U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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 20402–0001

24–801 PDF 2017

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 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

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 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 
2 

1The prepared statements from Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand appear in the Appendix beginning on page 26. 

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

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. 
3 

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 FirstClass 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. 
4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Taub appears in the Appendix on page 28. 

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. 

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 
5 

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 FirstClass 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 Commis-
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Acton appears in the Appendix on page 75. 

sioners, 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. 

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. 
7 

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. 
8 

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. 
9 

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 
10 

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 im-
11 

provement. 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 
12 

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? 
13 

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 
14 

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. 
15 

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 
16 

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 
17 

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. 
18 

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, 
19 

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.’’ 
20 

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 
21 

1The information of Mr. Taub appears in the Appendix on page 30. 

2The information of Mr. Acton appears in the Appendix on page 76. 

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 record1 with the exception of the financial data, which is on file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices.2

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.] 

(23) 

A P P E N D I X 
24 

Statement of Ranking Member Tom Carper 

"Nominations of the Honorable Robert G. Taub and the Honorable Mark D. 

Acton to be Commissioners, Postal Regulatory Commission" 

As prepared for delivery: 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling today's hearing to consider these 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. They arc 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're re-confirmed. It is imperative, then, that we take swift action on these 

nominees before the end of the year due to the pending critical work on rates before the 

Commission. I should also note that, if we don't take action on these two nominations, the PRC 

will eventually be left with only two Commissioners. That would be unacceptable and create 

even more uncertainty for the Postal Service and its customers. 

We're 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 that's devoid of promise, although to achieve that promise, 

we need strong leadership at the PRC if the Postal Service is going to successfully confront 

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. 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. The Postal Service operates at the center of a massive 

$1.4 trillion printing, delivery, and logistics industry that employs nearly 8 million people. 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 effective 

option for mailers. And e-commerce and package delivery arc 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. 

Mr. Taub and Mr. Acton have been invaluable resources to the Congress as we work on postal 

reform legislation. 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 by President Barack Obama, and he has served as 

the Acting Chairman of the PRC since December 2014. He was first nominated and confirmed 

in October 2011 and has demonstrated 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 August 2006. His second 
25 

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, the PRC has a tremendous amount of work ahead of 

it in the coming weeks and months, including a required I 0-year review of the postal pricing 

system established in the 2006 postal reform law. 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 the service. 1 believe we need to ensure that there is a quorum of PRC 

Commissioners in place so that the rate review can happen and proceed un-interrupted over the 

course of the next year. 

I look forward to talking to Mr. Taub and Mr. Acton today about what they think can be done to 

address the ongoing challenges facing the Postal Service and to hear about the skills, the 

knowledge, and experience they would bring to the PRC. My thanks again, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this very important and timely hearing. 
26 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Hearing: "Nominations of the Honorable Robert G. Taub and the Honorable Mark D. 

Acton to be Commissioners, Postal Regulatory Commission." 

November 15,2016 at 2:30p.m. 

Senator Schumer 

As submitted for the record: 

Good afternoon. I am pleased to submit this statement regarding the nomination of 

Robert Taub for the position of Commissioner on the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). Mr. 

Taub is a native of Gloversville, New York with a long career in public service. He earned an 

M.A. in Political Science, with a concentration in American politics, and a B.S. in Political 

Science with Honors, both from American University in Washington, D.C. Mr. Taub has 

dedicated himself to public service throughout his career. He served the people ofNew York 

when he worked as Chief of Staff to then-Representative John McHugh in the House of 

Representatives, taking a leadership role on postal policy. As you know, Mr. Taub is no stranger 

to the PRC, having first been sworn in as Commissioner in October 2011 following his 

nomination by President Obama. Mr. Taub was elected Vice Chairman of the Commission for 

2013, and was designated Acting Chairman by President Obama in December 2014. He is 

uniquely qualified to serve on the Postal Regulatory Commission. With the PRC already 

experiencing a vacancy, and set to begin a 10-year review of the Postal Service's rate-making 

system, it is imperative that the Commission has a quorum in order to effectively do its job. 

congratulate Mr. Taub and respectfully urge my colleagues to support his nomination. 
27 

Statement of U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) 

In Support of the Nomination of the Honorable Robert G. Taub 

To be Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission 

November 15, 2016 

I submit this statement in support of the nomination of the Honorable Robert G. Taub of 

Gloversville, New York for a second term as Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory 

Commission. 

Mr. Taub was first sworn in as Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission in October 

2011 following his nomination by President Barack Obama and confirmation by the United 

States Senate. He was elected Vice Chairman by the Commission in 2013 and designated as 

Acting Chairman of the Commission by President Obama in December 2014. In recognition of 

his leadership abilities, Mr. Taub continues to hold the position of Acting Chairman of the 

Commission today. 

Prior to his 2011 appointment as Commissioner, Mr. Taub dedicated his career to 30 years of 

public service in federal, state, and local government. Mr. Taub served as the Special Assistant to 

then-Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh and previously as Chief of Staff to thenCongressman McHugh, who represented a Congressional district in upstate New York. Mr. Taub 

has also worked as a senior policy analyst at the U.S. Government Accountability Office as well 

as a staff member for three Members of Congress, a Member of the British Parliament, and state 

and county officials in upstate New York. 

Mr. Taub received a Master of Arts degree in Political Science and a Bachelor of Science degree 

in Political Science with Honors from American University. Throughout his career, Mr. Taub has 

demonstrated an unwavering commitment to public service. 

I am grateful for Mr. Taub's dedication to improving the United States Postal Service, and I 

strongly encourage my colleagues to support the nomination of the Honorable Robert G. Taub to 

be Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission. Thank you. 
28 

Opening Statement of Robert G. Taub 

Nominee, Commissioner, Postal Regulatory Commission 

November 15,2016 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members ofthe Committee, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and for your consideration 

of my qualifications to be a Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission for a second 

term. I would like to thank President Obama for the opportunity he has afforded me through 

this nomination, and I am honored by his trust. 

I am pleased that many of my family, friends, and colleagues are here, and I am grateful for 

the support they have provided in my chosen career of public service. While I cannot 

acknowledge them all by name, I would like to introduce my dear wife Cynthia Taub. Our 

twin daughters are away at college and could not be here today to experience our 

Constitution in action. Also, my father and sister who traveled a distance from upstate New 

York to attend: my father Carlson Taub and my sister Beth Laddin. Like good families 

everywhere, all have lent me love, encouragement, and a good dose of understanding. 

I would also like to acknowledge the other nominee on this afternoon's panel: my fellow 

Commissioner Mark Acton, nominated for another term on the Commission. I congratulate 

him for his selection and wish him well. I have known Mark for more than 15 years, and it is 

a pleasure to be with him today. Lastly, I would like to thank my New York Senator Kirsten 

Gillibrand for her kind and thoughtful statement of support for the hearing record. 

When the Senate confirmed me as a Commissioner 5 years ago, I was serving as a senior 

executive in the Department ofthe 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 & Government Reform Committee. Like Secretary 

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 ofthe 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 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 hope 
29 

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 "I 0 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 ofthis 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 diftlculties that lie ahead. I believe I have a clear understanding of the serious and 

numerous challenges that face America's postal system. The Commission has just issued its 

most recent 5 year review of the law with recommendations to improve it. 

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 

!55 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 

tmiform 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 Postal Service is in a serious financial crisis that must he fixed. 

If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to focus my executive and management skills 

on ensuring transparency and accountability of the Postal Service and fostering a vital and 

efficient universal mail system. I would bring to the job 30 years of pub! ic service 

achievement and experience, and I pledge to work with all stakeholders to address the 

current difficulties. 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 the other Commissioners, to engage in a constant search for the discovery and 

effective implementation of solutions. I am truly honored to be considered. Thank you. 
30 

HSGAC BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONS FOR 

EXECUTIVE NOMINEES 

1. Basic Biographical Information REDACTED 

Please provide the following information. 

Name of Position Date of Nominatum 

RobertTaub September 12. 2016 

Zip:20016 

OtherNames Used ,, , ,, , , ,, , 

, ,' 

Name Used Name Used To 

il From 

First Name Middle Name Last Name fu!i!h (Month/Year) (MonthlY ear) 

(Check box if (Check box if 

estimate) estimate) 

l Est Est 

I I 0 0 

I Est Est 

0 0 

1 

I 
31 

Never Married 

0 

First Name 

Married 

X 

Middle Name 

Separated 

0 

2 

Gloversville, New York 

Annulled 

0 

Divoreed 

0 

From 

(Month/Year) 

(Check box if 

estimate 

Est 

Est 

0 

Widowed 

0 

Name Used To 

(MonthlY ear) 

(Check box if 

estimate) 

Est 

0 

Est 
32 

Cllildie'! 's,Jilatite.s a( over 18) 

First Name Middle Name Last Name Suffix 

Hannah Joelle Taub 

Madeline Rose Taub 

I 

I 

i 

2. Education 

List all post·secondary schools attended. 

TyJle of School Date Began Date Ended I 

School 

~ (vocational/technical/trade school, School (month/year)(check I Degree !llli 

§£.!JQ!!! college/university/military college, (month/year) Awarded ~orrespondence/distance/extcnsion/onlinc (check box if box if estimate) 

school) estimate) (check "present" box 

if still in school) ··- American university Est E•t Presl!tlt BS May 

University 08/1982 a 05/1986 0 0 1986 

American university Est 12/1987 Est Present MA Dec. 

University 01/1986 0 0 0 1987 

I E>! Est Pre$ent 

0 0 0 

·--- Est Elt Pn!sel\t 

a a 0 

_j 

3 
33 

3. Employment 

(A) List all of your employment activities, including unemployment and self-employment. 

If tbe employment activity was military duty, list separate employment activity periods to 

show each change of military duty station. Do not list employment before your 18th 

birthday unless to provide a minimum of two years of employment history. 

Tylle of Emllloxment 

{Active Military Duty Station, Date 

National Guard/Reserve, Emuloyment 

OSPHS Commissioned Corps, .!.!!!£ Ended 

Other federal employment, Name of Your Most R~cent .b!!s.!!!i.!m ErnJ.l!!/.l:rnent (month/year) 

State Government (Non· Employer/ Position (City and Began (check box if 

Federal Employment), Self· Assi::ned Dull; State (month/year) estimate) 

employment, Unemployment, Station Title/Rank only) (check box if (check 

Federal Contractor, Non· estimate) "present" box 

Government Employment if still 

(excluding self-employment), employed) 

Other 

Other Federal U.S. Postal Acting Wash, Est -~ 

Regulatory Chairman DC 10/lOll 0 Pre.nnl 0 

Commission 

Other Federal U.S. Department of Special Wash, ESt £5t 

the Army Assistant DC Hl/l.U09 0 JOIZOil 0 

Other Federal U.S. House of Chief of Staff Wash, E.r Est 

Representatives DC ovtm 0 ID/l009 0 

Other Federal U.S. Government Senior ! Wash, Est Est 

Accountability Office Evaluator i DC 08/1990ancl 0111995and 

pr~iou:t: 06/1987 previous J2/l989 

0 

-·~ Non-Govt Employment Verstandig & Research Wash, E" 

Associates, Inc. Director DC Olft99!l 0 07/1990 0 

(B) List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time service or positions with 

federal, state, or local governments, not listed elsewhere. 

Daje Sencice Date Service Ended 

~arne o[Governntent Name of Position .!!rul!. (month/year) (check box 

Entity (month/year) if estimate) (check 

(check box if .. present .. box if still 

estimate) '~'!i!'~~ Est Est Present 

0 0 0 

F..st r.~t Prc~t:nt 

0 0 0 

I Est Est Prt'$ent 

0 0 0 

4 

i 
34 

4. Potential Conflict of Interest 

(A) Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial tmnsaction which you have had 

during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, 

that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the position to 

which you have been nominated. NONE 

(B) Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have engaged for the 

purpose of directly or indh·ectly influencing the passage, defeat or modification of any 

legislation or affecting the administration or execution of law or public policy, other than 

while in a federal government capacity. NONE 

5. Honors and Awards 

List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, civilian service citations, military 

medals, academic or professional honors, honorary society memberships and any other 

special recognition for outstanding service or achievement. 

Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration, 2015 

Decoration for Distinguished Civilian Service, U.S. Department ofthe Anny, 201 I 

New York Fonner Administrative Assistant of the Year Award December 2010 

Recognition for outstanding contributions and continued support to the mission of the 

Postal Service's Office of Inspector General2009 

Recognition as "NAPUS Champ" by National Association of Postmasters of the U.S. 

