“Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The Financial Future Under Postmaster General Steiner”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
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 $9,000,000,000, that's been well reported. We're all familiar with that figure, with a further $1,300,000,000 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. So for the good of all Americans who rely on the postal service for critical mail, medicine, ballots, etcetera, we cannot allow that to happen. 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's a hell of a juggling act, to say the 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'm 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's 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, Mister Postmaster General, that you and the workforce that you've assembled and the one that you've inherited will all work in this election year to ensure that every ballot is delivered and every vote is counted. And I wanna 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 don't 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, 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 from criminals. We've spoken about this before. We all share this concern. Criminals target locked mailboxes that are only accessible to the United States Postal Service.
I've seen postal workers beaten and stabbed and left to fend for their own while help comes. We've seen the videos all over YouTube. So no postal service workers should fear for their safety at work, and that's why I've pushed for the implementation of the postal services joint protection safe delivery initiative. I know it sounds like a lot, but it does a lot. And it's 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 the attendant positions and industries that are part of it.
Now one final thing, I'm gonna yield back to the chairman. He's 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 don't necessarily believe it?
And it is an all hands on deck kind of an issue where whether you're in the field, whether you're in the building, whether you're at headquarters, or whether you are doing something else related to the mail. This means all of us sort of, and by the way, and whether it means you're 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 don't all go forward, we will all go backwards. So it's been a pleasure working with this chairman who shares many of my ideas, and I share many of his. We've 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's the service and the people who deserve the service more than anything else that we're all assembled here for. So I thank you again for your generosity of time, mister chairman, and for working together on this issue as we have for years now.
I never thought I'd say we've been doing it for years, but we have. And I yield back my time.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman, mister Infume, 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.
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 was here as chairman of the full committee. We also welcome congressman Timmons from South Carolina, congressman Robert from Colorado, congressman Waukenshaw of Virginia, congressman Talib of Michigan, congressman Zasinski of Illinois, and congressman Bell of Missouri. All, I'm sorry. I'm supposed to say Missouri.
I used to live in Missouri, but they like to call it Missourie. They're all waived on the subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witness at today's subcommittee hearing. So thank you very much. We now would move to the reason why we're here, and I am pleased to welcome our witnesses today. Mister Steiner is the postmaster general and chief executive officer of the United States Postal Service, having held this position since July 2022.
Prior to this, he was the CEO of Waste Management and on the board of directors of FedEx. Our second witness today is Mr. Moroni. He is the director of physical infrastructure at the government accounting office. The GAO is expert in many areas, and he will soon prove his worth 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 to answering the questions. I would ask that both of you now stand to be sworn in before this subcommittee. Pursuant to committee rule nine g, the witnesses will please raise their hand, which they have done, and the right hand is raised. And I will ask the question, do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you, God.
Let the record reflect that both witnesses have answered, and they affirmed me. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I would now like for you to know that we normally follow this five-minute rule. But what I'm interested in today, and I've informed the gentlewoman, the chairman 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's here right now, but you have drawn this. And I'm interested in us members, and you give it an opportunity to fully vet your answer and to be given the time. And if you exceed that, I'll 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.
Speaker 3
Thanks so much for that. We make the decision. Thank you, 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'll 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 with 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 mail. From historic peak volume of 213,000,000,000 pieces per year to today at 109,000,000,000 pieces per year, we've lost over 104,000,000,000 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¢, that's about $81,000,000,000 of lost revenue.
No company could weather that much revenue loss. So it's 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 CSRS benefits, which costs us about $3,000,000,000 a year. Second, we can't borrow more than $15,000,000,000. The $15,000,000,000 limit was established decades ago. If you applied inflation or based it on revenue, that limit should be $30 to $40,000,000,000. Third, we can only invest our retirement in Treasury notes.
If we were able to invest conservatively, we would have an additional $800000000000 in retirement benefits. Fourth, we're mandated by law to deliver to every address, more than 170,000,000 of them, six days a week. This leads to 71% of our delivery routes being financially underwater. If we're expected to deliver six days a week to every location, someone needs to pay for that. Fifth, we're not allowed to manage our own workers' compensation claims.
That costs us anywhere from $400,000,000 to $800,000,000 per year. Next, we're regulated like a monopoly, but we no longer exist as one. In fact, we're 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 $1,000,000,000 a year.
Clearly, they're 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 US costs us about $150,000,000. Keeping post offices open and not being allowed to consider losses as a reason to replace them with alternative means is another 840,000,000, and the list goes on. All those costly inequities amassed 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 don't run out of cash. Despite all of this, we're 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're also not standing by as we sink under the weight to the anchor. We're taking steps to fight our way back above water. On pricing, we need higher prices on both our package and mail products.
At 78¢, the US 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¢. That's a distance of 5000 miles.
So we sell the stamp at less than half the cost to travel 8 times farther. If we were to change the stamp price to 90 or 95¢, 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've 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've asked our team to develop a plan to further reduce costs. So I'm here to tell America that we can do anything you want. We've been doing exactly that for over 250 years. If you want the same number of drip 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's one thing we can't do, and that is change the status quo. And we don't 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.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and members of the subcommittee. I'm 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's 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's 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, and 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 to 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-time financial relief to help USPS avoid running out of cash.
At the same time, it's essential that Congress also address the long-term issues with USPS' business model. If those underlying issues aren't addressed now, USPS will likely continue to struggle financially, and service performance may decline further. Indeed, within five years, USPS will be responsible for an additional $6,000,000,000 a year in retiree health care 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 crash 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 the USPS on a sustainable financial path. A financially viable USPS will best be able to provide high-quality service to the American people. Mister chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
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? Gentleman, Mr. Comer.
Okay. Then sounds like the gentleman is gonna be here for a little bit. I would move to the distinguished gentlewoman. He's gonna go now. Oh, you do want to go now?
Speaker 5
I'm sorry. I apologize. Time. Well, and, mister chairman, thank you and the ranking member for always having quality meetings. Mister post-transfer general, welcome.
