do you know how many credibility and fear
determinations the Customs and Immigration Service performs
just in 2023 at the Southern Border?
Ms. Gonzalez. No, Senator, I am not aware of that number.
Senator Hawley. 146,000. 146,000 in 2023 alone. You are in
favor of taxpayer-funding for attorneys for at least 146,000
illegals. Is that right?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I was counsel on two matters that
advocated for the right of counsel for a limited class of non-
citizens----
Senator Hawley. This is your organization that you are a
member of the board of directors of on May 27, 2022. Your
organization submitted this official comment to a Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) rule in which you specifically
advocated for counsel to be provided at government expense to
all asylum seekers. That's quite a position. We are talking
about hundreds of thousands illegal migrants are going to get
government-funded attorneys under your proposal. Is that right?
Is that your position?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, any policy position that I have
taken in my role as an advocate, I understand that I would be
taking an oath to put that aside and to dedicate myself instead
to the fair and impartial application of the law. That is what
I commit to you I would do in every case.
Senator Hawley. Do you still think that detaining people of
the border is motivated by, I am quoting now, ``motivated by
financial incentives and political calculations rather than any
legitimate or evidence evidence-based purpose''?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I am not familiar with that
statement.
Senator Hawley. That's from another statement made by your
organization on September 22, 2021. Let me just say it again,
``Detaining people at the border is motivated by financial
incentives and political calculations, rather than any
legitimate or evidenced-base purpose.'' That just seems crazy
to me, to say that enforcing our laws and detaining folks who
are here crossing illegally, is motivated solely by financial
incentives and political calculations. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I joined the organization to support
its mission to provide counsel.
Senator Hawley. Yes. I have heard that answer, but do you
agree with this? You are a member of the board of directors of
this organization that, frankly, has taken crazy positions over
and over. I am just wondering if you agree with these
positions. This is just a yes or a no. Do you agree that
detaining people to the border is motivated solely by financial
incentives and political calculations?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I am not familiar with that
position.
Senator Hawley. But do you agree with it? It's from your
organization that you sit on the board of directors of. Just do
you agree with it? Yes, or no?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I'm not familiar with the context.
Senator Hawley. Do you agree with it? You are not going to
answer my question. Sounds like.
Just say yes if you agree. That's fine. But say no if you
don't. I would like a yes or a no answer. It's a simple
question. You are on the board of directors. They have issued
this. Do you agree? Yes, or no?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, I joined the organization to support
its mission.
Senator Hawley. Oh, goodness. This is disappointing. I
don't understand why you won't answer me? Are you afraid of the
answer that won't be popular? Why are you distancing yourself
from it now? Aren't you still a member of this organization?
You are still on the board, aren't you?
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator. I still serve on the board.
Senator Hawley. Oh, OK. So you don't agree with any of
these positions? You just won't say now whether you agree or
not. Is it because they are so radical?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, my personal position on any policy
issue would play no role in the job that I would perform as a
judge if I were to be confirmed.
Senator Hawley. You have also written a paper in which you
say that you do not think police ought to enforce traffic laws
because it may lead to inequity. Do you remember that paper
from 2023?
Ms. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Why is that you don't want police to
enforce traffic laws? I am having trouble following your
positions here. You do not want the immigration laws to be
enforced. You apparently think that any detention of the
illegals at the border is motivated by political calculations
and is illegitimate. You do not want police to be enforcing
traffic laws, but you want to be a judge. How's this going to
work?
Ms. Gonzalez. Senator, the piece that you are citing
documented efforts by cities along with police departments, and
in some cases actually led by police departments, to move
enforcement of things like hanging an air freshener from a
rear-view mirror to, for example, ticket by mail or parking
enforcement, which would in turn free up police resources to
focus on more serious enforcement.
Senator Hawley. I am almost done, Mr. Chair. Not just that
though. I encourage people to read the paper. In fact, I have
it right here. It's 14 pages. Mr. Chair, I would ask consent to
enter into the record, The Road to Driving Equality.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The paper submitted by Senator Hawley appears in the Appendix
on page 00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Peters. Without objection.
Senator Hawley. Frankly, it is full of positions that I
think are just nuts. I mean, saying that things like running
traffic lights, stop signs. These things cannot be enforced
that the police ought to get out of enforcement of traffic laws
altogether. I don't understand it.
It sounds like to me you do not want enforcement at the
border. You do not want enforcement of our traffic laws. You do
not want police enforcement in our cities. I just question
whether that is a good set of perspectives to be a judge whose
job will be to enforce the law. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Senator Rosen, you are
recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess I will go get right into it. I am going to talk
about access to Postal Service state. I want to build a little
bit upon what Senator Hassan was alluding to earlier. Ms.
Poling, as I am sure you are aware, the Postal Service is
attempting to relocate mail out-processing from Reno, Nevada to
Sacramento, California. I am extremely concerned by this really
misguided decision and the terrible impact it's going to have
on Nevada's and Nevadans, including our seniors, our veterans,
our small business owners, our rural communities who depend on
the post office for on-time service.