2007 

Recognition for postal reform by National Association of Postal Supervisors March 2007 

Recognition for contributions and dedication to the mission of the Postal Service's Office 

of Inspector General March 2007 

Recognition from America's Postmasters for years of tireless effort on behalf of postal 

reform2006 

Recognition for contributions to the development of the Postal Service's Office of 

Inspector General May 2006 

Recognition for support and many contributions to the National Postal Mail Handlers 

Union April 2005 

Recognition of contribution to the Postal Service's Office ofinspector General October 

2004 

American Society of Association Executives congressional staff award for important 

efforts on behalf of the association community March 2002 

Recognition from The Nature Conservancy in appreciation for efforts to protect New 

York's Tug Hill Plateau and Great Northern Forest 2002 

5 
35 

Recognition for exceptional support of transition team efforts to the Postal Service's 

Office of Inspector General 1997 

6. Memberships 

List all memberships that you have held in professional, social, business, fraternal, 

scholarly, civic, or charitable organizations in the last 10 years. 

Unless relevant to your nomination, you do NOT need to include memberships in 

charitable organizations available to the public as a result of a tax deductible donation of 

$1,000 or less, Parent-Teacher Associations or other organizations connected to schools 

attended by your children, athletic clubs or teams, automobile support organizations (such 

as AAA), discounts clubs (such as Groupon or Sam's Club), or affinity 

memberships/consumer clubs (such as frequent flyer memberships). 

Name of Organization Dates ofYOJ!r M~mbcrshil! Position(s} Hell! 

(You may approximate.) 

RAMS (Republicans Associated for 2008-Present Member 

Mutual Support) 

7. Political Activity 

6 

-1 
36 

(A) Have you ever been a candidate for or been elected or appointed to a political office? 

No 

Year(s} Election 

NameofOfflce Elected/A11110inted/ Held or Term of Service 

Candidate Onl:.; A!!t;!Ointment (if applicable) 

Made -· 

-

(B) List any offices held in or services rendered to a political party or election committee 

during the last ten years that you have not listed elsewhere. 

Name of Par!ILElection Office/Services Rendered RCSl;!ODSibllitles Dates of 

Committee Service 

Committee to Elect Volunteer (treasurer 4/2007 to Volunteer support to campaign March 2000 to 

McHugh 1/2009) management and oversight Oct. 2009 

--

(C) Itemize all individual political contributions of$200 or more that you have made in the 

past five years to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action 

committee, or similar entity. Please list each individual contribution and not the total 

amount contributed to the person or entity during the year. 

7 

I 
37 

Name or Recil!ient Amount Year of Contribution 

Elise for Congress $250 2016 

Elise for Congress $250 2015 

·-

----

-

I 

! 

-

1-----------

/ 

8. Publications and Speeches 

(A) List the titles, publishers and dates of books, articles, reports or other published 

materials that you have written, including articles published on the Internet. Please provide 

the Committee with copies of all listed publications. In lieu of hard copies, electronic copies 

can be provided via e-mail or other digital format. NONE 

8 

' : 

i 

I 
38 

Title Publisher Date(s} of Publication 

-

I 

--~ 

--

-~ 

(B) List any formal speeches you have delivered during the last five years and provide the 

Committee with copies of those speeches relevant to the position for which you have been 

nominated. Include any testimony to Congress or any other legislative or administrative 

body. These items can be provided electronically via e-mail or other digital format. SEE 

ATTACHED LIST (except for Congressional Testimony, I have no copies of speeches as 

they were presented without formal text) 

9 
39 

Titlerfol!ic Piac~l Audience Date(s} of lill~!t£b 

i 

i 

~· 

----

(C) List all speeches and testimony you have delivered in the past ten years, except for 

those the text of which you are providing to the Committee. SEE ATTACHED LIST 

(except for Congressional Testimony, I have no copies of speeches as they were presented 

without formal text) 

Title Place! Audience Date(s) ofS!!eeeh 

10 

I 

I 

~~-
40 

Robe1·t Taub speeches 

I have done my best to identifY all speeches and presentations through a review of my personal 

files and searches of publicly available electronic databases. Despite my searches, there may be 

other items I have been unable to identifY, find, or remember. 

Congressional Testimony: 

June 16,2015 

U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

January 21, 2016 

U.S. Senate Homeland Security & Govemmental Affairs Committee 

May 11,2016 

U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

Speeches/presentations: 

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 

Consumer Postal Council Lunch 

Monday, January 30, 20l2 

National League of Postmasters 42"d Legislative Forum 

Monday, March 12,2012 

National Association of Postal Supervisors 2012 Legislative Training Seminar 

Friday, April6, 2012 

Professor Crew's Advanced Workshop in Regulation and Competition 

Wednesday, May 2, 2012 

National Catalog Forum 

Monday, May 21, 20 12 

National Rural Letter Carriers Association 

Sunday, May 27, 2012 

The Bridge Builder Show WCGO 1590 AM (Richard Boykin 's radio show) 

Wednesday, July 18,2012 

Pitney Bowes Government Affairs Group 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012 

Parcel Shippers Association Morning Meeting 

Thursday, September 20, 2012 

National Postal Policy Council 

1 
41 

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 

Association for Postal Commerce 

Wednesday, March 6, 2013 

Greeting Card Association 

Friday, April 12, 2013 

Michael Crew event 

Wednesday, April24, 2013 

Postal Vision 2020 

Wednesday, October 2, 2013 

Parcel Shippers Association Dinner 

Thursday, February 27, 2014 

National Postal Policy Council Meeting 

Thursday, June 5, 2014 

Central New York Postal Customer Council Meeting 

Wednesday, February 11, 20!5 

PostCom Board Meeting 

Thursday, February 12,2015 

Parcel Shippers Association General Membership and Board of Directors Meeting 

Thursday, February 19,2015 

National Postal Policy Council Meeting 

Thursday, February 26, 2015 

DMA Nonprofit Federation Conference - Keynote Speaker 

Wednesday, March II, 2015 

Posta1Vision2020/5.0 general session 

Wednesday, March 25, 2015 

Brookings public forum on "The Future of the United States Postal Service" 

Friday, March 27,2015 

Michael Crew CRRI event 

Wednesday, June 3, 2015 

GSA Mail Education Forum - keynote speaker 

2 
42 

Thursday, February 4, 2016 

Bipartisan Po !icy Center event- USPS: The Path to Profitability 

Speeches/presentations pre-PRC 

Presentation on status of pending legislation before Congress; May 19, 2008; legislative seminar 

ofNational Rural Letter Carriers' Association 

Presentation on current postal issues; April 15, 2008; conference of the Alliance of Nonprofit 

Mailers 

Presentation on current and future postal issues; November 27, 2007; meeting of the postal 

policy council of First-Class mailers 

Presentation on postal reform legislation; on or about June 2007; meeting of Inspector General of 

the Postal Service staff 

Presentation on legislative postal matters; March 22, 2007; seminar for national stewards of the 

National Rural Letter Carriers' Association 

Presentation and panel discussion of new postal law; March 1, 2007; American University 

School of Public Affairs forum 

Panel discussion on postal reform; March 22, 2006; National Association of Postmasters of the 

U.S. conference 

Panel presentation on status of postal reform; June 21, 2005; Pitney Bowes Chairman's Council 

meeting of mailing industry executives 

Presentation on the status of acid rain legislation; May 18, 2005; Garden Club of America New 

York State Zone III 

Presentation on postal reform; April 22, 2005; National Postal Mail Handlers Union conference 

Keynote speech regarding challenges facing the Postal Service and subsequent panel discussion 

on postal reform; October 22, 2004; Office of the Inspector General of the Postal Service 

conference 

Presentation on status of postal reform legislation; September 21, 2004; National Association of 

Letter Carriers state presidents and business agents 

Presentation on status of postal reform legislation; April 22, 2004; National Association of 

Postmasters of the U.S. legislative chairs 

Panel discussion on postal reform; March 29, 2004; National Association of Postal Supervisors 

legislative training seminar 

3 
43 

Presentation on postal reform legislation; on or about February 2004; National League of 

Postmasters forum 

Presentation on postal reform legislation; October 29, 2003; Paper Industry Association council 

membership meeting 

Presentation on postal reform; on or about September 2003; National Association of Letter 

Carriers training workshop for national business agents and state legislative chairs 

Presentation on federal higher education legislative issues; June 5, 2003; State University of New 

York conference on university affairs and development 

Presentation on postal reform; on or about May 2003; Printing Industry Association meeting 

Panel presentation of postal workforce issues and its unfunded liabilities; May 8, 2003; 

symposium on postal transformation issues before government and industry officials 

Presentation on pending postal legislative issues; on or about April2003; National Association 

of Postal Supervisors legislative training seminar 

Presentation on postal legislative issues; on or about March 2003; National Association of 

Postmasters of the U.S. legislative seminar 

Speech on congressional operations and services; March 28, 2002; North Country Council of 

Social Agencies 

Presentation on postal reform status; on or about April 2002; legislative seminar of federal 

employee organizations 

Presentation and panel discussion on the status of U.S. postal reform legislation; January 25, 

2002; International Post Corporation conference of the CEOs of global postal operators 

Presentation and panel discussion on postal reform; May 2, 200 1; The Direct Marketing 

Association Nonprofit Federation symposium on nonprofit postal rates 

4 
44 

9. Criminal History 

Since (and including) your 18th birthday, has any of the following happened? NONE 

Have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in cou1t in a criminal proceeding against you? 

(Exclude citations involving traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol m· 

drugs.) 

Have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official? 

Have you been charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime in any ~'Ourt? 

11 
45 

Have you been or are you currently on probation or parole? 

Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges? 

To your knowledge, have you ever been the subject or target of a federal, state or local criminal investigation? 

If the answer to any of the questions above is yes, please answer the questions below for 

each criminal event (citation, arrest, investigation, etc.). If the event was an investigation, 

where the question below asks for information about the offense, please offer information 

about the offense under investigation (if known). 

A) Date of offense: 

a. Is this an estimate (Yes/No): 

B) Description of the specific nature of the offense: 

C) Did the offense involve any of the following? 

I) Domestic violence or a crime of violence (such as battery or assault) against your child, dependent, 

cohabitant, spouse, former spouse, or someone with whom you share a child in common; Yes I No 

2) Firearms or explosives: Yes I No 

3) Alcohol or drugs: Yes I No 

D) Location where the offense occurred (city, county, state, zip code, country): 

E) Were you arrested, summoned, cited or did you receive a ticket to appear as a result of this offense by any 

police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official; Yes I No 

1) Name of the law enforcement agency that arrested/Cited/summoned you: 

2) Location of the law enforcement agency (city, county, state, zip code, country): 

F) As a result of this offense were you charged, convicted, currently awaiting trial, and/or ordered to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you: Yes I No 

l) If yes, provide the name of the court and the location of the court (city, county, state, zip code, 

country): 

2) If yes, provide all the charges brought against you for this offense, and the outcome of each charged 

offense (such as found guilty, found not-guilty, charge droppedor"nolle pros," etc). [fyou were found 

guilty of or pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, list separately both the original charge and the lesser 

otfense: 

3) If no, provide explanation: 

G) Were you sentenced as a result of this offense; Yes I No 

H) Provide a description of the sentence: 

12 
46 

I) Were you sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year: Yes I No 

J) Were you incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not less than one year: Yes I No 

K) If the conviction resulted in imprisonment, provide the dates that you actually were incarcerated: 

L) lf conviction resulted in probation or parole, provide the dates of probation or parole: 

M) Are you CUITently on trial, awaiting a trial, or awaiting sentencing on criminal charges for this offense: Yes I 

No 

N) Provide explanation: 

13 
47 

I 

10. Civil Litigation and Administrative or Legislative Proceedings 

(A)Since (and including) your 18th birthday, have you been a party to any public record 

civil court action or administrative or legislative proceeding of any kind that resulted in (1) 

a finding of wrongdoing against you, or (2) a settlement agreement for you, or some other 

person or entity, to make a payment to settle allegations against you, or for you to take, or 

refrain from taking, some action. Do NOT include small claims proceedings. NONE 

Date Claim[lluit l 

Was Filed or ~ 

Legislative Court PrinciQal Parties Nature of Action/froceeding Results of 

Proceedings ~ Involved in Acti~ding Actlon/Proceedin& !lW!l 

(B) Jn addition to those listed above, have you or any business of which you were an officer, 

director or owner ever been involved as a party of interest in any administrative agency 

proceeding or civil litigation? Please identify and provide details for any proceedings or 

civil litigation that involve actions taken or omitted by you, or alleged to have been taken or 

omitted by you, while serving in your official capacity. NONE 

Nnme(s) of 

Court Princi!lal Parties Nature of Action/Proceeding Date Claim/Suit Name Involved in Results of 

~ Action/Proceedin2 Action/Proceedin2 

14 
48 

(C) For responses to the previous question, please identify and provide details for any 

proceedings or civil litigation that involve actions taken or omitted by you, or alleged to 

have been taken or omitted by you, while serving in your official capacity. 

