[Senate Hearing 118-518]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-518
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
UNDERSTANDING PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 5, 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 NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-738 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Christopher J. Mulkins, Director of Homeland Security
Annika W. Christensen, Senior Professional Staff Member
William E. Henderson III, Minority Staff Director
Christina N. Salazar, Minority Chief Counsel
Andrew J. Hopkins, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Peters............................................... 1
Senator Paul................................................. 2
Senator Carper............................................... 12
Senator Hassan............................................... 14
Senator Blumenthal........................................... 17
Senator Rosen................................................ 20
Senator Ossoff............................................... 22
Senator Hawley............................................... 25
Senator Marshall............................................. 28
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 33
WITNESSES
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2024
Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer,
United States Postal Service
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 35
APPENDIX
Senator Blumenthal's photo....................................... 121
Senator Hawley's letter from Missouri Farm Bureau Federation..... 122
Statements submitted for the Record:
Envelope Manufacturers Association........................... 123
Keep US Posted............................................... 125
National Association of Postal Supervisors................... 129
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Dejoy.................................................... 135
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE:
UNDERSTANDING PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Garry Peters,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Carper, Hassan,
Sinema, Rosen, Blumenthal, Ossoff, Butler, Paul, Johnson,
Lankford, Romney, Scott, Hawley, and Marshall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Chairman Peters. The Committee will now come to order. We
are coming together at a very important time for the U.S.
Postal Service (USPS) where postal workers just successfully
delivered ballot mail during a busy election season and are now
ramping up for a peak holiday season. Postmaster General (PMG)
shared some numbers for the election mail. I think you will
probably talk about in your testimony here today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But certainly, a very busy time, and I certainly appreciate
Postmaster General DeJoy for being before us here today to
answer questions about the Postal Service operations, finances,
and its services to the American people every day.
One key issue we will discuss today is the Postal Service's
proposed service changes which are currently under review by
the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). We will continue to
examine these plans and their potential impacts on constituents
as well as their implications for Postal Service finances.
The Postal Service connects Americans everywhere,
delivering critical mail like prescription drugs, Social
Security checks, rent payments, small business packages, and
the list goes on. Americans rely on the Postal Service every
day, so it's critical that we understand its plans for service,
operations, and finances.
Our last hearing with the Postmaster General was in April
where we discussed the significant nationwide changes the
Postal Service has begun making to its operational network.
These include plans to consolidate facilities, and reduce truck
trips, and other changes as to how mail is delivered. These
changes will have raised concerns about service quality and
cost effectiveness, particularly in rural areas like Iron
Mountain Processing Center in my home State of Michigan.
At our last hearing and afterward, my colleagues and I
urged you, Postmaster General, to pause and further study these
changes before moving forward to fully understand their impacts
on the service and cost. As a result, the Postal Service paused
a number of facility consolidations until January 2025. The
Postal Service also requested an advisory opinion from its
regulator, the Postal Regulatory Commission, to further study
these changes. I think this is a positive step to fully
understand the impacts through a transparent public process.
However, since our last hearing, the Postal Service has
also announced new changes, including changes to its service
standards, which dictate the speed of mail delivery. Members of
Congress, including Members of this Committee, have continued
to raise questions about these changes and about the service
impacts.
Two years ago, I led the passage of the bipartisan Postal
Service Reform Act, the first major reforms to the Postal
Service in over 15 years. This legislation set the Agency on a
more stable financial footing, providing over $50 billion in
financial relief over 10 years. The Postal Service is not on
the brink of financial crisis, but it does need to make careful
decisions about how it moves forward.
While the Postal Service is making intended changes
intended to save cost, questions certainly remain about
tracking actual cost reductions and the potential for service
cuts that also impact the bottom line. Above all, the Postal
Service must continue to focus on its public service mandate to
deliver to each and every American. That's why we are here
today to ensure the Postal Service remains accountable to
Congress, and the American people, and the Members of this
Committee. Other Senators I have heard from are certainly
looking for a very open discussion.
Mr. DeJoy, thank you. Thank you for being here today for
answering members' questions, and I look forward to a robust
discussion. I would now like to turn over the microphone to
Ranking Member Paul for his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL
Senator Paul. Over 40 years ago, Milton Friedman remarked,
``If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara
Desert, in five years, there would be a shortage of sand.''
While Friedman was discussing price controls and output
restrictions in oil and gas in Dubai, the same logic can be
applied to the U.S. Postal Service.
In 2020, Congress was promised that $107 billion bailout
would put the Post Office out of the roam and out of the hole
it has been within three or four years. We were also told that
the USPS operations would break even by 2031. Postmaster DeJoy
sat in front of our Committee in August of that year and
stated, ``I am absolutely convinced that with some help from
Congress and our regulator, we can do it, and that there is a
bright future ahead for the Post Office.''
I argued against giving more taxpayer money to the Postal
Service, suggesting that private business would be better at
managing ongoing costs by making the necessary cuts.
Unfortunately, my concerns have proven to be correct. The
Postal Service's Delivering for America (DFA) initiative, the
bailout, was expected to yield quick results. However, the post
office lost $6.5 billion in 2023, and is set to lose $9.5
billion in 2024.
That does not sound like progress. They were losing $1
billion a quarter, now they are losing $2 billion a quarter.
Only in Washington can someone point to losing $2 billion a
quarter as a success. Given the continued financial shortfalls,
it is entirely nonsensical for the USPS to convert more than
190,000 service workers into career roles since October, 2020.
If this were a private business, you would be doing the
opposite. If you were a unionized corporation in one State,
what did they do? They actually moved to another State and
opened a non-unionized in a right-to-work State, and that's how
they continue to exist. Corporations do not add to their misery
by adding and increasing their labor costs.
These government career roles effectively allow those
workers to make 50 percent more per hour and create decades of
benefits, responsibilities that will make breaking even in the
future even more difficult. When we had pension problems in
Kentucky, we did the opposite. We ended up changing from a
pension. We went to a contribution plan, and then we gradually
are fixing. It's still taking a long time because we had the
old obligations, but we gradually figured out how to go to a
new plan where we would not be stuck with all these pensions.
These positions are of insourcing jobs that were provided
at lower cost before by private partners who are increasing the
cost of the Post Office. During the Postal Service Reform Act,
I argued that no funding should be given to USPS without
changes to its labor practices and cost. Instead, no labor
changes were made, and now Americans are left holding the bag
of an ever more bloated Postal Service.
The Postal Service tried to explain away these bad numbers
due to the cost that USPS cannot control. But the service is
spending $9.6 billion on electric delivery vehicles, and
spending nearly $40 billion over 10 years to convert and build
certain facilities into hubs that so far have resulted in worse
delivery and services.
In order to keep making these infrastructure updates, the
Postal Service asked to raise its $15 billion borrowing limit
with the Treasury Department. Hardly sounds like a success.
Private sector companies deal with uncontrolled costs all the
time, including the same factors USPS faces like inflation, and
they find a way to provide for their owners and shareholders.
But they don't do it by adding more union employment.
USPS would count for the uncontrollable costs in their
budget and stop coming to Congress. You guys should try to fix
the problem instead of keep coming back and asking for more.
This has not stopped Congress, though, from throwing even more
money at the Postal Service. For those counting, that's $120
billion in funding and relief in the past four years alone.
While $120 billion is already an astounding number on its
own, when you consider the sum relative to our nation's dismal
fiscal condition, it suddenly becomes reckless. We are over $36
trillion in debt. It's time to do something different. What we
are not seeing is anything different at the Post Office, and I,
for one, say it's about time we have some reform.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Paul. It it's
the practice of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee to swear in witnesses. Mr. DeJoy, if you would please
stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the
testimony you will give before this Committee will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you,
God?
Mr. DeJoy. I do.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. You may be seated, and you are
recognized for your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS DEJOY,\1\ POSTMASTER GENERAL AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. DeJoy. Good morning, Chair Peters, Ranking Member Paul,
and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
once again discuss the significant progress that the U.S.
Postal Service is making in accomplishing the objectives
identified in Delivering for America plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. DeJoy appears in the Appendix on
page 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I agreed to take the role as Postmaster General, the
Nation was at the beginning of a pandemic, and the Postal
Service was an organization in crisis facing a diverse array of
challenges that put the organization on a near-term trajectory
to financial and service collapse.
The Postal Service had lost almost $90 billion, was
projected to lose another $200 billion over the next 10 years,
and was about to run out of cash before year end. Our over
31,000 facilities were in shocking, horrible condition, with
over $20 billion in deferred maintenance and ill-equipped for
modern day tasks.
We had not met our service standards in almost 10 years,
and not reduced work hours in over eight years, despite
significantly reduced volume. We had billions of dollars of
self-inflicted wounds from poorly evolved package products, and
had an organization and operational strategy that had long ago
become dysfunctional.
More explicitly, over 57 percent of our 31,000 post offices
did not cover the cost of the people that worked at them, and
76 percent of our 235,817 delivery routes lost money. We ran
55,000 trucks a day, 70 percent empty, and had four different
networks operating at significantly low-use utilization,
wasting billions of dollars.