I have three questions I'm gonna try to get in in my five minutes. I wanna 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 dollars developing this ship program, and it's 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?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I mean, that's 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 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're actually looking at it right now.
Speaker 5
But then I apologize for interrupting my limited time. So will you or will you not commit to ending this program immediately? I mean, that's part of what we're all concerned about, at least on this side of the aisle, is the losses. We wanna protect.
Speaker 3
No doubt about it. And I will tell you, mister chairman, that we have not made a final decision on that. But I appreciate the question. We'll make sure to get you a final decision on that post-taste.
Speaker 5
Well, let's talk about the Postal Service Reform Act. That worked very closely when I was ranking member with chairman Maloney, and that was a true bipartisan bill because there's bipartisan support for the postal service. What are the things that we expected when we gave the postal service some money to stabilize the books? Everything there that you're talking about today, we did 5 years ago. What cost-cutting measures has the USPS implemented since the Postal Service Reform Act passed and became law?
Speaker 3
Sure. As you're well aware, we transform the network. We basically went to a typical hub and spoke network, something that's 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 the number of times that we move boxes.
Speaker 3
Reduce costs? That has reduced costs by about 2.1, $2,200,000,000. Well, according to our original projection was 3.6, so we aren't there yet. It.
Speaker 5
Based on the numbers, it looks to me like nearly 80% of the US Postal Service's cost 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?
Speaker 3
We're absolutely looking at that. Now remember, there's two pieces to our network. There are folks that actually deliver the mail. And, you know, you don't wanna do a hiring freeze there, because if we do that, then we won't deliver mail. From a management perspective, you know, we have not increased the number of our employees dramatically.
But as you know, we've brought in the.
Speaker 5
But they've increased, and every other government agency's decreasing. Actually, they're in the private sector.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Actually, in the last four years, we have about 30, 35 thousand fewer employees. And we're moving toward more of those employees being pre-career rather than career. There are two ways we can really save money here. That's changing our mix of career and noncareer, more toward non-career.
Speaker 3
Basically. And the other is overtime, both regular overtime, penalty overtime. You know, those are 100 to $150,000,000 for every percentage point you move them. So we're focused on. But you're absolutely right.
We have to look at everything. We can't look at just one piece.
Speaker 5
And, look, we support the post workers. My grandmother delivered the mail. She spent twenty-seven years as a mail carrier in Red Bull in Springs, Tennessee. I support the post office. Very popular in my district, but people are frustrated with the post office.
We all have horror stories from the postal service. But what's frustrating to me, and I think many members on this committee, is that it seems like we're 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's 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're or I'll speak for myself.
I'm 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.
Speaker 3
Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure which part of the network you're referring to. We did the only thing that we've really insourced in the last year, is our local transportation network, and we started to insource that. I will tell you anytime I can do something better, cheaper, we're gonna do it. And that's where they are.
Speaker 5
Believe you're doing it cheaper than the postal service. You've done that, and you're asking for more money. It's just hard to believe. Maybe it's true, but it's hard for me to believe being in congress nine and a half years.
Speaker 3
Well, if you believe our accountants, it's true. There's about 44,000,000 the government. I'll have to think about that. There's about $44,000,000 that we've saved by insourcing that. But even more importantly, it helps service. So when we use third parties, we have to call them, take some time to get there.
You know, sometimes they'll show, sometimes they won't. When we have our own folks on site with the trucks, they can move immediately. So what we get is better service at a cheaper cost. Now that's not to say that there's not plenty that we don't do well, but that is one thing we're doing pretty well.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, again. Mister postmaster general, I took some notes with what you were saying, and I have a couple of observations, and maybe you can kinda point me in the direction where you think you should be going. Aside from that, there's an old saying that says, the harder I go, the behind her 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's in front of us now. And we look up, and behind her we are.
So your points, if I have them correctly, was that you don't have the ability to manage your workers' compensation plans. Is that correct?
Speaker 2
That you've lost $81,000,000,000 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?
Speaker 3
Well, we lost 104,000,000,000 pieces. I was just using the 78¢ stamp for illustrative purposes. Okay. Yeah. So that would be, and
Speaker 2
And the other point you were making is that, unlike other places, you're required to transport to remote places across the United States. Is that correct?
Speaker 2
And that you said that the 78¢ stamp is the lowest out of all industrialized countries, and that it travels fewer miles for it to be taken advantage of or to deliver, I should say, the mail. Is that correct?
Speaker 2
This is a situation that mister Moroni 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're in. Mister Moroney, is that correct?
Speaker 4
So there are ways to get compensation under control. That's a major area of cost growth. They 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 volumes declining while the number of places the USPS has to deliver to is increasing. So there's a fundamental disconnect there that's driving up costs.
Speaker 2
And I'm sure Benjamin, well, we won't call his name here today because I'm sure he's probably spinning in his grave looking at this. But the first postmaster general could not anticipate FedEx, Amazon, UPS. But you're 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?
Speaker 2
Well, what are you doing with your competition who clearly wants to do all that it can to take away your business?
Speaker 3
Yeah. A great question. Look. The reality is, until the recent changes to the network, we didn't have a network that could even compete with FedEx, UPS, and Amazon. It just couldn't compete.
And so what we've designed now is a network that can compete, but it competes at the lower levels. So just to give you an example, the average weight of our package is about 1 to 1.2 pounds. FedEx, UPS, they're closer to 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've seen is a dramatic change in how that market is being served. What do I mean by that? The gig economy.
So you've got very low cost providers coming from foreign countries, being subsidized by foreign governments, coming in and selling transportation at below cost so that they can.
Speaker 2
I got it. I have to reclaim my time. It's very limited. And maybe you'll 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 Mister Moroni said, short of everything that's 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 wanna follow-up on the chairman's question on that, and specifically tell us how those costs have been reduced, mister Postmaster.
Speaker 3
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking to the other David. So, you know, obviously, we put together a network that reduces the number of trips, reduces transportation costs, reduces fuel costs. I mean, it's, as I said, it's a hub and spoke network. It's been proven to work since it was invented in 1955 by Delta Air Lines.