11. Breach of Professional Ethics 

(A) Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethies or unprofessional conduct 

by, or been the subject of a complaint to, any court, administrative agency, professional 

association, disciplinary committee, or other profes$ional group? Exclude cases and 

proceedings already listed. NONE 

Name of Date Describe Citationffilsef!!lln§n Agen£I{Asso~lation/ Cimtion/Discinlinan Action/Complaint Results of DisciJ!llnary 

Committee/Groul! Action/Comnlaint Action/Comulaint 

Issued/Initiated 

(B) Have you ever been fired from a job, quit a job after being told you would be fired, left 

a job by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct, left a job by 

mutual agreement following notice of unsatisfactory performance, or received a written 

warning, been officially reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined for misconduct in the 

workplace, such as violation of a security policy? NONE 

12. Tax Compliance 

(This information will not be published in the record of the hearing on your nomination, 

but it will be retained in the Committee's files and will be available for public inspection.) 

REDACTED 
49 

13. Lobbying 

In the past ten years, have you registered as a lobbyist? NO If so, please indicate the state, 

federal, or local bodies with which you have registered (e.g., House, Senate, California 

Secretary of State). 

14. Outside Positions 

Xo See OGE Form 278. (If, for your nomination, you have completed an OGE Form 278 

1

- -

Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, you may check the box here to 

1 complete this section and then proceed to the next section.) 

For the preceding ten calendar years and the current calendar year, report any positions 

held, whether compensated or not. Positions include but are not limited to those of an 

officer, director, trustee, general partner, proprietor, representative, employee, or 

consultant of any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise or any nonprofit organization or educational institution. Exclude positions with religious, social, 

fraternal, or political entities and those solely of an honorary nature. 

Im.l!f 

Ora:;anlzation 

(corporation, firm, 

Position Held Position 

Name of Address of partnership, other 

Organjzation Organization business enterprise, Position Held From Held To 

oth.er non~protit (month/year) (month/year) 

organization, 

educational 

institution) 

r--------- -

17 
50 

I 

15. Agreements or Arrangements 

Xo See OGE Form 278. (If, for your nomination, you have completed an OGE Form 278 

Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, you may check the box here to 

complete this section and then proceed to the next section.) 

As of the date of filing your OGE Form 278, repm·t your agreements or arrangements for: 

(1) continuing participation in au employee benefit plan (e.g. pension, 401k, deferred 

compensation); (2) continuation of payment by a former employer (including severance 

payments); (3) leaves ofabsence; and (4) future employment. 

Provide information regarding any agreements or arrangements you have concerning (l) 

future employment; (2) a leave of absence during your period of Government service; (3) 

continuation of payments by a former employer other than the United States Government; 

and (4) continuing participation in an employee welfare or benefit plan maintained by a 

former employer other than United States Government retirement benefits. 

Status and Terms of An:r Yllli: Agreement or Arrangement Parties (month/year) 

I 

! 

I 

, __ I 

16. Additional Financial Data 

All information requested under this heading must be provided for yourself, your sponse, 

and your dependents. (This information will not be published in the record of the hearing 

18 
51 

on your nomination, but it will be retained in the Committee's tiles and will be available for 

public inspection.) 
SiGNATURE AND DATE 

I hereby state that I have read the foregoing Statement on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 

provided therein is, to the1best o~~owledge, current, accurate, and complete. 

~--~~ \~ !'<{J'v·v~~ _jt~ 

'-

This { 3 day ofS?;;'f~O ( {3 

25 
53 

UNJTED STATES OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

The Honorable Ron Johnson 

Chairman 

Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 205! 0 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

September 19,2016 

REDACTED 

In accordance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, I enclose a copy of the 

financial disclosure report filed by Robert G. Taub, who has been nominated by President 

Obama for the position of Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory Commission. 

We have reviewed the report and have obtained advice from the agency concerning any 

possible conflict in light of its functions and the nominee's proposed duties. Also enclosed is an 

ethics agreement outlining the actions that the nominee will undertake to avoid conflicts of 

interest. Unless a date for compliance is indicated in the ethics agreement, the nominee must 

fully comply within three months of confirmation with any action specified in the ethics 

agreement. 

Based thereon, we believe that this nominee is in compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations governing conflicts of interest. 

Enclosures REDACTED 

Sincerely, 

01~!l<~h M~~h'd b1 IMiiiO ,,POi 

DA VJD APOL ~!::t~~~~.:"~;.,: .. ~~,·~~~.~~~~~~·~~~~:·w~-~· U'I1Hll'1llMI,l!H))<lHJ I <tq<I)H"!'.n\1)('/l) 

D.-u., ltili•IN 1'115 )1>~(,.{)~'!10' 

David J. Apol 

Gencr~l Counsel 

1201 New Yorl< Avenue, NW, Suite 500 I Washington, DC 20005 

www.oge.gov 
54 

September 1, 2016 

David A. Trissell 

General Counsel and Designated Agency Ethics Official 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

901 New York Ave., NW, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20268 

Dear Mr. Trissell: 

The purpose ofthis letter is to describe the steps that I will take to avoid any actual or 

apparent conflict of interest in the event that I am confitmed for the position of Commissioner of 

the Postal Regulatory Commission. 

As required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in 

any particular matter in which I know that l have a financial interest directly and predictably 

affected by the matter, or in which [know that a person whose interests are imputed to me has a 

financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter, unless I first obtain a written 

waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(l ), or qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). I understand that the interests of the following persons arc imputed to 

me: any spouse or minor child of mine; any general parmcr of a partnership in which I am a 

limited or general partner; any organization in which I serve as officer, director, trustee, general 

partner or employee; and any person or organization with which [ am negotiating or have an 

arrangement concerning prospective employment. 

My spouse is employed as an attorney by the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, from 

which she receives a fixed salary. For as long as my spouse continues to work for Steptoe & 

Johnson, LLP, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that to 

my knowledge has a direct and predictable effect on my spouse's compensation or employment 

with the firm, unless I t!rst obtain a written waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(l). l also will 

not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in 

which I know my spouse's employer or any client of my spouse is a party or represents a party, 

unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d). 

I will retain, in name only, my position as a Fellow in the National Academy of Public 

Administration. 1 will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter 

involving specific parties in which the National Academy of Public Administration is a party or 

represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. 2635.205(d). 

I understand that as an appointee l must continue to abide by the Ethics Pledge (Exec. 

Order No. 13490) that I previously signed and that I will be bound by the requirements and 

restrictions therein in addition to the commitments I have made ill this ethics agreement. 
55 

I have been advised that this ethics agreement will be posted publicly, consistent with 

5 U.S.C. § 552, on the website of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics with ethics agreements 

of other Presidential nominees who file public financial disclosure reports. 

Robert G. Taub 

2 
56 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Pre-hearing Questionnaire 

For the Nomination of Robert Taub to be 

Commissioner, Postal Regulatory Commission 

I. Nomination Process and Conflicts of Interest 

1. Why do you believe the President nominated you to serve as a Commissioner of the 

Postal Regulatory Commission ("PRC" or "the Commission")? 

I believe I was nominated because of my knowledge and experience in public service and 

public administration, particularly regarding postal legislative matters. 

2. What specific background and experience affirmatively qualifies you to be a 

Commissioner of the PRC? 

I believe my nearly 5 years of service as a Commissioner of the PRC, including my work 

as Acting Chairman the past 21 months, qualifies me to be a PRC Commissioner. 

Moreover, my lengthy professional public service experience as both a senior manager 

and executive combined with demonstrated expertise working on postal legislative and 

oversight matters in the House of Representatives is critical experience. This includes my 

work and extensive knowledge of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act 

(PAEA), which modernized our nation's postal laws in 2006. Also important is my 30 

years of experience in public service as an independent and objective analyst at the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Subcommittee Staff Director in the House 

of Representatives, a Chief of Staff to a Member of Congress, and a senior executive 

directly assisting the Secretary of the Army in managing the Department of the Army. 

3. Were any conditions, express or implied, attached to your nomination? If so, please 

explain. 

No. 

4. Have you made any commitments with respect to the policies and principles you will 

attempt to implement as Commissioner of the PRC? If so, what are they, and to whom 

were the commitments made? 

No. 

5. If confirmed, are there any issues from which you would have to recuse or disqualify 

yourself because of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest? If so, 

please explain what procedures and/or criteria you will use to carry out such a recusal or 

disqualification. 

Page 1 of 19 
57 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and the PRC's Designated Agency Ethics Official to identify 

potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in 

accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the PRC's 

Designated Agency Ethics Official and that has been provided to the Committee. I am not 

aware of any current conflicts of interest. 

II. Role of the Postal Rate Commission and its Commissioners 

6. What do you believe are the most important responsibilities of the PRC, and what is your 

opinion of how those responsibilities have been fulfilled during your tenure as 

Commissioner? 

I believe the most important responsibilities of the PRC are to ensure transparency and 

accountability of the Postal Service, and to foster a vital and efficient universal mail 

system. While I believe in always striving for continual improvement, the PRC has done 

a good job in fulfilling these responsibilities during my tenure as a Commissioner and as 

Acting Chairman. 

7. Given your years of experience as a Commissioner, what kind of role do you believe the 

PRC should play in overseeing the Postal Service? What is your view of the role of each 

Commissioner of the PRC? How has this view changed over the course of your tenure as 

a Commissioner? 

I view the PRC's most important role as protecting the public interest to ensure a vital, 

effective, efficient, and transparent Postal Service that operates in compliance with the 

law. I believe that each PRC Commissioner must be fair and impartial in all matters 

brought before the agency. I have firmly maintained this view over the course of my 

tenure as a Commissioner and as Acting Chairman. 

8. What do you believe have been your principal accomplishments during your tenure at the 

PRC? What contributions do you hope to make if confirmed for another term? 

I believe my principal accomplishment during my tenure at the PRC has been in 

providing strong direction and leadership as head of the agency since December 2014. 

Under my direction, the PRC has become much more efficient and effective in carrying 

out its mission as measured by budget savings and timeliness of work. The PRC has 

achieved improvements in its employees' satisfaction and engagement, as evidenced by 

the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results. The PRC has become a more frequently 

sought resource for postal expertise, particularly to tl1e Congress. If confirmed for another 

term, I would hope to build upon these accomplishments to achieve further improvements 

in staff achievement and morale, the timeliness and quality of work products, and the 

efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations. 

Page 2 of 19 
58 

9. In your view, what are the major internal and external challenges facing the PRC, and 

how have they evolved since you were appointed to the PRC? 

I believe that the major challenge facing the PRC is ensuring that staff have the 

appropriate resources and support to continue their high quality and timely work in the 

face of a heavy workload. Since I was designated as acting chairman, the PRC has made 

great strides in addressing long deferred investments in hiring and information 

technology systems. These efforts are critical for ensuring strong PRC oversight and 

transparency of the Postal Service, which itself continues to confront major financial 

challenges. 

I 0. How have you addressed the challenges facing the PRC during your term as 

Commissioner? 

I believe in the importance of stmtegic planning and goal setting for any organization; 

such efforts help to articulate priorities for the organization and focus key efforts. The 

PRC issued a new Strategic Plan for 2012-2017 upon my appointment in October 2011, 

and the then-chairman asked me to lead implementation of the Plan. Under my direction 

as acting chairman, the PRC has developed an updated 5-year Strategic Plan. This current 

Plan provides a road map for the agency's future, reflecting agency-wide analysis of the 

challenges, strengths, and weaknesses identified in the nearly I 0 years since the PRC was 

transformed by P AEA. I ensured that the new Plan was developed with the input and 

involvement of every PRC employee. 

11. What do you believe should be the PRC's top three priorities over the next six years? 

In order to ensure that the PRC continues to produce high quality work in a timely 

manner, particularly with a 10 year review of the market dominant rate system set to 

begin in December 2016, I believe the PRC's top three priorities must be to: deliver 

accurate and objective analyses and decisions; actively engage with Congress and 

stakeholders in support of a dynamic postal system; and recruit, develop, and retain a 

cliverse, high-performing workforce. This can only be accomplished by providing an 

optimal internal infrastructure to support management of priorities, workload, and 

emerging requirements. 

12. If confirmed, how would you coordinate and communicate with PRC stai'fto accomplish 

the PRC's goals? How have you coordinated and communicated with PRC staff in the 

past to ensure goals were met? 

The PRC is a relatively small agency compared to many other federal entities. The size of 

the PRC has allowed me to obtain direct input from all of the staff regarding the PRC's 

vision, goals, and o~jectives. I updated the Strategic Plan in a manner that fosters explicit 

understanding of the PRC's goals among the entire agency. In addition, on a regular 

Page 3 of 19 
59 

basis, I convene "town hall" meetings with each of the four administrative units within 

the agency to provide a forum to share information and hear from the staff directly. 

Annually, I hold a brown bag lunch to "break bread" with small groups of individual staff 

in a casual manner on a daily basis. Given the size ofthe PRC, within one month of 

lunches, I have met with every member of the staff. Lastly, I convene weekly staff 

meetings both individually and collectively with the agency's senior executives, as well 

as my fellow Commissioners, to coordinate and communicate pending priorities. All of 

these efforts, among others, have helped us to accomplish our goals. If confirmed, I 

would continue these practices to build upon our success. 

13. Does the PRC have the appropriate number of staff needed to accomplish its mission? 

Please explain. 