This all came to a head in the peak season of 2021 when we
were overwhelmed and dramatically impacted service throughout
the Nation for many months. This was the dreadful condition and
trajectory of the Postal Service prior to the DFA, and there
was no plan anywhere to do anything about it.
The DFA plan has five simple directional objectives to be
accomplished in consideration with the laws and regulations
that govern the Postal Service today, and the relevant
attributes of our evolving economy, environment, geography,
marketplace, and competitive landscape.
These objectives are; to improve our operational precision
and organizational effectiveness, to reduce our cost of
performance, to create reliable and affordable service, to grow
our revenue and margin on our products, to create productive
and long-term careers for our employees.
These initiatives and the commitment to this transformation
has been embraced by our whole organization, and the pace of
change and accomplishments are impressive. We are a different
organization today, and I am impressed by the talent tenacity
of our people as they work hard to make the Postal Service the
best in commerce and public service for many years to come. A
unique opportunity we have, and as the Congress intended when
they created us.
However, times have changed, and so has what it takes to be
that entity that Congress intended. While we have accomplished
a great deal, we are at the beginning of an ongoing journey to
evolve with the Nation rather than lag behind. In the past, the
inability and unwillingness to make the necessary changes when
required is what had caused the condition and trajectory of the
organization when I arrived here. To understand the full
picture that the advisory opinion, contemplates, and solves, I
refer to you to my written testimony.
However, in summary, we have prepared a comprehensive
proposal and have been responsive to hundreds of questions
asked of us by the PRC and other parties. Let me share some key
points as a foundation to help set aside the fears and
misunderstandings that seem to surround the PRC advisory
opinion.
The changes we propose are to the collection, not the
delivery of mail. In fact, we expect delivery times for most
mail to improve. Your constituents receive far more delivered
mail than they send. To further isolate the impact of our
proposed change, it is primarily single-piece First-Class Mail
to which we propose to modify the collection schedule and only
by a matter of hours.
In the last 25 years, the volume of first-class single-
piece mail has plummeted from 57 billion pieces to 12 billion.
Yet, the chaotic, costly, and illogical network we have been
laboring under was originally designed for mail, and now
redesigned to include the increased package volume over an
integrated network. The survival of mail and the Postal Service
itself depends on successfully navigating the irreversible
volume shift.
Although the proposal analyzes volume and distance to
proposed schedule changes in the collection of single-piece
mail, it's not a proposal that primarily impacts rural
communities. The savings and operational efficiencies achieved
here are substantial, and I assure you are necessary to
preserve the universal service obligation (USO). The very
mandate that policymakers fear being called into question is
what we are in fact saving.
Please note that any service adjustments fall within the
existing two-and five-day service standards, and that the
proposal introduces standards that are relatable to our
customers, and that they will be based on the five-digit ZIP
Codes we are familiar with.
The changes proposed create from a network of massive chaos
and redundancy, and integrated mail-in package network as
required by the recent postal reform legislation, thereby
correcting for poor operating practices, and enabling us to
compete for new revenues and survive. In addition, the letter
of invitation I received for this hearing requested that we
also discuss transparency, and accountability, and
responsibilities we shoulder. In my written testimony, I have
detailed for you every transparency, regulatory, and
accountability burden under which we labor.
It is detailed in testimony and the weighty attachment that
reminds the reader that we are not a typical government agency.
We are self-financed and an independent establishment of the
Executive Branch. We must operate, in many ways, like a private
business, and we have many competitors.
We also have many layers of regulation and oversight that
would cripple a private company that also had our scope and our
public policy mandates. This has significance as it has
paralyzed the Postal Service of the past, and a contributing
reason why we are in the predicament we are in.
We relatedly a share testimony and attachment that details
our unfunded mandates. As essential and justified as our
universal service obligation is, it comes at a very high cost
that needs to be reckoned with, at the same time as mail and
package volume shift, delivery points steadily increase, cost
climb, and pressures not to change a single thing about our
service persist.
I welcome the opportunity to educate the Committee on our
plans to move the organization forward. I welcome you on that
journey. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, General.
In September, I asked for your commitment to report to this
Committee on how the Postal Service has substantially and
substantively considered the Postal Regulatory Commission's
input on national changes that are going to be made to the
network and to service standards.
You committed, at that time, to provide comprehensive
responses to any PRC recommendations. But I would like to
follow up on that, if I may, sir. Will you provide this
Committee with a copy of your comprehensive response to each of
the PRCS recommendations when they come out? Yes, or no?
Mr. DeJoy. Unless there's some regulatory reason not to, we
will submit our responses to the Postal Regulatory
Commission.\1\ I think I am happy to send you a copy of our
responses,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The responses from Mr. DeJoy appears in the Appendix on page
135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Peters. So, you will provide that to us?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Chairman Peters. I appreciate it. For each PRC
recommendation, you will provide a detailed explanation as to
whether USPS will implement the recommendations as well?
Mr. DeJoy. We will answer the responses comprehensively. To
the extent we----
Chairman Peters. To the degree you will implement or not.
Including to the degree to which you are going to implement or
not implement going forward.
Mr. DeJoy. There's a specific way that we go about
answering questions in the way that our legal department deals
with. But from the standpoint of the organization as a whole,
whether we submit it in that or we announce publicly what we
are going to do at the same time, there will be full disclosure
and transparency as to what we are actually going to do.
Chairman Peters. OK. Very good. The Postal Service is
required to provide, ``Prompt, reliable, and efficient service
to all communities,'' as you are well aware, and that includes
rural areas. Rural Americans, like my constituents in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan, rely on the Postal Service to promptly
deliver Social Security checks, rent payments, all sorts of
critical mail. The Postal Service has announced service
standard changes that would significantly impact rural mail.
Based on the numbers the Postal Service filed with the PRC,
your plan is to slow down 68 percent of single-piece, First-
Class Mail in rural areas, and that compares to 34 percent in
urban areas. You would slow down roughly 15 percent of rural
mail and upgrade only about three percent of it. These are
necessary deliveries for these communities, so it would come
late.
My question for you, sir, is how does the slowdown of rural
mail, if implemented, comply with a Postal Service's obligation
to provide prompt service to all communities?
Mr. DeJoy. I am not familiar with those numbers that you
cite. First off, delivery of mail to rural areas, and to all
areas will not change. In a few cases, about 10 or 15 percent,
will, in fact, improve. Delivery is not being affected. OK? We
are talking about the collection process of single-piece,
First-Class Mail only, right?
Single-piece, First-Class Mail was 59 billion pieces 20
years ago, 23 years ago, it's down to 12 billion pieces now. We
run the same collection processes for single-piece, First-Class
Mail that drives significant cost and take up a significant
amount of time in moving the overwhelming amount of volume that
moves through the system.
On the delivery side, I am anticipating improvement in the
delivery times because most mail originates within the 50-mile
radius of the operations we are talking about. It's the
collection of single-piece mail going out of these areas that
could be slowed down somewhere between 12 and 24 hours.
Chairman Peters. Also, service plans to reduce truck trips
in areas across the country, collecting mail less often from
outlying facilities and therefore reducing services. You tested
this initiative in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and my
constituents have now reported delays to important mail, like
insurance claims, rent checks, the list goes on.
There have also been delayed prescriptions, where extra
days certainly matter, and cities that were sending some
samples to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a
result of water testing, it requires quick turnaround. They can
no longer do that because they cannot rely on the Postal
Service to get that mailed to them on time. The USPS has said
that this transportation optimization was a pilot, but my
question for you is, are you planning to make that permanent up
in the UP?
Mr. DeJoy. So that was an initiative called Local
Transportation Optimization (LTO). We rolled that out in 12
locations around the Nation. Whether service, that the
incidents that you were speaking about, consequences were
related to that change or not, I cannot comment on because
there are other reasons why service fails or why expectations
are not met in terms of the changing environment.
There are a lot of places where we exceed in service. Part
of the rationalization of the network is to meet the standard.
But LTO, we went back and looked at it, and it was not
consequential enough and executable enough to get the amount of
cost savings that we needed. We have changed to the more
regional approach that we are taking going forward. That's in
our filing. The concept is the same, the area is just bigger
that we are going to deal with.
Chairman Peters. The Postal Service released its strategic
plan in 2021. It called for postal reform, which was completed.
It also called for executive actions to change how the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) calculates Postal Service pension
obligations.
I sent a letter to the White House pushing for this change.
OPM simply uses outdated accounting rules for postal employees,
as you know, compared to other employees, and that puts extra
cost onto the Postal Service. This could be changed, and the
belief is could save billions of dollars while also saving
pensions.
My question for you, sir, are you still in favor of making
this administrative change? Could you explain to this Committee
why that would be important?
Mr. DeJoy. There's two areas of our pension that we that we
are interested. One is the Civil Service Retirement System
(CSRS) reallocation, when we were separated as an independent
agency from the Federal Government. We have calculated a
significant shifting of the Federal Government's burden for its
retirees, at the time, onto our balance sheet.
This is one of the things you helped us with trying to,
writing to get actually executive action to make that change,
which the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has said that that
requires legislative change instead of executive change. But
yes, we do feel the calculations show that we were overburdened
when we separated from the government.