Every major logistics company uses it. But there is a difference between building a network and operating a network. And we've built the network. We're close to done building the network. We have yet to fully, really, learn how to operate the network, and that's where the savings start to come is when you learn how to operate the network.
What you've seen is that the pace of savings has increased, and the pace of service has gotten better.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back his time, distinguished gentlewoman, chairman of the Rules Committee. Vince Fox is recognized.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses for being here, and I want to say that I particularly joined mister Amphumi and you, mister chairman, in thanking the local postal workers for their work. I'm a lifelong letter writer and always used 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 10 days a week before Valentine's Day. He still hasn't received it.
People in my office know people who've sent out wedding invitations, mailed him plenty of time. People haven't received them a month later. This is unacceptable, Mister Postmaster General. Absolutely unacceptable. If you want people to stop not using the post office, if 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 long-term strategy to steady postal service finances, improve operations, and protect the future of the mail system. But the UPS 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's 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?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I couldn't 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 doesn't get there on time. You know? This is an unbelievably complicated network.
Just to give you perspective, FedEx and UPS both deliver well under 10,000,000,000 packages a year. We deliver 110000000000 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 gotta learn how to operate the network. And I will tell you, we are not great at operating the network. We've put Doug Talino in charge of that, making sure that all three of our pieces that joint that do delivery are joined together and working together. And you started to see progress. You started to see some very good progress in the service.
I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that we're there yet.
Speaker 6
So, can we expect modifications to the plan and better service? Mister Moroni said that you have controllable costs, but you didn't give us any specifics. We know that if you could reduce controllable costs by roughly 2% per year, you'd put the postal service on a path to break even. Given that possibility, what specific steps is USPS taking to reduce controllable costs?
Speaker 3
Well, we've gotta look at controllable costs everywhere. So, we talked about it in the network. You've got fuel costs. Of course, you're gonna see those disappear, as we've seen the price of fuel go up. You've got labour costs.
You've seen our work hours come down by over 50,000,000 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 compliment moves more toward pre-career than career. We still have a lot of room to grow there. So, there's a lot of dollars to be saved right there.
And the rest of the money is gonna come by us learning how to operate the network better. But let me make it very clear. We are not gonna save our way out of the hole that we're in. There is, you know, I know that the prior plan said breakeven in 2023. Not gonna happen.
Didn't happen, and I don't expect to see it happen anytime soon on the current path that we are on. Why is that? Because inflation keeps eating up our savings.
Speaker 6
I'd like to follow-up on a question from chairman Comer, also about duplicative insourcing done. I think many of us share the concern that there's 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 to not have this insourcing going on.
Speaker 3
Yeah. As far as I know, there's only one thing we insourced, again, that's local transportation. And those costs, I said, down $44,000,000. That's 17%. There's a 17% savings in that, in that cost of local transportation.
Not only is there a 17% savings, but we get better service. I think that's a win-win. I'm not gonna tell you that's going to solve the problem. $44,000,000 didn't get you there, but that's one instance where I would tell you, we made the right business decision.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Appreciate the gentlewoman taking the time. I know that these are important issues to her, and she catches me on a regular basis. I appreciate her taking the time here. The gentlewoman, Miss Norn, is recognized.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Gentleman. I wanna begin by thanking postal service employees for their dedication and hard work. Postal General District of Columbia 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%. At the same time, the delivery standards have been lengthened from 2 to 3 days to 3 to 5 days. Postal general, can you comment, can you commit that the costs of the postal services' financial situation will not be disproportionately borne by customers via increased prices and lower delivery standards?
Speaker 3
Yeah. You know, look. We are still, by far, the lowest price stamp in the industrialized world. Every industrialized country has dealt with this issue, and they've had to triple or quadruple prices. You talked about the 42% price increase.
That's 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 2%. 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're all users of the postal service. If we raise the stamp by a price of 15¢, someone that uses 100 stamps a year, that costs them a dollar and a half.
If you're a super user and you use the thousand stamps a year, it costs you $150. Is that worth saving the postal service?
Speaker 7
Mister Moroni, what changes can be made to postal service occupation, operations to put the postal service back to a secure financial footing without continuing to see higher prices and lower service levels?
Speaker 4
So in terms of that model, I don't 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 gonna be needed based on our work to address either, first, what's the level of service that the American people need. Is it the same, less, or more? And then figuring out how is that gonna be funded. Does it 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 don't think based on where things are right now, USPS on its own could take actions to reduce costs. It can take actions to increase revenue, but I don't think it can get there on its own.
Speaker 7
The postal service must not only be accessible and reliable, its services must also be affordable. The American people need an affordable postal service, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Joan yields back her time. I would also like to take just a second, and thank you for your service. This is not a point where we will be at as we will be later in the year. But I wanna thank you both, Mister Infuma. I appreciate your not only insistence on coming 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. The distinguished gentleman, Mister Palmer from Alabama, you're recognized, sir.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, mister postmaster general, mister Morani, for being here. There's a report published by the Envelope Manufacturing Association. It's an economic study, and what they find is that your revenues have remained relatively stable at roughly $7,879,000,000,000 dollars annually. But the controllable costs have continued to rise, increasing by billions of dollars over the past several years. And, I'm just they make a point that if you could reduce controllable cost by just 2% annually, it would eliminate your operating losses and reach breakeven in 2030.
That's basically when this report was done, would have been about 5 years. How do you respond to that?
Speaker 3
I'll tell you. I, I've 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 has been able to do that. You know, everyone thinks, oh, it's easy. It's very easy.
Just get productivity. The problem is you've got expenses rising. You've gotta give employees pay increases. Fuel goes up.
Speaker 8
I'm gonna interrupt your doctor 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 were the post office are buying from Oshkosh were, like, 20,000 more than your conventional vehicles. The ones you purchased from Ford were 10,000. And then you've got, I know the federal government has allocated $3,000,000,000 in the so called inflation reduction act for this, but your overall cost is gonna be close to 10,000,000,000. So how do you when you're doing things like this that I can't make an economic case for this.
Speaker 3
Well, you look. We're gonna hear me say this repeatedly and over and over again. If I'm in the private sector, I've got options. If I have 71% of my routes that are losing money, guess what I can do? Cut routes.