As detailed in the PRC's fiscal year 2017 appropriation request, due to previous years of 

deferred hiring as a way to operate within decreased funding, the PRC needs additional 

staff to fully accomplish its mission. The PRC is focused on operating in the most 

effective and efficient manner to ensure staff have the support and resources necessary to 

produce timely and high quality work. 

14. Since your first term as commissioner, how has the PRC improved the management and 

timeliness of its docket while also maintaining or improving the quality of decisionmaking? In your opinion, in what ways do you believe the PRC could still improve in this 

area? 

As a result of strong coordination and communication between and among the 

Commissioners, the PRC's senior executives, and their staff, the PRC has improved the 

management and timeliness of its dockets while also improving the quality of decisionmaking. As Acting Chairman, I have worked with our senior executives to develop full 

visibility on pending docket items, expected issuance dates, and weekly monitoring of 

needs and resources. There are always opportunities for improvement, and I believe the 

new Strategic Plan will provide a strong road map to maintain a focus on high quality and 

timely work products. 

15. The PRC is an independent agency. How do you understand that obligation of 

independence? How does such independence affect your approach to the evaluation and 

decision of cases? 

The PRC's obligation of independence is critical to its role in protecting the public 

interest and ensuring a vital, effective, efficient, and transparent Postal Service that 

operates as required by, and in compliance with, the law. I believe such independence 

underscores that a commissioner must be fair and impartial in evaluating and deciding 

cases. 

Page 4 of 19 
60 

16. What do you think about the proposed legislation which shifts oversight functions of 

PRC Inspector General to Postal Service Inspector General? How would this impact the 

PRC? 

I am a strong advocate and supporter of inspectors general (IG). Significant federal 

programs and agencies should be subject to oversight by independent IGs. As the GAO 

has concluded, alternative approaches exist to achieve IG oversight that may be 

appropriate for federal agencies with small budgets and few resources. For example, 

GAO has recommended on a case-by-case basis that specific small agencies could benefit 

by obtaining IG oversight from another agency's IG office where the missions of the two 

agencies are somewhat similar. I believe the proposed legislation is wholly consistent 

with the GAO's recommendation. This legislation could result in approximately 

$600,000 of annual budget savings for the PRC, while still maintaining appropriate 

oversight and review of fraud, waste, and abuse. 

17. How can the PRC effectively and efficiently fulfill the statutory mandate for the PRC to 

provide its views to the State Department regarding international postal arrangements? 

Less than 9 months ago on December 30,2015, the PRC adopted new rules applicable to 

the development of the PRC's views. Despite no legal requirement to do so, the PRC 

created the new rules to allow for increased public input and transparency into the 

development of its views. On April 20, 2016, the PRC then established a public 

proceeding under these new rules to solicit input, which resulted in more than 19 

interested individuals and parties submitting comments. The PRC transmitted its views to 

the State Department on August 31, 2016. 

III. Policy Questions 

Previous Postal Service Reforms 

18. It has been nearly ten years since the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of2006 

(PAEA) (P.L. 109-435) changed postal pricing to provide the United States Postal 

Service (USPS or Postal Service) with more flexibility as well as improve the ratemaking process. 

a. Do you believe the Postal Service has effectively utilized the pricing flexibility 

provided by the PAEA? If yes why, if no why not? 

I believe that the USPS has become more active in developing initiatives to take 

advantage of the pricing flexibility provided by PAEA. The USPS has used 

seasonal pricing incentives, experimental market tests, and particularly among its 

competitive products, increasing numbers of Negotiated Service Agreements. 

Page 5 of 19 
61 

b. Do you believe that the goal of increased flexibility was met? If yes why, if no 

why not? 

The PAEA establishes a tension between the restrictions of an inflation-based 

price cap on Market Dominant price increases and the objective that the USPS 

must be self-sufficient and maintain financial stability. Furthermore, though 

PAEA provides incentives via the price cap to reduce costs and increase 

efficiency, it also imposes personnel-related expenses requiring the pre-funding of 

future healthcare costs for USPS retirees. Among its Competitive products, I 

believe that the USPS has been extensively using its pricing flexibility. The USPS 

must continue to encourage a culture of innovation and make the greatest use of 

the pricing flexibilities provided in law. 

c. Should "flexibility" include the ability of the Postal Service to have different price 

increases for one class of mail versus another class? If yes why, if no why not? 

For Market Dominant products, price increases are cun-ently restricted at the class 

level by an inflation-based price cap. Despite this price cap at the class level, the 

USPS is free to increase some classes to the cap and others less than the cap. In 

practice, the USPS has not been able to do so because of its financial difficulties. 

The PAEA mandated that the PRC review the market dominant rate-setting and 

classification system after 10 years to determine if it is achieving the objectives 

established by Congress. December 20, 2016 is the ten-year anniversary of 

PAEA, and also will mark the beginning of the PRC's required review of the 

system of regulation established by 39 U.S.C. § 3622. If confirmed, I would look 

forward to undertaking that comprehensive evaluation. 

d. Do the workshare provisions of the Commission rules, all else equal, foster 

flexibility? If yes why, if no why not? 

Workshare discounts provide reduced rates for mailers based on the costs avoided 

as a result of the mailer performing an activity that would otherwise be performed 

by the USPS. Under P AEA, the PRC must review workshare discounts to ensure 

that the discounts do not exceed the USPS's avoided costs, subject to limited 

exceptions. Legally, workshare discounts are only bound by this ceiling; these 

provisions do not limit the USPS from increasing a workshare discount that is less 

than avoided costs. The USPS also has the flexibility to introduce new workshare 

discounts. A discussion of noncompliant workshare discounts is always included 

in the PRC's Annual Compliance Determination (ACD). 

19. The PAEA substantially changed the relative responsibilities of the Postal Service Board 

of Governors and the Commission. 

Page 6 of19 
62 

a. What do you believe are the most important decisions the Commission has made 

since the P AEA? 

Aside from the extensive amount of work done by the PRC this past decade, 

providing almost daily oversight and transparency of USPS costs, revenues, rates, 

and service performance, particularly in the annual ACDs, four decisions in 

particular stand out to me: timely establishment of the many new regulations 

required after enactment ofPAEA, and the concurrent transformation of the 

Postal Rate Commission into the Postal Regulatory Commission; interpreting 

when exigent rate increases may be permissible; creation of service performance 

measurement system rules for all Market Dominant products; and expert analysis 

of the universal service obligation and the monopoly. 

b. What are the key decisions you expect the Commission to make in the future 

under the P AEA? 

The key decision will be the PRC's evaluation of the success ofthe price cap and 

to then determine whether that mechanism should be altered. The PRC will also 

have to reevaluate whether the contribution currently required of competitive 

products is appropriate. In addition, PRC decisions in future ACDs will be critical 

to ensuring USPS compliance with the law. 

c. Generally, what approaches do you advocate the PRC should take in regulating 

USPS and why? 

I believe the PRC should continue its measured approach to regulation that allows 

USPS, when appropriate, the flexibility to design operationally feasible solutions 

to identified problems. Also, as noted in earlier answers, I believe the 

development and assessment of the PRC's new Strategic Plan has provided an 

improved understanding of the strengths and challenges of the PRC's current 

regulatory operations. 

20. What is your overall impression of how well the postal reforms under the PAEA have 

been implemented so far? What areas have been most challenging, and what areas do you 

believe need the most attention in the future? 

In general, I believe P AEA was well implemented. The most challenging area has been 

the important task of improving the financial condition of USPS. These financial 

obstacles demand attention due to 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. Aside from the financial pressure of generating sufficient 

funds to remain solvent, the USPS must also fund $4 billion in annual universal service 

obligations. The PRC has recommended that Congress consider and balance all the 

Page 7 of 19 
63 

features of universal service as part of any review of changes necessary to preserve a 

financially viable USPS. 

21. The P AEA set forth a new process for resolving complaints against the Postal Service. 

What do you believe must be done to ensure that the PRC will review and resolve any 

complaints promptly and fairly? 

I firmly believe that complaints must be resolved promptly and fairly. As noted, I believe 

the changes I have instituted to management of the PRC's docket helps us to maintain 

priorities and resources on all pending matters. Complaints filed during my tenure as 

acting chairman have been resolved promptly. If confinned, I would strive to ensure this 

standard continues to be met. 

Postal Service Operations 

22. What role, if any, should the PRC have in the Postal Service's operational decisions? 

As a regulator, the PRC's role is to protect the public interest and assure that the USPS's 

actions do not violate the policies established in law. The USPS's Board of Governors is 

responsible for operating the USPS. 

23. Should Congress modify or repeal the requirement for USPS to seek advisory opinions 

from the PRC, as some have proposed? Why or why not? 

I believe that in general, the USPS's Board of Governors should have the authority and 

responsibility for operational decisions. While the PRC has final authority on many 

issues involving products and rates, the law provides the PRC with advisory authority on 

certain operational matters. If the USPS fails to fairly take PRC advisory opinions into 

account before making final decisions, then Congress may want to consider modifying 

the requirement given the extensive amount of resources currently expended on a process 

that is not binding. 

24. What do you believe should be the role of the PRC in helping to ensure that the quality 

and timeliness of the Postal Service's data in cases before the PRC are adequate? 

By law, the PRC has final authority over whether the quality and quantity of data 

submitted by the USPS is adequate for the PRC to make its decisions. As the PRC has 

done in some instances, cases can be remanded or rejected based upon the insufficiency 

of the quality or timeliness of USPS filings. I believe this is an important regulatory 

authority. 

25. The USPS continues to experience volume and revenue losses, ending Fiscal Year (FY) 

2015 with a net loss of $5.1 billion. Costs are continuing to outpace revenue, with 

operating expenses for FY 16 Q2 growing 2. 7% faster than operating revenue for the 

same period in FY 15. 

Page 8 of 19 
64 

a. In your view, what is the PRC's role in overseeing USPS's efforts to improve its 

financial condition and exercising its flexibility to increase postal revenue and cut 

costs, while also meeting its universal service obligations and other statutory 

requirements? 

I believe the PRC's primary responsibility is to ensure, in a deliberate but timely 

manner, transparency and accountability of USPS actions. This includes 

maintaining a predictable, transparent, and effective system of rate and product 

regulation; ensuring appropriate and transparent performance standards and 

measurement; ensuring transparent, accurate, and informative data reporting for 

evaluation of financial performance; ensuring accountability through a fair and 

open public complaint process that provides for appropriate and timely resolution; 

and ensuring the PRC is visible and readily accessible to all stakeholders. 

b. How does this differ from the role of the Postal Board ofGovemors or the role of 

Congress? 

Unlike the PRC, the Board of Governors directs the exercise of the powers of the 

USPS, directs and controls its expenditures, and conducts long-range planning for 

its operations. The Board is responsible for increasing revenues and cutting costs. 

Congress has ultimate responsibility for our nation's postal system, rooted in its 

authority under the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, "To establish Post Offices 

and post Roads." Congress establishes the laws and policies that the USPS must 

strive to fulfill. 

26. In the PRC's Financial Analysis Report for FY 2015, the Commission stated that the 

Postal Service has "made significant efforts to reduce operating expenses and improve 

efficiency to ensure that expenses are better aligned with mail volumes." 

a. What additional steps do you believe the Postal Service should take that do not 

require Congressional action to improve its financial condition? 

Both the GAO and the USPS's Office oflnspector General have issued reports 

that outline a variety of possible approaches the USPS could consider, including 

transforming its operations and network structure as well as further use of existing 

product and pricing flexibilities in the law. 

b. What legislative changes do you believe Congress should consider to help 

improve the Postal Service's financial condition? 

The P AEA mandated several assessments that could guide policymakers in 

crafting solutions. For example, the GAO evaluated the USPS's long-term 

business model and provided a menu of possible changes to its mission, role, 

Page 9 ofl9 
65 

monopoly, governance, and regulation. The same study recommended that the 

USPS only be required to prefund its retiree health benefits to the maximum 

extent its finances permit. In addition, the PRC reported on universal service and 

the monopoly, and the PRC is now conducting a new five-year review of the law 

with recommendations for improvements, to be issued later this year. The PRC's 

last such review, which included suggested legislative changes, was issued in 

2011. The Federal Trade Commission also issued a study on the equal application 

of laws to competitive products, and included its recommendations to bring such 

legal differences to an end. 

27. In your view, how can the Postal Service return to viability in a market in which ecommerce and electronic communication and payments are increasing and mail volume 

is declining? What role do you believe the PRC should play in shaping the future Postal 

Service given these rapid changes? 

The USPS continues to provide a portfolio of valuable services to the American public. 

Clearly, modem technology has eroded the value of some products. The PRC must be 

cognizant of these factors in evaluating USPS proposals to innovate and modernize its 

products and network to better meet the needs of current customers. 

28. Since enactment of P AEA, the PRC has interpreted the term "non-postal service" through 

consideration of various USPS proposals for new products and services. 

a. Do you believe the Postal Service should be allowed to compete with the private 

sector? If so, under what circumstances? 