As the independent regulatory agency tasked with ensuring
transparency and the accountability of the Postal Service, the
Postal Regulatory Commission must continue to play a key role
in assessing the soundness of major operational changes like
the proposed downsizing of the Reno processing and distribution
center. As such, it's critically important that the Commission
has access to the data.
I am going to say this, we must have access to the data
that the Postal Service relies on to inform us of its major
operational changes so we can take a look at that. Ms. Poling,
given the Postal Services' continued refusal to provide this
Committee any specific data regarding how the Reno proposal
will impact mail service delivery, I am going to ask you a
couple of questions.
Either before or after the USPS announced it would proceed
with the downsizing of the Reno, we call it the P&DC, despite
opposition from Nevada's congressional Delegation, our
Governor, Joe Lombardo, and Nevada residents, did Mr. DeJoy
provide the Commission with any specific data on how these
changes to Reno's P&DC would impact service delivery times in
Northern Nevada? If the USPS asserted that service delivery
would not be impacted, did Mr. DeJoy or his staff provide
written justifications explaining how this could be possible,
giving the substantial impediments to on-time delivery his plan
would be creating?
Ms. Poling. Thank you, Senator Rosen. I greatly sympathize
and understand why you are so frustrated. I worked for rural
Senators, right, on this Committee for years, and constantly
was working to hold the Postal Service accountable. Appreciated
our conversation and the staff interview as well.
Senator Rosen. Yes, people rely on the mail in our rural
areas; our veterans, our senior seniors. It's really important.
Ms. Poling. I absolutely agree 100 percent. In terms of
that, you were asking about the specifics of if that
information was given to the Commission by Mr. DeJoy?
Senator Rosen. Yes.
Ms. Poling. No. We do not have that specific information. I
will say this, and again, I actually know that you are a
sponsor of the newest legislation with Chair Peters over here.
One of my favorite provisions of that legislation is asking the
Postal Service for making sure they are giving us the data we
need in an advisory opinion.
That is essential. You are right. And right now, we have an
open PI docket on the Delivering for America plan. We are able
to ask a number of questions, but I do believe we can probably
have access with or without this legislation. I think we will
have more ability to get those answers through an advisory
opinion because it is a more formal process.
But I just wanted to additionally say, I think that is a
really great piece that you guys put in that legislation, that
you-all put in this legislation. I really think it would
benefit us in our oversight.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Postmaster DeJoy needs to show us
the data as they say.
Ms. Poling. Yes.
Senator Rosen. Ms. Fisher, and then again, Ms. Poling, have
you or any other members of the Commission seen any weather
contingency plan from USPS that include Nevada, specific data
accounting for the unique weather challenges presented by snow,
wildfires, severe weather that cuts off Interstate 80, of
course, going over that Donner Pass from Reno to Sacramento.
That's the only way, one way, one highway to get there for days
and weeks at a time.
Have you seen any weather data or contingency plans for the
weather data? I think we have on averaged per year, over 30
days a year where that pass is closed.
Ms. Fisher. The Commission's well aware of the concerns you
have. I watched with great interest your exchange with
Postmaster General during the most recent hearing. I am amazed
that you have not seen the data that you have been requesting.
I fully understand the situations that weather issues can cause
and then spread through around surrounding regions.
I often wonder to myself, the best way we could get at this
situation that's being brought about by a change in the
processing and distribution of your local mail is through an
advisory opinion, as we keep mentioning, and you are a co-
sponsor of legislation. The law that put into place the
advisory opinion process was written in 1970. It gives the
Postal Service 100 percent of the power of when to determine
they need to file an advisory opinion. They say when something
they are going to do is going to impact the service nationwide.
I wonder if maybe the regulator should be in charge of
determining when the public will be impacted, and then tell the
Postal Service, you must file an advisory opinion request.
Senator Rosen. Ms. Poling.
Ms. Poling. Yes. First to answer your question, no, we did
not receive specifics on whether about the Donner Pass. But I
would say yes. I actually think even going back, you were
speaking about rural America, specifically, Senator. Several
years ago, when the Postal Service length and service
standards, I made a point to actually draft an additional
commentary speaking to rural America. Also, in that, I
mentioned that I think greater oversight of the advisory
opinion process would be hugely beneficial.
As Commissioner Fisher just mentioned, I think that it
would be wonderful if maybe we were more involved in that
process of determining when that opinion should be filed. But I
really think that the bill you-all have introduced really goes
in the right direction. I am hopeful that that will help give
us greater oversight, and in turn, give you greater
transparency into what's going on.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I am not sure that Postmaster has
that data, because when I asked him if he knew about how the
weather was on the I-80, and how often it was closed--he
actually sat there where you are sitting, I believe, Ms.
Fisher--and said, ``Why would I know that?'' I would say, he
needs to know that because he's the postmaster general. So, it
is really important.
For both of you, quickly, can I finish this question? Thank
you. If confirmed, would you support a statutory requirement
that USPS submit, just what you asked, major operational
changes for the Commission to review? If you ultimately are
tasked with issuing an advisory opinion on aspects of the
postal network service changes, will you commit to collecting
the data on the potential impacts, severe weather, geography,
or any other conditions that may have impact on mail service
reliability, and performance? You can answer yes or no.