If I have 80% 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 sector. We don't have options.
We have mandates.
Speaker 8
Well, here's where you could help us out to help you. I'd like for you to provide to the committee, the subcommittee, and we'll provide for full committee a breakdown of where your revenues come from. Is it personal mail, business mail, you know, package delivery? Advertising, junk mail, you know, business, political mail?
Speaker 3
Marketing mail, please. Well, I mean, I used to make that same mistake. I don't make it anymore. I call it revenue.
Speaker 8
Okay. Well, but also, where's your cost tied into this? You know, you got a revenue stream from different types of delivery, but you've also got a cost. So I think that'd be helpful. I think the GA.
Speaker 8
Somewhat with that as well. But getting back to this, I know there's a lot of hangster 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 some place in Florida, then it went to Orlando. Then it came back to what should have been three days was ten days, and then she didn't lock the necklace, which is another issue.
But what we're trying to do is get you where you can operate. But we've and I I'm gonna 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'm not interested in beating up the post office. I'm interested in fixing it.
If it can't be fixed, then we need to, mister chairman, we need to look at other options.
Speaker 8
Mister chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to raise these questions. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I appreciate the chairman. I know we're 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 ourself to smooth 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 that is still part of this discussion. And part of why we're here today, yes, sir.
Speaker 8
Mister chairman, I wanna make it clear that I would like for postmaster general's office to provide that breakdown of the revenues so that we can juxtapose those against where the costs are.
Speaker 1
Yes, sir. And I would respond 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.
We'll be glad to share those with you. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Let's see. We now go to Mr. Frost.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mister Moroni 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 of topics I wanna ask about. The first one is something I'm 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 aggregate census is the only way we can ensure fair and equal representation. It helps determine how congressional districts are drawn and make sure that federal funds reach communities. Postmaster general, how does the post, how does the postal service plan to address the gap in expertise if postal workers are expected to perform the duties of census workers?
Speaker 3
Yeah. It's as you probably read, that's why we're 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. And the other, they'll 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's 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're gonna open the door. So they don't have to go back five or six times. And so it's strictly a pilot to see if we can do it faster, better, and cheaper.
And if so, that will be a service to the American public. Again, it is a big undertaking. And so that's why we're doing the two pilots to see if we can make it work.
Speaker 9
And how do you ensure service delivery is not impacted if postal service or postal workers have to balance their mail delivery duties with the administration of the census?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I mean, look. That's why we're doing the pilots. You know, actually, it would be good for the carriers because they can make a little bit of overtime. A of our carriers like to earn the overtime.
But that's why we're doing it, so that we can figure out how we best make it work for our employees and for the census. Again, a long way before we actually get it done. That's why we're doing the pilots. Hopefully, we'll be able to do it faster, better, cheaper.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Also, the postal service is implementing a new transportation plan. This is the RTO, regional transportation optimization initiative, which may impact 72% of post 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, medications, their ballots, bills, etcetera.
Are you confident that you can ensure the RTO initiative will not slow mail delivery?
Speaker 3
Absolutely certain because, actually, RTO doesn't affect the delivery. It only affects the collection. So, on delivery, there's been absolutely no change. The only change that RTO brings is on the collection.
Speaker 9
Okay. And then, okay. Gotcha. And then the last thing I wanna 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, about the options that private corporations may have that we don't have. And it's a good thing we don't have those options because no matter what, our postal workers are gonna deliver the mail no matter where you live. And that's 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's more important than ever that rural Americans can get their medication from the USPS.
Mister Maroney, if the postal service were privatized, how would this impact people in my district or across the country? How would that impact their day to day experience with the USPS?
Speaker 4
So there's definitely trade-offs with privatization. It's possible they might be able to reduce costs and increase revenues faster, but that also means they might not serve certain routes that are not profitable. They might close postal locations that are not profitable either to get to, profitability.
Speaker 9
What are the kind of what type of Americans, what type of people could expect maybe a loss in service to those privatized?
Speaker 4
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 gonna be rural and small. That's where we disproportionately fall.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, gentlemen. Yields back your time. We are now on votes. There are four votes being called. I have advised the gentleman, Mr. Gil.
He will be the first one when we come back, and there will be these four votes. They will probably take a good bit of time. We figured this one out before. Don't know if the rules in the mix, but let's advise the members that we will come back ten minutes after the last vote. I'd 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. Mister Gil, you will be the first one when we return. And I would say to the witnesses and people here, thank you for taking the time. I'm sorry.
This is the part of our business that we just have to go through. So the committee will now be in recess. Subcommittee to come to order, and thank you very much. Apologize for the delay. We now will go back with members, opportunities for their questions.
The gentleman from Texas, Mister Gill's recognized.
Speaker 10
Thank you, mister chairman, for holding this hearing, and thank you to postmaster general Steiner and to mister Moroni for taking the time to be here. We certainly really appreciate it. Mister Steiner, I wanna begin with a few questions for you. Do you know how many of the drivers who haul mail for USPS are using nondomiciled CDLs?
Speaker 10
Do you know if it's a lot or just a few? None. So what I'm hearing from mail processing centers, there's been quite a few. In fact, I've heard from several large ones who have said something to the extent about half of the drivers who are coming to pick up mail appear to be non domiciled, that they typically don't even speak English. I've heard that over half of them don't speak English.
There've been suggestions that many of them are perhaps illegal aliens. Are you familiar with that?
Speaker 10
Sorry. Wouldn't surprise you that there are a lot of drivers who are non domiciled?
Speaker 3
No. It wouldn't surprise me that that's 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've probably got better information.
Speaker 3
That every driver that drives for us, whether they're an employee or whether they're part of a third party contractor, has to go through and make sure that they are a domiciled CDL.
Speaker 10
Is that being enforced? Because I've been told by multiple different parties that that rule is not, in fact, being enforced in any meaningful way.
Speaker 10
Okay. Well, I've got, this is from a whistleblower, postal whistleblower. Here are multiple non-domiciled licenses from one hour of check-ins at one USPS facility. This was from March 2026 that has been recorded.