The USPS should be allowed to compete with the private sector to deliver postal 

products. P AEA restricted the USPS from offering nonpostal products. Whether 

the USPS should be allowed to engage in nonpostal activities should be carefully 

considered. USPS's poor past performance in this area and fair competition issues 

should be evaluated as part of this consideration. 

b. What concerns, if any, do you have about such efforts? 

Allowing the USPS to diversify into nonpostal activities would raise a number of 

issues, including whether it should engage in nonpostal areas where there are 

private-sector providers and if so, under what terms. Other issues relate to 

concerns about unfair competition; whether the USPS's mission and role as a 

government entity with a monopoly should be changed; as well as questions 

regarding how it would finance its nonpostal activities, what transparency and 

accountability provisions would apply; whether the USPS would be subject to the 

same regulatory entities and regulations as its competitors; and whether any losses 

might be borne by postal ratepayers or the taxpayer. 

Page 10 of 19 
66 

c. What role do you believe the PRC should play in the introduction or pricing of 

new products? 

The PRC should ensure that new products, and the pricing of new products, are 

consistent with the policies established in the P AEA. 

Postal Ratemaking 

29. During consideration of the PAEA, there was debate about the impact of a strict 

consumer-inflation-based rate cap. In your opinion, how has the rate cap helped the 

Postal Service, the mailing community, and postal customers? How has the rate cap hurt 

these groups? 

The PAEA establishes a tension between the restrictions of an inflation-based price cap 

on Market Dominant price increases and the objective that the USPS must be selfsufficient and maintain financial stability. Furthermore, though the PAEA provides 

incentives via the price cap to reduce costs and increase efficiency, it also imposes 

personnel-related expenses requiring the pre-funding of future healthcare costs for USPS 

retirees. 

30. Current proposed postal reform legislation includes an increase in the base rate for 

market dominant products. In your view, what drawbacks and advantages exist to 

increasing postal rates through legislation, rather than through the existing ratemaking 

process? 

Congress has ultimate responsibility for our nation's postal system, rooted in its authority 

under the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, "To establish Post Offices and post Roads." 

Congress establishes the laws and policies that the USPS must strive to fulfill. From the 

very beginning of our Republic until 1970 when the Post Office Department was 

transformed into the USPS, Congress adjusted postal rates through legislation. Even 

under current law, Congress has enacted explicit mandates on postal rate matters, 

including reduced rates for certain types of mailers. Whether or not to adjust postal rates 

through legislation or leave it to the existing ratemaking process is well within the 

Constitutional authority of the Congress to decide. 

31. Beginning in December 2016, the PRC will begin the review of the rate-cap system, as 

required by the P A EA. What do you view is a reasonable time frame for completing this 

review? Does the PRC have the resources to complete the review? Please explain. 

The PRC has begun marshalling its limited resources to start identifying approaches to 

stmcture the review and schedule a process that allows full and open opportunities for 

those interested to participate. The PRC is sensitive to the high interest in the review and 

its potential outcomes. I recently informed the public about our plans for the 10-year 

Page 11 of 19 
67 

review, well in advance of the December 20, 2016, start date. It will be a resource intense 

and time consuming process, but if confirmed, and if I remain as agency head, I am 

committed to ensuring that the PRC issues an Order by early Autumn 2017 that includes 

its findings and, if necessary, preparatory rule-making information for any changes to the 

system. 

32. As Commissioner, how will you balance the objectives and factors of the review as 

required by 39 U.S.C. § 3622? Do you believe certain objectives or factors should be 

weighted above others? 

The P AEA mandated that the PRC review the market dominant rate and classification 

system after 10 years to determine if it is achieving the objectives established by 

Congress. There are 9 objectives listed in the law that the modem rate regulation and 

classification system must be designed to achieve, with 14 factors to be taken into 

account. Each of the nine objectives must be applied in conjunction with the others. 

December 20,2016 is the ten-year anniversary of the PAEA, and also will mark the 

beginning of the PRC's required review of the system of regulation established by 39 

U.S.C. § 3622. As noted, I recently informed the public about our plans for the 1 0-year 

review. If confirmed, I would look forward to undertaking that comprehensive 

evaluation. 

33. The Postal Service lost $1.2 billion from underwater products in 2015 despite the exigent 

increase in January 2014. Since 2008, it has lost $3.9 billion in Standard Flats alone. 

How would you fix the cost coverage problem of underwater products? 

With respect to Periodicals In-County, Periodicals Outside County, and Standard Mail 

Flats, the PRC found in its most recent ACD that additional information regarding costs 

is needed to best determine how to address the cost coverage problem, and directed the 

USPS to provide a report 120 days after issuance of this ACD. The USPS filed its 

comprehensive report at the end of July 2016, and the PRC is currently evaluating the 

USPS report and deciding next steps, which could include starting a new proceeding or 

other appropriate action. 

Service Standards and Other Performance Obligations 

34. Debates about postal refonn legislation raise fundamental questions about the role of the 

Postal Service in our nation, including the nature of the Postal Service's universal service 

obligation. 

a. What is your view of the Postal Service's universal service obligation? 

The universal service obligation remains the essential capstone of national postal policy. It 

establishes the minimum service levels that the USPS must provide to all Americans. In 

developing the legislation that became PAEA, Congress determined to retain for itself the 

responsibility to define that obligation. In the absence of a clear definition, particularly given the 

Page 12 of 19 
68 

USPS's current financial challenges, each of us may have a differing view of what the USPS must 

provide in its services and operations to fulfill the universal service obligation. All of our views 

will have different price tags. The PRC recommended that Congress consider and balance all the 

features of universal service as part of any review of changes necessary to preserve a financially 

viable USPS. 

b. Do you believe the concept of universal service has evolved since the 2008 

report? If so, how? How do you believe USPS can adapt to meet that obligation? 

Yes. As technology rapidly changed concurrent with the resulting impacts on mailing trends from 

the Great Recession, the environment in which the USPS provides universal service has changed. 

Total mail volume in 2015 dropped to levels not seen in more than 27 years, and the USPS 

anticipates furthe.· reductions in total volumes for 2016. The decline in mail volume is the result of 

the economic recession that began in December 2007 along with the acceleration of a long-term 

trend of mail migrating to electronic media. According to the USPS, the volume lost to electronic 

alternatives is not expected to return because the movement constitutes a fundamental and 

permanent change in mail use by households and businesses. Under current law, it is the role of 

the USPS Board of Governors to adapt operations to meet the changing needs and expectations of 

the American public. 

c. In your view, what is the PRC's role in preserving universal service? 

The PRC evaluates service performance each year and identifies areas of potential 

concern. Additionally, the PRC is responsible for informing Congress of the cost 

of the universal service obligation, and if necessary, suggesting congressional 

action needed to preserve it. 

d. What PRC decisions or opinions have you been involved in that uphold the Postal 

Service's responsibility to provide tmiversal service, and what has been your view 

about the universal service obligation in deciding these cases? Should the PRC 

encourage use of the complaint process? 

Every PRC decision or opinion that I have been involved in has been done in accordance with the 

standards, criteria, and requirements of our nation's postal laws, Title 39 of the U.S. Code. At the 

core of these laws is a fundamental policy to ensure that the nation is bound together through the 

unive1·sal service provided by USPS. Unlike other countries, the universal service obligation is 

largely undefined and instead is comprised of a broad set of policy statements with only a few 

legislative proscriptions. Aside from the annual appropriations mandate for the past 33 years to 

provide 6 days of delivery, Congress has rarely established rigid, numerical standards of 

minimally acceptable service for any of the attributes of universal service. Rather, through its 

history, the USPS has been expected to use its flexibility to meet the needs and expectations of the 

Nation while balancing the delivery of service against budgetary constraints. The PRC must 

ensure a fair and open public complaint process that provides for appropriate and timely resolution 

as well as USPS accountability. 

35. What do you believe should be the PRC's role in establishing performance standards for 

postal products and services and for monitoring the Postal Service's results in meeting 

Page 13 ofl9 
69 

these standards? Do you believe that the Postal Service has sufficient business incentives 

to provide good service? If yes why, if no why not? 

The law directs the USPS, in consultation with the PRC, to develop service standards for 

market dominant products. The PRC then has an ongoing responsibility for monitoring 

the USPS's results in meeting those service standards. The PRC reviews, analyzes, and 

assesses service performance results on an annual basis. The PRC also uses historical 

data and trend analysis to track service performance over time, both nationwide and in 

specific geographic areas. When it has been determined that service performance has 

significantly deteriorated or is not meeting targets, the PRC directs the USPS to focus on 

increasing service performance results for that mail product or category, and to outline a 

plan to improve results. Whether or not the USPS has sufficient business incentives to 

provide good service, the PRC's ACD provides transparency and accountability into 

service performance for the customers of Market Dominant products. 

36. The Postal Service continues to face the problem of reducing costs while also 

maintaining fast and reliable service. In your opinion, how can the PRC help the Postal 

Service try to find this balance? 

Through the ACD process, the PRC has directed the USPS to focus on deficiencies in 

service performance and cost coverage. In the most recent ACD, the PRC mandated the 

USPS provide a detailed, comprehensive plan to improve service performance, and also 

directed the USPS to focus on the ongoing and interrelated problems with flats products' 

service and profitability. The PRC recently received this comprehensive report and is 

now evaluating the information provided to determine next steps, which could include a 

new proceeding or other appropriate action. 

37. The PRC found that in 2015 the Postal Service did not meet its service performance 

targets for all of First-Class Mail products, both Periodical Class products, most products 

in Standard Mail and Bound Printed Matter Flats. How concerned is the PRC with the 

current decline in service perfom1ance? How can the PRC make sure that a customer of 

the Postal Service receives the service it is paying for? How do you feel delays in service 

impact the price of postage? 

The PRC is extremely concerned with the current decline in service performance. In the 

most recent ACD, the PRC directed the USPS to develop, and publicly provide, 

detailed and measurable plans for improvement to ensure that the customers of these 

products receive better service. 

38. Given the growing shortfalls in on-time perfonnance for First-Class Mail Flats since 

201 I, in your opinion, what is the PRC's role in making sure the Postal Service meets the 

service performance standards it sets? 

Page 14 ofl9 
70 

Under current law, the PRC's ACD provides transparency and accountability into service 

performance. In its most recent ACD, the PRC directed the USPS to provide a report on 

flats service and profitability issues that quantifies what the PRC understands to be the 

main drivers of these significant and ongoing service failures and cost shortfalls. The 

PRC is evaluating the recently delivered report and may use the information provided to 

fonn the basis of a new proceeding or other appropriate action. 

39. The PAEA requires the Postal Service to consult with the PRC in establishing modern 

service standards, as well as in modifying the standards and planning for future standards. 

How do you believe this consultation should be carried out? What additional value, if 

any, do you believe the PRC can bring to this process? Do you believe PRC consultation 

has been effective thus far? If yes why, if no why not? 

The USPS has proposed a new measurement system that the PRC is currently assessing 

in an open docket, including several technical conferences that the PRC convened to 

provide insight into the proposed measurement system. The original service standards 

after PAEA's enactment were developed after regular meetings between USPS and the 

PRC, consultations that were carried out in the spirit of cooperation. The PRC has 

provided useful public policy context that has helped develop consistent and 

understandable standards and goals. 

40. In your view, what degree of transparency should the Postal Service provide to Congress, 

mailers, and the public on delivery performance goals and general quality of delivery 

services? Do you believe the PRC has sufficient information to monitor service quality? 

The USPS has a statutory monopoly and a market dominant position in most of the mail 

industry. Under these circumstances, it has an obligation to provide Congress, mailers, 

and the public with full information on its service performance goals, and its success in 

meeting those goals. The PRC sees evidence that service performance results for most 

products are accurate, reliable, and representative of nationwide performance. This 

accuracy has improved over the past several years. The PRC uses variables such as 

sampling fractions, confidence intervals, margins of error, density of mail, sample size, 

mail shape, and district-level volumes to determine the statistical validity of service 

performance results. The PRC recently ordered the USPS to provide enhanced reporting 

of service performance to further improve transparency. 

41. In March 2011, the PRC issued an advisory opinion about the USPS's proposal to reduce 

delivery to five days per week. In its opinion, the PRC identified many shortcomings in 

the USPS's proposal, including a lack of consideration for the disproportionate effect the 

proposal would have in rural areas. 

a. What is the role of the PRC in mail delivery service frequency determinations? 

Pagel5of19 
71 

For the past 33 years, delivery frequency (6 days) has been mandated by Congress 

in its annual appropriation bills. As such, the PRC does not determine delivery 

service frequency. 

b. Do you believe the PRC's opinion on this matter should be binding rather than 

advisory? Please explain. 

I believe that in general, the USPS's Board of Governors should have the 

authority and responsibility for operational decisions. While the PRC has final 

authority on all regulatory issues involving products and rates, the law provides 

the PRC with advisory authority on certain operational matters such as this one. 

As long as the USPS fairly takes PRC advisory opinions into account before 

making final decisions, I see no reason to make such PRC opinions binding. 

