[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE:
THE FINANCIAL FUTURE UNDER
POSTMASTER GENERAL STEINER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 17, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-306 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Elijah Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
Vacancy
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Ryan Giachetti, Chief Counsel
Luke Moll, Research Assistant
Bill Womack, Senior Advisor
Mallory Cogar, Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Pete Sessions, Texas, Chairman
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Kweisi Mfume, Maryland, Ranking
Gary Palmer, Alabama Member
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Brian Jack, Georgia Columbia
Brandon Gill, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Emily Randall, Washington
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Pete Sessions, U.S. Representative, Chairman................ 1
Hon. Kweisi Mfume, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member........... 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable David Steiner, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal
Service
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Mr. David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S.
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Letter from Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers; submitted by Rep.
Mfume.
* Letter from American Postal Workers Union; submitted by Rep.
Mfume.
* Article, Reuters, ``US Postal Service to Ask Congress for
Urgent Reforms To Survive `Beyond Next Year' ''; submitted by
Rep. Sessions.
* Letter from Coalition to Protect America's Small Sellers;
submitted by Rep. Sessions.
* Caucus Letter re Census; submitted by Rep. Walkinshaw.
* Report, Commerce OIG, ``Evaluation of Methodology Census
Bureau Used to Select Test Sites for 2026 Census Test'';
submitted by Rep. Walkinshaw.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
* Questions for the Record: Hon. David Steiner; submitted by
Rep. Foxx.
* Questions for the Record: Hon. David Steiner; submitted by
Rep. Timmons.
* Questions for the Record: Hon. David Steiner; submitted by
Rep. Jack.
* Questions for the Record: Hon. David Steiner; submitted by
Rep. Mfume.
* Questions for the Record: Hon. David Steiner; submitted by
Rep. Frost.
* Questions for the Record: Hon. David Steiner; submitted by
Rep. Bell.
* Questions for the Record: Hon. David Steiner; submitted by
Rep. Walkinshaw.
These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE:
THE FINANCIAL FUTURE UNDER
POSTMASTER GENERAL STEINER
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2026
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
room HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Pete Sessions
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Sessions, Foxx, Palmer, Burchett,
Jack, Gill, Mfume, Norton, Frost, and Randall.
Also present: Representatives Walkinshaw, Tlaib, and
Budzinski.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETE SESSIONS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. Sessions. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on
Government Operations will come to order, and I would like to
welcome everyone to this important hearing today.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
And I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Welcome to today's hearing regarding the Postal Service's
financial future.
The Postal Service is charged with delivering mail to every
address in the Nation six days a week. This mandate is one that
brings with it huge costs that no private company is required
to deal with; it is on the Post Office.
For each year, the Postal Service loses billions of
dollars, and now 12 months--and now we know that in 12 months
they will run out of cash.
And so, we have been engaging, both Mr. Mfume and I and
this Subcommittee, with the Postmaster General for quite some
time about the meaning of that and how we might address those
issues.
The Postmaster--the last Postmaster, Louis DeJoy, launched
his ``Delivering for America'' (DFA) plan, which was designed
to revive the Postal Service, and unfortunately those
expectations were not reached.
Mr. Steiner now has taken that new role as our new
Postmaster General--congratulations, and thank you for being
here, Mr. Steiner--a role that is very focused on taking full
advantage of the last-mile capacity to grow revenue.
Raising revenue, cutting costs, and utilizing the
capacities and capabilities of private industry, we believe,
will be the path forward. Understanding which aspects of the
``Delivering for America'' plan remain and which have been
stopped is a key path to that as we move forward.
Without proper transparency and overwrite, Congress will be
unable to see whether further action is necessary, and that is
why we are also here today.
And with the Postal Service's request for an increase in
borrowing authority from the Treasury, Congress needs to have
confidence not only that they will be able to pay it back but
that they are on the right road to achieve financial security.
For Congress to consider this request, the Postal Service
must also prove that they have exhausted their options already.
And this is a part of the regular interaction that takes place
between this Subcommittee, as well as our staff, and the
Postmaster General and his staff, as they work through the
needs of understanding, the ideas, and where they meet with
revenue objectives.
Like so many actions that are available to the Postal
Service, they need to look at them and understand what those
ramifications mean. And while we have been in dialog over
those, some of those have taken place, and we look forward to
today to hearing about those outcomes and answers.
So, I am delighted to be here today. I think Mr. Mfume and
I both wake up, as Mr. Steiner does, at 3 o'clock some mornings
with this on our mind. But I would also say that many of our
other Members do that also; as well, the huge industry that
surrounds this. It is a very important, competitive
marketplace. It is a very important part of the American
economy and the vibrancy of this country.
But we also come at this, as Members of Congress, from our
opportunity to serve people back home who want and need the
Postal Service to be viable but to be cost-effective also.
And so, all of these things come to a point today, another
day where we are able to have the Postmaster General. And I am
delighted that he is here.
I would like to yield now the time to the gentleman--the
distinguished gentleman, my good friend, and a gentleman who, I
think, he and I both share many of the same ideas not only
about America's bright future but about our responsibility and
oversight.
The distinguished gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER KWEISI MFUME
REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND
Mr. Mfume. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for those kind and gracious remarks. I am glad that
we are here together one more time and here to discuss what we
consider and many out there who are watching us consider to be
a vital issue.
I want to welcome also the Postmaster General, Mr.
Steiner--good to see you again--and Mr. Marroni. I hope that we
can have a productive conversation today on how to put the
Postal Service back on the right track for delivering for the
American people.
As we all know, for more than 250 years our Postal Service
has performed an indispensable service to this country and its
citizens. Through its Universal Service Obligation, the Postal
Service knits together communities, it powers businesses, and
bridges geographic and economic and cultural divides. Americans
in every part of this country rely upon and really deserve
prompt, reliable, and efficient mail services.
I have unfortunately been alarmed over the last 15 months
to see, in many respects, efforts to politicize the process as
we know it. President Trump unfortunately has threatened to do
everything from merging the Postal Service with the Department
of Commerce to firing an entire Board of Governors. And former
Postmaster General DeJoy left his position prematurely last
year under pressure from the White House after he refused to
grant DOGE officials access to Postal Service systems.
So, moving forward, I would urge you, Mr. Postmaster
General, to continue defending against any threat that is
brought up that would in somehow or another undercut the
independence of the Postal Service.
And many of my colleagues have also watched with a great
concern in recent years as the financial condition has
deteriorated and service standards, in the eyes of some people,
have fallen.
The last thing that we want is a privatized system. And I
would hope that every time we meet those efforts by those who
argue that privatization is the way to go that we are steadfast
and firm in resisting that.
Putting the Postal Service back on a financial and secure
footing is key. And since July 2021, First-Class Mail costs
have increased 41 percent, while delivery standards were
lengthened from two to five days to, now, three--well, two to
three days to, now, three to five days. So, that means that
Americans have to pay higher prices for a service that is not
as good as it was.
Last year, Postmaster General Steiner, you met with Members
of this Subcommittee to share your plans for stabilizing the
Postal Service's finances. We thank you for that. Since then,
however, the Postal Service has continued, unfortunately, to
lose money at an alarming rate while performance has continued
to suffer.
In Fiscal Year 2025, the Postal Service suffered a net loss
of $9 billion--that has been well-reported; we are all familiar
with that figure--with a further $1.3-billion loss in the first
quarter of this year alone.
The Postal Service is approaching a liquidity crisis.
Indeed, without significant reforms, it will not have enough
cash on hand to meet its required payments as early as 2027.
And so, for the good of all Americans who rely on the
Postal Service for critical mail--medicine, ballots, et
cetera--we cannot allow that to happen, and the Postal Service
obviously needs to cut costs and increase revenue. I appreciate
the Postmaster General's effort to do so over the last year or
so, but this is not an easy matter at all. It is a hell of a
juggling act, to say the very, very least.
So, I want to make sure that we, in this Committee, and
those who are watching this who are concerned about the Postal
Service find a way to realize a couple of things:
In addition to cutting cost and increasing revenue, there
are, indeed, morale issues that have to be confronted also.
Because some people grew up in the mail service believing it to
be one way and look at it today and whether or not--figure out
whether or not they have a role in it.
Most concerningly, the President has continued baseless
attacks, I think, on the legitimacy of the democratic process,
threatening to deprive--and I am going somewhere with this--
millions of Americans by doing away with or eliminating mail-in
ballots and punishing states that refuse to comply.
And that is why Chairman Sessions, myself, other Members of
this Committee on both sides of the aisle introduced the
bipartisan Vote by Mail Tracking Act, which would also
standardize UPS tracking barcodes to every ballot that is
mailed in, giving voters real-time visibility into whether or
not their ballot has been received and/or processed.
And because we all agree, I believe, that the vote and the
ability to vote is a sacred American right, any effort to
abridge that right goes against virtually everything that we
stand for as a Nation.
So, moving forward, I have every confidence, Mr. Postmaster
General, that you and the workforce that you have assembled and
the one that you have inherited will all work in this election
year to ensure that every ballot is delivered and every vote is
counted.
And I want to take the time to recognize the incredible
work of the postal workforce that the Chairman alluded to
earlier. They continue to do for the American people a great
service, and they do it in a way that they do not complain.
We all remember what happened in the last election season,
when they were faced with the insurmountable task, as some
thought at the time, to be able to sort the mail and deliver
the mail and guarantee the mail, and yet they did that--and,
only weeks after that, ran into an avalanche of different
challenges posed by the overwhelming load of holiday mail, and
they did that back-to-back.
Regrettably, however, letter carriers across this country
are increasingly the subjects of violence by criminals. We have
spoken about this before. We all share this concern. Criminals
target locked mailboxes that are only accessible to the United
States Public [sic] Service. I have seen postal workers beaten
and stabbed and left to fend for their own while help comes up.
We have seen the videos all over YouTube on that.
So, no Postal Service worker should fear for their safety
at work, and that is why I have pushed for the implementation
of the Postal Service's joint Project Safe Delivery initiative.
I know it sounds like a lot, but it does a lot, and it is
designed to do that, as we try to provide a way to make sure
that there is safety that goes with this job and all of the
attendant positions and industries that are part of it.
Now, one final thing, and then I am going to yield back to
the Chairman, who is very, very generous with his time.
We are in a situation where we cannot lose the Postal
Service as we know it. We all agree on that, I think. The
question becomes, how do we find a way to fight back against
those efforts and those persons that do not necessarily believe
it?
And it is an all-hands-on-deck kind of an issue, where,
whether you are in the field, whether you are in the building,
whether you are at headquarters, or whether you are doing
something else related to the mail, this means all of us sort
of--and, by the way, whether it means you are sitting on one of
these committees of oversight--it means that all of us have to
find a way to put aside any differences and to recognize that,
if we do not all go forward, we will all go backwards.
So, it has been a pleasure working with this Chairman, who
shares many of my ideas and I share many of his on this. We
have tried to approach this as a bipartisan effort and have
left out, to the extent we can, anything that sometimes creeps
in as partisan. Because, at the end of the day, it is the
service and the people who deserve the service, more than
anything else, that we are all assembled here for.
So, I thank you again for your generosity of time, Mr.
Chairman, and for working together on this issue, as we have
for years now--I never thought I would say we have been doing
it for years, but we have been--and I yield back my time.
Mr. Sessions. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Mfume, for his
conversation.
I believe that I will take it succinctly down to the point
that he and I overwhelmingly agree with, and that is: we have
to keep the issues directly in front of us. We have to work on
them, we have to understand them, we have to deal with them.
And I could not have a better partner to do that with than
you, sir.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. Although, I will say, over time, you look
better and I look older.
So, without objection, we are going to welcome our young
Chairman, James Comer, who is here, the Chairman of the full
Committee.
