[Senate Hearing 114-605]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-605
NOMINATIONS OF HON. ROBERT G. TAUB AND HON. MARK D. ACTON
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF ROBERT G. TAUB AND HON. MARK D. ACTON
TO BE COMMISSIONERS, POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
__________
NOVEMBER 15, 2016
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-801 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
JONI ERNST, Iowa GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
Jennifer L. Scheaffer, Professional Staff Member
John D. Cuaderes, Director, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
and Federal Management
Tara M. Schonoff, Professional Staff Member, Subcommittee on
Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management
Gabrielle A. Batkin, Minority Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
John A. Kane, Minority Senior Governmental Affairs Advisor
Felicia A. Hawkins, Minority U.S. Postal Service Office of the
Inspector General Detailee
Viola B. Stoval, Minority U.S. Postal Service Office of the
Inspector General Detailee
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Lankford............................................. 1
Senator Carper............................................... 2
Senator Heitkamp............................................. 9
Senator Tester............................................... 11
Senator Peters............................................... 14
Prepared statement:
Senator Lankford............................................. 23
Senator Carper............................................... 24
WITNESSES
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Hon. Robert G. Taub to be a Commissioner, Postal Regulatory
Commission
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Biographical and financial information....................... 30
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 53
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 56
Hon. Mark D. Acton to be a Commissioner, Postal Regulatory
Commission
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Biographical and financial information....................... 76
Letter from the Office of Government Ethics.................. 94
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 96
Prepared Statement of Senator Schumer............................ 26
Prepared Statement of Senator Gillibrand......................... 27
NOMINATIONS OF HON. ROBERT G. TAUB AND HON. MARK D. ACTON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James
Lankford, presiding.
Present: Senators Lankford, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, and
Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me call
this hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee to order today.
We are considering today the nominations of Mr. Robert Taub
and Mr. Mark Acton for Commissioners of the Postal Regulatory
Commission (PRC). The Postal Regulatory Commission exercises
statutory and comprehensive oversight of the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS). Among its responsibilities are the mandates to
prevent anticompetitive practices, to promote accountability
and to adjudicate complaints, set postal rates, help oversee
delivery service standards, and other things. It is a busy
group. It is important that each Commissioner reflects the
highest standard of public service.
Robert Taub is a native of Gloversville, New York. He
received a bachelor's degree and M.A. in political science from
American University, where he graduated with honors. Mr. Taub
has a distinguished career as a public servant, including work
at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) , as chief of
staff to former Representative John McHugh, and as an assistant
to the Secretary of the Army. He is currently serving as the
Acting Chairman of the Postal Regulatory Commission.
Mark Acton is a native of Louisville, Kentucky. He earned
his bachelor's degree from the University of Louisville and his
MBA from the University of Maryland. I assume you are watching
a little football lately as well.
Mr. Acton. Indeed.
Senator Lankford. Yes. Mr. Acton served at the Republican
National Committee for more than two decades in a variety of
positions, including as staff director for the counsel's office
and government relations officer. Prior to his confirmation as
Commissioner at the PRC, Mr. Acton was the Special Assistant to
the Chairman.
Committee staff had the opportunity to interview Mr. Taub
and Mr. Acton regarding their work so far at the PRC. They have
thoughtfully and competently answered each question to our
satisfaction. Mr. Taub and Mr. Acton, to date, the Committee
has found you to be qualified for the position you have been
nominated, and I look forward to speaking with you more about
this.
When we go through this process and get a chance to open
this up for questions and when you do your opening statements,
I would hope both of you would introduce your family, and that
will give a chance to tell a little bit about your story and
what actually brought you here. You have both served very
admirably already in these type of positions, and so this
should be a very straightforward conversation about what we are
doing in the days ahead to be able to help the Postal Service
and the many great employees that serve there. So I look
forward to this ongoing conversation.
With that, I recognize Senator Carper for any opening
statement you might make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again,
to our witnesses, to our guests, their families, and one and
all, we are happy to be with all of you. Thank you for joining
us today. And, Senator Heitkamp, thank you for letting me warm
your seat for a little while this afternoon.
I have statements of support for Chairman Taub from
Senators Gillibrand and Schumer that I would like, Mr.
Chairman, to ask unanimous consent be added to the record,
please.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statements from Senator Schumer and Senator
Gillibrand appear in the Appendix beginning on page 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Lankford. Without objection.
Senator Carper. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
scheduling today's hearing to consider what I believe a very
important nominations to fill two Commissioner vacancies for
the Postal Regulatory Commission. Both Mr. Taub and Mr. Acton's
terms expired on October 14, 2016, while we were away, and they
are now one month into a one-year holdover term granted to them
under the law, so they must leave the Commission next October
unless they are reconfirmed. It is imperative, in my view, then
that we take swift action on these nominees before the end of
this year due to the pending critical work on rates before the
Commission.
I should also note that if we do not take action on these
two nominations, the PRC will eventually be left with only two
Commissioners, and that would be unacceptable and create even
more uncertainty for the Postal Service and its customers. It
is bad enough that we have a Board of Governors that has just
one slot filled out of, gosh, roughly 10, and we do not want to
repeat the same mistake here with respect to the Postal
Regulatory Commission.
But we are considering Mr. Taub's and Mr. Acton's
nominations at what is a very challenging time for the Postal
Service. It is not a time, though, that is devoid of promise or
potential, although to achieve that promise, that potential, we
need strong leadership at the PRC if the Postal Service is
going to successfully confront the challenges such as poor
service performance issues and the persistent decline in First-
Class Mail volume.
The future also offers the Postal Service a number of
promising opportunities. Some of them we are familiar with,
others not. But Congress and the PRC have important work to do
to help the Postal Service take full commercial advantage of
its unique delivery and logistics network. There is one entity
in the country that goes to every mailbox in the country,
residential, business, five or six times a week. Just one, and
it is the U.S. Postal Service. And there is a huge burden in
doing all that, but there is also great opportunity for that.
The Postal Service operates at the center of a massive
printing, delivery, and logistics industry that I am told adds
up to about $1.4 trillion and employs nearly 8 million people.