42. Many postal stakeholders have raised concerns about the adequacy of the Service's 

financial transparency. The PAEA requires the Postal Service to meet the financial 

reporting requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. What is your opinion of this 

mandate and do you believe the Postal Service has satisfied this mandate? Are further 

improvements necessary to make Postal Service finances more transparent? If yes, what 

additional improvements are needed? 

I think the requirements that the USPS meet many of the financial reporting obligations 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation are some of the most important reforms accomplished 

by P AEA. The PRC developed the mles that guide the USPS to achieve Sarbanes-Oxley 

requirements. I believe the PRC implemented guidelines in a timely fashion, and that the 

USPS is complying with those rules. Based on the PRC's ACDs, I believe the USPS has 

satisfied this mandate. PRC rules require the USPS to file several reports with the PRC 

regarding financial results on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. Prior to 2014, the 

PRC's ACD included a chapter on the overall financial health of the USPS. However, 

because the ACD is focused on rates and service performance, it did not include a 

detailed analysis of other financial data. Starting in 2014, the PRC developed a separate 

Financial Analysis report to provide greater clarity and transparency of the USPS's 

financial data and trends. It includes a detailed analysis of all USPS financial data as well 

as its Securities and Exchange Commission equivalent Form 10-K filing. 

Post Office Closings and Relocations 

43. In your opinion, does the existing process for closing and relocating post offices 

adequately protect the interests of postal customers and the affected communities, 

especially in small towns and mral areas? If yes, how? Ifnot, what additional protections 

do you believe are necessary? 

In 2011 and 2012, the USPS modified its process for closing and relocating post offices. 

If the USPS continues to follow the letter and spirit of its new procedures, it should be 

Page 16of19 
72 

able to effectively develop and analyze the relevant information needed to allow it to 

adequately protect the interests of postal customers and affected communities when 

deciding whether to close facilities, including those in small towns and rural areas. 

44. To what extent do you think the availability of postal services at alternative locations 

should be a key factor when considering closing or consolidating traditional retail 

facilities? 

The primary purpose for many traditional retail facilities is to provide convenient access 

to postal services for American consumers and businesses. The convenient availability of 

a full range of postal services from existing alternative locations should be a major 

consideration when considering closing or consolidating traditional retail facilities. 

45. Do you believe the Postal Service should have additional flexibility to more quickly and 

easily close post offices? If so, what impact do you believe this will have on the USPS's 

current retail network? 

Current law allows the USPS flexibility to close post offices when necessary, after 

providing affected patrons a relatively brief window to provide comments. I believe it 

important to maintain the opportunity for citizen participation. 

46. Many members of the public have expressed a concern that the Postal Service does not 

adequately involve affected communities in the decision-making process for the closings 

of post offices and processing facilities. What are your views on this issue? 

If the USPS follows its existing procedures, it should be able to effectively develop and 

analyze the relevant information needed to allow it to adequately protect the interests of 

postal customers and affected communities. Problems can arise when the USPS fails to 

follow the letter and spirit of these procedures that call for community involvement. 

Current law requires the USPS to consider the effect of closing or consolidating a post 

office on the community served, and upon appeal, the PRC reviews whether the USPS 

observed the required procedures. 

47. Are improvements needed to the PRC's appeals process related to closing and 

consolidating post offices? If yes, what specific changes do you believe are needed? If 

no, please explain why you believe the current process is viable. 

The current appeal process provides important safeguards to individuals and communities 

that must rely on existing post offices. During my time at the PRC, the agency 

extensively updated and modernized its rules for reviewing post office closures and 

consolidations for the first time in decades, and it recently held a public inquiry to obtain 

further input on PRC precedent and practice for such cases. 

Page 17 of 19 
73 

48. In your opinion, does the existing process for closing and consolidating postal processing 

facilities adequately protect the interests of postal customers, especially those in small 

towns and rural areas? If not, what additional protections do you believe are necessary? 

Current law mandates that the USPS must provide a maximum degree of effective and 

regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices 

are not self-sustaining. However, the law does not directly address postal processing 

facilities, although the USPS has procedures that govern closing or consolidating such 

locations. 

49. Should the PRC have greater input over the closures or consolidations of post offices or 

postal processing facilities? Why or why not? 

The PRC serves an important function by hearing appeals to ensure that the USPS has 

followed the law and its procedures for closing or consolidating post offices, but in the 

final analysis given the existing law's separation of responsibilities between the regulator 

and the operator, a decision to close a specific facility should be in the hands of the Board 

of Governors and USPS management. 

V. Assistance 

50. Are these answers your own? Have you consulted with the PRC or any other interested 

parties? If so, please indicate which entities. 

These answers are my own. I have not consulted with the PRC or any other interested 

party. 

Page 18 of 19 
74 

Chairman Ron Johnson 

Supplemental Pre-hearing Questionnaire 

J!'or the Nomination of Robert Taub to be 

Commissioner, Postal Regulatory Commission 

I. 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? 

YES 

2. Do you agree without reservation to comply fully, completely, and promptly to any 

request for documents, communications, or any other agency material or infonnation 

from any duly constituted committee of the Congress if you are confirmed? 

YES 

I, f~!~:!' (;, , hereby state that I have read the foregoing Pre-Hearing 

Questionnaire and that the infonnation provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, 

accurate, and complete. 

Page19of!9 
75 

STATEMENT OF MARK D. ACTON 

November 15, 2016 

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. 

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 Majority Leader, 

and my home state senator, Mitch McConnell. My thanks to committee staff 

for their expert guidance and I would like also to acknowledge the support 

of my partner, family and friends. 

I spent four years on staff at the Postal Rate Commission assisting the 

agency chairman in administering PRC operations, and since then 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 key 

postal issues, as well as a close familiarity with the concerns of the postal 

community stakeholders. I am pleased to be considered for a continuing 

public service 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 

the committee, and I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

1 
76 

REDACTED 

HSGAC BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONS FOR 

EXECUTIVE NOMINEES 

1. Basic Biographical Information 

Please pro,,idc the following information. 

Position to Wlticfl You Have Been Nominated 

N,;me of Position Date of Nomination 

- f-1 : .. i,-,\ f';, I I• :.\ I' 

I \ )•, ,, ~li--NE_ l b 1 1.ol b 

Current Legal Name 

First Name Middle Name Last Name 

I 

Suffix 

r)')r\\ I< \)c_\,11( \ 1:-\c\cx :J I 

·----~-- Otlter Names Used 

~j/ Name Used Name Used To From (Month/Year) First Name Middle Name Last Name §.!!f!l.! (MonthlY ear) (Check box if (Check box if 

estimate) estimate) 

Est I<~~ I 

u a 

Est E:~t 

0 0 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 
77 

Birth Year and Place 

Year of Birth Place of Birth 

(Do not Include month and dav.} 

/Cisc-1 -· luJ()'i 1 1\cl K~ 

Marital Status 

Check All That Describe Your Current Situation: 

Nevca;.M9rried Married Separated Aunulled Divorced Widowed 

L----~9(~----------~o~--------~o~-------~o~---------~o~---------~o~----~ I 

Spouse's Name I (current spouse only) 

SQouse's First Name I S!!ousc's Middle Name S[!ousc's Last Name Spouse's 

Suffix 

I 

i 

Spouse's Other Names Used 

(current spouse only) 

'""'111 Name Used Nnme Used To El:!!m (Month/Year) I 

First Name Middle Name ~ (Month/Year) 

10· (Check box if (Check b<>x if 

estimate) estimate) 

E•t K~t 

0 0 

F.st E•t D n 

_ _L _______ 
78 

Cftildre11's Names ({{ov.er 18) 

First Name Middle Name Last Name Suffix 

2. Education 

List all post-secondary schools attended. 

Type of School Dntc Begun Date Ended 

Sthool Namco!' ( vocutionaVtechnical/trade school, School {Jn(lnth/ycnr) (dteck 

··~ Sehoul college/university/military college, (muuthlyl:ar) boX if CslillHHC) correspondenceldistancc/cxtension/online (c:heck bo~ if 

Degree ~ 

school) cstitnml.!} {dwck '"present'' box 

if stitl in school) 

lhw ({-

UnNeYsr-\1 1 

i\i- fs! I\- ~:r.1 r·~cnt 1\\((,'t(', 12-

i\\i) JV6 JCO(c y ]CC(Q 

\..)\h\i { \ (\Cj- Es( OY- F.st rr.e-se:nt (" u (\ \\{ f'{~::,\ ·\'---\ 

X ?<' 0 

t:~n 11 

·,_) 

L,_, ·l~Y:..,..:.i \e l(i11 - lqga. )( ("j 

Nrvt\1Prn (..1)- J·~j Ol Est Pr-esent 

)( ;x 0 

\I~'\ U n N eY~)\ -t'-1 C)U)2:;. -- - ,j('(l?) 

\..:f\IV. C-i 11>:. 1-(J\- f l6· V."t Pnl~\lrtt 

y l).:,w,( \ c( " - - U n\V-cv~)lt'--1 dl't() ;)CXY".) '(;.,.. h ,, I 

3 
79 

3. Employment 

(A) List all of your employment activities, including unemployment and self-employment. 

If the employment activity was military duty, list separate employment activity periods to 

show each change of military duty station. Do not list employment before your 18th 

birthday unless to provide a minimum of two years of employment history. 

T~~e of Emnloyment 

(Active Military Duty Station, Date j National Guard/Reserve, Eml!loxment I 

USPHS 

Other Federal 

Commissioned 

employment, 

Corps, Nnmc of Your l2ll.!!t ~ 

Most Recent ~ Employment (month/year) 

Stllte Government (Non- Em plover/ Position (City nnd Began (check box if 

Federal Employment), Self· Assigned Dutv Tl!le/Rank Stnte (month/ycor) estimate} 

employment, Unemployment, Stntion only) (check box if (check 

Fcdernl Contractor, Non· t:stimnlc:) •~present .. box 

Government Employment if still 

(excluding self-employment), employed) 

Other 

1-ft\f\'( \\ '!-( :;\( ,\ \<'£ ~ }'Y\1111) [U\Sl'\ Mcw(h F.lit t~>t 

G.n1rn;:::>w:<r y " 

(\ \\•. )\' '·'• l \,:-~\."\ 1" (\·\\Hi(', ('\ DC acoa \yr·sn~ 

'ilriv(\\:t' ( t.f>\\\\,\\n.: ~_.., \:X-r:.'-'~1 to llt>e ·~cv,<, JUki I~~~ 

X ~pt- ~· 'S.ec-v v· ',\.\'1",)\<~t\i\'j\\'·~ .:)..£.ti Chc:•m·w• 1\l~ JtX\?) .:)CCL/ ~rn t·t ~~ 0 )).1 ll'l, 

·I +Nc ,\I( f<t:p.JI:l\i<l,n N.\1-. :_)jrM~\c•• LUGGI\ Rst (Y'I(V. i()t iY- )': 

':)ccv v' (('fM\~\\><" __ ( \>V\1~'\'';~ \::X. . Nov. 1cl'? v Qoc,~ -:---o\7 'o;~"" 

· t-{wote \<.t'l;)..:.xl\I<'<V'\ NC<h"•· '.j~ .1-'t ''·' }\'$<,+ 

~2" -,- ~~~ ·~· l'l1N' ~~ 

5£r.-v.x- l: CY·\6 

f'l'>.JX';l • \k f' (,•., .. ':tl_ ()DC;) 

,· \i·I\~\W NClt•C·nc.\ Vicv"\l. ~)~\) \t.j (,'-.'Ct:ll\1<t<. )( ]Cw• l·:sl 

)!{ 

(on<)le;:'-;<'cl:c: 1 

I T~.tr\1'.~1"'· '>~'-) 

.)1(1\f v·· ( r~.,...,."'t'11.t \.-,. I,,. , .. l. De \q:;,ci \CfCJs 

(B) List any advisory, consultative, honorary OJ' other part-time service or positions with 

federal, state, or local governments, not listed elsewhere. 

Dnte Scr,.ice Date Servlee Ended 

Name of Government Name of Position Began (month/year) (cbeck box 

Entity (momhlycur) if estimate) (check 

(check box if "present'' box if still 

~.stimm~) serving) 

g,, F.st Prl!$ftlt 

0 0 n 

' Est "" PrtSf:ltt 

I 0 Q u 

J.Ai( E.~t Prescnl 

0 n u 

4 
80 

4. Potential Conflict of Interest 

(A) Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial transaction which you have had 

during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, 

that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the position to 

which you have been nominated. 

(B) Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have engaged for the 

purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat or modification of any 

legislation or affecting the administration or execution of law or public policy, other than 

while in a federal government capacity. 

5. Honors and Awards 

List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, civilian service citations, military 

medals, academic or professional honors, honorary society memberships and any other 

special recognition for outstanding service or achievement. 

6. Memberships 

List all memberships that yon have held in professional, social, business, fraternal, 

scholarly, civic, or charitable organizations in the last 10 years. 