There are other things within our retirement plan. I expect
to have 620,000, 610,000 people next year in our organization,
and I will have 710,000 people on my retirement plan. There are
things within our investment structure that will kill us. This
is enterprise services money that we have aggregated and put
into the foundation. We have to invest it as, with the Federal
Government. We do not get the returns like a Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) or an Amtrak. That's one of the other things
that we are looking to do.
Then, there's some other subtle magic that OPM does with
their calculations that are punitive to us, relative to the age
group, the age calculations that they use for us and so forth.
It is a huge issue. It was 80 percent of our loss this year. In
my projections, to break even over the last three years, we had
an additional $10 billion of bills from the Federal Government
on our retirement plan that we were not expecting, and were
well above the projections in the thing.
It's no different than any major corporation that found
themselves in these particular constraints when they had
defined benefit plans. However, in some cases, they are able to
raise their prices and so on and so forth, or do their
investments. It concurs with the changing marketplace. We had
nothing available to us. We could not raise our prices
effectively for the changes in the economy, and we could not
rationally put investments with regard to meet that obligation.
It's an obligation that will continue to be detrimental to the
survival of the organization.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Ranking Member Paul, you are
recognized for your questions.
Senator Paul. You mentioned in your testimony that the Post
Office is different than other areas of government. That it has
to operate like a private business. You also mentioned that
about 80 percent of the volume of First-Class Mail has gone
down over time.
Can you think of a private business where 80 percent of
what they are doing to make money is going down in volume that
would actually increase their employees?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. Senator, you keep asking--I did not make
the laws that organized the United States Postal Service. OK? I
came in, as I said, to the condition that we had, and I am
trying to fix it. Now, you exaggerate the hiring aspects. I am
20,000 people less in employment today than when I walked in
the door. OK? I burned 50 million less work hours over last
year than we did the year I walked in the door.
Senator Paul. Is there more or less work being done by
contractors versus government employees?
Mr. DeJoy. That's a good point. I was a contractor in that
industry, and again, I walked into the situation I had. The
contractors the contracts that we had and the locations that we
had were detrimental to the organization. I had two points to
get cost out. Do I shut down all my operations where all my
people are, or do I bring in these contracting operations? I
have changed huge contracts across from our priority mail
system.
Senator Paul. But I know of no one in private practice or
investors who give advice through a corporate board who would
say, you have a declining business model, we are going to
increase the numbers. But then when you have a choice of hiring
contractors that won't be paid the same wages, or pension
benefits, or healthcare benefits that you pay your employees,
you are up 190,000. You have insourced 190,000 jobs.
It's just sort of inexplicable. The whole point, that of
the reform, of shifting the cost. It's not really reform, it's
a shell game. We just took a bunch of things that are still
costs on your books, and we put them on somebody else's books
somewhere else in government. It's still a massive cluster in a
way that the debt problem is just shifted over to another
account. But in doing that, the main thing you were trying to
get away from was healthcare costs and pension, right?
If you compare a contractor or a contracted employee to a
government employee, an insourced employee, and you compare the
health costs and the pension costs, they are dramatically
higher for insource. By increasing your number of people who
work for the government as opposed to contractors, you are
compounding the same problem.
You were here with us three years ago saying, we cannot
handle all these other expenses. We need to shift them
somewhere else. The reform package did that. But in contrast,
then you continue to hire more people instead of saying, well,
we have all these extra costs associated with government labor,
why don't we hire labor outside of the government and use
contractors?
Mr. DeJoy. Senator, in isolation on one element of the
issue, which you seem to be focused on, perhaps you are right.
OK? But I have come out of industry. I have been on boards. I
have built an organization in this similar space with 20,000
people, worked in an organization with 100,000 people, and
walked into a situation that had varying activities going on
inefficiently across its operation.
Senator Paul. But I would argue you would have treated your
own business differently.
Mr. DeJoy. I have not converted 140,000 people to full-
time.
Senator Paul. Your business was successful, though, not by
doing the decisions you are making now. This would not have
helped a private business as it is helping the Post Office.
Mr. DeJoy. I have to make decisions within the environment
that I have. If I move a change of collection box time on a
blue box, I have the rage of Congress bearing down on me. OK?
There are tradeoffs that one has to make in this step. At the
end of the day, we have requirements to have about 20 percent
of our workforce be pre-career, 80 percent of our workforce
be----
Senator Paul. You are delivering less mail. You need a
smaller organization on a building.
Mr. DeJoy. We are actually growing in the package business.
The objective here is to create an integrated mail and package
network. An integrated mail and package network means less
contracted places, less of our own places, and putting people--
--
Senator Paul. It's hard to point toward success when the
debt last year was $6.5 billion, and this year's $9.5 billion.
That doesn't look like success under any sort of metric. That
looks like it's getting worse.
The reason why labor's an important part of this is, it's
estimated that the labor's 80 percent of the cost of doing
business for the Post Office. For United Parcel Service (UPS),
which is unionized, but a private union versus a government
union, it's about 50 percent. For Federal Express (FedEx),
who's non-unionized, the cost of labor to the business is about
38 percent. There are cost savings by being outside of
government unions. Frankly, even private unions have some cost
savings.
But when we have a hole and we see a problem, we try to
change it. Like, we have a pension problem in Kentucky. We just
simply said the new hires would not be in the pension system or
get a different deal. We understood that the previous hires
would have to get their pension. The new people would come
under a new contract, and we will dig our way out of the hole.
It's going to take us 20, 25 years to dig our way out of it,
but we began doing it by actually offering defined contribution
as opposed to defined benefit.
You sort of did this and shifted the cost. But now, we are
getting more people, we are getting more government workers.
That's where the problem originated; was too many benefits to
government workers.
Mr. DeJoy. I do not know that I agree, again, with that
premise that that's where the problem originally----
Senator Paul. Is labor still about 80 percent of your cost?
Is labor still 80 percent of the cost?
Mr. DeJoy. It's still 80 percent of our cost. We have a
plan to try and make the labor cost that we have work. And that
means to create an integrated operation. We have 500 different
locations around the organization that we were processing mail,
including our contractors. I am trying to get down to 200.
Senator Paul. Do you have the ability to hire new people
under either a different pension or a different healthcare
system? Do you have the ability to hire new workers for the
government under a different pension or different healthcare
arrangements than the previous? The union commands what the
structure is, and you have to stay the same, right?
Mr. DeJoy. The Senate, and the House, and administrations
when forming the United States Postal Service made these rules
that we had.
Senator Paul. You are exactly right. Then when we looked at
the reform, that was my suggestion. Is if labor is 80 percent
of your cost, you have to do something about your labor costs.
Either outsource it, or what you need to do is provide a
different alternative through pension or through healthcare.
But we did not do any of that. All we did was the shell game of
taking all your costs and sticking it somewhere else.
Mr. DeJoy. I disagree. How about we stopped processing 20
million packages a day by hand. Right? How about we bought some
conveyors. OK?
Senator Paul. How about you show us some cost savings?
Mr. DeJoy. We saved $2.5 billion dollars in costs, and $1.4
billion----
Senator Paul. The debt went from $6.5 billion to $9.5
billion.
Mr. DeJoy. That's right. We had 20 percent inflation, and I
had fixed prices.
Senator Paul. So did everybody else. But not everybody else
in the private marketplace treating their business like a
private entity lost an extra $3 billion. It just isn't a
success story. It's not your fault----
Mr. DeJoy. What would you like me to do?
Senator Paul. I am not blaming it all on you, but you are
constrained by things. But to say it's not a problem, I think,
is just not to be honest with yourself----
Mr. DeJoy. I have never said it's not a problem.
Senator Paul [continuing]. And with everybody else. It's a
huge a problem.
Mr. DeJoy. I have never said it's not a problem. I am
trying to find a fix and direction.
Senator Paul. It's a huge problem. It's the way government
works, and government just doesn't work very well. We should
try to minimize government. One way to minimize government is
not to hire more government workers. Make government smaller,
hire private workers, because private workers are more subject
to the marketplace. You would say to a private worker, we
cannot keep offering the same pension we have done for 40
years. We cannot offer the same healthcare that we have done
for the last 40 years. I do not think we are doing enough. I
think we are going in the wrong direction.
Mr. DeJoy. My goal is to get the Postal Service workers to
operate productively and efficiently. That's by giving them the
tools, and the facilities, and the processes, and the
inspiration to move forward. And from the standpoint of service
and of cost effectiveness of the labored dollar, I think there
is much improvement that we have made and much improvement that
we can get to.
There are other burdens around the organization that I
agree with you. A tough hill to climb. But the operational
aspects and the growth aspects of the organization, the
competitive aspects that it could have deployed 20 years ago
are what we are trying to do now.
While you are all messing around with what the legislation
should be, I am trying to deliver mailing packages cost
effectively in the best way possible, like a private industry
would, like a UPS would. That's what I have expertise in, and
that is what my target is operationally and growthwise. Is that
the Postal Service should act like UPS and FedEx with regard to
all these other things that you all share responsibility in.