We also welcome Congressman Timmons from South Carolina,
Congresswoman Boebert from Colorado, Congressman Walkinshaw of
Virginia, Congresswoman Tlaib of Michigan, Congresswoman
Budzinski of Illinois, and Congressman Bell of Missouri, all--I
am sorry, I am supposed to say ``Missour-ee.'' I used to live
in ``Missour-ah,'' but they like to call it ``Missour-ee.''
They are all waived on the Subcommittee for the purpose of
questioning the witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.
So, thank you very much.
We now would move to the reason why we are here, and I am
pleased to welcome our witnesses for today.
Mr. Steiner is the Postmaster General and Chief Executive
Officer of the United States Postal Service, having held this
position since July 2025. Prior to this, he was the CEO of
Waste Management and on the Board of Directors of FedEx.
Our second witness today is Mr. Marroni. He is Director of
Physical Infrastructure at the Government Accounting [sic]
Office, the GAO, and is expert in many areas, and he will soon
prove his worthiness today. He is an expert in the Postal
Service and Federal real property management.
So, I look forward to both of you not only being here for
your testimony but answering the questions.
I would ask that both of you now stand for you to be sworn
in before this Subcommittee.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
raise their hand, which they have done. And their right hand is
raised, and I will ask the question.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Sessions. Let the record reflect that both witnesses
have answered in the affirmative.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
I would now like for you to know that we normally follow
this 5-minute rule, but what I am interested today--and I have
informed the gentlewoman, the Chairman [sic] of the Rules
Committee; she will take the time that she needs. You have
drawn a lot of people who will come today. Not everybody is
here right now, but you have drawn this. And I am interested
that us, Members and you, are given an opportunity to fully vet
your answer and to be given that time, and if you exceed that,
I will let you know.
So, I now would recognize the gentleman, the Postmaster
General of the United States Postal Service, the gentleman, Mr.
Steiner, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID STEINER
POSTMASTER GENERAL, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Steiner. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chairman
Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, Chairman Comer, and Members. I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss how the Postal Service is
at a critical juncture.
At our current rate, we will be out of cash in less than 12
months. So, in about a year from now the Postal Service would
be unable to deliver the mail if we continue the status quo.
So, how did we get here, and how do we solve the problem?
We got here because of the drastic reduction in the use of
the mail. From historic peak volume of 213 billion pieces per
year to today, at 109 billion pieces per year, we have lost
over 104 billion pieces per year in our system.
For perspective, if all of that lost volume was paid at the
current price of a stamp, which is 78 cents, that is about $81
billion of lost revenue. No company could weather that much
revenue loss.
So, it is not hard to see how we got here. I like to say
that we got thrown overboard and into the water, but instead of
tossing us a life jacket, we were thrown an anchor.
So, what does that anchor look like, and why is it weighing
us down?
First, we pay an unfair share of Civil Service Retirement
System (CSRS) benefits, which cost us about $3 billion a year.
Second, we cannot borrow more than $15 billion. The $15-
billion limit was established decades ago. If you applied
inflation or based it on revenue, that limit should be $30
billion to $40 billion.
Third, we can only invest our retirement in Treasury notes.
If we were able to invest conservatively, we would have an
additional $800 billion in retirement benefits.
Fourth, we are mandated by law to deliver to every address,
more than 170 million of them, six days a week. This leads to
71 percent of our delivery routes being financially underwater.
If we are expected to deliver six days a week to every
location, someone needs to pay for that.
Fifth, we are not allowed to manage our own workers'
compensation claims. That costs us anywhere from $400 million
to $800 million per year.
Next, we are regulated like a monopoly but we no longer
exist as one. In fact, we are regulated worse than a monopoly,
because even a monopoly is allowed to make money. Our regulator
causes us to lose billions annually.
Just recently, they passed an order that, by their own
estimate, could lose us nearly a billion dollars a year.
Clearly, they are not following their mandate to make the
Postal Service financially viable.
And there are other parts to the anchor. Transporting cargo
to remote parts of the United States costs us about $150
million. Keeping post offices open and not being allowed to
consider losses as a reason to replace them with alternative
means is another $840 million. And the list goes on.
All those costly inequities amass to an incredibly
burdensome anchor that plagues our trajectory, and we should
have a discussion about all of them. But in order to survive
beyond the next year, we need to increase our borrowing
capacity so that we do not run out of cash.
Despite all of this, we are proud of our universal service
mission, and we do everything possible to work through the
restrictions to deliver mail and packages that are so depended
upon by Americans.
And we are also not standing by as we sink under the weight
of the anchor. We are taking steps to fight our way back above
water.
On pricing, we need higher prices on both our package and
mail products. At 78 cents, the U.S. first-class stamp is the
lowest in the industrialized world. Compare it to France, at
almost $3, and England, at $2.50.
And the longest distance those letters have to travel is
about 600 miles--smaller than the State of Texas. We deliver
from the tip of Puerto Rico to the tip of Alaska for 78 cents.
That is a distance of 5,000 miles. So, we sell the stamp at
less than half the cost to travel eight times farther.
If we were to change the stamp price to 90 to 95 cents,
which is still less than half of the cost of foreign posts,
that would largely solve our controllable loss, and the stamp
would still be the lowest in the industrialized world by a lot.
And on the cost side, the Postal Service has undertaken a
transformation of our network and operating practices to reduce
costs. We know that our execution should have been much better
and that we have not achieved all the savings that we initially
projected, but we can do more. We will continue to reduce costs
wherever we can, and I have asked our team to develop a plan to
further reduce costs.
So, I am here to tell America that we can do anything you
want. We have been doing exactly that for over 250 years. If
you want the same number of delivery days and post offices, we
can do that--but someone has to pay for it. If you want to have
a discussion about reducing services, we can do that too. But
there is one thing we cannot do, and that is the status quo.
And we do not have a lot of time. One easy action,
increasing our borrowing authority, buys us time--time that we
can use to best determine what the Postal Service should do to
best serve the American public.
We stand ready to continue serving all Americans. We just
ask that you take away the anchors and let us operate like a
truly independent agency, free from requirements that weigh us
down, or that you compensate us for the cost of those anchors.
If we can do either of those, I can promise unparalleled
service for the next 250 years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much, General.
Mr. Marroni, welcome. We are delighted that you are here.
You are recognized for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID MARRONI
DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Marroni. Thank you, Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member
Mfume, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here
today to discuss the future of the United States Postal
Service.
GAO has been making the case for more than 15 years that
USPS' finances are a high-risk issue in need of substantial
transformation. Rising costs and declining mail volumes have
made USPS' existing business model unsustainable. As a result,
it has accumulated billions of dollars in net losses, as its
debt and unfunded liabilities have continued to grow.
We are now at a critical moment, with the Postmaster
General stating that USPS could run out of cash as early as
next year. Urgent action is needed to get ahead of any near-
term cash crisis while also putting USPS on a sustainable,
long-term path. Without action, there could be substantial
consequences for American households and businesses that rely
on USPS' services.
In short, it is time for Congress to fix USPS' outdated
business model. This will require making difficult choices with
significant trade-offs. There are no easy solutions. However,
it is better to make those choices now rather than wait until
crisis hits.
To be clear, USPS and Congress have taken significant
actions in the past five years. USPS has implemented a wide-
ranging ten year plan with the aim of fixing its finances, and
Congress has passed major postal legislation to provide
financial relief.
However, those actions have not been enough. While USPS has
been able to increase its revenue and cut some costs, its
overall expenses have grown at a faster rate while its service
performance has declined.
This pattern is not sustainable. There is a fundamental
tension between the level of services that Congress expects
USPS to provide and the revenue that USPS can reasonably be
expected to generate. Something has to change.
For its part, USPS needs to take additional actions within
its own authority to try and improve its financial situation.
This includes considering changes to its current ten year plan
and identifying ways to increase its revenues while tackling
cost growth.
As it does so, USPS should develop long-term financial
projections that will help communicate its outlook and progress
to Congress and identify actions to help put it on a
financially viable path.
That said, it is highly unlikely that USPS will be able to
fix its poor financial condition on its own. Congress will need
to act.
Indeed, Congress may need to provide some short-term
financial relief to help USPS avoid running out of cash. At the
same time, it is essential that Congress also address the long-
term issues with USPS' business model.
If those underlying issues are not addressed now, USPS will
likely continue to struggle financially and its service
performance may decline further. Indeed, within five years,
USPS will be responsible for an additional $6 billion a year in
retiree healthcare costs on top of other expenses that are
likely to continue to grow.
To fix USPS' business model for the long term, Congress
will need to decide on the level of Postal Service the Nation
requires and determine a balanced approach to funding those
services.
In conclusion, USPS has been struggling financially for
years and is now approaching a crisis point. It is imperative
that USPS and Congress act with urgency to both address the
near-term cash crisis as well as fix USPS' business model for
the long term.
There are difficult choices ahead, but those choices need
to be made now to put USPS on a sustainable financial path. A
financially viable USPS will best be able to provide high-
quality service to the American people.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I will
be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.
Obviously, your insight from both of you will be available
to this Subcommittee, and I appreciate that.
I would move first, does the distinguished gentleman, the
Chairman of the Committee, wish time?
The gentleman, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. I am just going to ask questions whenever----
Mr. Sessions. Okay. Then it sounds like the gentleman is
going to be here for a little bit. I would move to the
distinguished gentlewoman--oh, you do want to go now?
Mr. Comer. Well, I thought you meant a statement.
Mr. Sessions. No.
Mr. Comer. I am sorry. I apologize.
Mr. Sessions. For time.
Mr. Comer. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Ranking
Member for always having quality meetings.
Mr. Postmaster General, welcome. I have three questions I
am going to try to get in, in my 5 minutes.
I want to start with a report of the Office of Inspector
General regarding waste in the Postal Service USPS Ship
program, a topic that is of significant concern to this
Committee.
The OIG found that the Postal Service has spent over $1.5
billion developing this Ship program, and it is something that
the private sector already has, the private sector already
offers.
The program wasted billions. The OIG recommended ending it.
Your Chief Financial Officer agreed to end it. But it has not
ended.
First, do you agree that the USPS should not spend billions
recreating programs that the private sector already offers at a
fraction of the cost?
Mr. Steiner. Yes, I mean, that is a great question. You
know, from our perspective, we want to give the customer the
best experience, and, generally, I would say, giving the
customer the best experience is dealing directly with our
customers. But we have looked at situations where we would have
others between us and our customers to do that type of
technology work.
We are actually looking at it right now----
Mr. Comer. But--and I apologize for interrupting, but I
have limited time.
So, will you or will you not commit to ending this program
immediately? I mean, that is part of what we are all concerned
about, at least on this side of the aisle, is the losses. We
want to protect----
Mr. Steiner. Of course.
Mr. Comer [continuing]. The Postal Service, but we have got
to make some business decisions.
Mr. Steiner. No doubt about it. And I will tell you, Mr.
Chairman, that we have not made a final decision on that. But I
appreciate the question, and we will make sure to get you a
final decision on that posthaste.
Mr. Comer. Well, let us talk about the Postal Service
Reform Act. I worked very closely when I was Ranking Member
with then-Chairman [sic] Maloney, and that was a true
bipartisan bill, because there is bipartisan support for the
Postal Service.
One of the things that we expected when we gave the Postal
Service some money to stabilize the books--everything that you
are talking about today we did five years ago. What cost-
cutting measures has the USPS implemented since the Postal
Service Reform Act passed and became law?
Mr. Steiner. Sure. As you are well aware, you know, we
transformed the network. We basically went to a typical hub-
and-spoke network, something that has been around for hundreds
of years, been used by every logistics company since 1955.
Going to that network--so we reduced transportation costs,
we reduced number of times that we move boxes--that has----
Mr. Comer. Did that reduce costs?
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. That has reduced costs by about
$2.1 billion, $2.2 billion.