Speaker 3
Yeah. If you'd send that on to us, I'll have our postal inspection service look.
Speaker 10
At that and find out what happened. We also got recording from Pete Rootsalias, who's the VP of Transportation Strategy at USPS, who has said, quote, we don't, we didn't understand the magnitude of how many people are using non domiciled CDLs, suggesting that I attempted to stop this practice but realized that there are too many drivers who are using these non domiciled CDLs. It wasn't, I guess, practicable to enforce that particular ruling. Are you familiar with that at all?
Speaker 10
So it's your testimony that there are no CDL dry or no mail carriers, excuse me, who are nondot domiciled CDL drivers?
Speaker 3
No. My testimony is that I'm not aware of the conversation you're referencing.
Speaker 10
Okay. What are you guys doing to ensure that there are no non-domiciled CDL drivers carrying our mail?
Speaker 10
But by what mechanism are you enforcing that other than a, you know, a theoretical requirement?
Speaker 3
You know, I don't know how you can do anything other than in person. Right? I mean, our folks are drivers required to use a post badge? As far as I know, they are.
Speaker 10
Yes. And I've heard from multiple, again, mail processing facility who are telling me that none of that is being enforced in any meaningful way. And it seems based on.
Speaker 10
I'd happy to do that because I don't think that makes our roads any safer.
Speaker 3
No. You're absolutely right. And, look, we all agree that safety is number one. But let's put it in perspective. You have 2,000 deaths every year from gig drivers driving.
Mhmm. You've got other companies using them to deliver packages. Mhmm. Those folks are.
Speaker 10
But the mail deliverers or mail carriers, excuse me, are not necessarily USPS employees. Is that correct?
Speaker 10
All, they're all employ, you don't outsource any of that. We do not. You don't outsource, so every single delivery truck that is carrying mail in the United States is an employee of USPS?
Speaker 3
Oh, no. Transporting mail is a whole different dam. That is what I'm asking. About delivery. I'm talking about I don't think big drivers are transporting mail.
They're transporting individual packages to customers, and there are 2000 people dying every year because they're going through the neighborhoods.
Speaker 3
Let's put it in perspective. You're absolutely right. So let's put it in perspective. Two thousand people died because we had gig drivers that are probably unlicensed. Mhmm.
They're probably uninsured. They're untrained, and they're killing people not on the highways. They're killing people in the 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.
Speaker 3
We've taken care of that. I'd like to see us look at taking care of the drivers that are driving through our neighborhoods.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, choose to yield back his time. Yes. Gentlemen, yield back his time. Thank you very much. We will now move to the gentlewoman, Miss Randall.
You're recognized.
Speaker 12
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I represent the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. In my district, like, I'm sure many across the country, we've 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 a 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, this is more than just an inconvenience.
It's an erosion of trust in a service that they rely on. Now to be clear, I want mold mitigation to happen in the building. I don't want employees to be working in a water-damaged and moldy space. But, Mister Steiner, when a postal facility closes due to damage, what timeline does USPS follow for assessing damage, initiating repair contracts, and completing repairs?
Speaker 3
Sure. You know, obviously, we'll look into that specific situation. But you'll hear me say this a lot. We're not proud that some of our post offices look like third-world stores. We're not proud that we have 40 year old trucks going through neighborhoods.
We're not proud that we can't give every single one of our wonderful carriers a brand new uniform, but we have to make trade offs. You know, we are running out of cash, and we have to make trade-offs. And so every day, we need to make the determination, are we gonna 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's why I'm here today. We would absolutely love to have pristine post offices throughout the United States.
It is our face to the customers. We don't have the cash to do it. We would love to have brand-new trucks driving through the neighborhood safely. We don't have the cash to do it. And so, you know, we'll look into that specific instance, obviously, and we'll get you some timelines on it.
But I think we do have to have that conversation of where are the trade offs. Right? Where can we make those trade-offs at a time when we'll be out of cash in less than 12 months?
Speaker 12
Absolutely. And I wonder, this might be one of the trade-offs that you're 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?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I think the number's about 60%. A good portion are leased rather than owned. And, it's 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 can't.
You know? And when we talk about trade offs, I like to look for cost free trade offs. 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 urgent care.
Bring a bank. Bring the other needed things so that we can get a 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 trade-offs. Those are the kind of great cost-free trade-offs that we can get. Would love to look at doing one in your community.
Speaker 12
Absolutely. And I'm really proud that our district office shares a building with the post office. It's a great way for folks to get all their business done when they come to visit us. Now the last thing I wanna raise is the politicization of the postal service in the way that it's 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's being undermined is the trust in the postal service. And I'm out of time, but I just wanted to raise that 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.
Speaker 1
Do you want me to yield back your time? Thank you very much. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Berchick, you're recognized.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's 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 can bring in some real world experience.
Speaker 11
Well, mister postmaster general, what's the most up-to-date assessment of when the postal service will run out of money?
Speaker 3
Yeah. A lot of it depends. You know, we have a lot of obligations that we fulfill to the United States 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 years.
If we continue to make those payments, we're looking at probably October, November. If we stretch those out, we're looking at more like February.
Speaker 11
I agree with my colleagues about reducing controlled costs. What are you doing to raise revenue?
Speaker 3
Yeah. You know, again, we need to, you got two different types of revenue. Right? You've got what we call the market dominant side, what you would call mail and marketing mail. And then you've got the competitive side, which would be packages.
You know, on the market dominant side, I think, you know, that's been going down 5% to 7% compounded every year since probably we were born because of the Internet and things like that. But I keep saying we can't think that that's a given. We've got to try to reimagine the mail. I've 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's only three things that matter when you're in the package business: speed, reliability, and cost. Speed, reliability, and cost. We've always been competitive on cost. We haven't 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 don't deliver all the packages to all the agencies of the United States government.
We are part of the United States government. It's basically taking money from one pocket to the other pocket, yet we don't do business for most of the United States government. So I want to talk about how we can get into all the various agencies in the federal government.