Ms. Fisher. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Poling. Absolutely.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Appreciate you being here today.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
Starting to wrap this up. I will have to have a couple
questions for our judicial nominees here. [Laughter.]
Senator Rosen. We are all about the post office.
Chairman Peters. It's all about the post office today. But
that's either good or bad depending on your----
Senator Rosen. We love our mail.
Chairman Peters. We love our mail. This again, Ms. Gonzalez
and Mr. Palmore these questions are for you. We will start Mr.
Palmore and then Mr. Gonzalez, you both have extensive
appellate litigation experience, which is great. My question
for both of you is, what challenges do you anticipate facing as
you shift from your role as an advocate to your role as a
impartial adjudicator? Basically, how are you preparing to make
that transition, if you are confirmed?
Mr. Palmore. Thank you for this question, Senator Peters. I
had the privilege of clerking for three different judges at the
outset of my legal career, who really modeled for me what it
was to be a neutral arbiter every day; the hard work, the
integrity, the ability to listen to parties. I have held that
model before me throughout my career as an advocate. But of
course, as an advocate, it's a fundamentally different role. My
job and my ethical obligation has been to zealously represent
the interests of my clients. As a judge, if I'm so fortunate to
be confirmed, I would swear an oath to impartially apply the
law and to be scrupulously neutral. That's an oath that I would
seek to fulfill every single day if I was fortunate enough to
be confirmed to the job.
Chairman Peters. Very good.
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you for the question, Senator. I am
very aware of the differences between the role of an advocate
and the role of a judge. As an advocate, my job has been every
day to zealously advocate for the positions of my client. That
has been my duty. I understand that the role of a judge would
be very different.
Like Mr. Palmore, I have had the privilege of, throughout
my career, serving for judges who have modeled that for me, who
have modeled what it means to come into a case with an open
mind without having prejudged the issues, and looking at the
law, and letting the law and the facts fact guide the analysis.
That is what I would aim to do. Every day I would take that
oath, and I would take it seriously and do that every day, if
confirmed as a judge.
Chairman Peters. Very good. As, you may know, this
Committee has recently focused on considering and advancing
several nominations for Superior Court for the District Court
of Columbia, which is the local trial court. But it handles one
of the highest volumes of cases in the country. It's struggling
right now to keep up with that workload, because the vacancies
on the bench. We have that in the Court of Appeals as well,
which you have been nominated for.
How do you see the role of court of appeals in promoting a
more effective judicial system in the district right now, which
is, as I mentioned undergoing significant challenges. Ms.
Gonzalez, you want to start, and Mr. Palmore you can take the
second?
Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you for the question, Senator, and for
the opportunity to address this very important issue. I am very
aware of the need for the courts to work through the backlog of
cases, some of which have been pending for many years. But to
balance that with the need to give every case the attention and
care that it deserves, I think the way that I would do that I
would contribute to those efforts at the court, would be to
bring the skills and the management style that have served me
well as a litigator.
As a litigator, I am not unfamiliar with having a heavy
caseload and having competing deadlines. What I would do is
make sure that I am setting very clear internal deadlines
within chambers about when a decision will be circulated and
reviewed, that I work with my colleagues to do the same for the
external process, and that I play my role by responding
promptly to my colleagues' circulated opinions.
That is the way that I see both the court in advance, the
court of appeals its own backlog, but also help with the
superior court's backlog because those opinions provide
guidance to the judges on that court so that they can move
their cases forward promptly and efficiently.
Chairman Peters. Very good. Mr. Palmore.
Mr. Palmore. Thank you, Senator. Yes, the backlog is a big
problem on the court of appeals because as you mentioned, there
have been vacancies for many years. I think particularly with
the docket of this court, with a heavy number of criminal
cases, with family law cases involving child custody and
parental rights. These cases really matter to the parties
involved. They may be probably the most important thing in the
world to those parties, and it may be their only encounter with
the judicial system.
I like my colleague, I have many years of a busy appellate
practice where I have always had to juggle multiple matters and
meet deadlines. I would commit myself to working with my
colleagues on the court to help reduce the backlog, and to make
sure that my own work is done expeditiously because the parties
to these cases, they need answers. They need the right answers,
of course, but they need answers in an expeditious fashion.
Chairman Peters. Very good. Thank you. I want to thank each
of our nominees for joining us here today, and for your
willingness to serve in all of these important positions that
that you are up for.
The nominees have filed responses to biographical\1\ and
financial questionnaires.\2\ Without objection, this
information is going to be made part of the hearing record\3\
with the exception of financial data, which is on-file and
available for public inspection in the committee offices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information on Ms. Fisher appears in the Appendix on page
36.
\2\ The information on Ms. Poling appears in the Appendix on page
87.
\3\ The information on Ms. Gonzalez appears in the Appendix on page
143.
\4\ The information on Mr. Palmore appears in the Appendix on page
178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing record will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow,
July 26th, for the submission of statements and questions for
the record.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]