I am happy to work with you, like I worked with you,
Senator Peters on getting the Postal Reform Act passed. I am
happy to do that. Let's do it. But right now, I know what I am
doing with regard to consolidating the organization, trying to
move the organization forward to get work hours out, which we
have, to get transportation cost out, which we have, right, and
to grow the business, which we have. We will continue down that
path until somebody hauls me out of here.
Chairman Peters. Senator Carper, you are recognized for
your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks very much. And welcome, Mr. DeJoy.
Good to see you. Thank you for your being here. There are
several people in the audience behind you that we have worked
with in the past. It's nice to see them.
One of the quotes, I don't know who's quotes this is, but
where lies adversity, lies opportunity. That's one of my
guiding principles in life. In the adversity that's faced by
the Postal Service, there are opportunities as well. I think
you are trying to seize today on some of those.
There are others, I will say, competitors to the Postal
Service who are in the package business. They do not deliver
mail, but they deliver a lot of packages. I know you guys are
delivering a lot more packages as well. But some of those
companies have decided over the last 5, 10 years that they want
to phaseout their diesel engines and their gasoline engines,
and have mail delivered in vehicles that do not create, carbon,
greenhouse gases.
They did not make that conversion. Those companies did not
make the conversion because they are somehow concerned about
the planet burning up. Because of environmental concerns, they
did it because they felt that they could actually--there's an
economic argument. They thought that they could do this to
deliver their products in a more cost-effective way.
I think when we passed a big postal bill a year or two ago,
a couple years ago, we tried to provide some money for the
Postal Service as your vehicles were very old. As you are
making the transformation and the modernizing of your fleet to
make sure you are buying some vehicles that could be hybrids,
it could be electric vehicles to save money. Not just because
it was the right--you are being good environmental stewards.
Could you give us an update, please, on the rollout of
postal vehicles, hybrids, electric vehicles, and some of the
challenges you've encountered? How is the Postal Service
finding this transition, both on the economic side and on the
environmental side?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. Thank you, Senator. As you said, we have
over 220,000 vehicles that are over 30 years old, long exceeded
their useful life. They were burning up on the street when I
got here. We have committed both to internal combustion engine
(ICE) vehicles and electric vehicles, 106,000 vehicles, that we
will be bringing into the system over the next four years, of
which 66,000 of them will be will be electric vehicles.
So far, to date, we have acquired--coming in this year, we
will have about 10,000 electric vehicles coming. Now, there's
two sides of that. There's the vehicle itself. We have unique
requirements because most of our vehicles have to be right-hand
drive as opposed to left. We can't go commercial off the shelf
for many. We bought 10,000, for the transits, that are coming
in. We next year we will start receiving a high volume of our
next generation delivery vehicle, which is the right-hand side
vehicle. Most of those will be electric vehicles over the rest
of the years.
There's two sides to that. We have to build out the
electric vehicle infrastructure, which is a big and long,
multi-year project. There's imbalances right now in terms of
getting the, commercial off-the-shelf vehicles that are
specifically left-hand drive into the system. But we should be
through that within the next 8 to 12 months to have those
deployed. But we are moving forward in pretty good pace.
We got the President's Sustainability Award for rollout of
electric vehicles. Originally, we looked at a one-for-one
charging station per vehicle relationship. We are looking to
expand that. We are finding some of our route's consuming can
go two or three days without being recharged. We are putting
that into the model, and that's going to help accelerate the
deployment.
We are looking at clustering around some of our larger
delivery units where we have 200 and 300 charging stations for
vehicles there doing alternate days where we have the ability
to do that. The team knew absolutely nothing about--including
myself--about electric vehicles when we got here where I think
we are pretty formidable and we will rise on that.
The other thing, I do think that in my work here, and in
the other environmental things that we have gone through, I do
think the statistics back 20 percent of the people order how
their packages get delivered based on the environment. We
expect that to grow, and we want to be the preferred supplier
in the package delivery business for a certain size package for
a certain distance. We are paying attention to that in our
marketing in terms of all other points.
Senator Carper. Good, good for you. Yes, I did. I am going
to have to cut you off just for just a moment here. Vote by
mail----
Mr. DeJoy. Just one other thing.
Senator Carper. No. I am running out of time. I am sorry.
Thank you for your responses, and thank you for your commitment
to actually doing the right thing, but also the economically
smart thing.
The other question I want to quickly ask, we have just come
out of an election season, as we know, and people all over the
country have been voting for Federal, State, local candidates.
As it turns out, a lot of people are voting by mail, and they
are finding that they like it. In fact, the majority, I think,
a clear majority of people do not vote in person anymore. What
kind of opportunities has this provided for the Postal Service
house, and have we seized today to take advantage of that?
Mr. DeJoy. I did not hear the last part. Have we done what?
Senator Carper. How has the Postal Service seized today?
What the voters are looking for are easy ways they want to
vote, but they do not want to go stand in line and the Postal
Service can help with that. How are we doing in that regard?
Mr. DeJoy. First of all, we have just put out our report
with 99.8 percent of the ballots getting, you know, within
seven days, so on and so forth. It was less than in 2020.
Voting was less than in 2020. I would say that there are
opportunities to make this better, right? We have to get to a
point where two things can be correct. We deliver 99 percent of
the ballots on time, and you still find 1,000 ballots in place
that didn't make it.
That's a big issue. It's not necessarily because of the
Postal Service. It could be, but there's 8,000 different voting
districts across the Nation, across 50 States with different
rules and different types of mail pieces and different
requirements. We do not count, we do not say when the vote has
to be in, if it gets counted, and all that. That creates a lot
of ugly conversation between our organization and State
secretaries of State and so forth. Simple accusations of
something being laid on the mail process creates a lot of
emotion.
I think, long-term, we did an excellent job. It was a big
effort on this. I think a standard mail piece would be helpful
to us long-term. We are looking at ways to work with the
different States, the different election officers to get into a
specific contract-type of basis to do that.
But, yes, vote by mail is here to stay. We have done a good
job. The election officials have done a good job, but it's
still not where it needs to be because if we want 100 percent
guaranteed performance, we need to do more together.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Hassan, you are recognized
for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I want
to thank you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing.
Welcome, Postmaster General. It is good to see you.
I want to focus a bit on the ways that you can work to
strengthen mail service, and I want to also share my concerns
about some of the proposals that you have that would make mail
service worse in my State, for Granite Staters. The Postal
Service has a plan to move some postal operations from
Manchester, New Hampshire to Boston. I oppose the plan because
implementation of it will harm service and delay delivery. I
also oppose moving operations from White River Junction,
Vermont to Hartford, Connecticut, because White River Junction
serves Granite Staters in the Northern part of New Hampshire.
We know from Postal Service Inspector General (IG) reports
that processing center consolidations like the ones you are
considering here, including those in Virginia and Georgia,
resulted in ``an immediate and significant decline in service
performance''. And we know, too, that those declines continued
for several months, and that these facilities are still
struggling to meet their on-time delivery goals.
I have also repeatedly heard serious concerns from postal
employees and customers that your plans would slow delivery
service in New Hampshire. Just to be clear, taking a collection
center, a processing center from Manchester to Boston, moves it
at least a two-hour drive time both from the collection point
into the processing center, and then back up to New Hampshire.
Despite pausing your Manchester and White River Junction
consolidation plans earlier this year, you have not sought an
independent analysis of how these plans will impact Granite
Staters. So, yes or no, will you ask the Postal Regulatory
Commission to analyze the service impacts of moving operations
from Manchester to Boston and White River Junction to Hartford?
If the Postal Regulatory Commission finds that moving
operations from Manchester to Boston, or White River Junction
to Hartford will cause significant disruptions, will you stop
the plan from moving forward?
Mr. DeJoy. If you are asking me if I would specifically ask
the Postal Regulatory Commission to opine on that specific----
Senator Hassan. To have an in an independent analysis done.
Mr. DeJoy. I would not.
Senator Hassan. So, you won't have that done?
Mr. DeJoy. No.
Senator Hassan. I am going to continue to strongly oppose
the plans, especially in the absence of an independent review
of the service impacts in New Hampshire, because common sense,
and my own familiarity with the whole region tells me that this
will slow down service in considerable ways.
How are you going to continuously monitor service as
operations transition from Manchester to Boston, or from White
River Junction to Hartford? If and when delays occur, how are
you going to rectify them?
Mr. DeJoy. That's a good question. That is something that
we have amped up considerably in terms of operational reviews,
performance excellence onsite, and so forth. I can tell you
that we have people looking at every bit of performance in all
of these moves now, and we have response teams ready to jump in
and make the necessary corrections.
Senator Hassan. What if your monitoring tells you that it
was a mistake to take it from Manchester to Boston, because
it's going to delay delivery in considerable ways.
Mr. DeJoy. Again, a mistake, you may think it's a mistake,
and we may not think it's a mistake. A delay, a change in
service, and I don't know the specifics right now, off the top
of my head, in Manchester. We will have a service standard that
is good for the whole nation, and we will meet that service
standard.
