“Oversight of the U.S. Postal Service: The Financial Future Under Postmaster General Steiner”

Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order, and I'd like to welcome everyone to this important hearing today. Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any time, and I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. Welcome to today's hearing regarding the Postal Service's financial future. The Postal Service is charged with delivering mail to every address in the nation six days a week. This mandate is one that brings with it huge costs that no private company is required to deal with. It is on the post office. For each year, the Postal Service loses billions of dollars, and now we know that in 12 months they will run out of cash. And so we have been engaging, both Mr. Mfume and I and this subcommittee, with the Postmaster General for quite some time about the meaning of that and how we might address those issues. The last Postmaster, Lewis DeJoy, launched his Delivering for America plan, which was designed to revive the Postal Service. And unfortunately, those expectations were not reached. Mr. Steiner now has taken that new role as our new Postmaster General. Congratulations and thank you for being here, Mr. Steiner. A role that is very focused on taking on full advantage of the last-mile capacity to grow revenue. Raising revenue, cutting costs, and utilizing the capacities and capabilities of private industry, we believe, will be the path forward. Understanding which aspects of Delivering for America plan will remain and which have been stopped is a key path to that as we move forward. Without proper transparency and oversight, Congress will be unable to see whether further action is necessary, and that is why we are also here today. And with the Postal Service's request for increase in borrowing authority from the Treasury, Congress needs to have confidence not only that they'll be able to pay it back, but that they're on the right road to achieve financial security. For Congress to consider this request, the Postal Service must also prove that they have exhausted their options already. And this is a part of the regular interaction that takes place between this subcommittee as well as our staff and the Postmaster General and his staff as they work through the needs of understanding the ideas and where they meet with revenue objectives. Like so many actions that are available to the Postal Service, they need to look at them and understand what those ramifications mean. And while we have been in dialogue over those, some of those have taken place, and we look forward to today to hearing about those outcomes and answers. So I am delighted to be here today. I think Mr. Mfume and I both wake up, as Mr. Steiner does, at 3:00 some mornings with this on our mind. But I would also say that many of our other members do that also as well, the huge industry that surrounds this. It is a very important competitive marketplace. It is a very important part of the American economy and the vibrancy of this country. But we also come at this as members of Congress from our opportunity to serve people back home who want and need the Postal Service to be viable, but to be cost-effective also. And so all of these things come to point today, another day where we're able to have the Postmaster General, and I am delighted that he is here. I would like to yield now the time to the gentleman, distinguished gentleman, my good friend and a gentleman who I think he and I both share many of the same ideas not only about America's bright future, but about our responsibility in oversight. Distinguished gentleman from Maryland is recognized.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for those kind and gracious remarks. I'm glad that we are here together one more time and here today to discuss what we consider, and many out there who are watching us consider, to be a vital issue. I want to welcome also the Postmaster General, Mr. Steiner. Good to see you again. And Mr. Marroni, I hope that we can have a productive conversation today on how to put the Postal Service back on the right track for delivering for the American people. As we all know, for more than 250 years, our Postal Service has performed an indispensable service to this country and its citizens. Through its universal service obligation, the Postal Service knits together communities, it powers businesses, and bridges geographic and economic and cultural divides. Americans in every part of this country rely upon and really deserve prompt, reliable, and efficient mail services. I have unfortunately been alarmed over the last 15 months to see in many respects efforts to politicize the process as we know it. President Trump unfortunately has threatened to do everything from merging the Postal Service with the Department of Commerce to firing an entire board of governors. And former Postmaster General DeJoy left his position prematurely last year under pressure from the White House after he refused to grant DOJ officials access to Postal Service systems. So moving forward, I would urge you, Mr. Postmaster General, to continue defending against any threat that's brought up that would in somehow or another undercut the independence of the Postal Service. Many of my colleagues have also watched with great concern in recent years as the financial condition has deteriorated and service standards, in the eyes of some people, have fallen. The last thing that we want is a privatized system. And I would hope that every time we meet those efforts by those who argue that privatization is the way to go, that we are steadfast and firm in resisting that. Putting the Postal Service back on a financial and secure footing is key. And since July of 2021, first-class mail costs have increased 41 percent, while delivery standards were lengthened from two to five days to now three to five. So that means that Americans have to pay higher prices for a service that is not as good as it was. Last year, Postmaster General Steiner, you met with members of this subcommittee to share your plans for stabilizing the Postal Service's finances. We thank you for that. Since then, however, the Postal Service has continued unfortunately to lose money at an alarming rate while performance has continued to suffer. In fiscal year 2025, the Postal Service suffered a net loss of $9 billion. That's been well reported, we're all familiar with that figure. With a further $1.3 billion loss in the first quarter of this year alone. The Postal Service is approaching a liquidity crisis indeed. Without significant reforms, it will not have enough cash on hand to meet its required payments as early as 2027. And so for the good of all Americans who rely on the Postal Service for critical mail, medicine, ballots, etc., we cannot allow that to happen. And the Postal Service obviously needs to cut costs and increase revenue. I appreciate the Postmaster General's effort to do so over the last year or so, but this is not an easy matter at all. It's a hell of a juggling act, to say the very, very least. So I want to make sure that we in this committee and those who are watching this, who are concerned about the Postal Service, find a way to realize a couple of things. In addition to cutting costs 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 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, Mr. 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 want to take the time to recognize the incredible work of the postal workforce that the Chairman alluded to earlier. They continue to do for the American people a great service, and they do it in a way that they 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 by criminals. We've spoken about this before, we all share this concern. Criminals target locked mailboxes that are only accessible to the United States public service. I've seen postal workers beaten and stabbed and left to fend for their own while help comes up. We've seen the videos all over YouTube on that. So no Postal Service worker should fear for their safety at work, and that's why I've pushed for the implementation of the Postal Service's 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 and I'm going to yield back to the Chairman who's very, very generous with his time. We're 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, 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 on this. 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, Mr. 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 been, and I yield back my time.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Mfume, for his conversation. I believe that I will take it succinctly down to the point that he and I overwhelmingly agree with, and that is we have to keep the issues directly in front of us. We have to work on them, we have to understand them, we have to deal with them, and I could not have a better partner to do that with than you, sir. Although I will say over time, you look better and I look older. So with that objection, we are going to welcome our young chairman, James Comer, who is here, chairman of the full committee. We also welcome Congressman Timmons from South Carolina, Congresswoman Boebert from Colorado, Congressman Walkinshaw of Virginia, Congresswoman Tlaib of Michigan, Congressman Bell of Missouri. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to say Missouri. I used to live in Missouri, but they like to call it Missouri. 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 will move to the reason why we're here, and I am pleased to welcome our witnesses for today. Mr. Steiner is the Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer of the United States Postal Service, having held this position since July of 2025. Prior to this, he was the CEO of Waste Management and on the board of directors of FedEx. Our second witness today is Mr. Marroni. He is Director of Physical Infrastructure at the Government Accounting Office. The GAO is expert in many areas and he will soon prove his worthiness today. He is an expert in the Postal Service and federal real property management, so I look forward to both of you not only being here for your testimony but answering the questions. I would ask that both of you now stand for you to be sworn in before this subcommittee. Pursuant to committee rule 9G, the witnesses will please raise their hand, which they have done, and their right hand is raised and I will ask the question. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

Let the record reflect that both witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I would now like for you to know that we...

I do.

I do.

I do.

Let the record reflect that both witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I would now like for you to know that we normally follow this five-minute rule, but what I'm interested 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 is here right now, but you have drawn this and I'm interested in us members and you giving an opportunity to fully vet your answer and to be given that 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.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mfume, Chairman Comer, and members. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how the Postal Service is at a critical juncture. At our current rate, we'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 the status quo. So how did we get here and how do we solve the problem? We got here because of the drastic reduction in the use of the mail. From historic peak volume of 213 billion pieces per year to today at 109 billion pieces per year, we've lost over 104 billion pieces per year in our system. For perspective, if all of that lost volume was paid at the current price of a stamp, which is 78 cents, that's about $81 billion 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 billion a year. Second, we can't borrow more than $15 billion. The $15 billion limit was established decades ago. If you applied inflation or based it on revenue, that limit should be $30 to $40 billion. Third, we can only invest our retirement in Treasury notes. If we were able to invest conservatively, we would have an additional $800 billion in retirement benefits. Fourth, we're mandated by law to deliver to every address, more than 170 million of them, six days a week. This leads to 71 percent of our delivery routes being financially underwater. If we'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 million to $800 million 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 a billion dollars 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 U.S. costs us about $150 million. Keeping post offices open and not being allowed to consider losses as a reason to replace them with alternative means is another $840 million. And the list goes on. All those costly inequities amass to an incredibly burdensome anchor that plagues our trajectory. And we should have a discussion about all of them. But in order to survive beyond the next year, we need to increase our borrowing capacity so that we 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 of 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 cents, the U.S. first-class stamp is the lowest in the industrialized world. Compare it to France at almost $3 and England at $2.50, and the longest distance those letters have to travel is about 600 miles, smaller than the state of Texas. We deliver from the tip of Puerto Rico to the tip of Alaska for 78 cents. That's a distance of 5,000 miles. So we sell the stamp at less than half the cost to travel eight times farther. If we were to change the stamp price to 90 to 95 cents, which is still less than half of the cost of foreign posts, that would largely solve our controllable loss. And the stamp would still be the lowest in the industrialized world by a lot. And on the cost side, the Postal Service is undertaking 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 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 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.

Thank you very much, gentleman. Mr. Marroni, please, for your opening statement.