Mr. Comer. Well, according to----
Mr. Steiner. Now, remember, our original projection was
$3.6, so we are not there yet.
Mr. Comer. Based on the numbers, it looks to me like nearly
80 percent of the U.S. Postal Service's costs are labor, which
is the case with just about every government agency. The
biggest expense in your entire budget is personnel.
And most Federal agencies today have hiring freezes. Why
would that not be something you would be looking at to reduce
costs instead of asking Congress for a bailout?
Mr. Steiner. Oh, we are absolutely looking at that.
Now, remember, there are two pieces to our network. There
are folks that actually deliver the mail. And, you know, you do
not want to do a hiring freeze there, because if we do that,
then we will not deliver mail.
From a management perspective, you know, we have not
increased the number of our employees dramatically, but, as you
know, we have brought in the----
Mr. Comer. But they have increased, and every other
government agency is decreasing the----
Mr. Steiner. Well, actually----
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Number of employees----
Mr. Steiner. Actually----
Mr. Comer [continuing]. Just like at most private-sector
roles.
Mr. Steiner. Yes, actually, in the last four years, we have
about 30,000, 35,000 fewer employees. And we are moving toward
more of those employees being pre-career rather than career.
There are two ways we can really save money here. That is
changing our mix of career and non-career more toward non-
career.
Mr. Comer. You are talking about part-time and full-time,
right?
Mr. Steiner. Correct. Basically.
And the other is overtime, both regular overtime, penalty
overtime. You know, those are $100 million to $150 million for
every percentage point you move them. So that is where we are
focused at.
Mr. Comer. What about----
Mr. Steiner. But you are absolutely right, we have to look
at everything. We cannot look at just one piece.
Mr. Comer. And, look, we support the postal workers. My
grandmother delivered the mail. She spent 27 years as a mail
carrier in Red Boiling Springs, Tennessee. I support the Post
Office. It is very popular in my district. But people are
frustrated with the Post Office. We all have horror stories
from the Postal Service.
But what is frustrating to me and, I think, many Members on
this Committee is that it seems like we are trying to do more
in the Postal Service in-house instead of privatizing. Even
before the Postal Reform Act passed a few years ago, you
privatized a lot of the logistics and things like that that it
appears now the Postal Service is trying to do itself.
And it is hard for me to believe, as much trouble as the
Postal Service has at delivering the mail on time efficiently,
that anyone would believe the Postal Service, run by the
government, can operate cheaper than private companies that
have been contracted with the Postal Service for years.
And we are--or, I will speak for myself--I am frustrated
that a lot of private companies that have been doing business
with the Postal Service for years have been cut out in the last
year or two.
Mr. Steiner. Yes, I mean, I am not sure which part of the
network you are referring to. We did--the only thing that we
have really in-sourced in the last year is our local
transportation network, and we have started to in-source that.
I will tell you, anytime I can do something better,
cheaper, we are going to do it. And that is one area----
Mr. Comer. It is hard for me to believe you are doing it
cheaper from the Postal Service. You have done that, and you
are asking for more money. It is just hard to believe. Maybe it
is true, but it is hard for me to believe, being in Congress 9-
1/2 years.
Mr. Steiner. Well, if you believe our accountants, it is
true. There is about----
Mr. Comer. I do not know. If they work for the government,
I will have to think about that, but.
Mr. Steiner. There is about $44 million that we have saved
by in-sourcing that.
But, even more importantly, it helps service. So, when we
use third parties, we have to call them, it takes them time to
get there. You know, sometimes they will show, sometimes they
will not. When we have our own folks onsite with the trucks,
they can move immediately. So, what we get is better service at
a cheaper cost.
Now, that is not to say that there is not plenty that we do
not do well. But that is one thing we are doing pretty well.
Mr. Comer. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
The gentleman, Mr. Mfume, is recognized.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, again.
Mr. Postmaster General, I took some notes on what you were
saying, and I have a couple of observations, and maybe you can
kind of point me in the direction where you think you should be
going.
Aside from that, there is an old saying that says, ``The
hurrier I go, the behinder I get.'' And we have been rushing,
through this Committee, for the last several years,
emphatically trying to find a way to avoid the crisis that is
in front of us now. And we look up, and behinder we are.
So, your points, if I have them correctly, was that you do
not have the ability to manage your worker compensation plans.
Is that correct?
Mr. Steiner. That is one of them, yes.
Mr. Mfume. That you have lost $81 billion in real-time over
an accumulated number of years as a result of a reduction in
the volume of mail in the United States. Is that correct?
Mr. Steiner. Well, we lost 104 billion pieces. I was just
using the 78-cent stamp for illustrative purposes.
Mr. Mfume. Okay. And----
Mr. Steiner. But, yes, that would be----
Mr. Mfume [continuing]. The other point you were making is
that, unlike other places, you are required to transport to
remote places across the United States. Is that correct?
Mr. Steiner. That is correct.
Mr. Mfume. And you said that the 78-cent stamp is the
lowest out of all industrialized countries and that it travels
with fewer miles for it to be taken advantage of or deliver, I
should say, the mail. Is that correct?
Mr. Steiner. That is correct.
Mr. Mfume. This is a situation that Mr. Marroni mentioned
earlier, about the GAO strongly recommending, aside from
congressional assistance in terms of money, that the Postal
Service do everything that it can within its power to drive
back the costs and to get out of the situation we are in.
Mr. Marroni, is that correct?
Mr. Marroni. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mfume. And what would some of those things be?
Mr. Marroni. So, there are ways to get compensation under
control. That is the major area of cost growth. There would be
continue to find ways to get costs out of transportation, out
of the network process.
There are steps that USPS has been taking to get those
costs under control, but you have the fundamental issue of
volume is declining while the amount of places the USPS has to
deliver are increasing. So, there is a fundamental disconnect
there that is driving up costs.
Mr. Mfume. And I am sure Benjamin--well, we will not call
his name here today, because I am sure he is probably spinning
in his grave looking at this. But the first Postmaster General
could not anticipate FedEx, Amazon, UPS, but you are faced with
those as a competing force.
Can you take a quick minute and tell us whether or not you
have any ability to control those costs--or losses, I should
say?
Mr. Steiner. In what regard?
Mr. Mfume. Well, what are you doing with your competition,
who clearly wants to do all that it can to take away your
business?
Mr. Steiner. Yes. A great question.
Look, the reality is, until the recent changes to the
network, we did not have a network that could even compete with
FedEx and UPS and Amazon. It just could not compete. And so,
what we have designed now is a network that can compete, but it
competes at the lower level.
So, just to give you an example, our average weight of our
package is about 1 to 1.2 pounds. FedEx, UPS, they are closer
five pounds. And as you move up in weight, you move up in
value, and so you move up in profitability.
So, our network was designed for lower-weight packages. We
need to move that up. We need to go after those higher-value
packages. But we also need to continue to get those lower-value
packages.
And, then, in that lower-value package market, what you
have seen is a dramatic change in how that market is being
served. What do I mean by that? The gig economy. So, you have
got very-low-cost providers, coming from foreign countries,
being subsidized by foreign governments----
Mr. Mfume. Okay.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. Coming in and selling
transportation at below cost so that they can----
Mr. Mfume. I got it. I am going to have to reclaim my time.
It is very limited. And maybe you will get a chance to respond
to another Member's question on that subject. But let me just
go back to the point I initially made that Mr. Marroni said.
Short of everything that is being proposed as stopgap
measures, that UPS should be doing everything it can under its
authority to reduce costs. Can you tell us what that is? I want
to follow up on the Chairman's question on that. And,
specifically, tell us how those costs have been reduced.
Mr. Postmaster?
Mr. Steiner. Oh, I am sorry. I thought you were talking to
the other David.
So, you know, obviously, we put together a network that
reduces number of trips, reduces transportation costs, reduces
fuel costs. I mean, as I said, it is a hub-and-spoke network.
It has been proven to work since it was invented in 1955 by
Delta Airlines. Every major logistics company uses it.
But there is a difference between building a network and
operating a network. And we have built the network. We are
close to done building the network. We have yet to fully really
learn how to operate the network. And that is where the savings
start to come, is when you learn how to operate the network.
What you have seen is that the pace of savings has
increased and the pace of service has----
Mr. Mfume. Okay.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. Gotten better.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, sir. My time has expired, though.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
The distinguished gentlewoman, Chairwoman of the Rules
Committee, Ms. Foxx, is recognized.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank our witnesses for being here.
And I want to say that I particularly join Mr. Mfume and
you, Mr. Chairman, in thanking the local postal workers for
their work.
I am a lifelong letter-writer and always use the Post
Office, but I am very concerned with the caliber of service
that we are getting and with the fact that the Post Office
continues to come to us for more money.
I mailed my husband a valentine a week before Valentine's
Day; he still has not received it. People in my office know
people who have sent out wedding invitations, mailed in plenty
of time; people have not received them a month later.
This is unacceptable, Mr. Postmaster General--absolutely
unacceptable. If you want people to stop not using the Post
Office, you want them to continue to use the Post Office, then
they have to get the kind of service that they deserve and have
had in the past.
Now, we were told the ``Delivering for America'' plan was a
longtime strategy to steady Postal Service finances, improve
operations, and protect the future of the mail system, but the
USPS losses continue, productivity has declined, Americans get
repeated rate increases, slower services.
I was a big part of the Postal Service Reform Act, also, in
2022.
So, given what is going on, the very negative things that
are happening, what evidence suggests the current plan is
working--I heard what you just said--and why should Congress
expect different results if the DFA plan continues?
Mr. Steiner. Yes, I could not agree with you more on the
service issue. We absolutely have to do a better job with what
we call the ``tail of the mail''--the wedding invitation that
shows up late, the Valentine's Day card that does not get there
on time.
You know, this is an unbelievably complicated network. Just
to give you perspective, FedEx and UPS both deliver well under
ten billion packages a year--well under ten billion. We deliver
110 billion pieces per year. And so, this network is so much
more sophisticated than those networks because of mail, and so
there are hundreds of pinch points where there can be problems.
It goes back to what I said earlier. You can build a
network, but you have got to learn how to operate the network.
And I will tell you, we are not great at operating the network.
We have put Doug Tulino in charge of that, making sure that
all three of our pieces that do delivery are joined together
and working together, and you have started to see progress. You
have started to see some very good progress in service. I am--
--
Ms. Foxx. So----
Mr. Steiner. I am not going to sit here and tell you that
we are there yet.
Ms. Foxx. So, can we expect modifications to the plan and
better service?
Mr. Marroni said that you have controllable costs, but you
did not give us any specifics. We know that if you could reduce
controllable costs by roughly two percent per year, you would
put the Postal Service on a path to break even.
Given that possibility, what specific steps is USPS taking
to reduce controllable costs?
Mr. Steiner. Well, we have got to look at controllable
costs everywhere.
So, we have talked about it in the network.
You have got fuel costs. Of course, you are going to see
those disappear as we have seen the price of fuel go up.
You have got labor costs. You have seen our work-hours come
down by over 50 million work-hours. Now we need to make sure
that those work-hours are straight-time hours, not overtime
hours.
And we need to make sure that our complement moves more
toward pre-career than career. We still have a lot of room to
grow there. So, there is a lot of dollars to be saved right
there.
Ms. Foxx. I want to----
Mr. Steiner. The rest of the money is going to come by us
learning how to operate the network better.
But let me make it very, very, very, very clear: we are not
going to save our way out of the hole that we are in. There
is--you know, I know that the prior plan said break even in
2023. Not gonna happen. Did not happen, and I do not expect to
see it happen anytime soon on the current path that we are on.
Ms. Foxx. I want----
Mr. Steiner. Why is that? Because----
Ms. Foxx. I would like----
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. Inflation keeps eating up our
savings.