Senator Hassan. Because my time is limited, I hear you on
that, and I hope you are right, but I believe you are not. The
reason is, if you slow down collection, if you do collection
less frequently, and it takes longer to drive mail from one
place to the processing center than it did before, and you are
doing less collection, and it's going to take longer to get it
back to the State where you need to deliver, my common sense
tells me that is going to delay service. Let me move on to
another issue.
Mr. DeJoy. I think you are double counting some of that
time.
Senator Hassan. Since I am really familiar with the drives,
and I am pretty familiar with the terrain. I am listening to my
postal employees a lot because they are really smart people and
they are familiar with it too. I would suggest you might want
to talk with them.
Mr. DeJoy. I do. I talk with my employees all the time.
Senator Hassan. But let me move on. Mr. DeJoy, we have
limited time, and so I am going to move on to my next question.
While you have focused on making large-scale operational
changes, some smaller changes and investment in technology can
have significant and positive impacts, because they will
improve employee safety, they will boost morale, and they will
improve customer service. There are two incidents that I want
to highlight that demonstrate the need for common-sense
investments by the service in technology.
First, earlier this year, a Nashua, New Hampshire letter
carrier was robbed at gunpoint while delivering mail.
Thankfully, he was unharmed, but the robbers stole his arrow
keys, which are used to access mail collection boxes. Then they
use the keys to steal the mail. In response to the rise in
attacks on postal employees, letter carriers have called for
converting arrow keys to electronic fobs, which could be
disabled in the event that the fobs are stolen, preventing
further crimes and disincentivizing criminals from stealing
them in the first place. That's one incident.
The second incident occurred in Hanover, New Hampshire,
where the local post office did not have access to Wi-Fi for
two months earlier this year, meaning that the post office was
unable to process credit cards to perform basic transactions.
As we all know, having reliable Internet access is essential
for operating a business in this day and age. So, will you
commit to making common-sense investments to improve employee
safety and customer service as part of the Delivering for
America plan?
Mr. DeJoy. The Delivering for America Plan is all about
making investments in our facilities and modernizing the
network. So, yes.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. These are things that letter
carriers and other employees have raised, and we have had to
push really hard, for instance, on the Wi-Fi issue. I would
look forward to working with you on that.
I only have a little bit of time left, but I do want to
just raise one more issue. My office regularly receives
outreach from constituents asking for our help in resolving the
postal issues they are facing. For example, for more than seven
years, a small business owner in Peterborough, New Hampshire
was able to reliably schedule package pickups from her home
nearly every day. Whether it was one package or 30, whether it
was rainy or sunny.
After her regular mail carrier retired in 2023, the daily
pickups became less reliable, and some days they were missed
altogether. We hear stories like this all the time; frustrated
customers and small business owners who are looking for
reliable, consistent service. When we reach out to our Postal
Service customer liaisons or regional management seeking help,
we are often met with excuses instead of action. That's,
obviously, not acceptable.
Will you commit to ensuring that your regional management
takes a more active role in working with us to resolve issues
brought to us by our constituents?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. I think we do need some work in that area,
Senator. We are aggressively pursuing that.
Senator Hassan. I appreciate that. I will also just add
that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have
felt that sometimes your office's response is lacking when we
make inquiries. I hope very much that we can work on improving
that as well. Thank you.
Mr. DeJoy. Sure.
Chairman Peters. Senator Blumenthal, you are recognized for
your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLUMENTHAL
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks for having
this hearing. Thank you, Mr. DeJoy, for being here today.
When you were last here in April, you and I talked a little
bit about Ridgefield, Connecticut. Small town, but important to
me and the people of Connecticut, along with other towns where
United States Postal Service has property that is essentially
unused, and where in fact, the Postal Service could save some
money. Maybe not billions of dollars, but every penny saved, as
you know, from your business experience, is important to a
corporation.
When we spoke in April, you promised to look into the
Ridgefield property, personally, but all you did afterward was
cite a September, 2023, letter from one of your government
relations people, Scott Slusher. Is he still with you?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. Is he here today?
Mr. DeJoy. Right there. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. Good morning, Mr. Slusher. Mr. Slusher
told me in that letter, ``During our peak holiday season, when
mail and package volumes dramatically increase, the lot will be
needed to accommodate the foreseeable needs of our customers
and the additional seasonal employees we employ to meet those
needs.'' When was the last time Mr. DeJoy you visited
Ridgefield, Connecticut?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not know that I have ever been to
Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Senator Blumenthal. You have never been there?
Mr. DeJoy. No.
Senator Blumenthal. Has Mr. Slusher ever visited? I take it
from your non-answer that he has not.
Mr. DeJoy. I don't keep up with the travel.
Senator Blumenthal. You don't know. No?
Mr. DeJoy. No.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me show you a photo\1\ of that lot
last December, December 27th during the peak holiday season.
It's empty. It's empty every day in December. It's empty every
day during the year. That lot is unused. The small businesses
on Main Street want to make that lot available for parking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The photo referenced by Senator Blumenthal appears in the
Appendix on page 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't want to take anything away from the United
States Postal Service. The non-responsiveness, I am tempted to
say stonewalling of the Postal Service in response to their and
my request, the town of Ridgefield, so that that property can
be used for parking, enabling more customers for those small
businesses on Main Street, I think is really unacceptable. Will
you come to Ridgefield?
Mr. DeJoy. Sure.
Senator Blumenthal. We will set it up with your office
during the peak holiday season.
Mr. DeJoy. I make trips.
Senator Blumenthal. You will love Ridgefield.
Mr. DeJoy. People invite me. I will come to Ridgefield.
Senator Blumenthal. It's especially beautiful in the peak
holiday season. While you are in Ridgefield, maybe we could
also visit Milford, Norwalk, East Hartford, where there are
properties that could be sold by the Postal Service. They are
essentially unused. Postal Service could make some money. And
right now, it is essentially refusing even to respond as you
have done, essentially, on Ridgefield.
Mr. DeJoy. First of all, I will take the whole tour. I will
come up. But we have these requests throughout the whole
nation, and we are in the process of looking at 31,000
facilities across the Nation, trying to determine what we are
going to stay in and not stay in where we are going to park
electric vehicles, and so forth.
We are in a status of evaluation. We will get through this
as we work through our whole network, where our sorting and
delivery centers are going to be, what our retail
configuration's going to look like, and so forth. Then, that
will be the time for us to move out in terms of looking at the
monetization----
Senator Blumenthal. But the problem is, Mr. DeJoy--and I
apologize for interrupting, but my time is limited--as you well
know, that in Norwalk, they are in the process of redeveloping
their downtowns now in real time. But some of that in Milford,
they are redeveloping a downtown. They want to provide you with
reasonable alternatives for the postal property if it ever is
going to be used.
In Litchfield--I mean, I could go through a number of towns
where in real time, right now, there are businesses and
taxpayer interests, and your customers are at stake. Why can't
we move on some of these properties right away, rather than the
post office, in effect, with all due respect, stonewalling the
people of Connecticut.
Mr. DeJoy. I do believe that we need to, and have started a
process, to engage. I just was with a couple of congressmen in
their towns looking at some of these projects. I do think we
need to get into a better dialog, more meaningful dialog with
local constituents quicker in terms of the decisions that we
need to make and the reasons why we can't relinquish or can
relinquish the property. I think we need to get better at.
That does not change the answer in many cases because we do
need many of these properties. But so, I don't know. Do you
want me to look into this further?
Senator Blumenthal. Well, you promised to look into it in
April.
Mr. DeJoy. We gave you an answer.
Senator Blumenthal. You gave me an answer to refer to a
September, 2023, letter, which frankly, I find insulting.
Mr. DeJoy. What do you find insulting?
Senator Blumenthal. Because, what you say is absolutely
untrue. That it is used in the peak holiday season. If anybody
paid attention, gave it the slightest care.
Mr. DeJoy. That's not true. Because, Senator, back when I
got here, we added like 1,000 locations during peak, right, to
do deliveries. Because of some of the changes that we have made
in our operational processes that is coming down. We ran a lot
of additional operations during the peak season that were
crazy, and costly, and deteriorated service. In our process, I
am emptying buildings all over the country, but this is a
process.
Senator Blumenthal. The process seems to be never-ending,
and----
Mr. DeJoy. Exactly.
Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. The lack of an end means
the United States Postal Service is deprived of revenue that it
needs, and it means insulting the people of the United States
who have an interest, your customers, not only in that revenue,
but also in the most effective use of property that belongs to
the United States Postal Service. I welcome your willingness to
come visit----
Mr. DeJoy. I will come. If I give up a building--I get
booted out of a retail center where I am paying, let's say,
$300,000 a year, you know what the price of that is for me to
go someplace else today? Like $3 million a year. I have to be
careful with what we do with this real estate. There's
significant increases in value. Also, a whole cartel of
opportunists that we have dealt with over the years at the
Postal Service was regard to the centers. So, that property in
a downtown, if you want a post office or a postal service, we
are going through making----
Senator Blumenthal. Are you aware that the post office
moved out of Ridgefield? The office is no longer there. I would
suggest that you really look into, as you promised you would
do, the situation there personally. Maybe ask Mr. Slusher to do
an advance visit so that you can be prepared when you come with
me. I appreciate your willingness to do so, but time is not on
our side when it comes to those small businesses, whether it's
in Ridgefield or the interests of towns, Milford, Norwalk,
Litchfield, East Hartford, where the property interests are not
used properly.