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's 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's services. In short, it's time for Congress to fix USPS's 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 10-year plan with the aim of fixing its finances, and Congress has passed major postal legislation to provide financial relief. However, those actions have not been enough. While USPS has been able to increase its revenue and cut some costs, its overall expenses have grown at a faster rate, while its service performance has declined. This pattern is not sustainable. There is a fundamental tension between the level of services that Congress expects USPS to provide and the revenue that USPS can reasonably be expected to generate. Something has to change. For its part, USPS needs to take additional actions within its own authority to try and improve its financial situation. This includes considering changes to its current 10-year plan and identifying ways to increase its revenues while tackling cost growth. As it does so, USPS should develop long-term financial projections that will help communicate its outlook and progress to Congress and identify actions to help put it on a financially viable path. That said, it is highly unlikely that USPS will be able to fix its poor financial condition on its own. Congress will need to act. Indeed, Congress may need to provide some short-term financial relief to help USPS avoid running out of cash. At the same time, it's essential that Congress also address the long-term issues with USPS's 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 billion a year in retiree healthcare costs, on top of other expenses that are likely to continue to grow. To fix USPS's business model for the long term, Congress will need to decide on the level of postal service the nation requires and determine a balanced approach to funding those services. In conclusion, USPS has been struggling financially for years and is now approaching a crisis point. It is imperative that USPS and Congress act with urgency to both address the near-term cash crisis as well as fix USPS's business model for the long term. There are difficult choices ahead, but those choices need to be made now to put USPS on a sustainable financial path. A financially viable USPS will best be able to provide high-quality service to the American people. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Obviously, your insight from both of you will be of value to this subcommittee and I appreciate that. I would move first as the distinguished gentleman, the chairman of the committee, wish time? Gentleman, Mr. Comer.

I just have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, then sounds like the gentleman is going to be here for a little bit. I would move to the distinguished gentlewoman... Oh, you do want to go now? I thought you did a statement. No, I'm sorry. Your time.

Well, and Mr. Chairman, thank you, and the ranking member for always having quality meetings. Mr. Postmaster General, welcome. I have three questions I'm going to try to get in in my five minutes. I want to start with a report, OIG, the Office of Inspector General, regarding waste in the Postal Service USPS Ship program, a topic that is of significant concern to this committee. The OIG found that the Postal Service has spent over $1.5 billion developing the 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 is 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?

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 our customers. But we have looked at situations where we would have others between us and our customers to do that type of technology work. We're actually looking at it right now.

But and 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 want to protect the Postal Service, but we've got to make some business decisions.

No doubt about it. And and I will tell you, Mr. 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 posthaste.

Well, let's talk about the Postal Service Reform Act. I worked very closely when I was ranking member with then-Chairman Maloney, and that was a true bipartisan bill because there's bipartisan support for the Postal Service. One of the things that we expected when we gave the Postal Service some money to stabilize the books, everything that you're talking about today, we did five years ago. What cost-cutting measures has the USPS implemented since the Postal Service Reform Act passed and became law?

Sure. As you're well aware, you know, we transformed 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 reduce transportation costs, we reduce number of times that we move boxes.

Did that reduce costs?

That has reduced costs by about $2.1, $2.2 billion.

Well...

Now remember our original projection was 3.6, so we aren't there yet.

It based on the numbers, it looks to me like nearly 80 percent of the US Postal Service's costs are labor, which is the case with just about every government agency. Your 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?

Oh, we're absolutely looking at that. Now remember there's two pieces to our to our network. There's folks that actually deliver the mail. And, you know, you don't want to do a hiring freeze there because if we do that then we won't deliver mail. From a from a management perspective, you know, we have not increased the the number of our employees dramatically. But as you know, we've brought in the... Oh we're absolutely looking at that. Now remember there's two pieces to our to our network. There's folks that actually deliver the mail. And you know you don't want to do a hiring freeze there because if we do that then we won't deliver mail.

But they've increased and every other government agency's decreasing the number of folks just like most private sector.

Actually, in the last four years, we have about 30, 35,000 fewer employees. And we're moving toward more of those employees being pre-career rather than career. There's two ways we can really save money here. That's changing our mix of career and non-career, more toward non-career.

You're talking about part-time and full-time.

Correct, basically. And the other is overtime, both regular overtime, penalty overtime. You know, those are $100 to $150 million for every percentage point you move them. So we're that's where we're that's where we're focused. But but you're absolutely right. We have to look at everything. We can't look at just one piece.

And look, we we support the postal workers. My grandmother delivered the mail. She spent 27 years as a as a mail carrier in Red Boiling Springs, Tennessee. I support the post office. It's 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 we're trying to do more in the Postal Service in-house instead of privatizing. Even 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.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure which 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 going to do it. And that's one area...

It's hard for me to believe you're doing it cheaper from the Postal Service. You've done that and are asking for more money. It's just hard to believe. Maybe maybe it's true, but it's hard for me to believe being in Congress nine and a half years.

Well, if you believe our accountants, it's true. There's about $44...

I don't know if they work for the government, I'll have to think about that.

There's about $44 million 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, takes them time to get there. You know, they 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 that is one thing we're doing pretty well.

Mr. Chairman, my time's expired. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back his time. The gentleman, Mr. Mfume, is recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, again. Mr. Postmaster General, I took some notes with what you were saying and I I have a couple of observations and maybe you can kind of point me in the direction where you think you should be going. Aside from that, there's an old saying that says the hurrier I go, the behinder I get. And we have been rushing through this committee for the last several years emphatically trying to find a way to avoid the crisis that's in front of us now, and we look up and behinder we are. So your points, if I have them correctly, was that you don't have the ability to manage your worker compensation plans. Is that correct?

That's one of them, yes.

That you've lost $81 billion in real time over an accumulated number of years as a result of a reduction in the volume of mail in the United States. Is that correct?

Well, we lost 104 billion pieces. I was just using the 78-cent stamp to for illustrative purposes.

Okay. 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?

That's correct.

And that you said that the 78-cent stamp is the lowest out of all industrialized countries and that it travels the fewer miles for it to be taken advantage of or to deliver, I should say, the mail. Is that correct?

That's correct.

This is a situation that Mr. Marroni mentioned earlier about the GAO strongly recommending, aside from congressional assistance in terms of 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. Mr. Marroni, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And what would some of those things be?

So there are ways to get compensation under control. That's a major area of cost growth. They would be continuing 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 amount of places the USPS has to deliver are increasing. So there's a fundamental disconnect there that's driving up costs.

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.

In in what regard?

Well, what are you doing with your competition who clearly wants to do all that it can to take away your business?

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 and 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 at the lower level. So just to give you an example, our average weight of our package is about 1 to 1.2 pounds. FedEx, UPS, they're closer to 5 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...

I got it. I'm going to 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 Mr. Marroni said, short of everything that's being proposed as stopgap measures, that USPS should be doing everything it can under its authority to reduce costs. Can you tell us what what that is? I want to follow up on the chairman's question on that and specifically tell us how those costs have been reduced, Mr. Postmaster?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking to the other David. So, you know, obviously we put together a network that reduces number of trips, reduces transportation costs, reduces fuel costs. I mean, 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 Airlines. 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 and the pace of service has gotten better.

Thank you, sir. My time is expired, though. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back his time. Distinguished gentlewoman, chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Foxx is recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses for being here, and I want to say that I particularly join Mr. Mfume and you, Mr. Chairman, in thanking the local postal workers for their work. I'm a lifelong letter writer and always use the post office. But I am very concerned with the with the caliber of service that we are getting and with the fact that the post office continues to come to us for more money. I mailed my husband a Valentine a week before Valentine's Day. He still hasn't received it. People in my office know people who've sent out wedding invitations, mailed in plenty of time. People haven't received them a month later. This is unacceptable, Mr. Postmaster General. Absolutely unacceptable. If you want people to stop not using the post office, you want them to continue to use the post office, then they have to get the kind of service that they deserve and have had in the past. Now, we were told the Delivering for America plan was a long-term strategy to steady postal service finances, improve operations, and protect the future of the mail system. But the USPS losses continue, productivity has declined, Americans get repeated rate increases, slower services. I was a big part of the Postal Service Reform Act also in 2022. So given what's going on, the very negative things that are happening, what evidence suggests the current plan's working? I heard what you just said, and why should Congress expect different results if the DFA plan continues?

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 billion packages a year, well under 10 billion. We deliver 110 billion pieces per year. And so this network is so much more sophisticated than those networks because of mail. And so there are hundreds of pinch points where there can be problems. It goes back to what I said earlier. You can build a network, but you've got to learn how to operate the network. And I will tell you, we are not great at operating the network. We've put Doug Tulino in charge of that, making sure that all three of our our pieces that do delivery are joined together and working together, and you've started to see progress. You've started to see some very good progress in service. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we're there yet.

So can we expect modifications to the plan and better service? Mr. Marroni 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 percent 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?

Well, we've got to look at controllable costs everywhere. So we've talked about it in the network. You've got fuel costs, of course, you're going to see those disappear as we've seen the price of fuel go up. You've got labor cost. You've seen our work hours come down by over 50 million work hours. Now we need to make those make sure that those work hours are straight time hours, not overtime hours. And we need to make sure that our complement moves more toward pre-career than career. We still have a lot of room to grow there. So there is a lot of dollars to be saved right there. And the rest of the money is going to come by us learning how to operate the network better. But let me make it very, very, very, very clear. We are not going to save our way out of the hole that we're in. There is, you know, I know that that the prior plan said break even in 2023. Not going to happen. Didn't happen, and and I don't expect to see it happen anytime soon from on the current path that we are on. Why is that? Because inflation, inflation keeps eating up our savings.

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 it's costing more because of the overtime and the number of people that you have there working. So please say a little bit more about what you can do not to have this insourcing going on.

Yeah, as far as I know, there's only one thing we insourced and again, that's local transportation. And those costs, I said, down $44 million. That's 17 percent. There's a 17 percent savings in that in that in that cost of local transportation. Not only is there 17 percent savings, but we get better service. I think that's a win-win. I'm not going to tell you that's going to solve the problem. $44 million doesn't get you there, but that's that's one instance where I would tell you we made the right business decision.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I yield back.

Gentlewoman yields back her time. I would also like to take just a second and thank you for your service. This is not a point that we will be at as we will be later in the year, but I want to thank you both. Mr. Mfume, I appreciate your not only insistence to come to every one of our subcommittee hearings, but to genuinely participate in that, and I appreciate you very much and I want to thank you. The distinguished gentlewoman, Ms. Norton is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 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 percent. At the same time, the delivery standards have been lengthened from two to three days to three to five days. Postal General, can you comment, can you commit that the costs of the postal services financial situation will not be disproportionately borne by customers via increased prices and lower delivery standards?

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, quadruple prices. You talked about the 42 percent 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 percent. And so, you know, I am a firm believer that the market should set the rate, and the market is not setting the rate right now. And the other thing I would say is, look, we're all users of the postal service. If we raise the stamp by a price of 15 cents, someone that uses 100 stamps a year, that costs them a dollar and a half. If you're a super user and you use 1,000 stamps a year, costs you $150. Is that worth saving the postal service?