And even as First-Class Mail loses ground to other forms of
communication, the future holds promise for the Postal Service
in a number of other ways. Advertising mail is still a
popular--and I am reminded every time I open up my mailbox at
home in Delaware--still a popular and effective option for
mailers. And e-commerce and package delivery are booming,
making the Postal Service a vital partner for businesses large
and small. Even the Postal Service's traditional competitors
rely on it to carry items the last mile to rural communities
around the country.
Both Mr. Taub and Mr. Acton have been invaluable resources
to the Congress as we work on postal reform legislation, and
their confirmation will remove uncertainty about the future of
regulatory action at the Postal Service. It will also allow
Congress to continue its work on postal reform with a clear
sense of who will be implementing the reform in the coming
years.
This is Chairman Taub's second nomination, I think, by
President Obama, and he has served as the Acting Chairman of
the PRC since December 2014. He was first nominated and
confirmed in, I think, October 2011. Is that correct? And you
have demonstrated, in my view, proven leadership skills to
properly address issues and concerns facing the Postal Service
and staying keenly aware of the delicate balance between
congressional and postal industry needs.
Mr. Acton has spent 14 years at the PRC. President Bush
first nominated him as a Commissioner in 2005. He was confirmed
by the Senate in 2006. His second nomination as a Commissioner
was by President Obama, and he was confirmed a second time by
the Senate in September 2011. As a Commissioner, Mr. Acton has
shown a clear understanding of key postal issues, as well as a
close familiarity with the concerns of Congress and postal
stakeholders.
As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Chairman,
the PRC has a tremendous amount of work ahead of them in the
coming weeks and months, including a required 10-year review of
the postal pricing system established in our 2006 postal reform
law that Senator Collins and I co-authored. We need strong PRC
Commissioners to properly address the issues I expect to be
raised during the course of the review, which will determine
the level of service the Postal Service will offer in the
future, and the prices that will be charged for that service. I
believe we need to ensure that there is a quorum of PRC
Commissioners in place so that the rate review can happen and
proceed uninterrupted over the course of the next year.
I look forward to talking with Mr. Taub and Mr. Acton
today--we have spoken any number of times before, but I want to
talk today about what they think can be done to address some of
the ongoing challenges facing the Postal Service and to hear
about the skills, the knowledge, and the experience that they
would bring to the PRC.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for letting me join you today,
and to our witnesses for their willingness to serve, to your
families for your willingness to share them, and at least one
of your parents who is here to say thanks for raising this kid.
He turned out well.
Thank you.
Senator Lankford. It is the custom of this Committee to
swear in all witnesses before they appear, so if you would
please stand, raise your right hand. Do you swear that the
testimony that you are about to give before this Committee will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you, God?
Mr. Acton. I do.
Mr. Taub. I do.
Senator Lankford. You may be seated. Let the record reflect
the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
I would like to recognize both of you, and I would remind
you again we would be honored to be able to have the
introduction of your family as well whenever you give your
opening statement.
Mr. Taub, you are first in this.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT G. TAUB,\1\ NOMINEE TO BE A
COMMISSIONER, POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Taub. Thank you very much. Indeed, I will start out by
introducing my family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Taub appears in the Appendix on
page 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My dear wife, Cynthia Taub, is here. Our twin daughters are
away at college and could not be here today to witness our
Constitution in action today. And my dear father, Carlson Taub,
and my sister, Beth Laddin, have both traveled a distance from
upstate New York to attend as well. And so all have lent me
love, encouragement, and a good dose of understanding over the
years.
I would also like to take an opportunity to acknowledge my
colleague and fellow nominee today. Commissioner Acton is a
dear friend and a good colleague on the Commission with me, and
I wish him well as well. And as Senator Carper indicated, last,
I would like to thank my home State Senators, Senators Schumer
and Gillibrand, for their statements for the record.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee,
I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today and
for your consideration of my qualifications to be a
Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission for another
term.
When the Senate confirmed me as a Commissioner 5 years ago,
I was serving as a senior executive in the Department of the
Army as the principal civilian advisor to Secretary John
McHugh, helping him oversee a workforce of more than 1.2
million people and manage an annual budget over $200 billion. I
had arrived at the Army with Secretary McHugh, having served as
his longtime chief of staff in the Congress as well as his
leading staffer on postal issues within the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee. Like Secretary John McHugh, over
the course of my 30 years in public service, I have worked in
bipartisan fashion to develop solutions to many public policy
issues, particularly the challenges confronting our Postal
Service.
The President designated me as head of the Commission
nearly 2 years ago. During that time, the Commission has become
even more efficient and effective in carrying out its mission
as measured by budget savings and timeliness of the work. The
Commission has achieved improvements in its employees'
satisfaction and engagement, as evidenced by the Federal
Employee Viewpoint Survey results. The Commission has become a
more frequently sought resource for postal expertise,
particularly to the Congress. If confirmed, I would welcome and
hope to build upon these accomplishments to achieve further
improvements in staff achievement, the timeliness and quality
of work products, and the efficiency and effectiveness of
agency operations.
On December 20, the Commission will begin what may be its
most important work in its 46-year history: a statutorily
mandated ``10-year review'' of the Postal Service's price cap
system, with unilateral authority to modify it or adopt an
alternative system. Considering that the Postal Service's
consecutive net losses since 2007 has increased its cumulative
net deficit to more than $57 billion, the importance of this
review cannot be overstated. The Postal Service's total
liabilities exceed the total value of its assets by more than
$53 billion. As I testified to the Committee in January, the
Postal Service's balance sheet must be fixed. With the growing
liability of retiree health benefits, the inability to borrow
for needed capital investments, and the continued loss of high-
margin First-Class Mail revenues, the important task of
improving the financial condition of the Postal Service is
daunting.
I want to assure this Committee that I appear here before
you today with few delusions as to the challenges that lie
ahead. I believe I have a clear understanding of the serious
and numerous challenges that face America's postal system.
But the fact is, for all the challenges the Postal Service
of the 21st Century faces, it still retains an integral role as
a key cog in how American businesses conduct their affairs and
how Americans all across this land communicate. The Postal
Service is the one government agency that touches every
American on a daily basis. It is an organization that literally
serves 155 million American households and businesses on a
typical day. It facilitates trillions of dollars in commerce.