Ms. Foxx. I would like to follow up on a question from
Chairman Comer also about duplicative in-sourcing done.
I think many of us share the concern that there is a way to
contract out a lot of services but you keep bringing those
things back inside, and it is costing more because of the
overtime and the number of people that you have there working.
So, please say a little bit more about what you can do not
to have this in-sourcing going on.
Mr. Steiner. Yes. As far as I know, there is only one thing
we in-sourced, and, again, that is local transportation. And
those costs, I said, down $44 million. That is 17 percent.
There is a 17-percent savings in that cost of local
transportation. Not only is there 17-percent savings, but we
get better service. I think that is a win-win.
I am not going to tell you that is going to solve the
problem. Forty-four million dollars does not get you there. But
that is one instance where I would tell you we made the right
business decision.
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I
yield back.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
gentlewoman taking time. I know that these are important issues
to her, and she catches me on a regular basis, and I appreciate
her taking time here.
The gentlewoman, Ms. Norton, is recognized.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by thanking Postal Service employees for
their dedication and hard work.
Postal General, disgruntled residents have brought to my
attention that their local post offices are often closed during
normal business hours. That is unacceptable. I request that you
examine this matter and report back to me within 30 days on how
you will fix it.
At a time when more and more Americans are struggling to
cover the costs of basic goods and services, increased Postal
Service prices are especially hard to accept.
Millions of people across the country rely on the Postal
Service to pay their bills, file their taxes, run their
businesses, and fully participate in our society.
Since July 2021, First-Class Mail rates have increased by
nearly 42 percent. At the same time, the delivery standards
have been lengthened from two to three days to three to five
days.
Postal General, can you comment--can you commit that the
costs of the Postal Service's financial situation will not be
disproportionately borne by customers via increased prices and
lower delivery standards?
Mr. Steiner. Yes, you know, look, we are still by far the
lowest-priced stamp in the industrialized world. Every
industrialized country has dealt with this issue, and they have
had to triple, quadruple prices.
You talked about the 42-percent price increase. That is
because we were at such a low base relative to the rest of the
world. Six of the last 12 price increases have been under two
percent.
And so, you know, I am a firm believer that the market
should set the rate, and the market is not setting the rate
right now.
And the other thing I would say is, look, we are all users
of the Postal Service. If we raise the stamp by a price of 15
cents, someone that uses 100 stamps a year, that costs them a
dollar and a half. If you are a super-user and you used 1,000
stamps a year, it costs you $150. Is that worth saving the
Postal Service?
Ms. Norton. Mr. Marroni, what changes can be made to Postal
Service operations to put the Postal Service back to a secure
financial footing without continuing to see higher prices and
lower service levels?
Mr. Marroni. So, in terms of that model, I do not think it
is possible that USPS, on its own, without some sort of revenue
increases and cost growth, can get to a sustainable path.
I do think that congressional action is going to be needed,
based on our work, to address either: first, what is the level
of service that the American people need? Is it the same? Less?
More? And then figuring out, how is that going to be funded?
You could reduce services and USPS could take actions--cut
costs, increase revenues--to try and meet that level of
service, or you could reduce service levels, or something in
between.
But I do not think, based on where things are right now,
USPS, on its own, could--it can take actions to reduce costs,
it can take actions to increase revenue, but I do not think it
can get there on its own.
Ms. Norton. The Postal Service must not only be accessible
and reliable, its services must be also affordable. The
American people need an affordable Postal Service.
And I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
I would also like to take just a second and thank you for
your service. This is not a point that we will be at as we will
be later in the year, but I want to thank you--both Mr. Mfume--
appreciate your not only insistence to come to every one of our
Subcommittee hearings but to genuinely participate in that. And
I appreciate you very much, and I want to thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. The distinguished gentleman, Mr. Palmer from
Alabama, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks, Mr. Postmaster General, Mr. Marroni, for being
here.
There is a report published by the Envelope Manufacturers
Association. It is an economic study. And what they find is
that your revenues have remained relatively stable at roughly
$78 billion to $79 billion annually, but the controllable costs
have continued to rise, increasing by billions of dollars over
the past several years.
And I am just--they make a point that if you could produce
controllable costs by just two percent annually, you would
eliminate your operating losses and reach a break-even by 2030.
That basically, when this report was done, would have been
about five years.
How do you respond to that?
Mr. Steiner. I will tell you, I have been a part of two of
the largest logistics companies in the world for the last 20-
some-odd years, Waste Management and FedEx. Neither of them
have been able to do that.
You know, everyone thinks, ``Oh, it is easy. It is very
easy. Just get productivity.'' The problem is, you have got
expenses rising. You have got to give employees pay increases.
Fuel goes up----
Mr. Palmer. I am going to interrupt you right there,
because part of your increase in expenses has to do with the
mandate to purchase next-generation delivery vehicles, which is
a euphemism for electric vehicles. And the ones that you are--
the Post Office is buying from Oshkosh were, like, $20,000 more
than your conventional vehicles. The ones you purchased from
Ford were $10,000.
And then you have got--I know the Federal Government has
allocated $3 billion in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act
for this, but your overall cost is going to be close to $10
billion.
So how do you--when you are doing things like this that--I
cannot make an economic case for this.
Mr. Steiner. Well, look, you are going to hear me say this
repeatedly and over and over again. If I am in the private
sector, I have got options. If I have 71 percent of my routes
that are losing money, guess what I can do? Cut routes. If I
have 80 percent of my stores that are losing money, you know
what I can do? I can cut routes. I can raise prices. I can do
all the things that I can do in the public [sic] sector.
We do not have options. We have mandates.
Mr. Palmer. Well, here is where you could help us out to
help you. I would like for you to provide to the Committee--the
Subcommittee, and we will provide it to the full Committee--a
breakdown of where your revenues come from. Is it personal
mail? Business mail? You know, package delivery?
Mr. Steiner. Sure.
Mr. Palmer. Advertising? Junk mail? You know, business/
political----
Mr. Steiner. ``Marketing mail,'' please.
Mr. Palmer. Well----
Mr. Steiner. I used to make that same mistake. I do not
make it anymore. I call it ``revenue.''
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Well, but, also, where is your cost, tied
into this? You know, you have got a revenue stream from
different types of delivery, but you have also got a cost.
So, I think that would be helpful, and I think the GAO----
Mr. Steiner. Of course. Of course.
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Might be able to help----
Mr. Steiner. But let us----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Come up with that as well.
But, getting back to this, I know there is a lot of angst
or anger about delivery. I mean, my wife ordered a necklace,
and it went to--we live in Birmingham--it went to Birmingham,
then it went to someplace in Florida, and then it went to
Orlando, and then it came back to--what should have been three
days was ten days. And then she did not like the necklace,
which is another issue.
But what we are trying to do is get you where you can
operate but--and I am going to talk with the Chairman of the
full Committee about what legislation we might be able to
introduce that will help deal with some of these mandates. For
instance, the electric vehicle issues, but also the management
of the pension funds, these other things.
Rather than come in and give us these things, give us some
ideas on, legislatively, how we can fix this. Because I am not
interested in beating up the Post Office; I am interested in
fixing it. And if it cannot be fixed, then we need to, Mr.
Chairman, we need to look at other options.
Mr. Steiner. Yes. Would love to have that conversation.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
raise these questions. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. I appreciate the gentleman.
I know we are all pressed on votes and a lot of things
going on here, but, in fact, that when I consume my time, you
will hear where we think we have been doing this and have
committed ourselves to some other things. But the success of
that rain dance has not been achieved because the Postmaster
General has embarked on some things that he was hoping would
alleviate some of these things or give him a longer-term
answer, and they--that is still part of this discussion----
Mr. Palmer. May----
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. And part of why we are here
today.
Yes, sir?
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I
would like for the Postmaster General's office to provide that
breakdown of the revenues so that we can juxtapose those
against where the costs are.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir. And I would respond back to the
distinguished gentleman and tell him: We agree. Our working
group is to get there. And last month we sat down with the
Postmaster General and his financial team and did agree to do
exactly that. And this was going to be the first breakout
session since that time.
And I appreciate the gentleman, and we will be glad to
share those with you.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Let us see. We now go to the--Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Sessions. You are recognized.
Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Marroni and Postmaster General, for being
here.
And, also, Postmaster General, thank you for taking the
time to sit with us in that briefing a few months ago.
A couple topics I want to ask about. The first one is
something I am a bit concerned about.
So, President Trump has announced his plans to require
postal workers to question residents on their citizenship
status as part of a summer pilot test for the 2030 census.
An accurate census is the only way we can ensure fair and
equal representation. It helps determine how congressional
districts are drawn and makes sure that Federal funds reach
communities.
Postmaster General, how does the Postal Service plan to
address the gap in expertise if postal workers are expected to
perform the duties of census workers?
Mr. Steiner. Yes. It is--as you probably read, that is why
we are doing two pilots, very small pilots. I think the total
cost is around $200,000, probably a little less than that. In
one of the pilots, our folks will actually take the oath and
be--and do the census. In the other, they will do it as part of
their postal duties.
And it comes from the fact that everything that, in my
conversations with the Secretary of Commerce, everything that
he has talked about with respect to the census is, how do we do
it better, cheaper?
And he said, the best way to do it better, cheaper, is to
get people to go that they trust, that are there every day,
that, you know, they probably know, so they are going to open
the door, so they do not have to go back five and six times.
And so, it is strictly a pilot to see if we can do it
faster, better, cheaper. And if so, that will be a service to
the American public.
Again, it is a big, big, big undertaking, and so that is
why we are doing the two pilots, to see if we can make it work.
Mr. Frost. And how will you ensure service delivery is not
impacted if Postal Service--if postal workers have to balance
their mail delivery duties with the administration of the
census?
Mr. Steiner. Yes, I mean, look, that is why we are doing
the pilots. You know, actually, it would be good for the
carriers, because they can make a little bit of overtime. A lot
of our carriers like to earn the overtime. But that is why we
are doing it, so that we can figure out how do we best make it
work for our employees and for the census.
Again, a long way before we actually get it done. That is
why we are doing the pilots. Hopefully we will be able to do it
faster, better, cheaper.
Mr. Frost. Thank you.
Also, the Postal Service is implementing a new
transportation plan--this is the RTO, Regional Transportation
Optimization initiative--which may impact 72 percent of postal
offices.
The Postal Service Office of the Inspector General has
projected that this plan may slow mail delivery. People rely on
USPS to get mail quickly--medications, their ballots, bills, et
cetera.
Are you confident that you can ensure that the RTO
initiative will not slow mail delivery?
Mr. Steiner. Absolutely certain, because, actually, RTO
does not affect delivery. It only affects collection. So, on
delivery, there has been absolutely no change. The only changes
that RTO brings is on collection.
Mr. Frost. Okay. And then--okay. Gotcha.
And then the last thing I want to talk about is the fact
that the USPS is not a business opportunity. It provides
essential services, like helping rural Americans get their
prescriptions. Private carriers charge extra to deliver to
rural areas, even if they deliver there at all.
You were kind of talking about this, the options that
private corporations may have that we do not have. And it is a
good thing we do not have those options, because, no matter
what, our postal workers are going to deliver the mail no
matter where you live. And that is part of what separates this
service that we all believe in from a business.
Rural areas are already losing their hospitals and
pharmacies, and it is more important than ever that rural
Americans can get their medication from the USPS.
Mr. Marroni, if the Postal Service was privatized, how
would this impact people in my district or across the country?
How could that impact their day-to-day experience with the
USPS?
Mr. Marroni. So, there are definitely tradeoffs with
privatization. It is possible they might be able to reduce
costs and increase revenues faster, but then it also means they
might not serve certain routes that are unprofitable, they
might close postal locations that are not profitable either, to
get to profitability.
Mr. Frost. What are the kind of--what type of Americans,
what type of people could expect maybe a loss in service if it
was privatized?