Unless relevant to you1· nomination, you do NOT need to include memberships in 

charitable organizations available to the public as a result of a tax deductible donation of 

$1,000 or less, Parent-Teacher Associations or other organizations connected to schools 

attended by your children, athletic clubs or teams, automobile support organizations (such 

as AAA), discounts clubs (such as Groupon or Sam's Club), or affinity 

memberships/consumer clubs (such as frequent flyer memberships). 

Name ofOr:;:aalzatlon Dnte~ of Your Membcrshill Position(s) Held (You may approxlmat<.) 

i\b1C\v-l{ fJubt~c fz,y-- · \)1~·,\'·(1 1 tl( C:_'lk,nl:w'\. I qq (a 'Ti'r:xn + !\btcvq u ,, \'(:(\ ~ \'(\\<"'~) 

{)O.Jto _.~Pv ?~'f'r1 1- t:rl'¥1 t:E.( l'l\l\1'.) /\~):t<"!<\1\('\ 

t'h.h. Orc\er c. (-

KP(\\1 l(\(..-.1 0">h'lneh I q ()'_;'{cl -- 1=ff<r-n1 ')ern~·£( 

5 
81 

~··--------------1------------------,_----------------~ 

7. Political Activity 

(A) Have you ever been a candidate for or been elected or appointed to a political office? 

Yenr{s] Election 

Name of Office Elected/AJ2llQinted/ Held 01· Term of Service 

Candidate Onl~ Apl]:oinfmcnt (if applicable) 

Made 

----.1 

(B) List any offices held in or services rendered to a political party or election committee 

during the last ten years that you have not listed elsewhere. 

Name of Partr!Eie£lion Office/Services Reodered Rc.•nonsibiliti!]J! lli!.!.£uf 

Committee Service 

6 
82 

1--------------·~----------------i------------------·~--------

(C) Itemize all individual political contributions of $200 or more that you have made in the 

past five years to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action 

committee, or similar entity. Please list each individual contribution and not the total 

amount contributed to the person or entity during the year. 

Name of Reci!lient Amount Year of Contribution 

ktmnt'-j -fix Wr;~ 1J 

Inc. tJ_\(}- Jul) 

.1\ 

l)jc(\YI 1\e. I\ S-=Doi.e CcwY~rui tb> ' 14- lm0~ ~o\4-

rc'c Cboocll Q)\'V\!'Vj t ±b:' 14-

t 

Se:~alf l.ctiJ- Jo!3 

~x· Chy>e\ \ llic.fu>LJ~ · .

1

5CD- fJOit 

ftlcC't\Df.le\ I &m·re . 0 \V\'\,m, tt:e. '/4 :II:J:J_)- NOI4-

7 
83 

8. Publications and Speeches 

(A) List the titles, publishers and dates of books, articles, reports or other published 

materials that you have written, including articles published on the Internet. Please provide 

the Committee with copies of all listed publications. In lieu of hard copies, electronic copies 

can be provided via e-mail or other digital format. 

Title PublisheJ' Date(s} of Publication 

G' . (' }\i\·(,,\n_: ( ,( r..:...:.\•t:"~"~\· (!l\jl.l(I!':J Ci\'-XY~:.f'"'''' < ""d 

f'};n<::.,cv:l'" <-- A n '".:. -Jruwi:E .blli..~\tY• 'Ri:.p:::.:...t ·: :ba l;JI <=10\(\ I t:11oml \=bstcd Ve-1-orl'\'1 rY\ll\ I 0\V:\ t'XP>'(S~ 'Rtv.t•V .{;~ <U.l.S. IA-~~wn\.t'. ~Xili"'·k r\lm~_J J 

-

-

---~--

8 
84 

1-----------lf------------1·--------------

(B) List any formal speeches you have delivered during the last five years and provide the 

Committee with copies of those speeches relevant to the position for which you have been 

nominated. Include any testimony to Congress or any other legislative or administrative 

body. These items can be provided electronically via e-mail or other digital format. 

Title/Topic Place/Audlcnce r Date(s) of Speech 

L ., I" "'i\:. · , ' f'.•t··; ·', • l\ ~·· 

( ·~t; ··, '\1 1•' 1 ' ":. t . ' .• 

·"'· \ ) \ ;~ i ' •: ''•", :_, I' , ;;: 

\._·em·\\·.\\·.:\,, l\-.·· (~·\.\·£ .. <:· •\1\., (ll1W\-"t\-e... c:\H.\11d(1t'Xl-'.:':ecu,·,1\.l 

( ''- 1 ~Lu··, 1 11 -itl·.t'fJ (.t>tt·l (16•Jt'<C\r"'lt'H+ HCf~t($ 

f------------- L"nd(~151i.lc,, Si,;:.,t"-

1---·--------f-------------------------1 

r-----------r------------4----------------------

9 
85 

(C) List all speeches and testimony you have delivered in the past ten years, except for 

those the text of which you are providing to the Committee. 

Title Place/Audience Datc(s} of S!lccch 

·R~,~c~\l)''J (Jp_--\o.\c:: 'Rifrel .Sn,wy.:, A';:.&f'L. CC+ 1-,JO\~ 

It '•frw c:::..-r:.lt-·,n ,,( if,,.,,"~"j 11:-::Ar<\ f.Yc \,<~) c:-._..-" ,\ 

l<e·J ,,, .. , ·· i{;<,t, \ ··i?f+c.i..u G.\.1n< ki \.. · 1!\-r-·h nr· \)ec. 5 .:Jut~ 

TI"'<L \1,-:.J\U\\ (t..,1(\ \fC"·\(1;.,. n\ (r,;:.;;::c) (:.t niHr'i\tc 

'Pr·"n k f~ht'.J~ IJ::,tr ·\· ht\"1 H\)1( .. \ S. (':ilKi'-C> no{\\ .~n. (J 0 I?:J 

)·(t.<J ... I.\c·; 1'.•,1 •. 1 '·. '\XY'.'.\' J-t 't\\L Ce111tv- (v r,:f':.t<,f(h, ,, 

\t2{ f;, Ito ' ,. i~1:t;, ;_bin I Inch c ,\,'\r:, r\nfl \ I:J :.).012) " .,. fl,l'·\;~/t~·\ 

(UI'\'<T:ni 'K«J-'\(lm<c.l 

;:;- N<\nc ... v~_\ \)c.:>i(c\ ?o\,n.\ 

C\:·,~r AlA~..., 0\.1\'\(\\ rno.·~ IDI :)OJ~ 

IC.rrt.\1 l.(,.lJ' , \n \Ut 1 .l.'UU\.l\o('-1\,C \.(·\ J'\-:•(: .... t-,. \'l 

c '<J(({J ____{ill_(,../ _.., I' C \-{=V) .+ <Jnic:L_ 

1h..:. \-{('\\, (•( '' \(kJ,·,\(\~cy "i\ \(,,·"J\<: t'l\'..\\(~f't\1''1\\ 

1\1 iO)to.:t\r't(j ~t;,u·~·\ -~. ~.P,t:x~lt.'\'<nt 1 ,)(.-\.} n\nnu,-.. · t1·1i ~b. lo, QCJ\~ 

r- '\"<:! "-Y:rh c''" 1 ... Vc;,l" \ '-\_)1\f\\i- . I'(·J"·\(1,\ll,(\. \ 

nx1C06~ -''\1\\\(d (1,. ;,y, \ Yot .. ~ri lr\LL 

f'...\...''(>('f'r)-\ '\<.t:.:,u.b\{.'<''1 TD'- nl\;{,,,,<:. ·v''"' Qv:fP'''~ \ )()\ '( !l' ~ ' p. \'·>, ' ( ~ )f'\ (-c{('•:lL... (-)y:J(\ \ Ll ;:)o\.L 

!{Dlc;.\ \"<f9,>.\c\IOC'-) Ve·Y!CCV--\ n~'":>:> k,xc. }Gn. J \1 \ )...-r\fl\~ (:Qc'l \ ~ (\...(\'(\H· Pc:~\C,\ 

\Z.:;,, ,\(\II'·"' (>'>1"\(p,((\,"" 'PI a p\ S rwn(:r .Y\ 1\.:.s 1 n_.g. lo (~o1o 

('-'.)YhH ~<llJ,hli'"i (\;;;.,·,:. l=t01f\ \ I 

{'!:; (>< .\ .J 

(b-v-c•,y· I f"''1i'/) mo.\. I Bl 60\0 

:llotn 1 · ·lt~jLdcdV<ti j I 

I C1SA tr\e:~1 \ \v-Im\ 

l)L)(\{t\( jureql JO]lo l:.:cll '((:, bLI') :IT~{ l..'i'Y l ... 
86 

<;::ur,.-,,.,. 'Kl,i.Ju.lo."-'1"'·\ 

({\Yf"! \\'· 

1 A-rr.:·v;r,-.-. (o,~c,\c,cJ 

\l'n" lc>'·, }"!:;:rr: . 

9. Criminal History 

Since (and including) your 18'11 birthday, has any of the following happened? 

Have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? 

(Exclude citations involving trallic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or 

drugs.) 1\JD 

Have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official? ~0 

Have you been charged, convicted, or sentenced of a crime in any court? \>JC) 

1 lave you been or arc you currently on probation or parole? \~.) 

Are you currently on trial or awaiting n trial on criminal charges? ~0 

To your knowledge, have you ever been the subject or target of a federal, state or local criminal investigation? NO 

If the answer to any of the questions above is yes, please answer the questions below for 

each criminal event (citation, arrest, investigation, etc.). If the event was an investigation, 

where the question below asks for information about the offense, please offer information 

abont the offense under investigation (if known). 

A) Date of offense: 

a. Is this an estimate (Yes/No): 

B) Description of the specific nature of the offense: 

C) Did the offense involve any of the following? 

I) Domestic violence or a crime of violence (such as battery or assault) against your child, dependent, 

cohabitant, spouse) former spouse, or someone with whom you share a child in common: Yes 1 No 

2) Firearms or explosives: Yes I No 

3) Alcohol or drugs: Yes I No 

D) Location where the offense occurred (city, county, stnte, zip code, country): 

E) Were you a!Testcd, summoned, cited or did you receive a ticket to appear as a result of this offense by any 

police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type ofbw enforcement oflicial: Yes 1 No 

I) Name of the law enforcement agency that arrested/cited/summoned you: 

2) Location of the law enforcement agency (city, county, state, zip code, counny): 

11 
87 

F) As a result of this offense were you charged, convicted, currently awaiting trial, and/or ordered to appear in 

court in a criminal proceeding against you: Yes I No 

l) If yes, provide the name of the court and the location of the court (city, county, state, zip code, 

country): 

2) If yes, provide all the charges brought against you for this offense, and the outcome of each charged 

offense (such as found guilty, found not-guilty, charge dropped or "nolle pros," etc). If you were found 

guilty of or pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, list separately both the odginal charge and the lesser 

offense: 

3) lf no, provide explanation: 

G) Were you sentenced as a result of this offense; Yes I No 

H) Provide a description of tllc sentence: 

l) Were you sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year: Yes I No 

J) Were y<m incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not less than one year: Yes I No 

K) If the conviction resulted in imprisonment, provide the dates that you actually were incarcerated: 

L) If conviction resulted in probation or parole, provide the dates of probation or parole: 

M) Arc you currently on trial, awaiting a trial, or awaiting sentencing on criminal charges for this offense: Yes I 

No 

N) Provide explanation: 

12 
88 

10. Civil Litigation and Administrative or Legislative Proceedings 

(A) Since (and including) your 18th bit·thday, have you been a party to any public record 

civil court action or administrative or legislative proceeding of any kind that resulted in (l) 

a finding of wrongdoing against you, or (2) a settlement agreement for you, or some other 

person or entity, to make a payment to settle allegations against you, or for you to take, or 

refrain from taking, some action. Do NOT include small claims proceedings. N() 

IJntc Claim/Suit 

I Namc{s) of Wns Filed or Court PrinciJml P-arties 

Procce~tiugs 

LcgisiHtivc Name ln\'Olvcd in Nature of Action/Proceeding ~ 

t\e-tion!PJ•occcding Action/Proceeding 

Begun 

-·· 

(B) In addition to those listed above, have you or any business of which you were an officer, 

director or owner ever been involved as a party of interest in any administrative agency 

proceeding or civil litigation? Please identify and provide details for any proceedings or 

civil litigation that involve actions taken or omitted by you, or alleged to have been taken or 

omitted by you, while serving in your official capacity. ND 

Namc(slof 

Court l>rincipal Pnrties Nature of Action!I'rocceding Date Claim/Suit Name Involved iu Results of 

~ Action/Proceeding Action/Proceeding 

1---------

13 

i 

I 
89 

(C) For responses to the previous question, please identify and provide details for any 

proceedings or civil litigation that involve actions taken or omitted by you, or alleged to 

have been taken or omitted by you, while serving in your official capacity. 