For 241 years, our Postal Service has provided a service that
American people and American businesses alike have come and
grown to expect. Universal service at a uniform price, no
questions asked. Very few in this country go to his or her
mailbox or his or her local post office wondering if the mail
will be there. It is always there. It has always been there.
But the true question, the question confronting our Nation, is:
Will the mail always be there? The Postal Service is in a
serious financial crisis that must be fixed.
There are no easy answers, but answer we must. And I
promise you, if confirmed, my first priority will be, along
with this Committee, the entire Congress, the President, and my
fellow Commissioners, to engage in a constant search for the
discovery and implementation of solutions. I am truly honored
to be considered. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Acton.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK D. ACTON,\1\ NOMINEE TO BE A
COMMISSIONER, POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Acton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am honored to be with you today, and I thank you
for holding this hearing to consider my nomination as a Postal
Regulatory Commissioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Acton appears in the Appendix on
page 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank the President for the honor of nominating
me for this appointment, and I am most grateful for the support
of our Senate Majority Leader and my home State Senator, Mitch
McConnell. My thanks to Committee staff for their expert
guidance, and I also would like to acknowledge the support of
my partner, family, and friends, some of whom are here today.
I spent 4 years on staff at the Postal Rate Commission
assisting the agency Chairman in administering PRC operations,
and since then I have served as first a Postal Rate
Commissioner and now as a Postal Regulatory Commissioner. I
believe that my 14 years of postal policymaking experience
affords me an informed perspective regarding the key postal
issues that come before us today, as well as a great
familiarity with the concerns of the postal community
stakeholders at large. I am pleased to be considered for a
continuing public policy role, and if confirmed, I pledge to
work with this Committee to advance workable solutions that
help to renew the vitality of a great American institution--the
United States Postal Service.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the
other Members of this Committee, and I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Acton.
I have three mandatory questions that we ask all of our
nominees for all hearings, so let me ask these three, and then
I am going to defer to the Ranking Member for his questions
then. So these will all be ``yes'' or ``no'' questions, and I
will ask both of you at the same time to be able to respond.
Is there anything that you are aware of in your background
that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of
the office to which you have been nominated?
Mr. Taub. No.
Mr. Acton. No.
Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you.
Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would
in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the
responsibilities of the office to which you have been
nominated?
Mr. Taub. No.
Mr. Acton. No.
Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you both.
Do you agree without reservation to comply with any request
or summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted
committee of Congress if you are confirmed?
Mr. Taub. Yes, I do.
Mr. Acton. Yes.
Senator Lankford. Thank you both. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to talk about customer service for starters.
We have three offices in Delaware, a little State, three
counties, an office in each county, and we have in each of
those offices someone who is responsible for constituent
services. And we have in my Wilmington office a woman named
Heather Guerke, who has been with me since I was Governor, and
she is great on constituent services. One of her areas of
responsibility is Internal Revenue Service (IRS). She has her
hands full there. Another is the Postal Service, which for many
years, frankly, was not much trouble, not much concern.
Boy, that has changed. We have gotten more complaints about
quality of service, lack of quality of service from so many
Delawareans, mostly residential but some businesses, over the
last couple of years, much more than we have ever seen before.
What is the responsibility, where is the intersection
between the PRC and the Postal Service with respect to quality
of service for the folks that we represent?
Mr. Taub. Senator, the Postal Regulatory Commission has a
very important responsibility of providing transparency and
accountability of the Postal Service, not only with rates and
products but service. In the 2006 law that was put together,
when that law was passed, the only public data that was out
there about service quality was what was on single-piece First-
Class Mail.
Today, as we speak, nearly 10 years later, we have full
transparency of data on the service performance for all market-
dominant classes of mail--First-Class, periodicals, Standard
Mail--and we look at that annually and report on whether those
service standards are met.
The Postal Service has a major problem with service
performance, and the Commission earlier this year in its most
recent annual compliance determination, this was the first year
we found that the Postal Service did not meet any of its
targets for all of First-Class Mail. Standard Mail,
periodicals, flats, and First-Class Mail flats are a perennial
problem and had gotten worse.
So we have directed the Postal Service to do a
comprehensive analysis of what we identified as potential pinch
points throughout the whole process and look at what are some
of the solutions there. Again, we are the regulator, not the
operator. Our responsibility is to provide some sunshine and
spotlight that did not exist before and exists today. And the
Postal Service did come back to us just a few months ago with
that report. We have had some follow-up with them, and we are
making some decisions among the Commission as to what the next
steps will be.
So the bottom line is the information from your case work
operation is not an anomaly. Service performance is not where
it should be for the U.S. Postal Service.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Maybe a question for Mr. Acton. In a conversation we had
just this week, you talked a little bit about some of the
different aspects of the postal reform legislation that we have
worked on in this Committee and that is being worked on in the
House of Representatives. And one of the challenges the Postal
Service has, as almost every employer in the country that
offers health care for their pensioners has, there is a
liability associated with it. Most private sector companies
frankly do not acknowledge that. I guess a lot of States do not
acknowledge that liability for their pensioners either. The
Postal Service has a lot of pensioners, and there is a
liability, and it has to be acknowledged. The question is how
to pay for that, over what period of time, and to what extent
should it be addressed. There is a similarity in the House
legislation and the Senate legislation on that point.
One of the other areas where there is some similarity, but
not total, is with respect to innovation and looking--I
mentioned the challenge. We have a lot of challenges at the
Postal Service. We also have opportunities. I like to say in
adversity lies opportunity. That is actually Albert Einstein,
not me.
But with respect to innovation, in our Senate legislation
we created a Chief Innovation Officer within the Postal
Service, where we created sort of like a commission or a board
of really smart people from the private sector who are very
creative and thoughtful and can think of new ways for the
Postal Service to generate income by providing services that
are needed. And the question I would ask you, and I will start
with Mr. Acton and then Mr. Taub: To what extent should we be
thinking about, after having created a Chief Information
Officer, creating a board or commission of people who advise
the Postal Service, should we then tie the hands of the Postal
Service and say, well, you cannot really be very innovative
except maybe with respect to State and local governments? Any
thoughts on that, please?