I apologize for going over my time, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Senator Rosen, you are recognized for your
questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
I do want to say, and I am very concerned, Postmaster,
about your dismissal or lack of consideration of doing specific
analysis and areas of concern regarding our mail delivery and
our postal assets. I might remind you, as I follow the
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, that today, that this
body has oversight responsibility. We do expect timely
collaboration in these important issues that affect each and
every one of our constituents, and our communities, and our
State's economics.
I am going to move on, Mr. DeJoy. The last time you
testified before this Committee, we discussed my concerns for
your proposal for the Reno Processing and Distribution Center.
The proposal, as originally crafted, could have led to
significant delays in mail delivery. While I appreciate that
after months of pushing, USPS finally responded to my calls to
keep in-State mail letter processing at Reno.
I do remain concerned about the overall implementation of
your Delivering for America plan. According to the USPS online
performance dashboard, while the standard for receiving
delivering mail in Reno's two days, USPS is currently averaging
three to four days in certain ZIP Codes in Reno. Can you speak
specifically to Reno, if you may, what the USPS is currently
doing to get our delivery times down in Northern Nevada to the
two-day standard and when we might expect that?
Mr. DeJoy. Right now, of course, and I do not have
specifically to Reno, but I believe Reno area, all of--I don't
want to even say Nevada.
Senator Rosen. If you come here, could you please learn to
say Nevada properly? It is kind of respectful. I appreciate
that.
Mr. DeJoy. No disrespect intended.
Senator Rosen. Do you say Illinois, if you go to talk to
the Senator from----
Mr. DeJoy. Why are making fun of me?
Senator Rosen. It's a matter of respect. You have been for
this through this body multiple times.
Mr. DeJoy. Maybe that's way I speak. Why are you making fun
of me?
Senator Rosen. I am not making fun of you, sir. You are
making fun of me. I would like to see the respect due to my
State of Nevada, which is experiencing problems in their mail
delivery service. When can we expect mail delivery back down to
the two-day standard?
Mr. DeJoy. 50 percent of market-dominant mail and packages
gets delivered a day in advance. We are at about 85 percent in
on time, 95 percent the day, a day later. We are going to be in
that condition for probably the next 8 to 12 months when I
expect that all mail through the system reaches its intended in
four days. The average time is 2.8 days across the Nation for
mail to be delivered.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would like to move on and talk
about the treacherous conditions on the Donner Pass on I80,
which we did speak about also last time. It is the only way to
get from Reno to Sacramento. A path that you had in your
original plan to redistribute mail processing from Reno would
have relied for mail to travel out of Nevada.
Then of course, back again, as I mentioned, at that time,
Donner Pass has some of the most extreme weather in the United
States, with over 33 feet of snow annually. Just a few days
ago, Donner Pass, again was closed due to heavy snowfall. You
said you did not have the data last time. Do you have any data
that you could share with us today on how the weather
conditions in Donner Pass may have been affecting the Postal
Service. As we know, it's closed on over an average of a month
a year during various times due to wildfire, snow, and high
winds since you testified in April. Would you be willing to
provide me that information if you don't have it here today,
and how it impacts our service?
Mr. DeJoy. We were speaking about that with regard to the
collection mail, the turnaround mail that was going back into
the Reno area. I made a trip out to Reno, actually, to look at
the plant and the operation. For a variety of reasons we took
an alternative course.
The turnaround mail will not go through the Donner Pass, it
will stay local. Mail going out to the rest of the Nation will
go through the Donner Pass or whatever other direction that we
have when it is closed. We are well aware that it is closed.
We have alternate types of arrangements throughout
transportation to move to Sacramento, where the main outgoing
processing plant is going to be. I don't have any other
specifics, but I can get our routings from transportation and
show you what we do when it's closed. I can have that sent to
you.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit about
Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO), because in October
you submitted a request for an advisory opinion from the Postal
Regulatory Commission in which you proposed a series of
operational changes. One such change is your Regional
Transportation Optimization,
Under this proposal, mail collected at post offices and ZIP
Codes more than 50 miles away from the nearest regional
processing center and distribution would have their morning and
afternoon drop off and pick up activities consolidated into a
single route.
With the Postal Service already failing to meet many of its
performance goals, I am concerned you want to cut the volume of
routes. Senator Hassan, I think is concerned about the same
thing. This proposal really unfairly impacts our rural mailers
especially in receipt of their Social Security checks, their
medications, and some of those.
Despite concerns that I know many of us have shared with
you, you have decided to move forward, which I believe is a
misguided proposal in citing a yet to be proven gains in
efficiency along the later legs of delivery. Have you conducted
an analysis that conclusively prove that any delays in mail
originating in rural areas will be mitigated by the subsequent
gains in efficiency, or is this merely conjecture?
Mr. DeJoy. We have done extensive analysis on the total
operational changes that we are presenting and the cost
savings. First off, delivery into these areas will be enhanced
because most mail, almost 90 percent of mail packages,
originates within a 50-mile radius and nothing is changing to
the delivery. So, that will happen.
With the collection, a single-piece mail somebody mailing a
letter, the most that it will be affected is one day allocated
across five days. It will still be no longer than five days to
get to the furthest part in the Nation.
Senator Rosen. And you have data? You have a report to
support this?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. It's all filed with the Postal Regulatory
Commission.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to just quickly ask this
last question. We have contingency plans. We have bad weather
across our nation many different times of the year. Of course,
I am concerned about our particularly bad weather up in
Northern Nevada, along the I80 route. Do you have contingency
plans in place if routes like ours in Reno, subjected to the
RTO initiative become impassable? I am not the only person that
may have roads that are impassable. I am sure if you speak with
the Chair, he will tell you about roads that are impassable in
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and you could probably go
after State to State. Do you have a contingency plan in place
due to weather conditions?
Mr. DeJoy. We have alternate routes and actions that we
take. We have been delivering mail for 250 years. We have
alternate actions that we take with every disaster road
closure, hurricane, and so forth. Does it get it there the same
time? That depends on the consequence of the event we are
talking about. But we do have methodologies that we deploy
readily to make sure that the mail gets delivered and
collected.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Senator Ossoff, you are
recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Postmaster General, prior to your efforts to implement
Delivering for America and move to the Palmetto facility in
Georgia, on-time delivery for First-Class Mail in North Georgia
was over 90 percent, correct?
Mr. DeJoy. Not so.
Senator Ossoff. Not so? What was on-time First-Class Mail
delivery in Georgia prior to the changes that you implemented
at Palmetto?
Mr. DeJoy. Atlanta was always in the bottom 20 percent of
our service standard across the Nation because----
Senator Ossoff. No. My question is what percentage of
First-Class Mail?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not remember. It was probably in the low
80's. Single-piece First-Class Mail was definitely in the low
80's.
Senator Ossoff. In the midst of the changes that you
implemented mid-spring, that declined to 36 percent, correct?
Mr. DeJoy. We have been through this, yes, it has.
Senator Ossoff. We have been through this. We are going
through it again.
Mr. DeJoy. OK. Let's go
Senator Ossoff. On time delivery of First-Class Mail in
Metro Atlanta in North Georgia, late spring, was 36 percent,
correct?
Mr. DeJoy. That is correct.
Senator Ossoff. You said at the hearing in April that we
would be, ``Where we need to be in about 60 days,'' correct?
Mr. DeJoy. I believe so. Yes.
Senator Ossoff. It's been 233 days. Sound right?
It's been 233 days. On-time delivery of First-Class Mail in
metro Atlanta and in North Georgia is now at 75 percent,
correct? Are we where we need to be?
Mr. DeJoy. Where we are going to be for a little bit, yes.
Senator Ossoff. Are we where we need to be?
Mr. DeJoy. Where we are going to be.
Senator Ossoff. It's a simple question. Do you believe that
75 percent?
Mr. DeJoy. I think for right now----
Senator Ossoff. On time delivery of mail in North Georgia
is where we need to be?
Mr. DeJoy. 50 percent of First-Class Mail in Georgia gets
delivered a day in advance. We are in the 75 to low 80's on
time, and 90 percent is the day after. While we are doing our
transitions, that's where we are going to be. That's one of the
reasons why we have other types of service-related issues that
are----
Senator Ossoff. Yes. My time is limited. Let me assure you
that for my constituents in Georgia, the mail being delivered
on time, 75 percent of the time is not where we need to be when
you said 233 days ago that we would be where we need to be in
60 days.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Senator Ossoff. Delivering for America plan projected
positive net income for USPS starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023.
Is that right?
Mr. DeJoy. That's correct.
Senator Ossoff. In fiscal year 2023, you had a $6.5 billion
loss, correct? In fiscal year 2024, you had a $9.5 billion
loss, correct?
Mr. DeJoy. Correct.
Senator Ossoff. You had projected for Fiscal Year 2024, a
$1.7 billion gain, correct?