Mr. Marroni. So, there is a higher percentage of rural and
small community locations that are unprofitable. So, there are
some urban areas as well that have unprofitable locations, but
the bulk is going to be rural and small, so that is where it
would disproportionately fall.
Mr. Frost. Okay.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.
The gentleman yields back his time.
We are now on votes. There are four votes that are being
called. I have advised the gentleman, Mr. Gill, he will be
first one when we come back.
And there will be these four votes that will take probably
a good bit of time. We have figured this one out before. Do not
know if a rule is in the mix. But let us advise the Members
that we will come back 10 minutes after the last vote.
I would like to have Members come back. This is a very
important hearing. We have distinguished Members who have taken
their time to be here this afternoon.
Mr. Gill, you will be the first one when we return.
And I would say to the witnesses and the people here, thank
you for taking time. I am sorry, this is the part of our
business that we just have to go through.
So, the Committee will now be in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Sessions. The Subcommittee will come to order.
And thank you very much. I apologize for the delay.
We now will go back with Members' opportunities for their
questions.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gill, is recognized.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
And thank you to Postmaster General Steiner and to Mr.
Marroni for taking the time to be here. We certainly really
appreciate it.
Mr. Steiner, I want to begin with a few questions for you.
Do you know how many of the drivers who haul mail for USPS
are using non-domiciled Commercial Driver's License (CDL)s?
Mr. Steiner. To my knowledge, at this point, none.
Mr. Gill. Do you know if it is a lot or just a few?
Mr. Steiner. None.
Mr. Gill. So, what I am--from what I am hearing from mail
processing centers, there have been quite a few. In fact, I
have heard from several large ones who have said something to
the extent about half of the drivers who are coming to pick up
mail are--appear to be non-domiciled, that they typically do
not even speak English. I have heard that over half of them do
not speak English. There have been suggestions that many of
them are perhaps illegal aliens.
Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Steiner. I am not sure where that information comes
from, but with our----
Mr. Gill. It is coming from major mail----
Mr. Steiner. Yes, I----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Processing facilities.
Mr. Steiner. That probably would not surprise me. But my
guess is that----
Mr. Gill. So, it would not surprise you that there are a
lot of drivers who are non-domiciled?
Mr. Steiner. No, it would not surprise me that that is
where the information is coming from. Because, if you look at
the information from our United States Postal Inspection
Service, which everybody that hauls for us has to go through a
check with them, I think they have probably got better
information.
Mr. Gill. And what is that information?
Mr. Steiner. That every driver that drives for us, whether
they are an employee or whether they are part of a third-party
contractor, has to go through and make sure that they are a
domiciled CDL holder.
Mr. Gill. Is that being enforced? Because I have been told
by multiple different parties that that rule is not, in fact,
being enforced in any meaningful way.
Mr. Steiner. I have been told by our Postal Service that it
is.
Mr. Gill. Okay. Well, I have got--this is from a
whistleblower, Postal whistleblower. ``Here are [multiple] non-
domicile licenses from one hour of check-ins at one USPS
facility!'' This was from March 2026 that has been recorded.
Mr. Steiner. Yes. If you would send that on to us, I will
have our Postal Inspection Service look at that and find out
what happened.
Mr. Gill. We have also got recording from Pete Routsolias,
who is the VP of Transportation Strategy at USPS, who has said,
quote, ``We did not understand the magnitude of how many people
are using non-domiciled CDLs,'' suggesting that they attempted
to stop this practice but realized that there are too many
drivers who are using these non-domiciled CDLs, so, it was not,
I guess, practicable to enforce that particular ruling.
Are you familiar with that at all?
Mr. Steiner. Not familiar at all, no.
Mr. Gill. So, it is your testimony that there are no CDL
drivers--or, no mail carriers, excuse me, who are non-domiciled
CDL drivers?
Mr. Steiner. No, my testimony is that I am not aware of the
conversation that you are referencing.
Mr. Gill. Okay.
What are you guys doing to ensure that there are no non-
domiciled CDL drivers carrying our mail?
Mr. Steiner. Our Postal Inspection Service looks at
everybody that drives----
Mr. Gill. How is--can you explain how that is being
enforced?
Mr. Steiner. How do you mean, ``how is it being enforced''?
Mr. Gill. How are you ensuring that----
Mr. Steiner. We are requiring----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. None of the drivers are, in fact,
non-domiciled CDLs?
Mr. Steiner. We require our third-party contractors----
Mr. Gill. But by what mechanism are you enforcing that,
other than a, you know, theoretical requirement?
Mr. Steiner. You know, I do not know how you can do
anything other than in-person, right? I mean, our folks are----
Mr. Gill. Are drivers required to use a Post badge?
Mr. Steiner. As far as I know, they are, yes.
Mr. Gill. I have heard from multiple, multiple, again, mail
processing facilities who are telling me that none of that is
being enforced in any meaningful way. And it seems, based on--
--
Mr. Steiner. If you will bring me that information, we will
make sure----
Mr. Gill. I would be happy----
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. We will make sure it stops.
Mr. Gill. I would be happy to do that. Because I do not
think that that makes our roads any safer.
Mr. Steiner. No, you are absolutely right. And, look, we
all agree that safety is number one. But let us put it in
perspective. You have 2,000 deaths every year from gig drivers
driving.
Mr. Gill. Uh-huh.
Mr. Steiner. You have got other companies using them to
deliver packages.
Mr. Gill. Uh-huh.
Mr. Steiner. Those folks are----
Mr. Gill. And USPS is outsourcing that as well.
Mr. Steiner. Not--we do not have any gig drivers for the
United States Postal Service.
Mr. Gill. But the mail deliver--or, mail carriers, excuse
me, are not necessarily USPS employees. Is that correct?
Mr. Steiner. That is not correct. They are.
Mr. Gill. They are all employees? You do not outsource any
of that?
Mr. Steiner. We do not.
Mr. Gill. You do not outsource--so every single delivery
truck that is carrying mail in the United States is an employee
of USPS?
Mr. Steiner. That delivers to our customers? Absolutely.
Mr. Gill. Or that is transporting mail?
Mr. Steiner. Oh, no. Transporting mail is a whole different
animal.
Mr. Gill. That is what I am talking about----
Mr. Steiner. We are talking about delivery.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Here. I am talking about----
Mr. Steiner. I do not think----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Transporting mail.
Mr. Steiner. I do not think gig drivers are transporting
mail; they are transporting individual packages to customers.
And there are 2,000 people dying every year----
Mr. Gill. That is what we are----
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. Because they are going through
the neighborhoods.
Mr. Gill. That is what we are concerned about.
Mr. Steiner. And so, look, put it in perspective. You are
absolutely right, so let us put it in perspective. Two thousand
people died because we had gig drivers that are probably
unlicensed----
Mr. Gill. Uh-huh.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. They are probably uninsured, they
are untrained, and they are killing people--not on the
highways; they are killing people in neighborhoods.
Go talk to homeowner associations and ask about the people
that are driving through the neighborhood, speeding through the
neighborhood, when their kids are playing, to deliver a small
package that should be delivered by the United States Postal
Service.
And so, I completely agree with you on the CDL issue.
Mr. Gill. Uh-huh.
Mr. Steiner. We have taken care of that. I would like to
see us look at taking care of the----
Mr. Gill. Okay. Well, we will talk about that.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. Gig drivers that are driving
through our neighborhoods.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. General. Appreciate it.
Mr. Steiner. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. Does the gentleman choose to yield back his
time?
Mr. Gill. Yes.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
Thank you very much.
We will now move to the gentlewoman, Ms. Randall.
You are recognized.
Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I represent the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, and
in my district, like, I am sure, many across the country, we
have seen how the closure of a single post office can disrupt
an entire community. Folks rely on USPS for service, for
connection, for medication, for so much more.
Last summer, the Martin Luther King Jr. Post Office in
Tacoma closed suddenly due to reported water damage. Since
then, residents and small businesses that rely on dependable
mail service have been concerned, left without clear answers
about when it will reopen.
When the Tacoma City Council raised this issue with our
office, we followed up with USPS and were told that the Postal
Service was working with the landlord to assess the damage.
My understanding now, based on updates from the city and
the property owner, is that the roof repairs have been
completed, and the next step is mold mitigation, to be carried
out by USPS. But, still, like, confusion, no clear timelines
for reopening the facility.
For people who rely on the post office every day, it is
more than just an inconvenience; it is an erosion of trust in a
service that they rely on.
Now, to be clear, like, I want mold mitigation to happen in
the building. I do not want employees to be working in a water-
damaged and moldy space.
But, Mr. Steiner, when a postal facility closes due to
damage, what timeline does USPS follow for assessing damage,
initiating repair contracts, and completing repairs?
Mr. Steiner. Sure. You know, obviously, we will look into
that specific situation.
But you will hear me say this a lot. We are not proud that
some of our post offices look like third world stores. We are
not proud that we have 40-year-old trucks going through
neighborhoods. We are not proud that we cannot give every
single one of our wonderful carriers a brand-new uniform. But
we have to make tradeoffs. You know, we are running out of
cash, and we have to make tradeoffs.
And so, every day, we need to make the determination, are
we going to keep the cash to keep the mail being delivered, or
are we going to go fix a post office or buy a new truck? It is
why I am here today.
We would absolutely love to have pristine post offices
throughout the United States. It is our face to our customers.
We do not have the cash to do it. We would love to have brand-
new trucks driving through the neighborhoods safely. We do not
have the cash to do it.
And so, you know, we will look into that specific instance,
obviously, and we will get you some timelines on it, but I
think we do have to have that conversation of, where are the
tradeoffs? Right? Where can we make those tradeoffs, at a time
when we will be out of cash in less than 12 months?
Ms. Randall. Absolutely.
And I wonder--this might be one of the tradeoffs that you
are contemplating--what percentage of USPS facilities are
leased versus owned? And does a reliance on leased facilities
make it harder to complete some of the maintenance and repairs
that facilities may be facing?
Mr. Steiner. Yes. I think the number is, about 60 percent,
a good portion, are leased rather than owned.
And it is--you know, as we look at--you know, I keep saying
that everything is on the table. We have to look at those
leases and see which ones we can keep, which ones we cannot.
You know, and when we talk about tradeoffs, I like to look
for cost-free tradeoffs. So, to take the example of your post
office, our rural communities and our smaller communities, some
of them might not have an urgent-care facility or they might
not have a bank. Can we co-locate with them and bring more than
just the Postal Service to that community, bring an urgent
care, bring a bank, bring the other needed things, so that we
can get lower cost of rent and we can also bring other things
to the community?
Those are the type of--you know, I love cost-free
tradeoffs. Those are the kind of great cost-free tradeoffs that
we can get. Would love to look at doing one in your community.
Ms. Randall. Absolutely. And I am really proud that our
district office shares a building with a post office. It is a
great way for folks to get all their business done when they
come to visit us.
Now, the last thing I want to raise is the politicization
of the Postal Service in the way that it is being used to
attack the ability for our neighbors to vote by mail.
You know, my constituents have long relied on mail-in
voting--you know, nearly two decades in Washington State. And
with the continued attacks on mail-in voting, I think one of
the things that is being undermined is the trust in the Postal
Service.
And I am out of time, but I just wanted to raise that I
am--our constituents are so grateful for the work of USPS to
ensure that you get our ballots to us and then back to the
auditor's office so that they can be counted. And preserving
the ability for USPS to do that work is so important to the
people of Washington State and Americans across the country.
So, thank you.
Mr. Steiner. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. Does the gentlewoman yield back her time?
Ms. Randall. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back her time.
Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett, you are
recognized.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burchett. It is good to be here with you and the
Ranking Member, who were both, I guess, around when they had
the Pony Express. So, I guess y'all are bringing some real-
world experience here.