Let me just say that some people want to see the Postal
Service, like they have in other countries, to be a bank. OK? I
am not interested in seeing the Postal Service be a bank. Some
people are interested in seeing the Postal Service be an
insurance company. I am not interested in seeing them be an
insurance company. But I would like to not tie their hands in
terms of being innovative and creative and using their brand
and using what is unique about them, this legacy, 200-year-old
delivery network that goes to every post office box in the
country, five or six times a week. What do you think in terms
of innovation and the flexibility of the Postal Service to use
it to innovate?
Mr. Acton. Thank you, Senator Carper. The Commission has
been a ripe playing field for the Postal Service to come to
with innovative thought. In instances where the Postal Service
is proposing certain market tests for new revenue streams, the
Commission in every instance has approved the market test. And,
in fact, in our last report, which we call the ``701 report,''
which is a mandate from Congress in the law for the Commission
to come forth with some proposed changes in the legislation
that might improve things, we talk in there about raising the
thresholds of revenue involvement for market tests and
extending the trial period.
So I think that the Commission has demonstrated over a long
period of time that we are very open to innovative thought. I
do think, though, that if you are going to provide the Postal
Service with that avenue to enhance the revenue situation, that
you do have some regulatory involvement because it is important
to remember, as I know you know, the Postal Service is a two-
headed beast. It is operating in a market-dominant environment,
and it is also competing in a competitive market environment.
So when you talk about innovation, it is important that a
regulator be involved--not an activist regulator, but a
regulator who is there to ensure there is not an improper
cross-subsidization between those two market arenas that
compromises or distorts the competitive playing field.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Taub, I have just a few seconds. Anything you want to
add or take away, please, quickly?
Mr. Taub. I would concur with what Commissioner Acton said.
Just a couple points I would amplify on.
First of all, as you know, the 2006 law drew a very hard
line as to the Postal Service is not allowed to get into non-
postal products and services under current law. So the law
would have to change if the aperture would grow.
Knowing that, I do believe the Postmaster General and her
team right now understand that their focus is innovating the
core of the postal products. To the extent that aperture
opened, I would just offer an observation. This has been a long
concern of mine, which is trying to get to first principles.
Why else do we have a government administration providing
postal service? It is to provide universal service. But in the
United States, we have never defined exactly what that means.
And as we look to the Postal Service to get into other areas,
it seems to me we need to have a conservation about what is it
that we need and want this government administration to do to
meet that universal service obligation (USO) and what is its
cost. And then we could better sense what things could be added
or subtracted from that equation.
Senator Carper. All right. Good. Thank you so much. Thank
you both.
Senator Lankford. Senator Heitkamp.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Carper, for opening up exactly the topic of
conversation that we are having consistently on this Committee,
which really is kind of putting the cart before the horse. As
you said, Chairman Taub, we do not talk about service; we just
talk about how we are going to run the post office without
defining what we expect that service to look like and what our
expectations are.
Spending the first couple years on this Committee with the
previous Postmaster General, I was reminded of a statement that
I give often, which is you cannot fix a problem you will not
admit you have. We have a problem with service, and that
problem is very acute in rural areas. With the closing of
service centers, the narrowing of the focus, to suggest that we
are getting the same level of postal service that we did 20
years ago is incorrect. Our service is getting worse. When I
sent out a ``Fix My Mail,'' opening up a portal on my Web page,
600 North Dakotans responded. Now, you think about it, we are
small State. You get 600 people to volunteer concerns, that
tells us that we have a very real concern.
Senator McCaskill and I recently asked for a GAO report
taking a look at utilization and service in rural communities.
In spite of broadband, there is this idea that broadband
eliminates the necessity for attention to universal service. I
will tell you, the GAO report argues the other way, that rural
communities are even more dependent on the Postal Service than
other parts of the country. And so we are going to be
myopically focused in my office, and I think for a number of
members here, on what is happening with universal service in
rural communities.
And so I think that the Commission plays a very important
role in guaranteeing improvement in service and guaranteeing
universal service. And so I just want a commitment from both of
you that simply making the ends meet financially, balancing all
of this, will not be the sole priority if as a result of that
you do not have a post office that delivers any service. So I
would like comments on that, but also a commitment that you are
going to be focused on universal service and what that means,
especially as it relates to rural communities.
Mr. Taub. Senator, you have my personal commitment. I am
heart attack serious about delivery performance for the Postal
Service and seeing that improve. I was born and raised in
northern New York State. I served for a decade as then-
Congressman John McHugh's Chief of staff. His congressional
district was over 14,000 square miles, one of the largest east
of the Mississippi. Some of the communities may not have had
much, but what they did have was a post office. So I personally
well understand the importance in these rural areas.
The Postal Service has to do better, and we are on top of
that. Your legislation I think acknowledges that current law
only goes so far with our tools in our toolkit, and the
Commission would have some additional tools under what you have
proposed to take that a bit further.
But I fully agree, as I said, universal service is--why
else do we have a government institution providing a service
that is in a competitive marketplace every day, but to provide
this type of level of service to all communities? The law
already says there has to be effective service to areas of the
country that may not otherwise be financially viable. And so
the bottom line is I am with you 110 percent on that.
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Acton.
Mr. Acton. Thank you, Senator. I just would like to, first
of all, offer my assurances that I understand there is a
problem. Do I understand all the particulars of why there is a
problem? No. Do I think that the Postal Service is taking
ownership of the fact that they have a problem? I do think that
they are doing that. We have been meeting with them on a
monthly basis in our consultations. They show us the trends
about what they think went wrong operationally and otherwise
back in the States. And they seem to be implementing some
operational adjustments and working closer with the mailers in
a fashion that is making some trend toward improvement. I hope
that that trend continues. They have a long way to go,
particularly in rural and remote portions of the Nation.
There are four of us on the Commission. There is a guy from
Kentucky. There is a fellow from upstate New York, which is
largely rural. We have a fellow from rural Missouri. And we
have someone from Hawaii, which is pretty remote in America. So
remote and rural American concerns are always at the forefront
of a lot of the postal policymaking that goes on at the
Commission, and I think that you can examine our record and see
that we often point to the disparate effect of certain
operational changes that may result, particularly where the
Postal Service is most important, which is in rural and remote
America.