Mr. Marroni, what changes can be made to postal service operations to put the postal service back to a secure financial footing without continuing to see higher prices and lower service levels?

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 going to 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, more? And then figuring out how how is that going to 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 it can take actions to reduce costs, it can take actions to increase revenue, but I don't think it can get there on its own.

The postal service must not only be accessible and reliable, its services must be also affordable. The American people need an affordable postal service, and I yield back.

Gentlewoman yields back her time. I would also like to take just a second and thank you for your service. This is not a point that we will be at as we will be later in the year, but I want to thank you both. Mr. Mfume, I appreciate your not only insistence to come to every one of our subcommittee hearings, but to genuinely participate in that, and I appreciate you very much and I want to thank you. The distinguished gentleman, Mr. Palmer from Alabama, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Postmaster General, Mr. Marroni for being here. There's a report published by the Envelope Manufacturers Association. It's an economic study, and what they find is that your revenues have remained relatively stable at roughly $78 to $79 billion 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 costs by just 2 percent annually, it would, you would eliminate your operating losses and reach a break-even by 2030. That's basically when this report was done, would have been about five years. How do you respond to that?

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 have been able to do that. Um, 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 got to give employees pay increases. Fuel goes up...

Wait, I'm going to interrupt you right there because part of your increase in expenses has to do with the mandate to purchase next-generation delivery vehicles, which is a euphemism for electric vehicles. And and the the ones that you were the post office is buying from Oshkosh were like $20,000 more than than your conventional vehicles. The the ones you purchased from Ford were 10,000. And then you've got I know the federal government has allocated $3 billion in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act for this. But your overall cost is going to be close to $10 billion. So how do you when you're doing things like this that that I can't make an economic case for this?

Well, look, you're going to 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 percent of my routes that are losing money, guess what I can do? Cut routes. If I have 80 percent of my stores that are losing money, you know what I can do? I can cut routes. I can raise prices. I can do all the things that I can do in the public sector. We don't have options, we have mandates.

Well, here's where you could help us out to help you. I'd like for you to provide to the subcommittee, and we'll provide it for the full committee, a breakdown of where your revenues come from. Is it personal mail, business mail, package delivery, advertising, junk mail, business, political mail...

Marketing mail, please.

Well...

I used to make that same mistake, I don't make it anymore. I call it revenue.

Well, but also, where's your cost tied into this? You've got a revenue stream from different types of delivery, but you've also got a cost. So I think that would be helpful, and I think the GAO might be able to help somewhat with that as well. But getting back to this, I know there's a lot of angst or anger about delivery. 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, and then it came back. What should have been three days was 10 days. And then she didn't like the necklace, so that was another issue. But what we're trying to do is get you where you can operate. And I'm going to talk with the chairman of the full committee about what legislation we might be able to introduce that will help deal with some of these mandates. For instance, the electric vehicle issues, but also your 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. And if it can't be fixed, then we need to, Mr. Chairman, we need to look at other options.

Yes, would love to have that conversation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to raise these questions. I yield back.

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 ourselves to some other things. But the success of that rain dance has not been achieved because the Postmaster General has embarked on some things that he was hoping would alleviate some of these things or give him a longer-term answer, and that is still part of this discussion and part of why we're here today. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I would like for the Postmaster General's office to provide that breakdown of the revenues so we can juxtapose those against where the costs are.

Yes, sir, and I would respond back to the distinguished gentleman, 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.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Marroni and Postmaster General, for being here and also, Postmaster General, thank you for taking the time to sit with us in that briefing a few months ago. A couple topics I want to ask about. The first one is something I'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 accurate census is the only way we can ensure fair and equal representation. It helps determine how congressional districts are drawn and makes sure that federal funds reach communities. Postmaster General, how does the Postal Service plan to address the gap in expertise if postal workers are expected to perform the duties of census workers?

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 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 they probably know, so they're going to open the door so they don't have to go back five and six times. And so it's strictly a pilot to see if we can do it faster, better, cheaper, and if so, that will be a service to the American public. Again, it is a big, big, big undertaking, and so that's why we're doing the two pilots to see if we can if we can make it work.

And how will you ensure service delivery is not impacted if postal workers have to balance their mail delivery duties with the administration of the census?

Yeah, I mean, look, that's why we're doing the pilots. Actually, it would be good for the carriers because they can make a little bit of overtime. A lot of our carriers like to earn the overtime. But that's why we're doing it, so that we can figure out how do we best make it work for our employees and for the census. Again, a long way before we actually get it done, that's why we're doing the pilots. Hopefully, hopefully we'll be able to do it faster, better, cheaper.

Thank you. Also, the Postal Service is implementing a new transportation plan, this is the RTO, Regional Transportation Optimization initiative, which may impact 72 percent of postal offices. The Postal Service Office of the Inspector General has projected that this plan may slow mail delivery. People rely on USPS to get mail quickly, medications, their ballots, bills, etc. Are you confident that you can ensure that the RTO initiative will not slow mail delivery?

Absolutely certain because actually RTO doesn't affect delivery. It only affects collection. So on delivery, it's there has been absolutely no change. The only change that RTO brings is on collection.

Okay. And then okay, got you. And then the last thing I want to talk about is the fact that the USPS is not a business opportunity. It provides essential services like helping rural Americans get their prescriptions. Private carriers charge extra to deliver to rural areas even if they deliver there at all. You were kind of talking about this at 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 going to 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. Mr. Marroni, if the Postal Service was privatized, how would this impact people in my district or across the country? How could that impact their day-to-day experience with the USPS?

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 some routes that are unprofitable, they might close postal locations that are not profitable either to get to profitability. So there's definitely trade-offs with privatization. It's possible that they might be able to reduce costs and increase revenues faster, but that also means they might not serve certain routes that are unprofitable, they might close postal locations that are not profitable either to get to

What are the kind of what type of Americans, what type of people could expect maybe a loss in service if it was privatized?

So there is a higher percentage of rural and small community locations that are unprofitable, so there are some urban areas as well that have unprofitable locations, but the bulk is going to be rural and small, so that's where it would disproportionately fall.

Okay. Thank you, I yield back.

Thank you very much, gentleman yields back his time. We are now on votes, there are four votes that are being called. I have advised the gentleman Mr. Gill, he will be first one when we come back. And there will be these four votes that will take probably a good bit of time, we figured this one out before, don't know if a rule's in the mix. But let's advise the members that we will come back 10 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. Mr. Gill, you will be the first one when we return, and I would say to the witnesses and the people here, thank you for taking time. I'm sorry this is the part of our business that we just have to go through. So the committee will now be in recess. The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittee on Government Operations is meeting to discuss the financial future of the United States Postal Service. The Postal Service is a critical part of our nation's infrastructure, providing essential services to every American, no matter where they live. However, the Postal Service has faced significant financial challenges for many years. In 2021, Postmaster General Steiner introduced the Delivering for America plan, a 10-year strategy designed to achieve financial sustainability and service excellence. While the plan has led to some improvements, the Postal Service continues to face headwinds, including declining mail volume and rising costs. Today, we will hear from Postmaster General Steiner about the progress of the Delivering for America plan and the challenges that remain. We will also hear from Mr. Marroni from the GAO about their oversight of the Postal Service's financial condition. Our goal today is to understand the current financial state of the Postal Service and what steps are being taken to ensure its long-term viability. I look forward to a productive discussion. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Mfume, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. The Postal Service is indeed a vital institution, and its financial health is of great concern to all of us. We have seen the Postal Service struggle with billions of dollars in losses over the last decade. While the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 provided some much-needed relief by eliminating the unfair pre-funding requirement for retiree health benefits, it was not a silver bullet. The Delivering for America plan is an ambitious undertaking, but we must ensure that it does not come at the expense of service quality, especially for our seniors and rural communities who rely on the mail for medications and other essential items. I am particularly concerned about recent reports of mail delays and the impact of processing center consolidations. We need to know if these changes are truly achieving the promised cost savings without compromising the Postal Service's core mission. I look forward to hearing from the Postmaster General about how he plans to balance financial goals with service obligations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Comer, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Sessions. I want to thank you for holding this important hearing. The financial stability of the U.S. Postal Service is a top priority for this committee. For too long, the Postal Service has operated under a broken business model that has resulted in massive annual deficits. When Postmaster General Steiner took the helm, he inherited a mess. He has taken bold steps to modernize the Postal Service's aging infrastructure and streamline its operations. Change is never easy, and it often meets with resistance. However, the status quo was simply unsustainable. We cannot continue to bail out the Postal Service with taxpayer dollars. It must be able to pay for itself through the products and services it provides. I am encouraged by some of the progress we've seen, such as the growth in package revenue. But there is still a long way to go. We need to have a frank discussion today about the realities facing the Postal Service and what further reforms may be necessary. I want to thank Mr. Steiner for his leadership and for his willingness to make the tough decisions necessary to save this institution. I also want to thank Mr. Marroni for the GAO's ongoing work in this area. With that, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Garcia, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Postal Service is one of our nation's oldest and most trusted institutions. It is a lifeline for millions of Americans, particularly those in underserved communities. While we all want the Postal Service to be financially sound, we must not lose sight of its public service mission. I am concerned that some aspects of the Delivering for America plan, such as slowing down mail delivery standards and increasing postage rates, are making the Postal Service less competitive and less reliable. We are seeing a trend where the Postal Service is trying to act more like a private corporation and less like a government agency dedicated to universal service. This shift has real-world consequences for people who depend on timely mail delivery for their livelihoods and their health. We also need to ensure that the Postal Service is a fair employer. The men and women who work for the Postal Service are dedicated public servants, and they deserve to work in a safe environment with fair wages and benefits. I hope today's hearing will shed light on how the Postal Service is addressing these concerns while also working toward financial stability. Thank you, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. We will now hear from our witnesses. I'd like to welcome Mr. David Steiner, Postmaster General and CEO of the United States Postal Service, and Mr. David Marroni, Director of Physical Infrastructure at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. Please rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

I do.