Mr. Steiner. Both he and I knew Abraham Lincoln.
Mr. Burchett. That is good.
Well, Mr. Postmaster General, what is the most up-to-date
assessment of when Postal Service will run out of money?
Mr. Steiner. Yes. A lot of it depends--you know, we have a
lot of obligations that we fulfill to the U.S. Government, you
know, for retirement and things like that, so a lot of it
depends on those.
As you probably know, we have been defaulting on a number
of those for a number of years. If we continue to make those
payments, we are looking at probably October, November. If we
stretch those out, we are looking at more like February.
Mr. Burchett. I agree with my colleagues about reducing
controlled costs. What are you doing to raise revenue?
Mr. Steiner. Yes. You know, again, we need to--you have got
two different types of revenue, right? You have got what we
call the market-dominant side, what you would call mail and
marketing mail, and then you have got the competitive side,
which would be packages.
You know, on the market-dominant side, I think, you know,
that has been going down five to seven percent compounded every
year since probably we were born because of the internet and
things like that.
But I keep saying, we cannot think that that is a given. We
have got to try to reimagine the mail. I have started to talk
to our customers about how we can reimagine it to stop that
decline on the market-dominant side. That is something that we
have to work with our customers through.
On the package side, there are only three things that
matter when you are in the package business: speed,
reliability, and cost. Speed, reliability, and cost.
We have always been competitive on cost. We have not been
competitive on speed and reliability. This past peak, we
actually became very competitive on speed and reliability. So,
now we have something we can go to the market with, right? We
can go to our customers, or potential customers, and say, ``We
can do it just as well and cheaper than other companies can do
it.''
And then the other thing I would say: oddly enough, this
was shocking to me, we do not deliver all the packages for all
the agencies of the U.S. Government. We are part of the U.S.
Government. It is basically taking money from one pocket into
the other pocket. Yet, we do not do business for most of the
U.S. Government.
So, I want to talk about how we can get into all the
various agencies in the Federal Government----
Mr. Burchett. I would like to talk to you about that at
some point.
I do not want to run out of time, but I did want to--one
quick thing.
With the rising postage rates, slower service standard,
declining productivity, and request for additional
congressional support, how do you justify the claim that the
Postal Regulatory Commission oversight is the problem, given
its role as the primary check on postal pricing and
performance?
Mr. Steiner. Yes, it is one of the problems. I mean, you
know, you heard me talk about, we have a lot of different
mandates. But I will not show you any further than their last
order. Their last order, by their own admission, transfers
anywhere from $700 million to a billion dollars from us to
mailers by not allowing us to raise prices.
Mr. Burchett. How much was that figure again?
Mr. Steiner. Seven hundred million to a billion.
Mr. Burchett. Okay.
Mr. Steiner. There are two pieces to it: they will not
allow us to raise prices more than once, and they have
basically changed the work-share rules, which are too
complicated for here. But it is basically taking money from us,
by their own admission, taking money from us and transferring
it to mailers.
They say they do it to balance. You know what I asked them?
``If we are balancing things, answer me one question: of all
the companies that do business with us, how many of them are
losing money?''
Mr. Burchett. Okay.
Mr. Steiner. The answer? Zero. They are all making money.
We are the only one losing money. I am not sure how I see that
as a balance.
Mr. Burchett. All right. I appreciate that. Could you have
somebody come by my office, maybe, and talk to me about it? I
do not want you to talk to the staff; I want you to come talk
to me?
Mr. Steiner. I will come.
Mr. Burchett. All right?
Mr. Steiner. I will come talk to you personally.
Mr. Burchett. Well, that would be fine.
Mr. Steiner. I would love to do it.
Mr. Burchett. I appreciate that.
Also, I just wanted to pay a compliment. Those folks out
there--we moved out to off, you would not know it--off Emery
Road, but Maynardville Highway. Those folks out there, this
little country-type area, they are wonderful. They are just
wonderful. And they always--they take care of folks, and they
holler at them, and they talk to them, and it is good. ``Holler
at them,'' that is a positive thing in----
Mr. Steiner. Yes.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. The South.
And I used to have a burgeoning eBay business and would go
to the one on Weisgarber, and I can--some of the fondest
memories I have with my daddy were, he was an old World War II
veteran, and when Daddy would come in there, they would always
pull him out a chair. And I would say, ``Daddy, you just watch
my packages. I have got to run back out to the truck.'' Because
sometimes I would--somebody would park a car in front of my
house and I would sell it on eBay, the parts off of it, but--
and Daddy would just sit there, and sometimes he would go to
sleep. And they were--but the people there were just wonderful.
And I hope we do not lose that with the Post Office,
because if you lost that, you lost me, brother, because----
Mr. Steiner. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. Those folks are wonderful
people.
Mr. Steiner. And, look, we could use an entrepreneur like
you in the Post Office, if you are selling those used parts.
Mr. Burchett. You what? Say that again.
Mr. Steiner. We could use an entrepreneur like you in the
Post Office----
Mr. Burchett. Well, I cannot----
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. From selling those used parts.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. I cannot really do it much, as
these ethics people get in my way, you know. If you want to do
insider stock trading, go to Congress. If you want to sell
something on eBay, you better get you an attorney if you are in
Congress.
So, thank you, brother.
And thank you----
Mr. Steiner. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member, for always being a class act.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
Thank you very much.
By the way, Mr. Steiner, I think you will enjoy the 2-1/2
or 3 hours you spend with Mr. Burchett. He is a lot of fun and
covers a lot of ground very quickly. So, I wholeheartedly
encourage this endeavor between the two of you.
Thank you very much.
If you need help making that happen, Tim, let me know.
We now move to Ms. Budzinski.
Ms. Budzinski, you are recognized.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sessions. Excuse me. I am sorry.
Ms. Budzinski. Oh. Yes.
Mr. Sessions. Ms. Tlaib. I am sorry. I----
Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Scratched through this. Wait
till you turn 50.
Excuse me, Ms. Tlaib. You are on the Subcommittee, and you
are recognized.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. Thank you so much, Chairman.
Thank you to the Postmaster for being here.
I want to show you a picture. This is Nicholas John Acker.
On November 8th, he was found dead at the USPS Detroit Network
Distribution Center in Allen Park, Michigan. As you know, he
was a postal worker. His body was found--it was trapped,
actually, in a mail handling machine, and he had been dead for
about six to eight hours before he was found. He checked into
work at 11 a.m., and his body was not discovered until the
following day at 12:30 p.m.
His death is an unspeakable tragedy for his family,
including his fiancee--he had just recently got engaged--for
his colleagues and fellow postal workers, and for the entire
southeastern Michigan community.
His death is heartbreaking, and it was preventable,
Postmaster General. Nicholas had previously voiced concerns
about the facility's operations and safety practices to his
fiancee.
What you should know is, those concerns were raised about
safety measures and procedures at the facility and then how
management there was pressuring staff to look for letters while
the handling machine was still operating.
Are you aware of that?
Mr. Steiner. I am aware of the incident, yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Are you aware that they are asking workers to
look for letters while the machine is operating?
Mr. Steiner. We are still waiting on the final report from
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to
understand what happened.
Ms. Tlaib. Since the death, a number of Nicholas's
coworkers at the distribution center--it has gotten worse. The
toxic work environment, dangerous culture there has created--
USPS management at the facility has just--you know, just
increased and gotten worse, prioritizing speed over safety.
It has, you know, been over four months since Nicholas's
death, and Representative Dingell and I had written a letter
directly to you on two occasions, demanding answers to get to
the bottom of what happened to him and what USPS leadership is
doing to prevent this from ever happening again.
You understand, he served our country. He did not die at
war, he did not die--he literally died in his community,
working for the Postal Service.
Now that you are here in person, perhaps you can give us
some answers to it. Can you give me some information to tell
his mom--by the way, both his parents, you do not understand
how devastated they are. They did not expect to get that call,
again, of him just showing up to work, and, again, even the
circumstances around his death were pretty horrifying for his
mother.
Would you at least be willing to come to Allen Park,
Michigan, come tour this place, come visit it, come down, talk
to the coworkers, tell his coworkers that you are working on
making it much more safe for them to work in that space? Will
you at least acknowledge you would be able to do that? Again,
they deserve some acknowledgment from the Post General about
what happened at their facility.
Mr. Steiner. Yes. Look, obviously, obviously, a horrific
incident that, you know, my heart, the heart of the whole
postal family goes out to him and his family.
But, you know, to me, safety is the most important thing we
do. One incident is one incident too many. Anytime you lose
someone, you have got to take it personal, and you have got to
take it as a teachable moment, right?
I ran a company where we went--our safety numbers for, just
for--went from 60 to 1, which is world-class. And it was not
because one person took it; it is because everybody took it.
And I will be at that facility.
Ms. Tlaib. Please come down.
Mr. Steiner. Because we need to show that it starts at the
top, right?
Ms. Tlaib. Absolutely.
Mr. Steiner. And any incident is too much of an incident.
And if there is anything that we can do to make that a
teachable moment to save someone else----
Ms. Tlaib. Listen, we have got to save----
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. In the Postal Service, we will
absolutely do it.
Ms. Tlaib. I mean, to be trapped in the machine, you know?
Look, I know that nobody wanted this to happen to Nicholas,
but I just feel like, you know, OSHA has not responded to any
of our requests. It has been months, and I--you know, Chairman,
please work with me in trying to get answers for his parents.
It should not take this long to get answers to this
investigation of what happened to Nicholas Acker, especially
serving almost a decade in the military service. And for him to
die, again, in a Postal Service machine, a sorting machine, of
all things.
Again, his parents deserve answers, they deserve justice.
And they do not want talking points, Postmaster General. They
want to, one, make sure there is justice and accountability and
make sure it does not happen to anyone else.
And, look, I am here to tell you, I hear a lot of the
financial crisis that is facing the Postmaster. I have been
talking about public banking in Postal Service, doing more in
Postal Service. I am a big advocate for it, trust me. But this
is what I have been focused on right now. Because when you hug
a mother that lost her child like that, as a Member of
Congress, I cannot give her answers until you do your job.
I yield.
Mr. Steiner. Understood.
Mr. Sessions. The gentlewoman yields back.
I want to say to the gentlewoman that I have talked to our
staff and they were aware of it. It, as the General has stated,
is under OSHA investigation. And Mr. Mfume and I will deal with
this immediately and speed up not just a response but an answer
from them. And I want to thank you for bringing that forward.
And, General, thank you for your care and concern.
There are a number of facts and factors about this which I
am not able to speak about, nor you, to offer any insight into
this, and I respect that. But I believe that his family is
entitled to that answer, and Mr. Mfume and I will be involved
in that.
And, General, you will see that we are working with you to
encourage that, properly and professionally.
Mr. Steiner. Absolutely.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Georgia is now recognized, Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank the Postmaster General for testifying
before us. Another LSU graduate. It seems like you guys are
taking over the U.S. Congress, but----
Mr. Steiner. I never thought I would get the chance to say
``Geaux, Tigers'' in front of Congress.
Mr. Jack. But I wanted to just, first, thank you for your
service and ask, broadly speaking, as one of the last
questioners today: You outlined in your opening testimony the
challenges you face as Postmaster General. Is there a version
of USPS' future that does not require some form of
congressional intervention in the coming years? And if so, what
would that look like?
Mr. Steiner. You know, I do not think there is.
You know, I have done tons of strategic plans across a
number of businesses, and I have never had a strategic plan
where they say so many options are not available to you, right?
You have losing routes; cannot cut them. You have losing post
offices; cannot cut them. You have retirement benefits that
only earn T-bill rates; you cannot invest it in stocks. You
know, there are just so many, so many strings.
I tell people that this is like ``Gulliver's Travels.'' You
know, Gulliver was the giant in the land of the small, and one
small person could not take him down, but they put so many
strings on him that they were able to hold down the giant
Gulliver.