Then the thing I would close with is your point about
making finances better does not necessarily result in the sort
of improvements we need, and I agree with that. But I also feel
that there is a nexus between what is happening with the
degradation of the Postal Service's performance particularly in
rural and remote America and their fiscal status in terms of
their health on the bottom line. And I think if you can get
some meaningful, targeted reform through that offers them some
improvements, that does not force the sort of cost efficiencies
that they are driving that is compromising these performances,
there could be some additional improvement.
Senator Heitkamp. I think it is critical that we look for
efficiencies, but I am always reminded of the story, if you are
in retail business and you decide to cut your inventory and
your cost of goods sold, you will not be in business very long.
Mr. Acton. Yes, agreed.
Senator Heitkamp. And that is my point. My point is if you
cut service to the point where you are not delivering anything,
that will just continue this spiral. And so you have to be
ready to deliver the service that you are making a commitment
to deliver. And if you cannot meet those, you are going to lose
business, and it is going to be, I think, even more difficult
for the Postal Service to catch up.
So just know we are going to be myopically focused on this
service issue. We think it is critical. And we need a partner
on the Commission, partners on the Commission in doing that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lankford. Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
for having this hearing. Thank you both for your willingness to
serve.
I guess we will start out with one of the things you said,
Mr. Taub, that the balance sheet needs to be fixed, and I could
not agree more. Have you looked at any of the proposals that
have been put forth over the last 6 years to see if you have a
favorite?
Mr. Taub. Senator, I do not have a favorite. What I have a
favorite for is having something done to fix the balance sheet.
I think all of them are moving in that same direction.
Senator Tester. And I could not agree more with Mr. Acton
when--I mean, I think finances do have an impact on everything
we do. And so hopefully in this new Congress--I do not know
that you are still going to be in this position, Senator
Carper, but if you are, or whoever is Ranking Member of this
Committee with the Chairman, make this a priority to get it
done, because it is just really important, as Senator Heitkamp
has pointed out, for rural America.
Have you had the opportunity to go back and look at the
Network Rationalization Plan--this is for either one of you--
that was supposed to save a whole bunch of money, hundreds of
millions of dollars, and it ended up costing millions of
dollars, to determine what went wrong? Because, quite frankly,
there were Members on this Committee that were arguing very
vociferously not to close down all those processing centers. In
Montana, I think we went from seven to three. You have trucks
going over passes in wintertime. I mean, it was obvious what
was going to happen, and what happened, happened. Your
transportation costs went through the roof, and that is with
$2.35 gas.
So have you guys taken a look to see why it went south and
we did not save the kind of money that was being predicted?
Mr. Taub. Senator, we have not. We did under the law,
because the separation of regulator and operator, when it came
to the change itself, the Postal Service had to seek what was
called an ``advisory opinion'' from us in 2012, and we outlined
some very deep concerns to the Postal Service about how they
are proceeding and some caution. But under the law, they can
proceed forth once they had that advisory opinion, which they
did.
I do know their Office of Inspector General (OIG), which
does have that focus on fraud, waste, and abuse, has done some
studies to look at the network rationalization and has
identified that the cost savings that they were expecting have
not borne fruit to the level they thought.
Senator Tester. So who puts forth the recommendations on
how to fix it? I mean, one of the reasons it takes a week to
mail a letter and get it across the State in Montana is we do
not have those processing centers. I can give you plenty of
examples where a letter that would go down a block or two would
have to travel 300 miles or better. So who puts forth the
proposals on how to fix it?
Mr. Taub. The U.S. Postal Service does.
Senator Tester. And you either bless it or you do not?
Mr. Taub. They actually do not need our approval on that,
but that is where Senator Heitkamp's legislation that you have
been a cosponsor on would give us some tools to take that
further under current----
Senator Tester. OK. So let us talk about what your
authority is. Is it strictly pricing?
Mr. Taub. No. We do, as I was mentioning, oversee and
report on service where, before the 2006 law, we were not
providing that transparency.
Senator Tester. OK.
Mr. Taub. So we have been able to say----
Senator Tester. But when it comes right down to it, if the
Postal Service wants to do it, you cannot stop them.
Mr. Taub. That is correct.
Senator Tester. So what is your club?
Mr. Taub. The club, when it comes to service, is our
providing that report that did not exist in 2006, which is
clear transparency on what is going on. So rather than, say,
before 2006, where the Postal Service said, ``Yes, you may be
hearing some problems from your constituents, but trust us, it
is OK,'' we now have the data, fully transparent, reliable, and
accurate, that shows performance is not being met. We have
taken them to task on that. We have asked for reports on how to
improve it. We are getting those reports. But in terms of our
ability to, if you will, force those changes, that is not fully
in our toolkit right now when it comes to the service. But
compared to where we were before the 2006 law, there is more
transparency.
Senator Tester. So help me through this. I do not have my
staffer whispering in my ear, so I will just ask you. If they
want to close down a processing center, who makes that call?
Mr. Taub. The Postal Service's Board of Governors.
Senator Tester. The Board of Governors. And that is it,
once they make it?
Mr. Taub. Again, the theory in the 2006 law was maintaining
this regulator versus operational separation. So there was a
view that when it came to processing plants, that is an
operational decision for the U.S. Postal Service and the
Governors who exercise the powers of the Postal Service.
Senator Tester. OK. So on your Commission, on the PRC, is
there a view that the Postal Service has outlived--you did not
say it in your opening statement, but is there a view by some
members on the PRC that the Postal Service has outlived its
usefulness?
Mr. Taub. Senator, I can speak for myself on this, that no
way in heck have they----
Senator Tester. But how about the rest? And either one of
you, just your sentiments. This is not about you guys. It is
about the Board in general. I know there are only four and
there needs to be five. But just tell me, is it--because I have
gotten the sentiment by some in the Postal Service, I have
gotten the sentiment by some in the Senate, by some on this
Committee, that they would like to see it go away and let UPS
and FedEx handle it.
Mr. Acton. I would just say, Senator, that with the proper
sort of targeted reform that this chamber and the House are
considering, I think there is a bright future for the Postal
Service.
Senator Tester. I could not agree more.