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you, please be seated. We have received your written statements, which will be made part of the official hearing record. We ask that you keep your oral testimony to five minutes. Mr. Steiner, you are now recognized for your opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the progress we are making under our Delivering for America plan. When we launched this plan three years ago, the Postal Service was in a state of crisis. We were facing projected losses of $160 billion over 10 years, our infrastructure was crumbling, and our service performance was unacceptable. The Delivering for America plan was designed to reverse this downward spiral and put us on a path to self-sufficiency. I am pleased to report that we are making significant strides. We have stabilized our finances, improved our service reliability, and begun a massive modernization of our network. One of the key pillars of our plan is to grow our package business. In an increasingly digital world, the future of the Postal Service lies in our ability to compete in the e-commerce market. We have introduced new products like Ground Advantage, which offers reliable and affordable shipping for businesses and consumers. As a result, our package revenue has seen steady growth, helping to offset the decline in traditional First-Class Mail. We are also investing billions of dollars in our network. We are opening new Regional Processing and Distribution Centers, which are equipped with the latest sorting technology. These centers will allow us to process mail and packages more efficiently and reduce our reliance on expensive air transportation. At the same time, we are modernizing our local post offices to better serve our customers. However, we still face significant challenges. Inflation has driven up our operating costs, and the decline in mail volume continues to be a major headwind. We must continue to implement the Delivering for America plan with urgency. This includes making difficult but necessary changes to our operations and our pricing. I want to thank the members of this committee for your support, particularly for the passage of the Postal Service Reform Act. This legislation was a critical first step, but it was not the end of the journey. We must remain focused on our goal of creating a modern, efficient, and financially sustainable Postal Service that can serve the American people for generations to come. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Steiner. Mr. Marroni, you are now recognized for your opening statement.

Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Mfume, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss GAO's work on the U.S. Postal Service's financial condition. For over 15 years, GAO has included the Postal Service's financial viability on our High-Risk List. While the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 provided significant financial relief, the Postal Service's long-term financial sustainability remains a concern. Our work has shown that the Postal Service continues to face a fundamental mismatch between its costs and its revenues. Mail volumes, particularly First-Class Mail, which is the Postal Service's most profitable product, have declined by more than 50 percent since 2006. While package volumes have grown, they have not been enough to fully offset the loss of mail revenue. The Delivering for America plan aims to address these challenges through a variety of initiatives, including network consolidation and price increases. However, the success of these initiatives is not guaranteed. For example, the Postal Service's efforts to consolidate its processing network have faced delays and pushback from stakeholders concerned about service impacts. Furthermore, while price increases have generated additional revenue in the short term, they may also accelerate the decline in mail volume as customers look for cheaper alternatives. GAO has also identified several areas where the Postal Service could improve its financial transparency and accountability. For instance, we have recommended that the Postal Service provide more detailed information about the costs and benefits of its various initiatives. This information is crucial for Congress and the public to evaluate the progress of the Delivering for America plan. In conclusion, while the Postal Service has taken some positive steps, it still faces a difficult road ahead. Continued oversight by Congress and this committee will be essential to ensure that the Postal Service remains a viable and effective institution. Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Marroni. We will now begin the question-and-answer portion of the hearing. I will recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Steiner, in your testimony, you mentioned that the Postal Service has stabilized its finances. Can you provide more detail on what that means in terms of your current cash position and your projected deficits for the next few years? The committee will come to order. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, in your testimony, you mentioned that the Postal Service is on track to achieve financial sustainability. However, the GAO report released today suggests that the Postal Service's financial position remains precarious, with a projected net loss of $6 billion for fiscal year 2024. How do you reconcile your optimistic outlook with the GAO's findings?

Well, thank you, Congressman. I think it's important to look at the progress we've made over the last three years. When I took over as Postmaster General, the Postal Service was facing a projected $160 billion loss over 10 years. Through our Delivering for America plan, we've already reduced that projected loss by more than $50 billion. We're seeing significant improvements in our operational efficiency, our service performance, and our package volume. While we still have work to do, I am confident that we are on the right path to long-term financial stability.

But the GAO report also points out that the Postal Service's unfunded liabilities for retiree health benefits and pensions continue to grow, reaching over $200 billion at the end of fiscal year 2023. How does the Delivering for America plan address these massive long-term obligations?

The Delivering for America plan includes several strategies for addressing our long-term liabilities. First, we're working to improve our operational efficiency and generate more revenue, which will provide us with more resources to fund our obligations. Second, we're advocating for legislative reforms that would integrate our retiree health benefits with Medicare, which would significantly reduce our unfunded liabilities. And third, we're exploring options for restructuring our pension obligations to make them more manageable.

Mr. Marroni, what is the GAO's perspective on the Postal Service's efforts to address its long-term liabilities?

Thank you, Congressman. The GAO has long expressed concern about the Postal Service's financial sustainability, particularly its large and growing unfunded liabilities. While the Delivering for America plan includes some positive steps, we believe that more fundamental changes are needed to address the underlying causes of the Postal Service's financial challenges. This includes addressing the decline in first-class mail volume, which has historically been the Postal Service's most profitable product, and finding ways to compete more effectively in the rapidly growing package delivery market.

Mr. Steiner, the GAO report also mentions that the Postal Service's service performance has been inconsistent in some parts of the country. What are you doing to ensure that all Americans receive reliable and timely mail delivery?

Improving our service performance is a top priority for the Postal Service. We've made significant investments in our processing and delivery network, including new equipment and technology, and we've hired thousands of new employees to improve our staffing levels. We're also working to improve our transportation network and optimize our delivery routes. While we've seen some improvements in our service performance over the last year, we know that we still have more work to do to meet the expectations of our customers.

Thank you, Mr. Steiner. My time has expired. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I want to follow up on the issue of service performance. In my district in Baltimore, we've seen a significant increase in mail delays and missing packages over the last few months. This is causing real hardship for my constituents, many of whom rely on the Postal Service for their medications, their social security checks, and their bills. What specific steps are you taking to address the service issues in Baltimore and other urban areas?

Thank you, Congressman. I am aware of the service issues in Baltimore, and I want to assure you that we are taking them very seriously. We've sent additional resources to the Baltimore area, including extra staff and equipment, and we're working closely with local management to identify and address the root causes of the delays. We're also implementing new processes and technologies to improve our mail processing and delivery efficiency in Baltimore and other urban areas. We're committed to providing all of our customers with the reliable and timely service they deserve.

Well, I appreciate your commitment, but my constituents need to see results. They're tired of hearing excuses. They want their mail delivered on time. Mr. Marroni, what is the GAO's assessment of the Postal Service's service performance in urban areas?

The GAO has found that the Postal Service's service performance has been particularly challenging in some urban areas, where high mail volumes and staffing shortages can lead to delays. While the Postal Service has taken some steps to address these issues, we believe that more sustained effort is needed to ensure that all customers receive consistent and reliable service. This includes improving the Postal Service's ability to recruit and retain employees in high-cost urban areas and finding ways to better manage its mail processing and delivery operations in these certain environments.

Thank you, Mr. Marroni. Mr. Steiner, I also want to ask you about the Postal Service's efforts to modernize its fleet. The Delivering for America plan includes a commitment to transition to a more electric vehicle fleet. However, some have expressed concern about the cost and feasibility of this transition. How do you plan to fund the purchase of new electric vehicles, and what steps are you taking to ensure that the necessary charging infrastructure is in place?

Modernizing our fleet is a key part of our Delivering for America plan. We're committed to purchasing at least 66,000 electric delivery vehicles over the next five years, which will significantly reduce our carbon footprint and lower our operating costs. We're funding the purchase of these vehicles through a combination of our own resources and federal grants. We're also working with the Department of Energy and other partners to develop and deploy the necessary charging infrastructure at our facilities across the country. We're confident that we can successfully transition to a more electric vehicle fleet while maintaining our high standards of service.

Thank you, Mr. Steiner. My time has expired. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I want to talk about the Postal Service's pricing strategy. Under the Delivering for America plan, the Postal Service has implemented several postage rate increases, including a significant increase in the price of a first-class stamp. Some have argued that these rate increases are driving away customers and accelerating the decline in mail volume. How do you respond to these concerns, and what is your long-term strategy for balancing the need for revenue with the need to keep postage rates affordable?

Thank you, Congresswoman. We understand that postage rate increases can be difficult for our customers, but they are necessary to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the Postal Service. For too long, the Postal Service was forced to keep its rates artificially low, which contributed to our massive financial losses. Our new pricing strategy is designed to reflect the true cost of providing our services and to generate the revenue we need to invest in our network and our people. We're also working to provide our customers with more value-added services and to improve our overall customer experience. We believe that by providing a high-quality service at a fair price, we can continue to attract and retain customers even as we implement necessary rate increases.

But the GAO report points out that the Postal Service's pricing strategy may not be enough to offset the decline in mail volume. In fact, the report suggests that the Postal Service may need to find other ways to generate revenue, such as expanding its package delivery services or offering new products and services. What other revenue-generating opportunities are you exploring?

We're exploring a wide range of revenue-generating opportunities. As you mentioned, we're working to expand our package delivery services, particularly in the e-commerce market. We're also looking at offering new products and services, such as financial services and identity verification services. And we're exploring ways to better leverage our vast retail network to provide more services to our customers. We're committed to finding new and innovative ways to generate revenue and to ensure the long-term viability of the Postal Service.

Mr. Marroni, what is the GAO's assessment of the Postal Service's efforts to find new revenue-generating opportunities?

The GAO believes that the Postal Service needs to be more proactive in identifying and pursuing new revenue-generating opportunities. While the Postal Service has explored some new products and services, many of these efforts have been small-scale and have not generated significant revenue. We believe that the Postal Service needs to develop a more comprehensive and strategic approach to revenue generation, which includes identifying its core competencies and finding ways to leverage them in new and growing markets. This may require the Postal Service to seek additional legislative authority from Congress.

Thank you, Mr. Marroni. Mr. Steiner, I also want to ask you about the Postal Service's workforce. The Delivering for America plan includes a commitment to reducing the Postal Service's workforce through attrition and other means. However, some have expressed concern about the impact of these workforce reductions on service quality and employee morale. How are you managing these workforce reductions, and what steps are you taking to ensure that your employees are supported and engaged?

I hope that's the case, because my constituents are running out of patience. Thank you. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I want to follow up on the financial side of this. You've stated that the goal is to reach break-even by 2030. However, the GAO report suggests that your projections might be overly optimistic, particularly regarding package volume growth. With the increasing competition from private carriers who are also expanding their own last-mile delivery networks, what makes you confident that the Postal Service can capture enough of that market to offset the continued decline in First-Class Mail?