Speaker 11
I'd like to talk to you about that at some point. I don't wanna run out of time, but I did wanna, 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?
Speaker 3
Yeah. It's one of the problems. I mean, you know, you heard me talk about we have a lot of different mandates, but I won't show you any further than their last order. Their last order, by their own admission, transfers anywhere from 700,000,000 to a billion dollars from us to mailers by not allowing us to raise prices.
Speaker 3
700,000,000 to 1,000,000,000. There are two pieces to it. They won't allow us to raise prices more than once, and they've basically changed the work-share rules, which are too complicated for here. But it's basically taking money from us, by their own admission. Taking money from us, transferring it to mailers.
They say they do it to balance. You know what I ask them? If we're balancing things, answer me one question. Of all the companies that do business with us, how many of them are losing money?
Speaker 3
The answer: zero. They're all making money. We're the only ones losing money. I'm not sure how I see that as a balance.
Speaker 11
Alright. I appreciate that. Could you have somebody come by my office, maybe, and talk to me about it? I don't want you to talk to the staff. I want you to come talk to me.
Speaker 11
I appreciate that. Also, I just wanted to pay a compliment. These folks out there, we moved out of I mean, you wouldn't know it off Emery Road, but it Mainerville Highway. Those folks out there, this little country-type area, they're wonderful. They are just wonderful, and they always take care of folks, and they holler at them, and they talk to them.
It's good. Holler at them, and that's a positive thing in the South. And I used to have a burgeoning eBay business, and we'll go to the one on Wisegarbor, and I can some of the fondest memories I had with my daddy were he was an old World War two veteran. And when daddy would come in there, they would always pull him out a chair. And I said, Daddy, you just watch my packages.
I gotta run back out of the truck. Because sometimes I'd somebody park a car in front of my house, and I'd sell it on eBay, the parts off of it. But daddy would just sit there, and sometimes he'd go to sleep. And they were, but the people there were just wonderful. And I hope we don't lose that with the post office because when you lost that, you lost me, brother, because
Speaker 3
I was also right. And, look, we can use an entrepreneur like you in the post office if you're selling those used parts.
Speaker 3
We could use an entrepreneur like you in the post office when selling those.
Speaker 11
Used to do it much as these ethics people get in my way. You know? You wanna do insider stock trading, go to Congress. You wanna sell something on eBay, you better get you an attorney if you're in Congress. Thank you, brother.
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, ranking member, for always being a class act.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back his time. Thank you very much. By the way, mister Steiner, think you'll enjoy the two and a half or three hours you spend with mister 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 Miss Badensky. Miss Badensky, you're recognized.
Speaker 1
Wait till you turn 50. Excuse me, Miss Talib. You are on the subcommittee, and you are recognized.
Speaker 14
Thank you so much, chairman. Thank you to the postmaster for being here. I wanna show you a picture. This is Nicholas John Acker, on November 8. 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 6 to 8 hours before he was found. He checked into work at 11 AM, and his body wasn't discovered until the following day at 12:30 PM. His death is unspeakable.
Tragedy for his family, including his fiancée. He had just recently got engaged to his colleagues and fellow postal workers and to 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 fiance. 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?
Speaker 14
Are you aware that they're asking workers to look for letters while the machine is operating?
Speaker 3
We're still waiting on the final report from OSHA to understand what happened.
Speaker 14
Since the death, a number of Nicholas' coworkers in the distribution center, it's gotten worse. The toxic work environment, dangerous culture there has created up USPS management at the facility has just, you know, just gotten worse, prioritizing speed over safety. It's, you know, been over four months since Nicolas' death, and representative Dingle 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 didn't die at the war.
He didn't 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 inclination to tell his mom? By the way, both his parents, you don't understand how devastated they are. They didn't expect to get that call again, of him just showing up at work.
And, again, even the circumstances around his death were pretty horrifying from 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're working on making it much more safe for them to work in that space. Will you at least acknowledge you'd be able to do that? Again, they deserve some acknowledgment from the post general about what happened at their facility.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Look. Obviously, a horrific incident that, you know, my heart, the heart of the whole postal family, goes out to him and his families. 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've gotta take it personally, and you've gotta take it as a teachable moment. Right? I ran a company where we went our safety numbers from 60 to one, which is world class. And it wasn't because, one person took it. It's because everybody took it.
And I will be at that facility.
Speaker 3
And any incident is too much of an incident. And if there's anything that we can do to make that a teachable moment to save someone else in post COVID. We will absolutely.
Speaker 14
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 hasn't responded to any of our requests. It's been months, and I, you know, chairman, please work with me in trying to get answers for his parents.
It shouldn't have taken this long to get answers to this investigation of what happened in 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, his parents deserve answers. They deserve justice. And they don't want talking points, postmaster general. They wanna, one, make sure there's justice and accountability, and make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else.
And, I'm here to tell you. I hear a lot of financial crisis that is facing postmaster. I've been talking about public banking and postal service, doing more in the postal service. I'm a big advocate for it. Trust me.
But this is what I've been focused on right now, because when you hug a mother that lost her child like that, as a member of Congress, I can't give her answers until you do your job. I yield.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back. I wanna 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 an OSHA investigation. And mister Nfume and I will deal with this immediately and speed up, not just a response, but an answer from them. And I wanna thank you for bringing that forward.
In 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. Mister Infume and I will be involved in that. In general, you will see that we're working with you to encourage that, properly and professionally.
Thank you very much. The gentleman from Georgia is now recognized, mister Jack.
Speaker 15
Well, thank you very much, mister chairman, and I wanna thank the postmaster general for testifying before us. Another LSU graduate, it seems like you guys are taking over the United States Congress.
Speaker 3
But never I thought I'd get the chance to say go Tigers in front of Congress.
Speaker 15
But, I wanted to just, first, you know, 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?
Speaker 3
I, you know, I don't think there is. You know, I've done tons of strategic plans across a number of businesses, and I've never had a strategic plan where they say, many options are not available to you. Right? You have losing routes, can't cut them. You have losing postal offices, can't cut them.