And that is what is happening here. It is not one string;
it is the accumulation of all the strings. I think David spoke
about them. It is the discussion we have to have--I keep coming
back to: We can do whatever you want. We can absolutely do
whatever you want. You want six days a week? You want all the
post offices open? We can do it, but someone has got to pay for
it, right?
When the Postal Service split in 1971, they actually put
something in place that they called the postal service cost.
And they said, we understand it is going to cost a lot of money
for you to serve rural communities, so we are going to pay you
for that. And that number then was $460 million. If you
translate that to today's dollars, that is anywhere from $13
billion to $20 billion.
So, Congress in 1971 understood that they are going to have
to pay for the rural--for taking care of all the rural places
that lose money and the routes that lose money. They totally
understood it.
You know, I would say that either we reduce the mandates
that we have upon us on delivery days, all the different things
that I have talked about in my remarks, or we acknowledge that
there is a cost to, you know, back what they called then the
public service cost, there is a cost to that that Congress is
going to fund. You know, to me, it is six of one, half a dozen
of another. We can do it either way.
But recognize that all the mandates that we have cost
money. And that money precludes us--the business model
precludes us from being profitable. And so, either we have to
get it through ratepayers paying it or through an appropriation
from Congress. We can do it either way. And glad to have those
conversations.
Mr. Jack. Well, thank you for that.
I have got two local issues in my district I want to
highlight. I know we have been working diligently with your
team. I am curious, and if it necessitates further commentary
or correspondence after this hearing, I welcome that.
But in Tyrone, Georgia, Fayette County, my home county,
there was a post office that burned down in March 2023, well
before your time. I want to congratulate you; in recent months,
you were able to reopen at least the post-office-box element of
that facility. But retail is still not operable.
Curious what y'all's protocols are if you have a natural
disaster that affects a post office, and can we work together
to try to reopen the retail as quickly as possible.
Mr. Steiner. Yes. We will certainly, certainly follow up
with you on that.
Mr. Jack. And, last, Thomaston, Georgia, also in my
district--you mentioned rural. You know, this is interesting,
and I think it does affect some more rural post offices that
were built before the 1960s, before Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) came into effect. And we do have a lot of reports--
and I want to commend the postal employees there. They are
trying to help folks that are, you know, in need of getting up
stairs, and they do not have ramps, to--they are trying to help
them get into the post office. But we just--we hear recurring
problems there.
Because the facility was built in the 30s--1930s, I should
say--there has not been a lot of, I guess, you know, legal
requirements for them to update their facilities. I am curious
what y'all do with some those more rural post offices that do
not have the ADA requirements but still service people that
have ADA needs.
Mr. Steiner. Yes. Again, you know, we have to go back to
that tradeoff. Do not know the specific details, but we will
get back to you on it.
But, you know, it is interesting that you say that, when
you talk about them helping people to get into the post office.
For every time we have someone that did not get their birthday
card on time, we have that great employee that gives that
unbelievable customer service. It really is the face of the
Postal Service.
That is what we can bring back if we figure out this
business model. That is what we can bring back, I think,
everywhere, is that unbelievable customer service that your
folks experience, when they go out of their way to go out and
help them into a post office where it might be hard to get into
it.
Mr. Jack. Well, I appreciate you working with us on both of
those.
Mr. Chairman, I may have some questions to submit for the
record hereafter, but I deeply appreciate you convening this
hearing. It is a very, very important hearing, and it is a big
deal for us to be part of it. So, thank you.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. We will look forward to
not only getting your questions but also hearing back from
them. And thank you very much.
The gentleman, Mr. Walkinshaw.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
suffering my presence again on this Subcommittee.
I have a couple of UC requests, if that is all right.
Mr. Sessions. Well, that--please, feel free to move for
them.
Mr. Walkinshaw. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a March 5, 2026, letter signed by 66 Members of
Congress, including 15 Senators and 51 Members of the House,
urging the Department of Commerce to reverse course on a flawed
2026 census test.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection.
Mr. Walkinshaw. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a report released by the Department of Commerce
Inspector General (IG) on March 16, 2026, evaluating the
methodology employed by the Bureau for the upcoming 2026 test
involving Postal Service workers.
It outlines the IG's concerns that the proposed approach
could compromise readiness for the 2030 census.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Steiner, thank you for being with us today, and thank
you for the conversation that we had and your open engagement
with this Subcommittee.
For Congress to make informed decisions about how we can
ensure the Postal Service's long-term stability, we need clear
data on the proposals you put forward, where the Postal Service
stands, and where it is headed.
Frankly, your predecessor, in my view, was sometimes
hostile toward our role in congressional oversight, did not
want to provide information we needed to be able to help the
Postal Service.
Will you agree to provide Members of this Committee with
five year financial projections showing how the reforms and
changes you have outlined, including the continued
implementation of ``Delivering for America,'' like including
the Regional Transportation Optimization initiative, would
affect the Service's financial position and service performance
over five years?
Mr. Steiner. Yes. In fact, during the break, I was speaking
with David about that, that----
Mr. Walkinshaw. Okay.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. What I think we can put together.
Because, you know, it is all the mandates that I talked about.
We can put together multiple scenarios where you have different
outcomes, right?
And so, if you assume, you know, the six or seven mandates
that I have talked about--there are probably five or six other
ones--we will make assumptions on which ones happen and which
ones do not. And so, we will have multiple budgets for you, to
say, ``If you want this one, we can go this direction. If you
still want this mandate, we can go this direction.''
We can actually put it together for you that it will show
the effect of all the different mandates that I have talked
about and how that would affect the five year plan.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Because if we are going to build support
for any of the proposals, including maybe the lower-hanging
fruit like investing the retirement funds, we have got to be
able to go to our colleagues and say, this is where we are
headed in a positive----
Mr. Steiner. Exactly.
Mr. Walkinshaw [continuing]. Direction. Okay.
Mr. Steiner. Absolutely.
Mr. Walkinshaw. According to a recent IG report, the Postal
Service spent roughly $860 million in remedies due to failing
to comply with respective Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA)s.
So, given the challenge the Postal Service has had in
complying with its own CBAs that you all agreed to, you maybe
will forgive my skepticism that you would be able to
successfully take over and run the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act and workers' comp programs, as you provided.
I am a little bit skeptical of that, given the challenging
track record.
Mr. Steiner. Yes, I do not blame you for the skepticism.
But the workers' comp would actually be managed by a third
party. You know, we manage, obviously, the claims you are
talking about; the workers' comp would actually be managed by a
third party.
Mr. Walkinshaw. So, you would outsource that.
Mr. Steiner. Yes. I mean, basically every company in
America outsources that.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Okay.
I want to go to one of the maybe low-hanging-fruit reforms.
And you and I had a good conversation about the investment, and
I had an ounce of skepticism, and you relieved me of my
skepticism, I think, in our conversation.
Can you talk through, though--because, obviously, it is not
as simple as saying you can invest the funds, right? There
would have to be a structure in place to guide that, so
especially the workers and retirees have a voice in how their
money's being invested.
Mr. Steiner. Right.
Mr. Walkinshaw. What kind of structure do you envision to
accomplish that?
Mr. Steiner. Yes, I think you would want to put--obviously,
you would want to put a board of directors, if you will, in
charge of that, really an investment committee. I think--I love
the idea of having representatives, the employees, be part of
that. I think that is a great idea. You know, the proposals I
have seen would have, for example, the Secretary of the
Treasury. You know, so you would have a broad-based,
representative group to make those ultimate investment
differences.
But then you could also have parameters to say, you know,
you are not going to go out and invest in crypto. I mean, you
could set parameters and say, here are your allowed
investments, and make those rather conservative, right--because
we do not want to be there out there gambling with our
retirees' money--and then you get an oversight board with
broad-based experience to manage that.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
Mr. Walkinshaw, thank you very much.
I would now yield myself--oh, excuse me. We did promise you
would move forward. So, Ms. Budzinski, you are now recognized.
And thank you for taking time to be waived on to this.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman,
and to Ranking Member Mfume, for this chance.
I do want to say, it is also great to meet and be with
Postmaster General Steiner and Mr. Marroni.
Thank you both for being here.
In Fiscal Year 2025, the Postal Service lost about $9
billion. In the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2026, USPS lost an
additional $1.4 billion.
Postmaster General Steiner, you have stated that you
believe that the Postal Service is headed toward a financial
crisis, and I do agree with you on that point. But you have
also said that you want to continue to move forward with the
``Delivering for America'' plan, which has really only worsened
delivery for the past six years.
As we enter year six of the ``Delivering for America''
plan, I do remain concerned that the Postal Service seems
committed to pushing forward with the plan despite the steep
declines in on-time delivery and slowed outgoing mail in rural
areas, like the district that I represent in central and
southern Illinois.
Just for example, in Fiscal Year 2019, the on-time delivery
for 2-day First-Class Mail was 92 percent. Six years later--and
this is in my district--it is down now to just 83 percent, with
areas like downstate Illinois consistently seeing on-time
delivery fall below 80 percent and even 70 percent at various
points in 2024 and 2025.
I will argue, I think that is why I do believe that it is
really important that we continue to have a strong Postal
Regulatory Commission and an Inspector General, to ensure that
we have oversight over the Postal Service and its
implementation for ``Delivering for America.''
And I know, you know, yes, it is true that the Postal
Service, as you have stated, must act in accordance with the
Postal Regulatory Commission, but it ultimately does have much
more flexibility for its competitive products or packages. And
I do worry, just in talking about the Postal Regulatory
Commission (PRC), is watering it down or eliminating it, given
the fiscal situation of the USPS, that maybe perhaps it
actually should have more authority, not less.
But with all of this in mind, I just want to say, I am very
excited; we have started a bipartisan Postal Service Caucus.
And we do look forward to working with you on all of these
challenges.
One of my first questions for you, Postmaster General, is:
in recent months, you have continued, as I stated, that you
believe in continuing to move forward with the ``Delivering for
America'' plan despite these declining delivery rates.
My question would be, are there indicators that you are
looking at that would give you pause in the continued
implementation of the ``Delivering for America'' plan or decide
to perhaps suspend it?
Mr. Steiner. Yes, and, you know, I do want to clarify that,
when I think of the ``Delivering for America'' plan, I am
talking just about the network transformation piece----
Ms. Budzinski. Uh-huh.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. Right, which I said before, you
know, is sort of the Logistics 101 hub-and-spoke system.
You know, what I do see is, you see service numbers
improving. You see us pulling work-hours out--not fast enough,
but you see us pulling work-hours out. So, you can see it. It
moves slow, because the network is so big. You can absolutely
see it. You see it in the service numbers. You saw it during
peak. We were the most improved company----
Ms. Budzinski. Uh-huh.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. In performance in peak of all the
major competitive package companies.
But you can also see it when you look--you are right dead
in the center of the heart of where our biggest problem is,
right down the center of America, from Chicago to St. Louis to
Memphis.
And I will tell you, I do not believe that that is a
network problem. My understanding is it is a staffing problem,
that it is hard to get employees to work in the plants where we
need them to work. And, you know, we do not have a lot of
flexibility to give bonuses to hire people or retention bonuses
because of the way our union contracts work.
But that area, I can promise you----
Ms. Budzinski. Uh-huh.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. Is looked at by us, not just
every week, every single day.
Ms. Budzinski. Okay.
Mr. Steiner. And the numbers are getting better.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
Mr. Steiner. They absolutely are not there yet.
Ms. Budzinski. Just since I can squeeze in one more
question.
Mr. Steiner. Sure.
Ms. Budzinski. I would love to keep working with you on
that. And I do have concerns around the consolidations and the
RTO plan, and those are things that we can continue that
conversation.