Mr. Acton. The aspects of the present situation that
concern me most in terms of what you are talking about as an
alternative go to these issues with respect to rural or remote
America, because if you move, I think, to try to reduce the
Postal Service's footprint in certain parts of America by, say,
privatizing certain aspects of it, it is going to compromise
the integrity and the livelihood of the entire infrastructure
in a fashion that could have consequences which we do not
anticipate well or plan for properly at this point.
But, with just a few changes--for instance, this
reamortization of the unfunded liabilities, that is the one
position that the Commission has come forth in response to a
congressional request to offer expert testimony that says that
those changes should be made in a responsible fashion. The
intent of covering those unfunded liabilities through the
percentages that they initially enacted was a very responsible
public policy approach, but it had some unintended consequences
that basically have brought the Postal Service to the brink of
bankruptcy.
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Acton. So the Commission is on the record with its
viewpoint that some nature of reamortization needs to be done,
and that alone could go miles toward establishing the Postal
Service's fiscal health.
Senator Tester. Make no mistake about it. As we point
fingers at one another, Congress gets most of the fingers
pointed at them, and rightfully so. We have not acted, and we
should have acted many Congresses ago. And so thank you, folks,
for your testimony and thanks for your willingness to serve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I
would reiterate what my colleagues have said. We appreciate
your service and willingness to serve. This is a very difficult
position that you will be conducting, but we stand behind you,
and we have to figure out ways to make this work.
My colleagues raised a number of issues that I had when I
came here, so you have answered some of those. But I would pick
up a little bit on what Senator Tester asked related to
processing centers and take it down to local post offices. The
State of Michigan, which I represent, has a very large rural
population in addition to the urban areas, and folks have been
concerned about individual post office closures and the
negative result that that has brought about to their community.
My understanding is that you are involved in oversight of the
appeals process where communities can appeal. Could you tell me
a little bit about that appeals process and how you see that
functioning? And are there things that we need to be aware of
to potentially improve the opportunity for folks to have a
stronger impact in that appeals process?
Mr. Taub. Senator, we have a process that dates from the
1970s and the law in which any community or a patron of a post
office, if it is being closed, can appeal to the Commission for
a review as to whether the Postal Service followed the
procedures that are outlined in statute. And if not, the
Commission either can remand that decision back to the Postal
Service for further action or affirm it.
However, when it comes to processing facilities, as we were
discussing with Senator Tester, those are not part of the
process that the Commission is involved in and are wholly
within the purview of the U.S. Postal Service itself. But I do
believe the community aspect of citizen participation that
allows people to come to the Commission is an important feature
that should be maintained.
I would note that the Commission updated and modernized its
rules on post office closures in 2011 and 2012, and we recently
held a proceeding looking at some precedent in this area. So we
are trying to stay fresh and involved in that. But when it
comes to the processing plants, that is just in the purview of
the U.S. Postal Service itself.
Senator Peters. Right, I realize that. But I am talking
about individual post offices, which you have addressed, which
have an impact on the community. At least some of the feedback
that I have received from these local communities is that the
decisionmakers look at the issue related to the health of the
Postal Service as opposed to the impact on the local economy,
and that the local economy should be factored in more in some
of that appeals process. Is that accurate? Is that a concern or
not? If you could comment on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Acton. Thank you for the question, Senator. My personal
view on the post office appeals process, as it is called, is
that the name alone is a bit misleading. It implies that the
Commission is empowered with the responsibility to decide
whether or not the Postal Service has made the proper decision
about closing or relocating a given post office, when indeed
what it is is the Commission is tasked by law to review the
administrative record that the Postal Service assembles in
managing these decisions.
So when the Postal Service comes to us in answer to an
appeal for a given post office, they have to demonstrate to the
Commission that they followed the proper rules and regulations
that are outlined for building the record that is needed to
make the decision that Postal Service management has made. And
often those decisions are related to portions of the Postal
Service network where it is not clear what the Commission's
authority is. And in our recent 701 report, we put forth some
recommendations, since you are contemplating postal reform,
where you might want to improve that clarity about where the
line is drawn between what the Postal Service does with respect
to post office closings and suspensions and what the Commission
is responsible to do. And I think that would be helpful moving
forward.
Senator Peters. And some clarification as to criteria
beyond just following certain processes?
Mr. Acton. People talk about applying criteria for the
universal service obligation and for closing post offices, and
I think that, broadly speaking, that is wise, and we have done
that in the past in our Universal Service Obligation study
where we talk about the various elements and aspects of the
USO. But I also know now through my experience in having done
dozens of these post office closing appeals and reviews that
they are fact set specific; that what constitutes troublesome 5
miles in Idaho can be much different than 5 miles in a more
urban area.
So lots of times, those considerations have to be taken up
on an instance-by-instance basis, which is what the Commission
does. I think if you start trying to apply general metrics
about, do not close a post office within a certain radius of a
number of miles, then you begin to generalize a process which
in many instances is very specific to the community at hand.
Senator Peters. All right. Very helpful. Thank you. I
appreciate it.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Mr. Acton, let me continue to press on through just
cooperation and some of the things that you are doing, and
interaction. Tell me about just the relationship between PRC
right now and the Office of Inspector General for USPS,
distinctly different responsibilities but I would hope there is
some coordination there as well in the oversight and
transparency.
Mr. Acton. We coordinate with them in the sense that we
often have shared examinations of similar issues of concern.
Sometimes Congress is interested in knowing the Postal
Regulatory Commission's position with respect to a certain
issue or concern, and sometimes they want it from the OIG, and
sometimes they ask for it from both. So we do not interact with
the OIG's office as regularly, as robustly as we do with the
Postmaster General and her executive leadership team, whom we
meet with monthly. But we are informed on what the OIG is up
to, and the Acting Chairman and his staff are very active in
keeping the Commission in close concert with all of the
important postal players, including the Inspector General's
office.
Senator Lankford. OK. Your group, the PRC, has subpoena
power to be able to get information from USPS if needed. Are
there other tools that you need to be able to do your job?
Mr. Acton. Well, I will tell you that it is my fervent
belief that the Postal Service management is working hard to
make things better, and they are stressed with the fiscal
situation which pervades every aspect of their operation. So
when the regulator talks about needing to develop these
methodologies or pursue these systems or come up with this
data, the thing that is always in the back of my mind, and I
think the Commission's mind, when we pursue those sorts of
avenues is that that costs money. And the Postal Service does
not have a lot of money. In fact, as you know, they are
billions in debt.