Mr. DeJoy. I do not remember.
Senator Ossoff. Yes, that's correct. Would you say that
your tenure has been a success?
Mr. DeJoy. I would say that the 10-year plan has not
reached what the plan said it would be, but I do believe----
Senator Ossoff. Sorry, not your 10-year plan, your tenure.
Has your tenure as Postmaster General been a success?
Mr. DeJoy. Senator, I know how you feel about me. You have
been quite public, OK, so I am not going to debate that you
think I am a failure. Fine, I do not.
Senator Ossoff. It's not about how I feel about you,
Postmaster General. It's about whether or not seniors in
Georgia are receiving prescriptions. It's the stacks of boxes
of mail from courts that never arrived to their destination.
It's the small businesses who are not able to get products to
market.
Mr. DeJoy. That package----
Senator Ossoff. This is my time, Postmaster General.
You are here under oath before the U.S. Senate.
Mr. DeJoy. I know where I am.
Senator Ossoff. It's small businesses who cannot operate.
It's death notices not delivered to family members. You are
sitting here trying to explain that 75 percent on-time delivery
is a success. It's not about how I feel about you, Postmaster
General. It's how my constituents are being served by the
United States Postal Service.
Let me ask you a question about the Palmetto facility in
Georgia. Have there been any deaths in the Palmetto facility in
the last year?
Mr. DeJoy. Any deaths?
Senator Ossoff. Deaths.
Mr. DeJoy. I have a lot of events throughout the course of
the year. I do not remember specific. I have a lot of deaths
throughout the course of the year. I do not remember
specifically Palmetto. No.
Senator Ossoff. How many deaths of personnel on the job
would you say you have had nationwide in the last year?
Mr. DeJoy. I would probably say 10 in the course of a year.
Senator Ossoff. You had a death in the Palmetto facility
last year. Will you provide my office in this Committee with
all materials relevant to that death?
Mr. DeJoy. Absolutely.
Senator Ossoff. When will on-time mail delivery be restored
to the level prior to you trying to make these changes for my
constituents in Georgia? You said in April we would be where we
need to be in 60 days.
Mr. DeJoy. First of all, I disagree with the premise
because the service is probably at the level of service where
you were before I started these changes.
Senator Ossoff. We are not.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, we are.
Senator Ossoff. I have the numbers in front of me. We are
not.
Mr. DeJoy. I do not know what numbers you got.
Senator Ossoff. I have your on-time delivery statistics,
you are not where you were before you tried to make this change
in Georgia. You are at 75 percent on-time delivery in Georgia.
When will you be?
Mr. DeJoy. When we started the Delivering for America plan,
Service in Georgia was terrible. Aspects of the Delivering for
America Plan brought that service up. We were close to 90's
across the board. That was part of the Delivering for America
plan. When we opened the new plant is when we had our issues.
Service went down, and we are recovering from it now. It's part
of when we get to where we want to be, it's going to be part of
the whole broad filing that we have with the PRC right now,
where some of the service business rules that are 30 years old,
that should have been changed are affecting how we measure
service.
There's a bunch of other things that need to come together
to get the service where it is. In all, service in Georgia is
within less than three days, people get all their mail packages
and everything. That will be the target, what we are trying to
shoot for.
Senator Ossoff. You just lowered your targets for next
year, correct?
Mr. DeJoy. I lowered the targets for next year to put that,
what I just said, out into the public. That this is what it's
going to look like.
Senator Ossoff. You lowered your targets for next year so
you could meet your targets?
Mr. DeJoy. I can make the changes that we need to make to
provide a viable United States Postal Service.
Senator Ossoff. Postmaster General, you are not meeting
your financial targets. You are hemorrhaging cash when you said
you'd be making money. Delivery in Georgia has been abysmal
this year. You have not recovered, as you said, you would, you
need to do better for my constituents in Georgia.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, sir.
Chairman Peters. Senator Hawley, you are recognized for
your questions. Thank you for deferring to some of our
colleagues here. That was very kind.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr.
DeJoy, good to see you.
Let me ask you about the Regional Transportation
Optimization plan. A couple of my colleagues had questions
about this, and maybe you can clear up some things for me. My
understanding is that this plan will eliminate end-of-day
collection at post offices that are located more than 50 miles
from a hub. Is that, basically, correct? I Am sorry, eliminate
end-of-day collection from post offices that are located more
than 50 miles from the hub. Is that, basically, right?
Mr. DeJoy. Most likely in most places.
Senator Hawley. OK. It's going to eliminate end-of-day
collection at most post offices located more than 50 miles from
one of the hubs.
Now, in Missouri, we have 926 post offices. 754 of them are
more than 50 miles from a hub, and that accounts for 50 percent
of my State's population. I understand that under your own
agency's projections, 68 percent of rural single-piece, First-
Class Mail will get downgraded under this plan. That's going to
be half my State. Can you walk me through that?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. I would have to look at what we are saying
in terms of local cancellation, because I think in Missouri, we
decided to keep another local cancellation plant. But it will
be one or two plants. So, to some certain extent, you are right
that there's a bunch of offices that are outside that would get
what we say is the ``plus one day'' where we would send a truck
out when we deliver mail and take it back, which is an obvious
cure for an inefficient process.
We will then accelerate within the reach of the plant that
it goes to. We will accelerate through the system. We will pick
up time there. Across the country, we will pick up time because
we will deploy pre-operating practices that get us on the road
about four hours earlier. That's going to get us further.
With regard to the impact, the 68 percent, it's not that
much. It's single-piece mail outbound only. Eighty eight
percent of mail originates from within a 50-mile radius. All
that delivery will be picked up by that four-hour process
moving through the system. All delivery into all your
constituents everywhere, will be better in terms of the
delivery site.
It's only the outbound collections that come and go through
this that get the extra day within the one, two-, three-, four-
, and five-day span that we have right now. A two-day may go to
three days, a three-day may go to four days, a four-day may go
to five days, but nothing's going beyond five days. We have
tens of thousands of trucks running around with nothing in
them, and that is a big reason to make the change.
I think, within on a single-piece mail, and I am not
diminishing its importance, but somebody mailing a letter, a
card, or something like that may get a day later within the
five-day constraint.
Senator Hawley. Yes. Thank you for confirming that. My
concern is that that's going to affect half of my State, 754 of
my State's post offices. This is on top of downgrades that
happened in late 2021. This is, as you can understand, I am
sure, this is why the Missouri Farm Bureau has written to you
opposing this. All of my rural electric cooperatives are
opposed to this.
This is disproportionate impact on rural folks. I
understand that some urban areas will also experience
downgrades, but to them, your own estimates say it will be a
third of their volume. It's two-thirds, more than two-thirds of
the rural volume. I mean, why the disproportionate impact on
rural folks?
Mr. DeJoy. It actually has more of an impact on urban
areas. The impact is like 60 percent urban, 40 percent rural.
You have urban areas have sprouted up. The postal system was
built, 30's and 40's, and the geography has greatly changed.
There are urban areas.
I need to get cost out. This is extremely, I do not believe
that this is a punitive way. We focus on delivery. We are
delivering to 167 million delivery points every day. We set the
constraints around the five-day service. It only affects
single-piece. All their deliveries, all their everything that's
going to them is going to be timely. The local cancellation
reach, I can get back to you as to what that reach is going to
be from the one or two plants. That will take that out of the
delivery--out of the impact zone.
But at the end of the day, this is a change we need to make
to get the cost out. We we're chasing $3.7 billion up, and this
is all about rural America, Senator.
Senator Hawley. You are reducing the volume to rural
America. I mean, you are slowing it down. They are getting the
downgrade. 68 percent of their mail is going to get downgraded
Mr. DeJoy. Significantly more volume gets delivered to
people in rural America, in every place, than they actually
mail out. Significant. It's disproportional inbound than out.
Senator Hawley. But you do not dispute the fact that 68
percent of their single-piece, First-Class Mail is going to get
downgraded. You just told me that it would get downgraded.
Listen, I think I understand you; you are trying to cut costs.
I am just telling you, I understand your position, Mr. DeJoy,
but I need you to understand mine.
I represent a State that's majority rural. 754 of my 926
post offices are going to experience additional delay. This is
on top of the fact that in the Kansas, Missouri District, you
are hitting a 72 percent on-time delivery standard. That's well
beneath your own target. I am just telling you that in my
State, people they are very frustrated.
The Farm Bureau represents 157,000 Missouri Farm families.
They look at your plan and they say, ``What in the world? We
are going to get the shaft here.'' Just to be honest with you,
I am just telling you the facts. This is how in my State, this
is how it seems.
Mr. DeJoy. I think the alternatives are that we get some
significant government funding because we were going to run out
of cash. When I got here, we were going to run out of cash. We
have worked very hard to find a way. You see, I try and do one
single move in efficiency, and there is no enjoyable answer for
anybody here. We think this is a way that continues to get
good, reliable.
It is a change. It's a change that should have been made 20
years ago. Right? There's a big heavy lift here because
nothing's been done for 20 years. The impacts are not unfelt. I
understand that. It's scary to many people. I understand that,
too. But I think we have made a determination that this is what
our role is to try and define and evolve as to what the service
is.