You have retirement benefits that only earn T-bill rates, you can't invest it in stocks. You know, you've got there's just 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 Goliver, and that's what's happening here.
It's not a string. It's the accumulation of all the strings. I think David spoke about them. It's 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's 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 that it's gonna cost a lot of money for you to serve rural communities, so we're gonna pay you for that. And that number then was $460,000,000. If you translate, they translate that to today's dollars, that's anywhere from 13 to $20,000,000,000.
So congress in 1971 understood that they're gonna 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've talked about in my remarks, or we acknowledge that there is a cost to the, you know, back what they called then the public service cost. There is a cost to that congress is gonna fund. You know, to me, they're six one and a half dozen 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 I'm glad to have those conversations.
Speaker 15
Well, thank you for that. I've got two local issues in my district I want to highlight. I know we've been working diligently with your team. I'm 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 wanna congratulate you. In recent months, you were able to reopen, at least the post office, box elements of that facility, but retail is still not operable. Curious what y'all's protocols are if you have a natural disaster that affects the post office, and can we work together to try to reopen the retail as quickly as possible?
Speaker 15
And lastly, Thomaston, Georgia, also in my district, you mentioned rural. You know, this is interesting. I think it does affect some more rural post offices that were built before the 1960s, before ADA came into effect. And we do have some, a lot of reports, and I wanna commend the postal employees there. They're trying to help folks that are, you know, in need of getting upstairs.
They don't have ramps. They're trying to help them get into the post office, but we just were here recurring problems there. Because the facility was built in the thirties, 1930s, I should say, there hasn't been a lot of, I guess, you know, legal requirements for them to update their facilities. Curious what y'all do with some of those more rural post offices that don't have the ADA requirements but still service people who have ADA.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Again, you know, we have to go back to that trade-off. Don't know the specific details, but we'll 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 didn't get their birthday card on time, we have that great employee that gives that unbelievable customer service. It really is the face of the post, the face of the postal service.
That's what we can bring back if we figure out the business model. That's 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 help them into a post office where it might be hard to get into it.
Speaker 15
I appreciate you working with us on both of those. Mister chairman, I may have some questions to submit for the record hereafter, but I deeply appreciate you convening this hearing. It's a very important hearing, it's a big deal for us to be part of it. So, thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We will look forward to not only getting your questions, but also hearing from them. And thank you very much. The gentleman, mister Waukinshaw.
Speaker 16
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you for suffering my presence again on this subcommittee. I have a couple of UC requests, if that's alright.
Speaker 16
Ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 03/05/2026 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. With objection. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a report released by the Department of Commerce IG on 03/16/2024 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.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister 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's headed. Frankly, your predecessor, in my view, was sometimes hostile towards our role in congressional oversight, didn't wanna 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've outlined, including the continued implementation of Delivering for America, like, including the Regional Transportation Optimization Initiative, would affect the services, financial position, and service performance over five years.
Speaker 3
Yes. And in fact, during the break, I was speaking with David about that what I think we can put together because, you know, it's 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've talked, there's probably five or six other ones.
We'll make assumptions on which ones happen and which ones don't. And so we'll have multiple budgets for you to say, if you want this one, we can go in this direction. If you still want this mandate, we can go in this direction. We can actually put it together for you so that it will show the effect of all the different mandates that I've talked about and how that would affect the five year plan.
Speaker 16
Because if we're gonna build support for any of the proposals, including maybe the lower-hanging fruit like investing the retirement funds, we gotta be able to go to our colleagues and say, this is where we're headed in a positive direction.
Speaker 16
According to a recent IG report, the postal service spent roughly $860,000,000 in remedies due to failing to comply with respective CBAs. So given the challenge the postal services 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'm a little bit skeptical of that given the challenging track record.
Speaker 3
Yeah. I don't blame you for the skepticism. But the workers' comp would actually be managed by a third party. You know, we manage, obviously, those claims you're talking about. The workers' comp would actually be managed by a third party.
Speaker 16
I wanna go to one of the maybe low-hanging fruit reforms, and you and I had a good conversation about the investment. And I've had an ounce of skepticism, and you relieve me of my skepticism, I think, in our conversation. Can you talk through, though, because, obviously, it's not as simple as saying you can invest the funds. Right? There had 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.
Speaker 3
Yeah. I think you'd want to put, obviously, you'd 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 of the employees be part of that. I think that's a great idea. You know, the proposals I've 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 decisions. But then you could also have parameters to say, you know, you're 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 don't wanna be out there gambling with our retirees' money. And then you get an oversight board with broad based experience to manage that.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back his time. Miss Walker's all. Thank you very much. I would now yield myself. Oh, excuse me. We did promise you would move forward to Miss and Missus, Bodensky.
You're now recognized. And thank you for taking the time.
Speaker 13
Thank you for the opportunity, mister chairman, and to ranking member Mufume, for this chance. I do wanna say, it's also great to meet and be with Postmaster General Steiner and Mister Moroni. Thank you both for being here. In fiscal year 2025, the postal service lost about $9,000,000,000. In 2026, USPS lost an additional $1,400,000,000. 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've also said that you wanna continue to move forward with the Delivering for America plan, which has really only worsened delivery over 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 two day first class mail was 92%. Six years later, and this is in my district, it's down now to just 83%, with areas like Downstate Illinois consistently seeing on-time delivery fall below 80% and even 70% at various points in 2024 and 2025. I will argue.
I think that's 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's true that the postal service, as you've 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 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 wanna say I'm very excited we've 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've continued, as I stated, that you believe in continuing to move forward 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.
Speaker 3
Yeah. And, you know, I do wanna clarify that when I think of the Delivering for America plan, I'm talking just about the network transformation piece. Right? Which I said before, you know, is sort of the logistics one zero one 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 slowly because the network is so big. You can absolutely see it. You see it in the service numbers.
You saw it during the peak. We were the most improved company in performance and 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 Saint Louis to Memphis. And I will tell you, I do not believe that that is a network problem.
My understanding is it's 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 don't 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.