So we do what we can to try to stress where we think pinch
points may lie and where they may focus resources and introduce
some metrics that will improve the situation in terms of how
the community learns about these problems and what the Postal
Service is doing to address them.
But there are limited arrows in our quiver with respect to
what we can do to drive that type of action, and subpoena power
is certainly one of them. Another one is fining them for
certain offenses, like not meeting service terms. But for me,
if you fine the Postal Service for a given offense, that is the
mailers' money, that is the ratepayers' money; and they will
end up having to pay that bill, which for me does not seem
equitable.
Senator Lankford. All right. Mr. Taub, the recommendations
came out today, the 701 recommendations and such. Any high
points that you want to be able to walk us through on that?
Mr. Taub. Probably high points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and on is
fixing the financial balance sheet. That really is our
overarching message to the Congress. We offer a variety of
possible options on how to do that. The Postal Service and
comments that are attached to the report go beyond and offer
some additional ones. The bottom-line message is anything and
all of the above that can be done in a fiscally responsible way
can go a long way to giving the Postal Service that breathing
room. Right now they have almost no working capital, very
little liquidity. That is unsustainable for a $70 billion
operation itself.
Senator Lankford. Let us talk a little bit about
international packages coming in and the two issues that come
up over and over again, and that is, prohibited items coming
into the United States through USPS or paying customs fees and
being able to pick those up once they are coming in. What is
the progress on those? And where do things stand right now?
Just picking up customs fees and then picking up prohibited
items.
Mr. Taub. I would say, although the Commission has a very
important role when it comes to international mail issues, it
is over their rates and service offerings. We have to opine on
any proposals to the Department of State before they conclude
those treaties. Largely, this is within an area of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border
Protection, but they are interrelated.
Senator Lankford. Any interrelation is obviously the cost
of how it is coming in and why, and what drives that cost and
such to be able to pick that up internationally.
Mr. Taub. That is right, and there is, unfortunately,
distortions in the international system right now that create
incentives for foreign posts and foreign mailers to use the
postal systems, both for the lower cost that they are paying as
well as avoiding the customs fees.
The 2006 law had a directive that there should have been a
strive for equalization of customs treatment, and that was on
the Department of Homeland Security. Suffice it to say that has
not been achieved, and I know there is some pending legislation
both in the Senate and the House, and I think that would take
it the full step to ameliorate the problem.
Senator Lankford. Any comments on that?
Mr. Acton. Thank you, Senator. I would mention, this rate
review that we are talking about, this 10-year rate study,
calls for the Commission to look at these nine featured
elements of the law and decide whether or not they are being
properly balanced under the present ratemaking system. One of
those objectives includes security of the mail. So there is a
hook to hang our hat on here going forward in terms of
examining this if we think it is appropriate, and that may be
part of what the Commission does.
I would just follow up for a moment about Acting Chairman
Taub's reference to some of the rate-setting activities with
respect to global shipping. We do provide the Department of
State with insights about whether or not their proposals that
they are presenting at the Universal Postal Union (UPU) are in
keeping with the criteria of American law. It is usually a sort
of pro forma process. We do it on a 4-year basis. But the last
examination was different in a lot of regards, and there are
some fundamental problems with what is happening there in terms
of how those rates are set and what it means for the American
consumer.
For me--and I said this in my remarks--the notion that an
American consumer can go on Amazon today and have the same item
delivered for less from Beijing, China, than you can from
Dallas, Texas, to me strikes to the core of what is wrong with
an international rate-setting body where, in an organization
like ours that delivers 40 percent of the world's mail, gets
only one vote. And so those outcomes are not equitable for the
American consumer who is interested in getting fair shipping
rates.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Senator Carper, any questions?
Senator Carper. I have two quick ones, if I could, Mr.
Chairman.
I am going to direct this first question, if I could, to
Chairman Taub and then ask Commissioner Acton to respond as
well. In both of your written testimonies--earlier this year,
one I think before this Committee in January, I believe it was
January 21, and the other I think might have been before the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on, I want to
say, May 11. But you remain optimistic--and we have heard this
here today--about the future of the Postal Service and stated,
and I think this is a quote--``There is still strength in the
system.'' Could you just expand a little bit on that thought,
if you will, Mr. Chairman? And then I am going to ask
Commissioner Acton to do so as well.
Mr. Taub. Definitely, Senator. Thank you. Yes, I am very
optimistic about the future of the United States Postal
Service. Despite all the challenges that face us, it is still
that key center of gravity (COG) of a delivery system in the
United States that American businesses and households depend
upon. As you indicated in your statement, by some estimates it
is the center and a linchpin of a $1.4 trillion sector of our
economy with 7.5 million jobs. So despite the problems the
Postal Service faces, that is enormous strength that the
Congress, the President, and all policymakers can build upon.
So despite the loss of First-Class Mail and the reduced
revenues there, I think the Postal Service is going through
that process of, as some have called it, ``a new normal.'' But
the idea that it is time to shut out the lights and we no
longer need a postal administration--if it did not exist, we
would have to think of it.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Acton. I think you know, Senator, that public opinion
polls consistently rate the United States Postal Service as the
most trusted government agency in the land, and that does not
happen by happenstance. It happens because, despite people's
concerns about waiting time at the post office or what-not,
they almost invariably have a great appreciation for this
Federal Ambassador who visits their household, reaches out and
touches their homes 6 days out of 7, and sometimes 7 out of 7.
So I do not foresee the demise of the Postal Service by any
means within the short term. I think that we have at hand a
toolbox of reform that can make an important difference to put
the Postal Service back in the black for years and years to
come.
Senator Carper. I like that, ``Back in the black.'' Maybe
that could be our slogan here.
A last question. I would direct this to you, Commissioner
Acton, and, Chairman Taub, if you would like to take it on too,
just briefly. Mr. Commissioner, what do you think might be the
biggest challenge out of several challenges that plague the
U.S. Postal Service in your eyes? And what is your role as a
Commissioner in helping the Postal Service evolve in its third
century and to remain relevant for years to come?