We are looking at improving inbound service significantly
keeping cost affordable, keeping the Postal Service alive. Yes,
there will be an impact on some collection, single-piece mail.
Senator Hawley. You have asked the Postal Regulatory
Commission, I think, for an advisory opinion on this. If they
issue a negative opinion, will you stop moving forward with the
implementation of this plan?
Mr. DeJoy. We will evaluate everything that they say, and
take it seriously, and make adjustments. They had their
testimony yesterday. We had our testimony yesterday. They
started with negative connotations on the plan, which makes me
question their understanding of what the condition that we are
in and the things we need to do.
But we will take, like every input that we get, we will
take it seriously and make adjustments. But I think there's an
overwhelming propensity for us to move forward, and we should
expect that.
Senator Hawley. I want you to know, and I want you to
expect that I hate this plan, and I am going to do everything I
can to kill it. I am going to try to protect every delivery to
the State of Missouri, to my rural areas.
I just want you to know we are on the same page. I want you
to know I am going to go to the mat on this, and I am going to
work with everybody I can across this to protect delivery to
rural America. If I have to go down with the ship, I will go
down with the ship, but I am going to do everything I can to
kill it.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. You won't go down with the ship. If you are
successful, the Postal Service will go down.
Senator Hawley. No. If I am successful, rural America will
get its mail delivered on time, which is currently not. Urban
areas will get their mail delivered on time, which is currently
not. Who's paying for it? The taxpayers who have been paying
for it all along. We just, in 2021, gave you a bill that you
wanted, Mr. DeJoy, that reduced your liabilities by tens of
billions of dollars.
Listen, I have been nice to you until now, but frankly, I
am a little tired of this. We have waited, and we have waited,
and we have waited for better delivery. I have written you
letters like I cannot count talking about the delivery in the
Kansas City area, which is appalling, talking about the
delivery to rural area. We have got the Baring Post Office,
which has been completely decimated for two solid years, that
has now been rebuilt by a private party, that your agency still
has not cleared and opened.
Yes, I am not happy about it. I have been nice to you today
and up until now, but you have exhausted my patience on this. I
just want you to know it because I represent a State whose
patience is exhausted. I have leveled with you now. I think we
understand each other. But I want to see service to my State
and the rural areas of my State preserved. In the urban areas,
I want to see it get better and meet the standard. I want the
Baring Post Office rebuilt and open like you promised me it
would be when we were here in April and it still isn't as we
sit here in December.
That's my piece, that's where we are just so we understand
each other, and I look forward to working with you going
forward.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes, I understand you. I do not think you
understand me.
Chairman Peters. Senator Marshall, you are recognized for
your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARSHALL
Senator Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Postmaster
General.
Certainly, I understand you have an impossible job and I'd
hopefully have time to ask you why is it impossible. But I want
to start. We asked some folks back home, if you could be in
front of the Postmaster General, what questions would they ask
you? this first one is from Mike from Topeka, and Stacy from
Marysville had the same question. ``What is justifying the
consistent price increases with no change or improvement in
delivery time or service?''
Mr. DeJoy. Senator, we had a defective pricing model for 20
years. Mail volume cut in half, and we were not allowed to
raise our prices to accommodate that, the basic division that
would have told anybody that we needed to have a significant
increase in price. Also, during the time period that I have
been here in raising prices, we have had 20 percent inflation.
Under any circumstance, the prices that we have, the only
thing we have raised our prices have been mostly the inflation,
and that is the case. The service was deteriorating when I
walked in the door, it had been bad. It was getting worse, and
the trajectory has to be stabilized before we start getting
back.
Senator Marshall. Thank you. I will go to the next
question. This one's from Dana, from El Dorado. ``A lot of
folks in rural Kansas do not get their mail in a timely manner.
First-Class Mail used to get anywhere in the United States in
two to three days. What changed?''
Mr. DeJoy. The standard is five days now.
Senator Marshall. The standard is five. Why? Why was the
standard changed?
Mr. DeJoy. Because mail volume had declined 50 percent.
Over 50 percent. We spent $3.5 billion flying mail around the
country to meet the three-day standard when I got here, and we
are running 50,000 trucks a day empty, right? I do not own
planes. We canceled those contracts that were flying, all the
stuff. We put everything on truck and that's on a ground
service, and that is our big initiative now.
Senator Marshall. Has that project been successful?
Mr. DeJoy. Yes. We have taken $1.5 billion out of our
transportation budget. We got service up to the 90's across the
board until we started making these physical distribution
changes which are painful.
Senator Marshall. OK. Next, we sent a poll out to over
400,000 Kansans this week. Everybody was not a push poll. Over
half of the Kansans in their mail said their mail delivery
services are unreliable. Over half of Kansans said the mail
delivery services are unreliable, and nearly 70 percent said
they have personally experienced delays in the past year. How
do you measure success? Certainly, you are not going to call
that success, I would assume?
Mr. DeJoy. Now, we have issues in Kansas. I am aware of the
service issues in Kansas, and we are working on a--the plant
there is old. It's a three-story building. There are other
operational issues that we have issues in Kansas, and I am
working a strategy specifically to enhance the service in
Kansas.
That is not a result of anything in the plan, right, it's a
result of operational issues that we have in Kansas. I
recognize it's there, and we are going to fix it.
Senator Marshall. How would you measure success?
Mr. DeJoy. In Kansas?
Senator Marshall. I assume there's some metric that says
the average number of days. Are you meeting the five-day
standard? I guess, how do you follow that?
Mr. DeJoy. I still think when you look at Kansas, 50
percent of market-dominant mail and packages get to where they
are supposed to be a day in advance of a standard. We have, in
your case, you said 77. We might be 77 percent on time, but the
next day we are within 90. We are in the 90's. Right now with
all the transitions of the traffic coming in and out that we
need to make, I think that is that is part of the consequence
of the damage that has been done to the organization over the
past two decades.
Senator Marshall. My next question, Postmaster General. The
city of Winchester, Kansas, has been without a post office
building since October, 2020. city officials have been provided
with a draft lease from the USPS, but have not received a
signed, finalized lease allowing them to begin to construct a
new building. Can I get your commitment today that a finalized
lease will be returned to the city of Winchester by the end of
this year?
Mr. DeJoy. By the end of this year? I know that's in
process. I will check out with the timing with----
Senator Marshall. What's a reasonable time then, if it's
not by the end of this year?
Mr. DeJoy. Sure. Let me get back to you. I will go check on
that one when I get back to the office. I am trying to
accelerate all our leasing practices. It is a laborious
endeavor.
Senator Marshall. It's Winchester, Kansas.
Mr. DeJoy. Yes.
Senator Marshall. I think you kind of alluded to this audit
by the Inspector General in the Kansas City region. What's
getting better there? Tell me just what's improving? How are
you measuring that? Can we expect improvement in six months, in
three years?
Mr. DeJoy. I think in the coming year, Kansas is in the
middle of the country. Most of the service is three-day service
in and out of the country. That's a tough service lane for us
now because we are trying to stretch the transportation dollar
and fill our trucks. It is cumbersome when we are looking at
some new routings and some new transportation modes that I
think over the next six months, we will start to see them take
shape.
When I got here, there was the tail of the mail. If it did
not get there on time, it disappeared for 10 days. We are
really focused on this window of within three days.
Senator Marshall. OK. I am going to close with this
question. Postmaster General, explain to me where the
resistance is. I think you are sincere. I think you want to fix
the Post Office. I do not know that I could fix the Post
Office, besides throwing money at it. Where's the resistance? I
just feel like when--I can see the strain in your voice that
you want fix this. You came in here, you want to--who's the
resistance to fixing this problem?
Mr. DeJoy. I think there's a romance with an organization
that, long ago, lost its ability to do the service that
everybody expected. That is what's at the issue here, right? It
was obvious in the past, we let it go. There was a significant
resistance to any--I have calls with Congressmen, Senators that
even understand my plan. They say just not in my district. Not
here, not there, right? I have my own people, 640,000 people,
that need to learn how to operate like FedEx and UPS. That's
the only way we survive.
Senator Marshall. That sounds like resistance to me?
Mr. DeJoy. It's not resistance.
Senator Marshall. So, FedEx can do it, but you guys cannot?
Mr. DeJoy. It would have been easier for me to build a new
postal service than to transition this one. Because we are also
delivering 400 million pieces of mail and packages a day.
Right? 400 million. You know, pretty reliable, too, if you say
within three days. Pretty reliable if you tie all the other
regiments that we have, right?
We have a postal regulatory organization, a regulator, that
does not understand modern day logistics, and productivity, and
aggregation, right? We have a laborious process. We have
significant unfunded mandates that are given upon us by this
Congress, right? I can go on, sir.
Senator Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Postmaster General DeJoy, thank
you for being here today. As you heard, Members of our
Committee have lots of questions, and we appreciate you being
here to answer those questions as we continue to exercise our
oversight role as a Committee.
The record for this hearing will remain open for 15 days
until 5 p.m. on December 19th, 2024, for the submission of
statements and questions for the record. This hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]