Well, Congressman, we have a unique advantage, which is our universal service obligation. We go to every address in the country, six days a week. Private carriers often rely on us for that final mile because it's not profitable for them to go to rural or remote areas. By modernizing our network and improving our package sorting capabilities, we can offer a more competitive product at a lower cost. Our Ground Advantage product, which we launched recently, is already seeing very strong adoption. It's simple, it's reliable, and it's priced right. We're not just waiting for the market to come to us; we're actively competing for it.

But isn't it true that as you increase your focus on packages, you're essentially becoming a logistics company that also happens to deliver mail? And in that space, you're competing with giants like Amazon and UPS. If they decide to lower their prices or further integrate their networks, the Postal Service could be left with a massive, expensive infrastructure and not enough volume to support it. What's the 'Plan B' if the package growth doesn't materialize as expected?

The 'Plan B' is to continue driving efficiency out of our operations. The Delivering for America plan isn't just about growth; it's about reducing our cost base. By consolidating operations and reducing unnecessary transportation, we're making the organization much more resilient. Even if volume growth is slower than projected, a more efficient Postal Service is better positioned to handle it than the fragmented, outdated system we had before. We are also looking at new revenue streams, but the core of the plan is operational excellence.

Mr. Marroni, from the GAO's perspective, how significant is the risk that these cost savings won't be fully realized? We've seen many large-scale government reorganizations fall short of their financial goals.

It's a very significant risk, Congressman. The Postal Service is attempting to do a lot of things simultaneously: closing facilities, opening new ones, changing transportation routes, and implementing new technology. Each of those components has its own set of challenges. Our concern is that the Postal Service hasn't fully accounted for the potential for delays or cost overruns in such a complex undertaking. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in some of their financial reporting makes it difficult for us, or for Congress, to independently verify the progress they're making toward those cost-saving targets.

And that's a major concern for us as well. We need to see the data. Mr. Steiner, will you commit to providing this subcommittee with more detailed, quarterly breakdowns of the cost savings specifically attributed to the new processing centers?

We already provide extensive reporting to the Postal Regulatory Commission, but I am happy to work with your staff to ensure you have the information you need to conduct your oversight. We want to be transparent about our progress.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I want to talk about the impact of these changes on our workforce. The Postal Service is one of the largest employers of veterans and people of color in the country. Many of my constituents in the District rely on these jobs for a stable, middle-class life. As you consolidate facilities and move operations further away from urban centers, what are you doing to ensure that current employees aren't being forced out or faced with impossible commutes?

Congresswoman, our employees are our greatest asset, and we are committed to treating them fairly throughout this process. We have stated repeatedly that there will be no layoffs as a result of these facility changes. We are working closely with our union partners to manage any reassignments. In many cases, we're actually improving the working environment by moving people into newer, safer, and more modern facilities. We're also investing heavily in training so our workforce can operate the new technology we're deploying.

But 'no layoffs' doesn't mean 'no disruption.' If a processing center moves 40 miles away, that's a huge burden on a worker who might not have reliable transportation or who has childcare responsibilities. Are you providing any kind of relocation assistance or transportation stipends for those workers?

We follow the provisions of our collective bargaining agreements regarding employee transfers and reassignments. Those agreements include specific protections and procedures for impacted workers. We are also trying to be as flexible as possible with scheduling. But the reality is that to save the Postal Service, we have to change where and how we work. Staying in old, inefficient buildings in the middle of congested cities is simply not sustainable.

I understand the need for efficiency, but it shouldn't come at the expense of the people who have dedicated their careers to this institution. I'm also concerned about the use of more part-time and flexible labor. We're seeing a trend toward 'gig-ifying' the Postal Service, which undermines the stability of these jobs. How do you respond to the criticism that you're eroding the quality of postal employment?

I disagree with that characterization. We are actually focused on creating more career paths for our employees. We've converted thousands of non-career employees to career status over the last few years. We need a stable, committed workforce to succeed. But we also need the flexibility to handle the peaks and valleys of mail and package volume. It's a balancing act, but our goal is to remain a premier employer in every community we serve.

Well, we will be watching that very closely. The Postal Service is more than just a business; it's a public service, and that includes being a good employer. Thank you. I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I'm a simple guy from East Tennessee, and I like to look at the bottom line. You've been in this job for a few years now, and the losses are still piling up. You've raised the price of a stamp multiple times, and yet the service is getting worse in a lot of places. If you were running a private company and you kept raising prices while your product quality went down and you were still losing billions, you'd be out of a job. Why should the American taxpayer have any confidence that your plan is actually going to work?

Congressman, I appreciate the directness. But the Postal Service isn't a private company. We have mandates that no private company has to deal with. When I took this job, the organization was on a trajectory to lose $160 billion over 10 years. We've already cut that projected loss significantly. The price increases, while unpopular, are necessary because we were underpricing our services for decades. We are finally aligning our prices with the actual cost of delivery. And as for the service, as I've said, we are in the middle of a massive overhaul. You can't fix 20 years of neglect in 20 months. We are making the hard decisions that should have been made a long time ago.

Well, those 'hard decisions' are hurting people in my district. I've got folks who aren't getting their mail for days at a time. And then they see that you're spending billions on new electric delivery trucks. Now, I'm all for modernizing the fleet, but shouldn't the priority be getting the mail delivered on time before we start worrying about how green the trucks are? It seems like the priorities are a bit skewed.

The new trucks are a critical part of improving service. Our current fleet is ancient. They break down constantly, they're expensive to maintain, and they don't have the capacity for the packages we're delivering today. Replacing them isn't just about being 'green'; it's about operational reliability. A truck that doesn't start can't deliver the mail. The new vehicles will have more space, better safety features for our carriers, and yes, they will be much more efficient. It's an investment in our core mission.

I hear you, but it's a lot of money. And speaking of money, what about the 'Postal Service Reform Act' we passed? That was supposed to fix the financial problems by getting rid of that ridiculous pre-funding requirement for retiree health benefits. We gave you a huge break there. Why hasn't that shown up more clearly in the bottom line?

It has shown up. It took a massive liability off our balance sheet. But it didn't change our day-to-day operating costs. We still have to pay for labor, fuel, and transportation, all of which have seen significant inflation recently. The Reform Act was a necessary first step, but it wasn't a silver bullet. It gave us the breathing room to implement the Delivering for America plan, which is what will actually fix the underlying operational issues.

Well, I'm still skeptical. I've seen a lot of 'plans' come and go in this town. I just want the mail delivered on time and for the Postal Service to stop losing money. It doesn't seem like too much to ask. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Frost, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I want to talk about the impact of your plan on rural communities. In many parts of Florida, and across the country, the local post office is the only connection people have to the outside world. It's where they get their news, their bills, and their medicine. Your plan involves consolidating many of these smaller offices into larger 'Sorting and Delivery Centers.' For a rural resident, that could mean their mail is now being sorted 50 or 60 miles away. How does that not lead to slower service for the people who need it most?

Congressman, we are not closing post offices. I want to be very clear about that. The retail counters will remain open in those communities. What we're doing is moving the back-end sorting operations to more centralized locations. This allows us to use larger, more efficient sorting machines and to better coordinate our transportation. It doesn't necessarily mean the mail will be slower. In fact, by reducing the number of times a piece of mail is handled, we can often speed up the process. We are committed to maintaining our universal service obligation to every community, rural or urban.

But if the carrier now has to drive an extra 30 miles just to get to their route, that's an hour of their day gone before they even deliver the first letter. That has to have an impact on delivery times. And it also increases your fuel and maintenance costs. It seems counterintuitive. Have you done a specific study on the impact of these S&DCs on rural delivery standards?

We have conducted extensive modeling on all of our network changes. The goal is to optimize the entire system. While some individual routes might be longer, the overall efficiency of the network is greatly improved. We are also deploying more efficient vehicles, as I mentioned, which helps offset some of those transportation costs. We are monitoring the service levels in every area where we've implemented these changes, and we will make adjustments as needed.

The committee will come to order. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, thank you for being here. I want to talk about the Regional Processing and Distribution Centers, the RPDCs. The Postal Service is in the process of opening about 60 of these across the country. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And these centers are intended to be the backbone of the new delivery network. Is that right?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Now, the GAO recently released a report that found the Postal Service has not yet developed a comprehensive plan for these centers. Specifically, the report found that the Postal Service has not yet determined the full cost of the centers, the expected savings from the centers, or the impact the centers will have on service performance. Mr. Steiner, why has the Postal Service not yet developed a comprehensive plan for these centers?

Well, first of all, I would disagree with the characterization that we don't have a plan. We have a very detailed plan. We have a plan for every single one of these centers. We know exactly what equipment is going in there. We know exactly what the staffing is going to be. We know exactly what the transportation is going to be. Now, as it relates to the full cost, we have a budget for every one of these centers. And we are tracking the costs against those budgets. As it relates to the expected savings, we have a business case for every one of these centers. And we are tracking the savings against those business cases. And as it relates to the impact on service performance, we are monitoring service performance every single day. And we are seeing that service performance is improving in the areas where we have opened these centers.

Okay. Well, the GAO report also found that the Postal Service has not yet developed a process for evaluating the performance of these centers. How do you plan to evaluate the performance of these centers if you don't have a process in place?

Well, again, I would disagree with that characterization. We have a very robust process for evaluating the performance of these centers. We are looking at a variety of metrics, including productivity, cost, and service performance. And we are using that data to make adjustments to the centers as needed.

Okay. Well, let's talk about the impact on employees. The GAO report found that the Postal Service has not yet determined the impact these centers will have on its workforce. How many employees do you expect will be affected by the opening of these centers?

Well, we are working very closely with our unions and management associations to minimize the impact on our employees. We are offering a variety of options to employees who are affected by these changes, including reassignment to other positions within the Postal Service. And we are also offering voluntary early retirement and separation incentives to eligible employees.

Okay. But you don't have a specific number of employees who will be affected?

Well, it's difficult to give a specific number because it depends on a variety of factors, including the volume of mail and packages that we are processing at each center. But we are committed to working with our employees to ensure that they are treated fairly and with respect throughout this process.

Okay. Well, let's talk about the impact on service. The GAO report found that the Postal Service has not yet determined the impact these centers will have on service performance. We've heard from a lot of people in my district who are concerned about delays in their mail delivery. How can you assure them that these centers will not lead to further delays?