But my last question, Postmaster General: in regarding the
Postal Service's recent hiring and the restructuring firm--
hiring the restructuring firm Alvarez & Marsal, the Postal
Service has said that they are going to use Alvarez & Marsal to
identify ways to transform the Postal Service and address the
fiscal shortfalls.
So, my question: should we be anticipating future
reductions in force or more network changes if Alvarez & Marsal
were to recommend that to your team?
Mr. Steiner. Yes, you know, look, what I have said is that
we are in a crisis, and when you are in a crisis, everything
has to be on the table.
Alvarez & Marsal is, you know, the leading restructuring
firm in the world. And so, we wanted to bring in the best to
show us what was possible.
We have not gotten that report, but once we get that
report, we need to look at it and say, okay, what is it that we
need to do in order to, you know, right the ship, in order to
extend the period of time?
When you have less than 12 months of cash available, you
have got to look at everything. And I wanted to bring in the
best to help us look at it.
Ms. Budzinski. Okay. I look forward to working with you.
Thank you.
Mr. Steiner. Thank you. And----
Ms. Budzinski. I yield back.
Mr. Steiner [continuing]. Glad to come meet with you in
person to have discussion about those issues, because they are
important.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. Thanks very much.
The gentlewoman yields back her time.
I would now yield myself such time as I may consume.
I first wanted to ask unanimous consent to address and add
into the record the Coalition to Protect America's Small
Sellers' letter that has been provided to me; and, second, a
letter dated March 16, ``U.S. Postal Service to Ask Congress
for Urgent Reforms to Survive `Beyond Next Year.' ''
Without objection, we will enter those into the record.
The opportunity for us to be here together, publicly, with
vendors, people who work for the Post Office, people who have
oversight over the Post Office, people who want an opportunity
for the Post Office to work and work well, Members of
Congress--almost every single one of us have people that sing
your praises and some that think otherwise. It is a hard
business. You are everywhere.
I, too, have had a post office that burned down. I knew
well the neighborhood that felt like it took a little bit
longer than it should have, but it was accomplished. There were
accommodations made.
Every single Member of Congress somehow does hear something
about the Post Office. Sometimes--and I learned this in my
prior life--sometimes when things are going so great you do not
hear a lot.
The Post Office, however, is at a point that we all agree
with--Mr. Mfume, you and I agree with, GAO agrees with--we are
at a crucial point, not critical, we are at a crucial point
where we now know more decisions need to be made with
agreement--agreement between us, agreement between you. I think
that certainly this article that I provided says exactly that,
that there has to be not just consent given but agreement.
I would like to say that, during much of this period of
time over the last year and some, that we have been given an
opportunity to know each other, work with each other. I find
you refreshing, I find you honest, and I think we can do
business with you.
But it is going to take more than that. It is going to take
Mr. Mfume and I to stand behind an organization that is going
to have to make some decisions also. We are going to have to
make decisions because this represents a huge part of not just
enterprises across the United States but the best interests of
people who are normal American citizens, who want, need, and
expect a good Post Office--sound service, good price--to where
we will continue to use it.
A few months ago, when you and I met, I told you that I had
several goals. You told me pretty plainly, ``Congressman
Sessions, we will do whatever you want to pay for.'' And I told
you I did not want to raise the price of a stamp further. I
told you that I believe that we have to look at this
organization as something that we need to get close on, keep in
front of us, and to have an idea about where we are going to go
and how we are going to get there.
I met with our friends at the White House to find out what
instructions they really provided you also, because that is
important. When you go to offer a job to someone, you,
generally speaking, would want to get some understanding of
that--a commitment to that. I think it is easier when you get
elected--when you take over a job than it is to serve in that
job. And, certainly, a few months later you learn some things
that you may not have known.
But the buck stops here now. And Mr. Mfume, Mr. Mfume and I
are very open with each other. And I will say--I am not trying
to be a tough guy--we are going to do this together, but I will
do this.
And from our last meeting that we had over at your office,
we had a determination that we were going to get closer. I told
you at that time that I had a commitment from James Comer, who
is the Chairman of the Committee, that he felt like that this
is something that could not be passed on, that it does us no
good to simply give you more money or agree to something that
we know does not work.
I will fully admit to you that Mr. Womack, who is sitting
beside me, our staff guru on the Post Office, has admitted to
me and I have admitted to him that we need to dig in further.
We need to dig in. We need to do this. I think that your team
openly agreed to do this a month ago. No excuses, we need to do
this. We need to do it rapidly, and we need to get right to the
issues.
I think that it will require some give-and-take. We have
generally been asking questions. We have generally been
allowing you that opportunity to move forward with your plan. I
think the newest indications that I have of knowing where we
are, I think we are past that point now, and we will get to
where we agree and disagree.
I am not responsible, I am not your boss; I am your
oversight. But Mr. Mfume and I carry the torch about the result
of what we are going to do from Congress to help. And I think
that Mr. Mfume and I both have great confidence in the workers,
the supervisors, the postmasters, the management of the
organization, but we have to--we are going to have to make
tough decisions.
So, in great fairness to you and your team, who I do have
confidence in and who have been very gracious to not only Mr.
Mfume and I, we are going to get to where we then say, ``Oh,
yeah? Prove it.'' ``Oh, yeah? You think that? Well, then we
think differently.'' And it is a position that you find
yourself in and I find myself in. And I have never been one to
play tiddlywinks; I will go right to it.
So, I want you to know that, today, I am not going to put
us through some of the bigger questions. Because, as I told the
staff, I am not going to do that because you are under an
obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God. And that means that I could ask you
questions about some things that may be in transit, some things
that may be being worked on now. But when we are not with you
under oath, you and I are going to engage in that with Mr.
Mfume.
And we need to understand more about the same types of
questions that have been brought up by our Members, about the
hopes and expectations that come from both sides about the
Postal Service, about its delivery system. And you have given
us back enough impediments, the things which you do believe are
in the way of you not only making a profit but being
successful.
And so, we are going to have to have more than just time
with each other in an open mic like this. And so, Mr. Mfume has
informed me that he will be pleased to participate in this
effort. And I think that we owe it to the American people, but
I know we owe it to Members of Congress to address these
issues.
And it will not be about what we are doing with a burned-
down post office. It will not be about what we are doing on a
route or two. It will be the financial integrity, the things
that would allow you to serve people and to make changes that
would be necessary to you.
And so, I want you to know that I have received the best
wishes from a good number of people leading up to this,
including people who work for the Post Office, including people
who were in the industries that surround this that have placed
billions of dollars in all of our hands. It is in our best
interest to make sure this works.
And I have a commitment to this. I served on the last
postal subcommittee that we had in Congress. I came to that
subcommittee because I had an interest in it. I had a great big
rural district. I still have a great big rural district, and I
care about everybody.
So, I do care about the Service. I do care about your
commitment. And I think I have sized you up as a person who is
able to effectively work professionally through these issues.
And you did not cause them, and I did not cause them, but it is
going to come down to the three or four of us are going to have
to make some tough decisions, that we can look at other people
and say: That was a problem, the Postmaster General laid it on
our doorstep, and we are not going to kick the can down the
road. We are going to put these directly in front of us. And
then we are going to have to figure out how we are going to go
to our colleagues and pull it off.
But it does us no good to find that in one year from now
the Postal Service failed. It does us no good, in my opinion,
to go to a dollar stamp, even though there might be some in
this room that think that is the right answer.
But we are going to have to make tough decisions. We will
help you through that. And I will know that I know you enough
professionally where you have the moxie and the stuff about
yourself of what you are made of that you will stick with us.
I want to thank you and Mr. Marroni for being here today. I
want to thank your friends and allies who have gathered
together to not only cheer you on but also others who have come
here with a hope that the entire system works. And we are going
to do that.
So, Mr. Mfume, would you like to defend yourself in this
effort?
Mr. Mfume. Well, thank you, first of all, Mr. Chairman.
As many of you know, we work well together because we put a
goal in front of us and try to put politics to the side so that
we are concerned about people and not politics.
And the other ``P'' in all this is ``Postal,'' the Postal
Service, and why it gives us the kind of pride that we have had
growing up in this country and the kind of personal
relationships that we have all had with the Post Office. We all
think it is ``our'' Post Office. And I think that is the way it
was meant and intentioned and that is the way it has been
throughout the years.
And so, when you consider something as yours, you have an
obligation, at least inherently, to want to always try to
protect it. And that has overcome the differences that we may
have had on different things so that we are able to move
forward together.
I have got a couple of UCs, Mr. Chairman, and then just a
final statement.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mfume. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record a statement from the president of the American Postal
Workers Union regarding today's hearing.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection.
Mr. Mfume. And I would ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record a statement from the national president of the
National Postal Mail Handlers Union regarding today's hearing.
Mr. Sessions. Without objection.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you, Mr. Sessions.
It was 1991 when the Congress really stepped up to the
plate and put in place a debt limit and an authority for the
Postal Service. That was 35 years ago, and they set it at $15
billion. I have to tell you, I am amazed it has not been
revisited since then. That is a long, long time--35 years.
And so, one thing that is clear about all of this is that
we cannot let United States Postal Service die, that we are
going to have to find a way, as we all know, inevitably, to
look at restructuring that debt limit. How we do it and what
the new limit becomes is going to be a matter of a lot of
conversations and discussions. It may be hard to sell, but I
think most people feel like I do, that, rather than do nothing
and watch the Titanic sink, that we need to do something.
And I think, without a doubt, that many Members of the
Congress are going to be particularly watching what Mr.
Sessions and what I advocate, because they would recognize that
there is no daylight between the two positions. And hopefully
that will get us to the point where we are able to deal with
this debt crisis and debt limitation.
However, having said that, all other Members of this House,
all 433, are going to have a comment or question and, clearly,
are going to have some say in this, because people just do not
want to give their votes even though they recognize that
something is necessary.
And so, what comes out of that in terms of the concessions,
if I could use that term, or the guarantees, which I feel
better about, will be done collaboratively.
And, Mr. Postmaster General, I hope that you and your
people are willing to be a part of that.
Mr. Marroni, I am going to ask that the GSA [sic] also
weigh in on all of this so that we feel like we are on stable
grounds to be able to answer the tough questions.
And then I am going to ask for something that none of you
came to this hearing for, and that is vision. What becomes,
then, after all that, the vision of the United States Postal
Service that the American people who are watching this hearing
and the Members of Congress who ultimately will have to grapple
with the question of debt extension--what is the vision that
you want to put before them?
And I do not want you to try to answer that now, but I just
want you to think about it. Because that is what we need here--
some clear vision that everybody in this country can get behind
and to embrace and have signature on and to clearly feel like
they are part of the solution going forward. So, I would ask
you to think about that.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Sessions for his work and
for our working relationship and would hope, as I have said
earlier--we have gone through this for a lot of years. We would
hope that this is the beginning of the ultimate end of the
ongoing crises that we have all witnessed far too long.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Sessions. The gentleman yields back his time.
Thank you.
And I will very succinctly tell the gentleman--and he has
heard me say this many times--I believe us working together can
accomplish this. And I am talking about the Postal Service, I
am talking about their vendors, and people back and forth. I
think the system is better when it works together. I think the
system is better when it views each other as complementary to
that system.
I think that there are people that do certain things out of
their own either best interest or that is the way their route,
so to speak, went, that there are things that you have as an
advantage with the Postal Service that seemingly could be a
disadvantage but that we can turn into an advantage. But I
think that when we try and move that needle too far one way or
another, I think it works adversely against the best interest
of the whole.
So, those are my comments. The gentleman has a philosophy
also. And I will tell you that if you have viewed us as trying
to be a part of the solution, then you may go home tonight and
know that Mr. Mfume and I, and I believe the General, is deeply
committed to that also.
We now--I am going to close the hearing.
And so, with that, and without objection, all Members have
five legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded first to us and then to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, this
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]