Mr. Acton. We have been harping today on the problems with
the Postal Service's business model, and I would say that that,
of course, is the most challenging aspect of what the Postal
Service is facing because it compromises every element of their
operation, because once you start hemorrhaging losses at that
scale, it pervades the entire enterprise.
So I think the Commission's role here is still what the
Commission's role was when it was created in the 1970s as the
Postal Rate Commission. The Congress wanted out of postal rate
setting. They wanted an expert body who could provide legal and
technical assistance to give you the sort of information and
insight that you are asking for here today so that you can make
informed judgments which you have reserved for yourself, and
rightly so, about what will best work to bring the Postal
Service back to viability.
So, for me, the Commission's real role here is to do what
we are trying to do, which is focus the resources you afford us
in a fashion that informs your view so that good decisions can
be made.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taub. Senator, I would echo Commissioner Acton's points
on that. First and foremost, the financials need to be fixed.
And, second, I am a big proponent of strategic planning, in the
small percentage of time where you can be proactive as opposed
to reactive. We just concluded just a few months ago a
strategic planning process, issued a new strategic 5-year plan
for the Commission where we identified our strengths, our
challenges going forward, involved the whole agency from top to
bottom. And first and foremost was a reaffirmation of our basic
mission, which is twofold: transparency and accountability to
the U.S. Postal Service, and ensuring a vital and efficient
universal mail system for the United States. That is part and
parcel of what we see our role in doing. Our challenge, quite
frankly, is ensuring we have the staff and resources to do what
needs to be done. We are a very small agency, a micro agency.
We are about 75 folks. That includes the five Commissioners and
their staff. We have our own Office of Inspector General, which
is another three folks--once you peel back the administrative
folks, it is really about 40 staff working really hard day in
and day out ensuring that transparency and accountability. Our
appropriation has been generally flat-lined, and to deal with
that in previous years, the Postal Regulatory Commission was
deferring hiring and deferring investments in information
technology (IT) that are no longer sustainable. With the
Congress' help, this past appropriations cycle we have been
starting to turn the curve on that.
But those are some of the internal challenges that we have,
and certainly the external one for the Postal Service is the
financials.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks. Just a concluding thought, if
I could, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, our thanks to both of you for your service to
date and for your willingness to continue to serve. I think
there is great opportunity that lies ahead, and I think you may
in these positions, if you are reconfirmed, be in a position to
help us seize the day, and that would be wonderful. I am
encouraged that it can and will happen.
I serve on another Committee called Environment and Public
Works, and a couple of years ago, Mr. Chairman, maybe 6 years
or so ago, George W. Bush was the President and he offered
legislation called ``Clear Skies.'' It dealt with emissions of
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury, and CO2 for the
regulated community, utilities, and I offered legislation--we
called it ``Really Clear Skies.'' And we brought in a bunch of
utility Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) to come in and testify
before us on--not to testify but actually meet with us in
private on the President's proposal and our proposal,
bipartisan proposal in the Senate. And I will never forget this
one curmudgeonly old CEO from a utility, a southern utility.
And he came in and he said to us about both the proposals, the
President's proposal and our proposal, he said, ``Here is what
you should do, Senator. Here is what you and your colleagues
should do. Tell us what the rules are going to be. Give us some
flexibility, give us a reasonable amount of time, and get out
of the way.'' And what he was really saying is that they wanted
some certainty and predictability, they wanted some
flexibility, and a reasonable timeframe. And I think we have an
obligation to those who are served by the Postal Service to
better ensure they get the kind of service that they want and
deserve and that we want them to have.
But a good place to start, before we even pass our
legislation--and I hope we will pass legislation. I hope we
will actually continue the very hard work that is being done,
Democrat and Republican, House and Senate, to narrow our
differences and to try to do our job this year before we go
home for the holidays. But a good place to start is with
confirming these nominations. Excellent nominations. Both I
think are Republican, if I am not mistaken. But we are lucky to
have you in these jobs.
The second would be we have--the President has nominated
six people to serve as the Board of Governors. I just said to
the Chairman that the one remaining non-postal person on the
Board of Governors, they just had his retirement party
yesterday, and so we are down to zero folks on the Board of
Governors who are not part of the Postal Service. That is just
not acceptable.
And so we have excellent nominees to report out of
Committee. We need to get that done. And I think there is a
clear path to actually--not an easy path but a clear path to
having bipartisan legislation to actually address a lot of the
concerns that need to be done, the work for us to be enablers
for the Postal Service, and for you to be able to do your work.
And I am going to fight like hell to see that we realize that
potential this year--this year, not some year down the road but
this year--to get it done while we can, do our job.
Thanks so much.
Senator Lankford. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Just one comment to my friend. As you were recalling it, 4,
5, maybe 6 years ago when President Bush was President, I think
it is more than six.
Senator Carper. Probably. [Laughter.]
It only seems like two or three.
Senator Lankford. It always does. Time is flying when you
are having fun with it.
Gentlemen, you have served the men and women of the USPS,
and we are very grateful for that. They are some very fine
folks, including some of my own family members, that serve,
that are out, as you all know well, in rain, snow, sunshine,
whatever it may be. There are people that most of our neighbors
will never, ever meet that are literally being served by folks
every single day that work for the United States Postal
Service. And so I want to say to you thank you for your service
to them as they serve the entire Nation and as you all serve
the Nation as well. This is a difficult, complicated task, and
what we have asked you to do is difficult, because none of
these decisions are easy. Twenty years ago, this was a simpler
job. It is no longer simple, and this is a complicated process
that we all have very hard decisions to make in the days ahead,
and we appreciate your insight with that.
Mr. Taub and Mr. Acton have filed responses and
biographical and financial questionnaires, answered prehearing
questions submitted by the Committee, and have had financial
statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without
objection, this information will be made part of the hearing
record\1\ with the exception of the financial data, which is on
file and available for public inspection in the Committee
offices.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information of Mr. Taub appears in the Appendix on page 30.
\2\ The information of Mr. Acton appears in the Appendix on page
76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing record will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow,
November 16, 2016, for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
To both of you, thank you, and to your families, thank you
for your endurance through this long confirmation process, and
we look forward to passing it on to the full body in the days
ahead.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]