Well, as I mentioned earlier, we are seeing that service performance is improving in the areas where we have opened these centers. These centers are designed to be more efficient and more effective than our current network. And we are confident that they will lead to better service for our customers. Now, we are aware that there have been some challenges in some areas. And we are working hard to address those challenges. But overall, we are very pleased with the performance of these centers.

Okay. Well, I'm running out of time. But I want to ask you one more question. The GAO report also found that the Postal Service has not yet developed a plan for communicating with stakeholders about these centers. How do you plan to keep the public and Congress informed about the progress of these centers?

Well, we are committed to being transparent and accountable to our stakeholders. We are providing regular updates to Congress on the progress of our Delivering for America plan, which includes the opening of these centers. And we are also communicating with our customers and the public through a variety of channels, including our website and social media. We are also holding public meetings in the communities where these centers are being opened to answer questions and address concerns.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Steiner. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Mfume, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I want to follow up on some of the questions that Mr. Burchett asked about the RPDCs. You mentioned that you have a business case for every one of these centers. Can you provide those business cases to the committee?

Well, those business cases contain sensitive commercial information. And we would need to protect that information. But we would be happy to provide the committee with a briefing on the business cases.

Okay. Well, I think it's important for the committee to see the actual business cases. We need to understand the assumptions that you are making about costs and savings. And we need to be able to verify those assumptions. So I would ask that you work with the committee to provide those business cases in a way that protects any sensitive information.

We will certainly work with the committee on that.

Okay. Now, I want to talk about the impact on small businesses. Many small businesses rely on the Postal Service for their shipping needs. And they are concerned that the changes you are making will lead to higher costs and slower service. What are you doing to ensure that small businesses are not negatively affected by these changes?

Well, we are very mindful of the importance of small businesses to the economy. And we are committed to providing them with reliable and affordable service. The changes we are making are designed to improve our efficiency and our effectiveness, which will ultimately benefit all of our customers, including small businesses. We are also offering a variety of products and services that are specifically designed for small businesses, such as our USPS Connect program. And we are working hard to make it easier for small businesses to do business with us.

Okay. But have you done any specific analysis of the impact these changes will have on small businesses?

Well, we are constantly monitoring the impact of our changes on all of our customers. And we are using that data to make adjustments as needed. We are also engaging with small business organizations to get their feedback on our plans. And we are taking that feedback into account as we move forward.

Okay. Well, I would like to see any analysis that you have done on the impact on small businesses. Now, I want to talk about the impact on rural communities. Many rural communities rely on the Postal Service for their basic needs, such as receiving medications and paying bills. And they are concerned that the changes you are making will lead to post office closures and reduced service. What are you doing to ensure that rural communities are not left behind?

Well, we are committed to maintaining our universal service obligation, which includes providing service to all Americans, regardless of where they live. We have no plans to close any post offices as part of our Delivering for America plan. In fact, we are investing in our rural network to improve our service and our efficiency. We are also expanding our presence in rural communities through our village post office program and our partnership with local retailers. And we are working hard to ensure that rural customers have access to the same high-quality service as our urban customers.

Okay. But you are changing the way that mail is processed and delivered in rural areas. And that could lead to slower service. Have you done any specific analysis of the impact these changes will have on rural communities?

Well, again, we are constantly monitoring the impact of our changes on all of our customers. And we are using that data to make adjustments as needed. We are also engaging with rural organizations to get feedback on our plans. And we are taking that feedback into account as we move forward.

Okay. Well, I would like to see any analysis that you have done on the impact on rural communities. Now, I want to talk about the impact on the environment. The Postal Service has one of the largest vehicle fleets in the world. And it is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. What are you doing to reduce the environmental impact of the Postal Service?

Well, we are committed to being a leader in sustainability. We are in the process of modernizing our vehicle fleet with more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles. We have committed to purchasing at least 66,000 electric vehicles by 2028. And we are also investing in charging infrastructure at our facilities. We are also working to reduce our energy consumption and our waste generation. And we are exploring a variety of other ways to reduce our environmental footprint.

Okay. Well, I'm glad to hear that you are making progress on that. But I think you need to do more. The Postal Service has a unique opportunity to lead the way on sustainability. And I hope that you will continue to prioritize this issue. Thank you, Mr. Steiner. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I want to talk about the financial condition of the Postal Service. You've mentioned that the Postal Service is facing a significant financial challenge. And you've proposed a variety of changes to address that challenge. One of those changes is to increase the price of postage. How much do you expect to raise from these price increases?

Subcommittee 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, Mr. Gill is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for for holding this hearing and thank you to Postmaster General Steiner and to Mr. Marroni for for taking the time to be here. We certainly really appreciate it. Mr. Steiner, I I want to begin with a few questions for you. Do you know how many of the drivers who haul mail for USPS are using non-domiciled CDLs?

To my knowledge at this point, none.

Do you know if it's a lot or just a few?

None.

So so what I'm from 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 are 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's been suggestions that many of them are perhaps illegal aliens, are you familiar with that?

I'm I'm not sure where that information comes from, but

It's it's coming from major mail processing facilities.

That probably wouldn't surprise me, but my guess is that the folks

It wouldn't surprise you that there's a lot of drivers who are non-domiciled?

No, it wouldn't surprise me that that's where the information's 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.

And and what is that information?

That every driver that drives for us, whether they're 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 they are a domiciled CDL holder.

Is is that being enforced? Because I've I've been told by multiple different parties that that rule is not in fact being enforced in any meaningful way.

I've been told by our Postal Service that it is.

Okay, well I've got um this is from a a whistleblower, postal postal whistleblower. Um here are multiple non-domiciled licenses from one hour of check-ins at one USPS facility. This was from March of 2026 that that's been recorded.

Yeah, if you'd send that on to us, I'll have our Postal Inspection Service look at that and find out what happened.

We've we've also got recording from Pete Rostosalius, 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 attempted to stop this practice but realized that there are too many drivers who are using these non-domiciled CDLs, so it wasn't, I guess, practicable to enforce that that that particular ruling. Are you familiar with that at all?

Not familiar at all, no.

So so it's your testimony that there are no no CDL drive or no mail carriers, excuse me, who are non-domiciled CDL drivers?

No, my testimony is that I'm not aware of the conversation that you're referencing.

Okay. What are you guys doing to ensure that there are no non-domiciled CDL drivers carrying our mail?

Our Postal Inspection Service looks at everybody that drives for us.

How is can you explain how that's being enforced?

How do you mean, how's it being enforced?

How are you ensuring that none of the drivers are in fact non-domiciled?

We are we are requiring we require our third-party contractors

But by what by what mechanism are you enforcing that other than a, you know, a theoretical requirement?

You know, I don't know how you can do anything other than in person, right? I mean, our folks are um

Are drivers required to use a post post badge?

As far as I know they are, yes.

Right, and I've heard from multiple um multiple again uh mail processing facilities facilities um who are telling me that none of that is being enforced in any meaningful way and it seems based on

If you'll bring me that information, we'll make sure we'll make sure it's not.

I'd I'd be happy I'd be happy to do that because I don't think that that makes our our roads any safer.

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. Um you've got other companies using them to deliver packages. Um those folks are untrained

USPS is is outsourcing that as well.

Um not we don't have any gig drivers for for the United States Postal Service.

But the mail delivery or mail carriers, excuse me, are not necessarily USPS employees, is that correct?

That is not correct. These are

They're all they're all employees, you don't outsource any of that?

We do not.

You don't outsource so every single uh delivery truck that is carrying mail in the United States is a is an employee of USPS?

That delivers to our customers, absolutely.

Or that is transporting mail.

Oh no, transporting mail's a whole different animal. That's that's what I'm talking about here. We're talking about delivery. I don't think I don't think gig drivers are transporting mail, they're transporting individual packages to customers and there's 2,000 people dying every year because they're going through the neighborhood and so let's put it in perspective. You're absolutely right. So so let's put it in perspective. Um 2,000 people died because we had gig drivers that are probably unlicensed, they're probably uninsured, they're untrained, and they're killing people on not on the highways, they're killing people in neighborhoods. Go talk to 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 um I completely agree with you on the CDL issue. Um we've taken care of that, I'd like to see us look at taking care of the of the of the gig drivers that are that are driving through our neighborhoods.

We'll follow up with that. Thank you, Mr. General. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Gentleman's choose to yield back his time? Yeah. Gentleman yields back his time, thank you very much. Um we will now move to the gentlewoman Ms. Randall. You're recognized.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I represent the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state and 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. Um 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. Um 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, it's more than just a inconvenience, it's an erosion of trust in a service that they rely on. Now to be clear, like I want mold mitigation to happen in the building, I don't want employees to be working in a water-damaged and moldy space. But Mr. Steiner, when a postal facility closes due to damage, what timeline does USPS follow for assessing damage, initiating repair contracts, and completing repairs?

Sure. Um you know, obviously we'll look into that specific situation, but but you'll hear me say this a lot. Um we're not proud that some of our post offices look like third-world stores. We're we're not proud that we have 40-year-old trucks going through neighborhoods. Um we're not proud that 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 and so every day we need to make the determination are we going to keep the cash to keep the mail being delivered or are we going to go fix a post office or buy a new truck? Um it's why 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 our 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 but I think we do have to have that conversation of where are the trade-offs, right? Um where can we make those trade-offs at a time when we'll be out of cash in less than 12 months?

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 um facilities may be facing?

Yeah, um I think the number's about 60 percent, a a good portion are are leased rather than rather than owned. And um it's, you know, as we look at at, you know, I keep saying that everything is on the table, um we have to look at those leases and see um which ones we can keep, which ones we can't. Um you know, and 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, um our rural communities and our smaller communities, some of them might not have a a an urgent care facility or they might not have a bank. Can we co-locate with them and bring more than just the Postal Service to that community, bring an urgent care, bring a bank, bring the other needed things so that we can get lower cost of rent and we can also bring other things to the community. Those are the type of, you know, I love cost-free 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.

Absolutely. And I'm really proud that our district office shares a building with a 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 want to raise is the politicization of um 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 my constituents have long relied on mail-in voting, um you know, nearly two decades in Washington state. And um 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. So thank you.

Absolutely, thank you.

Gentlewoman yields back her time. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett, you're recognized.

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 some real experience, real-world experience.