Speaker 13
Just so I can squeeze in one more question. Agree. I'd 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 the conversation. But my last question, postmaster general, in regarding the postal service recent hiring and the restructuring firm hiring the restructuring firm Alvarez and Marsal, the postal service has said that they are going to use Alvarez and Marsal to identify ways to transform the postal service and address the fiscal shortfall. So my question, should we be anticipating a future reduction in force or more network changes if Alvarez and Marcel were to recommend that to your team?
Speaker 3
Yeah. You know, look. What I've said is that we are in a crisis. And when you're in a crisis, everything has to be on the table. Alvarez and Marcell is the, 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 haven't 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 twelve months of cash available, you've gotta look at everything. And I wanted to bring in the best to help us look at it.
Speaker 3
And glad to come meet with you in person to have discussion about those issues because they are important.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Gentlemen yields back her time. I would now yield myself such times I may consume. I first want 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 secondly, a letter dated March 16, US Postal Service to ask Congress for urgent reforms to survive, quote, beyond next year.
Without objection, we'll 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's a hard business. You're 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 don't hear a lot.
The post office, however, is at a point that we all agree with mister Mfume. You and I agree with, GAO agrees with. We are at a crucial point, not critical. We're at a crucial point where we now know more decisions need to be made with 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 an agreement.
I would like to say that during much of this period of time over the last year and some, 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's gonna take more than that. It's gonna take mister Nfume and me to stand behind an organization that is gonna have to make some decisions also.
We're gonna have to make decisions because this represents a huge part of not just enterprises across The United States, but the best interest of people who are normal American citizens who want, need, and expect a good post office. Sound service, good price, so 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 will do whatever you wanna pay for. And I told you I did not wanna raise the price of the 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're gonna go and how we're gonna get there. I met with our friends at the White House to find out what instructions they really provided you, also because that's important. When you go to offer a job to someone, you generally speaking, would wanna get some understanding of that 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, mister Mfume and I are very open with each other, and I will say I'm not trying to be a tough guy. We're gonna do this together, but I will do it. And we are, from our last meeting that we had over at your office, we had a determination that we were gonna get closer. I told you at that time that I had a commitment from James Comer, who's 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, mister Womack, who's sitting beside me, our staff, guru on the post office, has admitted to me, I've 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've generally been asking questions. We've generally been allowing you the opportunity to move forward with your plan.
I think the newest indications that I have of knowing where we are, I think we're past that point now, and we will get to where we agree and disagree. I am not responsible. I'm not your boss. I am your oversight. But mister Infume and I carry the torch about the results of what we're gonna do from congress to help.
And I think that mister Infume and I both have great confidence in the workers, the supervisors, the postmasters, the management of the organization, but we have to, we're gonna 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, that not only mister Infume and I, we're gonna get to where we then say, oh, yeah. Prove it. Oh, yeah. You think that?
Well, then I think 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'll go right to it. So I want you to know that today, I'm not going to put us through some of the bigger questions because, as I told the staff, I'm not gonna 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 worked on now. But when we're not with you under oath, you and I are going to engage in that with Mister Infume. And, we need to understand more about the same types of questions that have been brought up by our members, by 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 of being successful.
And so we're gonna have to have more than just time with each other, in an open mic like this. And so mister Infume 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 won't be about what we're doing with the burned-down post office. It won't be about what we're doing on a route or two.
It will be the financial integrity, the things that would allow you to serve people and to make the changes that would be necessary to you. And so I want you to know that I've 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 are in the industries that surround this that have placed billions of dollars in all of our hands. It's 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's able to effectively work professionally through these issues, and you didn't cause them, and I didn't cause them.
But it's gonna come down to the three or four of us who are gonna 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're not gonna kick the can down the road. We're gonna put these directly in front of us, and then we're gonna have to figure out how we're gonna 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 has 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's the right answer.
But we’re gonna 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 this stuff about yourself of what you're made in that you'll stick with us. I wanna thank you, Mr. Moroni, for being here today. I wanna 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're gonna do that.
So, mister Mfume, would you like to defend yourself in this effort?
Speaker 2
Well, thank you. First of all, mister chairman, we, as many of you know, work well together because we put a goal in front of us and try to put politics to the side so that we're concerned about people and not politics. And the other pee in all this is postal, the postal service, and why it gives us the kind of pride that we've had growing up in this country, and the kind of personal relationships that we've all had with the post office. We all think it's our post office. And I think that's the way it was meant and intentioned, and that's 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're able to move forward together. Got a couple of UCs, mister chairman, and then just a final statement.
Speaker 2
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.
Speaker 2
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.
Speaker 2
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 $15,000,000,000. I have to tell you I'm amazed that it has not been revisited since then. That's a long time.
Thirty-five years. And so one thing that is clear about all of this is that we cannot let the United States Postal Service die, that we're gonna 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, we need to do something. And I think without a doubt that many members of the Congress are gonna be particularly watching what Mister Sessions and what I advocate, because they'd recognize that there is no daylight between the two positions.
And, hopefully, that will get us to the point where we're able to deal with this debt crisis and debt limitation. However, having said that, all other members of this house, all 433, are gonna have a comment, a question, and, clearly, are gonna have some say in this because people just don't wanna 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 can use that term, or the guarantees, which I feel better about, will be done collaboratively. And, mister postmaster general, I hope that you and your people are willing to be a part of that. Mister Moroney, I'm gonna ask that the GSA also weigh in on all of this, so that we feel like we're on stable ground to be able to answer the tough questions.
And then I'm gonna 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's the vision that you wanna prep before them? And I don't want you to try to answer that now, but I just want you to think about it, because that's what we need here. Some clear vision that everybody in this country can get behind and 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 wanna thank Chairman Sessions for his work and for our working relationship. And would hope, as I've said earlier, we've 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 for far too long. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields back his time. Thank you. And I will, very succinctly, tell the gentleman, and he's heard me say this many times, I believe us working together can accomplish this. And I'm talking about the postal service. I'm talking about some of 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 the system. I think that there are people that do certain things out of their own, either best interests, so that's the way their route, and 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 mister Nfume and I, and I believe the general, are deeply committed to that also. We now gonna 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's no further business or objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.