Both he and I knew Abraham Lincoln. That's good.

Well, Mr. Postmaster General, what's the most up-to-date assessment of when postal service will run out of money?

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 a number of 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.

And I agree with my colleagues that reducing about reducing controlled costs. What are you doing to raise revenue?

Yeah, you know, again, we need to, you've got two different types of revenue, right? You've got the 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 five to seven percent compounded every year since probably we were born because of the internet and things like that. But I keep saying we 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 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 for all the agencies of the United States government. We are part of the United States government. It's basically taking money from one pocket into 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.

I'd like to talk to you about that at some point. I don't want to run out of time, but I did want to one quick thing. With the rising postage rates, slower service standard, declining productivity, and requests 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?

Yeah, it's one of the problems. I mean, 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 million to a billion dollars from us to mailers by not allowing us to raise prices.

And what was that figure again?

$700 million to a billion. There's two pieces to it. They won't allow us to raise prices more than once and they've basically changed the workshare 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? The answer: zero. They're all making money. We're the only one losing money. I'm not sure how I see that as a balance.

All right, 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.

I will come talk to you personally.

All right, well that'd be fine. Love to do it. I appreciate that. Also, I just wanted to pay a compliment. His folks out there, we moved out to off, you wouldn't know it, off Emery Road, but Maynardville Highway. Those folks out there, it's a little country type area, they're wonderful. They are just wonderful and they always they take care of folks and they holler at them and they talk to them and it's and 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 I would go to the one on Wise Garber and I can some of the fondest memories I had with my daddy were he was an old World War II veteran and when daddy would come in there, they would always pull him out a chair. And I said, daddy, you just watch my packages, I got to run back out to the truck because sometimes 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've lost that, you've lost me, brother, because those folks are wonderful people.

You are absolutely right. And look, we could use an entrepreneur like you in the post office if you're selling those used parts.

Do what? Say that again.

We could use an entrepreneur like you in the post office when selling those used parts.

Well, I can't really do it much these ethics people get in my way, you know. You want to do insider stock trading, go to Congress. You want to sell something on eBay, you better get you an attorney if you're in Congress. But thank you, brother. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you ranking member for always being a class act.

Gentleman yields back his time. Thank you very much. By the way, Mr. Steiner, I think you'll enjoy the two and a half or three hours you spend with Mr. Burchett. He is a lot of fun and covers a lot of ground very quickly. So I wholeheartedly encourage this endeavor between the two of you. Thank you very much. If you need help making that happen, Tim, let me know. We now move to Ms. Budzinski. Ms. Budzinski, you're recognized.

Thank you very much.

Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry. Ms. Tlaib, I'm sorry, I skipped through this. Wait till you turn 50. Excuse me, Ms. Tlaib, you are on the subcommittee and you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you to the Postmaster for being here. I want to show you a picture. This is Nicholas John Acker. On November 8th, he was found dead at the USPS Detroit Network Distribution Center in Allen Park, Michigan. As you know, he was a postal worker. His body was found, it was trapped actually in a mail handling machine and he had been dead for about six to eight hours before he was found. He checked into work at 11:00 a.m. and his body wasn't discovered until the following day at 12:30 p.m. His death is unspeakable tragedy for his family, including his fiancee, he had just recently got engaged, for his colleagues and fellow postal workers, and for the entire Southeastern Michigan community. His death is heartbreaking and it was preventable, Postmaster General. Nicholas had previously voiced concerns about the facility's operations and safety practices to his fiancee. What you should know is those concerns were raised about safety measures and procedures at the facility and then how management there was pressuring staff to look for letters while the handling machine was still operating. Are you aware of that?

I'm aware of the incident, yes.

Are you aware that they're asking workers to look for letters while the machine is operating?

We're still waiting on the final report from OSHA to understand what happened.

Since the death, a number of Nicholas's coworkers at the distribution center, it's gotten worse, the toxic work environment, dangerous culture there has created USPS management at the facility has just, you know, just increased and gotten worse, prioritizing speed over safety. It's, you know, been over four months since Nicholas's death and Representative Dingell and I had written a letter directly to you on two occasions demanding answers to get to the bottom of what happened to him and what USPS leadership is doing to prevent this from ever happening again. You understand he served our country. He didn't die at war, he didn't die of cancer, 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 to work and again the even the circumstances around his death was pretty horrifying for his mother. Would you at least be willing to come to Allen Park, Michigan, come tour this place, come visit it, come down, talk to the coworkers, tell 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'll be able to do that? Again, they deserve some acknowledgment from the Post General about what happened at their facility.

Yeah, look, obviously, obviously a horrific incident that, you know, my heart, the heart of the whole postal family goes out to him and his family. But you know, to me, safety is the most important thing we do. One incident is one incident too many. Anytime you lose someone, you've got to take it personal. And you've got to take it as a teachable moment, right? I ran a company where we went our safety numbers for just for went from 60 to one, which was world class, and it wasn't because it wasn't because one person took it, it's because everybody took it. And I will be at that facility.

Please come down.

Because because we need to show that it starts at the top, right? And any incident is too much of an incident and if if there's anything we can do to make that a teachable moment to save someone else in the Postal Service, we will absolutely do it.

Just we got to save some I mean to be trapped in the machine, you know. Look, I know that nobody wanted this to happen to Nicholas, but I just feel like, you know, OSHA hasn't responded to any of our request. 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 take this long to get answers to this investigation of what happened to Nicholas Acker, especially serving almost a decade for in the military service and for him to die again in a Postal Service machine, a sorting machine of all things. Again, his parents deserve answers, they deserve justice, and they don't want talking points, Postmaster General. They they want to one, make sure there's justice and accountability and make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else. And look, I'm here to tell you, I hear a lot of the financial crisis that is facing the postmaster. I've been talking about public banking and Postal Service, doing more in 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.

Understood.

Gentlewoman gentlewoman yields back. I want to say to the gentlewoman that I have talked to our staff and they were aware of it. It as the General has stated is under OSHA investigation. And Mr. Mfume and I will deal with this immediately and speed up not just a response, but an answer from them. And I want to thank you for bringing that forward. And General, thank you for your care and concern. There are a number of facts and factors about this which I am not able to speak about, nor you, to offer any insight into this and I respect that. But I believe that his family is entitled to that answer and Mr. Mfume and I will be involved in that. General, you will see that we're working with you to encourage that properly and professionally done. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Georgia is now recognized, Mr. Jack.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and and I want to thank the Postmaster General for testifying before us. Another LSU graduate, it seems like you guys are taking over the United States Congress, but I never thought I'd get the chance to say Go Tigers in front of Congress. But I I wanted to just first, thank you for your service and ask broadly speaking as one of the last questioners today, you outlined in your opening testimony the challenges you face as Postmaster General. Is there a version of USPS's future that does not require some form of congressional intervention in the coming years and if so, what would that look like?

I you know, I don't think there is. You know, I've done tons of strategic plans across a number of of businesses and I've never had a strategic plan where they say so many options are not available to you, right? You have losing routes, can't cut them. You have losing postal post offices, can't cut them. You have retirement benefits that only earn T-bill rates, you can't invest it in in stocks. You know, you've get there's just so many so many strings. I tell people that that this is like Gulliver's Travels. You know, Gulliver was the giant in the land of the of the small and one small person could not take him down, but they put so many strings on him that they were able to hold down the giant Gulliver. And that's what's happening here. It's not one string, it's the it's the accumulation of all the strings. I think David spoke about them. It's 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 going to cost a lot of money for you to serve rural communities, so we're going to pay you for that. And that number then was $460 million. If you translate that translate that to today's dollars, that's anywhere from $13 to $20 billion. So Congress in 1971 understood that they're going to have to pay for the 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 I would say that either we 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 that Congress is going to fund. To me there they're it's six of one and half a dozen of another. We can do it either way. But recognize that all the mandates that we have cost money and that money precludes us, the business model precludes us from being profitable. And so either we have to get it through ratepayers paying it or through an appropriation from Congress. We can do it either way and glad to have those conversations.

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 in and if it necessitates further commentary or correspondence after this hearing, I welcome that, but in Tyrone, Georgia, Fayette County, my home county, there was a post office that burned down in March 2023, well before your time. I want to congratulate you in recent months you were able to reopen at least the post office box elements of that facility, but retail is still not operable. Curious what y'all's protocols are if you have a a natural disaster that affects a post office and can we work together to try to reopen the retail as quickly as possible?

Yes, we'll certainly, certainly follow up with you on that.

And lastly, Thomaston, Georgia, also in my district, you mentioned rural. You know, this is interesting and I think it does affect some more rural post offices that were built before the 1960s, before ADA came into effect. And we do have some a lot of reports and and I want to commend the postal employees there, they're trying to help folks that are, you know, in need of of getting upstairs and they don't have ramps, they're trying to help them get into the post office. But we just hear recurring problems there because the facility was built in the 30s, 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 that have ADA.

Yeah, again, you know, we have to go back to that trade-off. Don't know the specific detail details, but we'll 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 to the post the face of the Postal Service. That's what we can bring back if we figure out this 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 go out and help them into a post office where it might be hard to get into.

I appreciate you working with us on both of those. Mr. Chairman, I may have some questions to submit for the record hereafter, but I deeply appreciate you convening this hearing. It's a very, very important hearing and it's a big deal for us to be a part of it. So thank you.

Thank you very much. We will look forward to not only getting your questions, but also hearing back from them and thank you very much. The gentleman Mr. Walkinshaw.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for suffering my presence again on this subcommittee. I have a couple of UC requests if that's all right.

Would that if please feel free to.

I ask unanimous consent to enter enter into the record a March 5, 2026 letter signed by 66 members of Congress including 15 senators and 51 members of the House urging the Department of Commerce to reverse course on a flawed 2026 census test.

Without objection.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a report released by the Department of Commerce IG on March 16, 2026 evaluating the methodology employed by the Bureau for the upcoming 2026 test involving Postal Service workers. It outlines the IG's concerns that the proposed approach could compromise readiness for the 2030 census.

Without objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, thank you for being with us today and thank you for the conversation that we had and your open engagement with this subcommittee. For Congress to make informed decisions about how we can ensure the Postal Service's long-term stability, we need clear data on the proposals you put forward, where the Postal Service stands and where it's headed. Frankly, your predecessor in my view was sometimes hostile towards our role in congressional oversight, didn't want to provide information we needed to be able to help the Postal Service. Will you agree to provide members of this committee with five-year financial projections showing how the reforms and changes you've outlined, including the continued implementation of Delivering for America, like and including the regional transportation optimization initiative, would affect the service's financial position and service performance over five years?

Yes, in fact during the break I was speaking with David about that that 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 this direction. If you still want this mandate, we can go this direction. We can actually put it together for you that it will show the effect of all the different mandates that I've talked about and how that would affect the five-year plan.

Because if we're going to build support for any of the proposals, including maybe the lower hanging fruit like investing the retirement funds, we got to be able to go to our colleagues and say this is where we're headed in a positive direction. Okay. Absolutely. According to a recent IG report, the Postal Service spent roughly $860 million in remedies due to failing to comply with respective CBAs. So given that the challenge the Postal Service has had in complying with its own CBAs that you all agreed to, you maybe will forgive my skepticism that you would be able to successfully take over and run the Federal Employees' Compensation Act and workers' comp programs as you provided. I'm a little bit skeptical of that given the the challenging track record.

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 the claims you're talking about, the workers' comp would actually be managed by a third party.

So you would you would outsource that.

Yeah, I mean basically every company in America outsources that.

Okay. I want to go to one of the maybe low hanging fruit reforms and you and I had a good conversation about the investment and I I had an ounce of skepticism and and you relieved 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 has there would have to be a structure in place to guide that so especially the the workers and retirees have a voice in how their money's being invested. What kind of structure do you envision to accomplish that?

Yeah, I think you'd want to put obviously you'd want to put a board of of directors if you will in charge of that, really an investment committee. I think I love the idea of of having a representatives of the employees be part of that. I think that's a great idea. You know, the 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 or I mean you could set parameters and say here are your allowed investments and make those rather conservative, right? Because we don't want to be out there gambling with our retirees' money. And then you get an oversight board with broad-based experience to manage that.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.

Gentleman yields back his time. Mr. Walkinshaw, thank you very much. I would now yield myself such... Oh, excuse me. We did promise you we'd move forward, so Ms. Budzinski, you're now recognized. And thank you for taking time to be waved onto this.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking Member Mfume for this chance. I do want to say it's also great to meet and be with Postmaster General Steiner and Mr. Marroni. Thank you both for being here. In fiscal year 2025, the Postal Service lost about $9 billion. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2026, USPS lost an additional $1.4 billion. Postmaster General Steiner, you have stated that you believe that the Postal Service is headed toward a financial crisis, and I do agree with you on that point. But you've also said that you want to continue to move forward with the Delivering for America plan, which has really only worsened delivery for the past six years. As we enter year six of the Delivering for America plan, I do remain concerned that the Postal Service seems committed to pushing forward with the plan despite the steep declines in on-time delivery and slowed outgoing mail in rural areas like the district that I represent in central and southern Illinois. Just for example, in fiscal year 2019, the on-time delivery for two-day first-class mail was 92 percent. Six years later, and this is in my district, it's down now to just 83 percent, with areas like downstate Illinois consistently seeing on-time delivery fall below 80 percent and even 70 percent at various points in 2024 and 2025. I will argue, I think that'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, 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 want to 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 with the Delivering for America plan despite these declining delivery rates. My question would be, are there indicators that you are looking at that would give you pause in the continued implementation of the Delivering for America plan or decide to perhaps suspend it?

Yeah, and you know, I do want to 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 101 hub-and-spoke system. You know, what I do see is you see service numbers improving. You see us pulling work hours out, not fast enough, but you see us pulling work hours out, so you can see it. It moves slow because the network is so big. You can absolutely see it. You see it in the service numbers. You saw it during peak. We were the most improved company in performance in peak of all the major competitive package companies. But you can also see it when you look, you are right dead in the center of the heart of where our biggest problem is, right down the center of America from Chicago to St. Louis to Memphis. And I will tell you, I do not believe that that is a network problem. My understanding is it's a staffing problem. That it is hard to get employees to work in the plants where we need them to work, and 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, is looked at by us not just every week, every single day. And the numbers are getting better. They absolutely are not there yet.

Just so I can squeeze in one more question, 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 that 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 future reduction in force or more network changes if Alvarez and Marsal were to recommend that to your team?

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 Marsal 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 12 months of cash available, you've got to look at everything. And I wanted to bring in the best to help us look at it.

Okay. Look forward to working with you. Thank you. I yield back.

And glad to come meet with you in person to have discussion about those issues because they are important.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you very much. Gentlewoman yields back her time. I would now yield myself such time as 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, U.S. Postal Service asks Congress for urgent reforms to survive 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 has 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 Mr. 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. Agreement between us, agreement between you. I think that certainly this article that I provided says exactly that, that there has to be not just consent given, but agreement. I would like to say that during much of this period of time over the last year and some that we have been given an opportunity to know each other, work with each other, I find you refreshing, I find you honest, and I think we can do business with you. But it's going to take more than that. It's going to take Mr. Mfume and I to stand behind an organization that is going to have to make some decisions also. We're going to 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 to where we will continue to use it. A few months ago when you and I met, I told you that I had several goals. You told me pretty plainly, Congressman Sessions, we'll do whatever you want to pay for. [Laughter.] And I told you I did not want to 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 going to go and how we're going to get there. I met with our friends at the White House to find out what instructions they really provided you also, because that's important when you go to offer a job to someone, you generally speaking would want to 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 Mr. Mfume, Mr. Mfume and I are very open with each other, and I will say I'm not trying to be a tough guy. We're going to do this together, but I will do this. And we are from our last meeting that we had over at your office, we had a determination that we were going to get closer. I told you at that time that I had a commitment from James Comer, who'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 Mr. Womack, who is sitting beside me, our staff guru on the post office, has admitted to me and 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 that 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 am not your boss, I am your oversight. But Mr. Mfume and I carry the torch about the results of what we're going to do from Congress to help. And I think that Mr. Mfume and I both have great confidence in the workers, the supervisors, the postmasters, the management of the organization, but we have to, we're going to have to make tough decisions. So in great fairness to you and your team, who I do have confidence in and who have been very gracious to not only Mr. Mfume and I, we're going to 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 am not going to put us through some of the bigger questions because as I told the staff, I'm not going to do that because you are under an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. And that means that I could ask you questions about some things that may be in transit, some things that may be being worked on now. But when we're not with you under oath, you and I are going to engage in that with Mr. Mfume. And we need to understand more about the same types of questions that have been brought up by our members, 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 being successful. And so we're going to have to have more than just time with each other in an open mic like this. And so Mr. Mfume has informed me that he will be pleased to participate in this effort. And I think that we owe it to the American people, but I know we owe it to members of Congress to address these issues. And it won't be about what we're doing with a 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 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 place 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 going to come down to the three or four of us are going to have to make some tough decisions that we can look at other people and say, that was a problem, the Postmaster General laid it on our doorstep and we're not going to kick the can down the road. We're going to put these directly in front of us and then we're going to have to figure out how we're going to go to our colleagues and pull it off. But it does us no good to find that in one year from now the Postal Service failed. It does us no good in my opinion to go to a dollar stamp even though there might be some in this room that think that's the right answer. But we're going to have to make tough decisions. We will help you through that. And I will know that I know you enough professionally where you have the moxie and the stuff about yourself of what you're made in that you'll stick with us. I want to thank you and Mr. Marroni for being here today. I want to thank your friends and allies who have gathered together to not only cheer you on, but also others who have come here with a hope that the entire system works. And we're going to do that. So Mr. Mfume, would you like to defend yourself in this effort? but also others who have come here with the hope that the entire system works and and we're going to do that. So, Mr. Mfume, would you like to defend yourself in this effort? [Laughter.]

Well, thank you. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we, as many of you know, we work well together because we put a goal in front of us and try to put politics to the side so that we're concerned about people and not politics. And the other P in all this is postal, the Postal Service and why it gives us the kind of pride that we'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 intention 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 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, Mr. Chairman, and then just a final statement.

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 that system. I think that there are people that do certain things out of their own either best interest or that's the way their route, so to speak, went. That there are things that you have as an advantage with the Postal Service that seemingly could be a disadvantage, but that we can turn into an advantage. But I think that when we try and move that needle too far one way or another, I think it works adversely against the best interest of the whole. So those are my comments. The gentleman has a philosophy also and I will tell you that if you have viewed us as trying to be a part of the solution, then you may go home tonight and know that Mr. Mfume and I and I believe the General is deeply committed to that also. We now am going to close the hearing and so with that and without objection, all members have five legislative days within which to submit materials and additional written questions for the witnesses which will be forwarded first to us and then to the witnesses. If there's no further business, without objection, this subcommittee stands adjourned. Yes, sir.

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.

Without objection.

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.

Without objection.

Thank you. Mr. Sessions, it was 1991 when the Congress really stepped up to the plate and put in place a debt limit and an authority for the Postal Service. That was 35 years ago and they set it at $15 billion. I have to tell you, I'm amazed that it has not been revisited since then. That's a long, long time, 35 years. And so one thing that is clear about all of this is that we cannot let United States Postal Service die. That we're going to have to find a way as we all know inevitably to look at restructuring that debt limit. How we do it and what the new limit becomes is going to be a matter of a lot of conversations and discussions. It may be hard to sell, but I think most people feel like I do that rather than do nothing and watch the Titanic sink that we need to do something. And I think without a doubt that many members of the Congress are going to be particularly watching what Mr. Sessions and what I advocate because they 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 going to have a comment, a question and clearly are going to have some say in this because people just don't want to give their votes even though they recognize that something is necessary. And so what comes out of that in terms of the concessions, if I can use that term, or the guarantees, which I feel better about, will be done collaboratively. Mr. Postmaster General, I hope that you and your people are willing to be a part of that. Mr. Marroni, I'm going to ask that GSA also weigh in on all of this so that we feel like we're on stable grounds to be able to answer the tough questions. And then I am going to ask for something that none of you came to this hearing for and that is vision. What becomes then after all that the vision of the United States Postal Service that the American people who are watching this hearing and the members of Congress who ultimately will have to grapple with the question of debt extension. What's the vision that you want to put 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 to embrace and have signature on and to clearly feel like they are part of the solution going forward. So I would ask you to think about that. Again, I want to thank Chairman Sessions for his work and for our working relationship and would hope as I'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 far too long. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.