11. Breach of Professional Ethics 

(A) Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct 

by, or been the subject of a complaint to, any court, administrative agen('Y, professional 

association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? Exclude cases and 

proceedings already listed. N C) 

Name of Date Describe Citatlon/Discl!llinar~: A!len£!lA§§QCiatlon/ Citatlon/Dlscl!llinarv Actlon/Comlllaint Results ofDisciJ!Iinsrv 

Commlttee/Groull Action/Comnlaint Actlon/Coml!lalnt 

Issued/Initiated --

·-

·---· 

(B) Have you ever been fired from a job, quit a job after being told you would be fired, left 

a job by mutual agreement following charges or allegations of misconduct, left a job by 

mutual agreement following notice of unsatisfactory performance, or received a written 

warning, been officially reprimanded, suspended, or di,~ciplined for ml~eonduct in the 

workplace, such as violation of a security policy? N<) 

12. Tax Compliance 

(This information will not be published in the record of the bearing on your nomination, 

but it will be retained in the Committee's files and will be available for public inspection.) 

REDACTED 
90 

13. Lobbying 

In the past ten years, have you registered as a lobbyist? If so, please indicate the state, 

federal, or local bodies with which you have registered (e.g., House, Senate, California 

Secretary of State). ~ () 

14. Outside Positions 

o See OGE Form 278. (If, for your nomination, you have completed an OGE F01m 278 

Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, you may check the box here to 

complete this section and then proceed to the next section.) '--=-~~----~---------~-- ----· 

For the preceding ten calendar years and the current calendar year, report any positions 

held, whether compensated or not. Positions include but are not limited to those of an 

officer, director, trustee, general partner, proprietor, representative, employee, or 

consultant of any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise or any nonprofit organization or educational institution. Exclude positions with religious, social, 

fraternal, or political entities and those solely of an honorary nature. ~ 

-~ 

Type of 

Or~:auization 

(C<lrporation, fLrm, Jlosition Held Position Name of Address of partnership, other 

Organ1zntion Organization business enterprise, Position Held Front Held To 

other non·profit {rnolllhlyear) (month/year) 

organization, 

educational 

institution) --

-·-

15 
91 

IS. Agreements or Arrangements 

~See OGE Fonn 278. (If, for your nomination, you have completed an OGE Form 278 

i Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report, you may check the box here to I complete this section and then proceed to the next section.) 

As of the date of filing your OGE Form 278, report your agreements or arrangements for: 

(1) continuing participation in an employee benefit plan (e.g. pension, 401k, deferred 

compensation); (2) continuation of payment by a former employer (including severance 

payments); (3) leaves of absence; and (4) future employment. 

Provide information regarding any agreements or arrangements you have concerning (1) 

future employment; (2) a leave of absence during your period of Government service; (3) 

continuation of payments by a former employer other than the United States Government; 

and (4) continuing participation in an employee welfare or benefit plan maintained by a 

former employer other than United States Government retirement benefits. 

Status and Terms gf An:r .lliill! ~greement or ~rrangement Parties (month/year} 

16. Additional Financial Data 

All information requested under this heading must be provided for yourself, your spouse, 

and your dependents. (This information will not be published in the record of the hearing 

17 

I 
92 

on your nomination, but it will be retained in the Committee's files and will be available for 

public inspection.) 

REDACTED 
SIGNATURE AND DATE 

I hereby state that I have read the foregoing Statement on Biographical and :Financial Information and that the information 

provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, and complete. 

Y"YJO a~ 

ThisL S. ~ ilay of (f~ , 20 \{, 

Z4 
94 

The Honorable Ron Johnson 

Chairman 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

* 

JUN 2-7 2016 

Committee on Homeland Sectuity 

and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

REDACTED 

In accordance with the Ethics in Government Act ofi978, I enclose a copy of the 

financial disclosure report filed by Mark D. Acton, who has been nominated by President Obama 

for the position of Commissioner, Postal Regulatory Commission. 

We have reviewed the report and have obtained advice from the agency concerning any 

possible conflict in light of its fimctions and the nominee's proposed duties. Also enclosed is an 

ethics agreement outlining the actions that the nominee will undertake to avoid conflicts of 

interest. Unless a date for compliance is indicated in the ethics agreement, the nominee must 

fully comply within three months of confirmation with any action specified in the ethics 

agreement. 

Based thereon, we believe that this nominee is in compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations governing conflicts of interest. 

Sincerely, 

. ., .I /- c:·',_ 

~·~--</.7-P David J. Apol " 

General Counsel 

Enclosures REDACTED 

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 I Washington, DC 20005 

www.oge.gov 

) 
95 

May 19,2016 

David A. Trissell 

General Counsel and Designated Agency Ethics Official 

Postal Regulatory Commission 

901 New York Ave., NW, Suite200 

Washington, DC 20268 

Dear Mr. Trissell: 

The pUipose of this letter is to describe the steps that I will take to avoid any actual or 

apparent conflict of interest in the event that I am confinned for the position of Commissioner of 

the Postal Regulatory Commission. 

As required by 18 U.S.C. § 208(a), I will not participate personally and substantially in 

any particular matter in which I know that I have a financial interest directly and predictably 

affected by the matter, or in which I know that a person whose interests are imputed to me has a 

financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter, unless I first obtein a written 

waiver, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1), or qualify for a regulatory exemption, pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2). I understand that the interesU! of the following persons are imputed to 

me; any spouse or minor child of mine; any geneml partner of a partnership in which I am a 

limited or general partner; any organization in which I serve as officer, director, trustee, general 

partner or employee; and any person or organization with which I am negotiating or have an 

arrangement concerning prospective employment. 

I understand that as an appointee I must continue to abide by the Ethics Pledge (Exec. 

Order No. 13490) that I previously signed and that I will be bound by the requirements and 

restrictions therein in addition to the commitments I have made in tllis ethic.~ agreement. 

I have been advised that this ethics agreement will be posted publicly, consistent with 5 

U.S.C. § 552, on the website of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics with ethics agreements of 

other Presidential nominees who file public financial disclosure reports. 

173~~- Mark D. Acton 
96 

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Pre-hearing Questionnaire 

For the Nomination of Mark Acton to be 

Commissioner, Postal Regulatory Commission 

I. Nomination Process and Conflicts of Interest 

I. Why do you believe the President nominated you to serve as a Commissioner of the 

Postal Regulatory Commission ("PRC" or "the Commission")? 

My professional record of active and ongoing involvement in postal policy, 

regulatory and legislative matters. 

2. What specific background and experience affirmatively qualifies you to be a 

Commissioner of the PRC? 

• Professional expertise in postal industry issues and concerns, as well as familiarity 

with key stakeholders, through 14 years of public administration and postal rate 

setting experience: 3 years on staff assisting the former Postal Rate Commission 

Chairman in managing all aspects of agency operations and (for the past 11 years) 

as a Commissioner of the Postal Rate Commission and Postal Regulatory 

Commission. 

• Nine years of significant experience with legal concepts, including regulatory and 

legislative issues as Staff Director for the Republican National Committee 

Counsel's Office. 

• Direct mail marketing management experience as an Assistant Director for 

Republican National Committee Major Donor Finance Programs. 

• Masters in Business Administration including applicable graduate level technical 

training: managerial economics and public policy, managerial accounting, 

financial accounting, business and product marketing strategy, data 

analysis/statistics and decision modeling, information systems management and 

executive skills mastery. 

3, Were any conditions, express or implied, attached to your nomination? If so, please 

explain. 

No. 

Page I of33 
97 

4. Have you made any commitments with respect to the policies and principles you will 

attempt to implement as Commissioner of the PRC? If so, what are they, and to whom 

were the commitments made? 

• No. 

5. If confirmed, are there any issues from which you would have to recuse or disqualify 

yourself because of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest? If so, 

please explain what procedures and/or criteria you will usc to carry out such a recusal or 

disqualification. 

• No. 

II. Role of the Postal Rate Commission and its Commissioners 

6. What do you believe are the most important responsibilities of the PRC, and what is your 

opinion of how those responsibilities have been fulfilled during your tenure as 

Commissioner? 

As an independent agency that exercises regulatory oversight over the Postal 

Service since its creation by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (PRA) and 

strengthened by enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enl1aneement Act of 

2006 (P AEJ\), the most important responsibilities of the Commission are to 

ensure transparency and accountability of the United States Postal Service, foster 

a vital and efficient universal mail system, fair and expeditious review of matters 

before the Commission, and to cooperatively work with the Postal Service and 

mailing community to achieve the best possible service at fair prices. 

During my tenure, the Commission has provided greater transparency into Postal 

Service matters through the Commission's Annual Compliance Determination, its 

annual Financial Analysis of United States Postal Service Financial Results and 

10-K Statement, its annual Analysis of the Postal Service's FY 2015 Annual 

Performance Report and FY 20 I 6 Performance Plan, and the special reports it has 

issued, such as the Commission's Report on Universal Postal Service and the 

Postal Monopoly. 

The Commission brings much-needed transparency to the Postal Service, 

allowing Congress, ratepayers and the general public to examine the Postal 

Service's cost structures, expenditures and revenues. In each of our proceedings, 

the Commission invites public participation in matters before it and appoints a 

public representative who represents the interest of the general public. More 

recent Commission actions include the issuance of Order No. 3506 that addresses 

a rulemaking petition by United Parcel Service, Inc., and Order No. 2960 that 

established procedures for providing the Department of State with the 

Page 2 of33 
98 

Commission's views regarding certain international proposals being considered at 

the upcoming 26'11 Congress of the Universal Postal Union. 

7. Given your years of experience as a Commissioner, what kind of role do you believe the 

PRC should play in overseeing the Postal Service? What is your view of the role of each 

Commissioner of the PRC? !low has this view changed over the course of your tenure as 

a Commissioner? 

It is important for the Commission to continue its role in regulating the Postal 

Service's efforts to improve its financial conditions. In that regard, the 

Commission should continue satisfying its statutory responsibility to manage 

ongoing, systematic reports and assessments of the financial and operational 

performance of the Postal Service, which requires the Postal Service to file certain 

annual reports with the Commission, including an A1mual Compliance Report 

(ACR) and for the Commission to review such report and issue an Annual 

Compliance Determination (ACD). The ACD is the Commission's most potent 

regulatory tool- providing a comprehensive review of Postal Service operations 

and finances over the previous year. It indicates if the past year's rates were in 

compliance with applicable provisions ofTitle 39 and if any service standards 

were not met during the same period. In the event rates are not in compliance as 

was the case in March 2010 when the Commission found the rates for Standard 

Mail Flats neither recovered attributable cost nor made a reasonable contribution 

to institutional cost, the Commission requires the Postal Service to devise a 

remedial plan to improve the cost coverage. 

Each Commissioner brings a unique background and perspective to decision 

making and it is imperative that each Commissioner provide his or her 

independent assessment of domestic and international postal policy issues that 

takes into consideration the vitality of postal operations while also protecting the 

public interest as set forth in Title 39. These independent assessments typically 

become the basis for the consensus that the Commission reaches in most cases. 

l continue to believe that this is an effective and appropriate approach to 

Commission decision making. 

8. What do you believe have been your principal accomplishments during your tenure at the 

PRC? What contributions do you hope to make if confim1ed for another term? 

During my tenure, the Commission has initiated and continues to implement of 

our reform responsibilities under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. 

It established, eight months before the statutory deadline, a new rate setting 

system under P AEA and has employed the Annual Compliance Determination to 

heighten transparency of the Postal Service's finances and operations so that the 

postal community at large is better informed. 

Page 3 of33 
99 

If confirmed for another term, l will continue to promote the Commission's 

mission of ensuring a vital and efficient Postal Service wherein postal products 

remain relevant, affordable and sustainable now and into the future. In addition, I 

will provide timely and accurate Commission assistance to Congress as it enacts 

meaningful postal reform. 

9. In your view, what are the major internal and external challenges facing the PRC, and 

how have they evolved since you were appointed to the PRC? 

One of the major internal challenges facing the Commission is the challenge of 

ensuring that adequate resources are available to fulfill key upcoming statutory 

responsibilities like the l 0-year rate review while still fulfilling the Commission's 

other lawful duties. See 39 § 3622(d)(3). 

Externally, the common challenges facing the postal community at large are the 

declining volumes in a digital age and what that means for the future of the Postal 

Service. Digital diversion was an emergent trend early in my service at the 

Commission and has evolved into a central driver of the Postal Service's 

challenges, priorities and outcomes. Keeping the Postal Service a relevant and 

valued entity in the modern context is a primary goal. 

10. How have you addressed the challenges facing the PRC during your term as 

Commissioner? 

There are several ways in which I have addressed the challenges facing the 

Commission. 

(1) Staying in close touch with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders 

(2) Keeping informed of the shifting postal landscape both operational and 

legislative 

(3) Working with Congress as a resource for expert legal and technical postal 

expertise 

(4) Working closely with my colleagues and our staff to ensure there are adequate 

agency resources to meet our responsibilities in a dutiful and timely fashion 

11. What do you believe should be the PRC's top three priorities over the next six years? 

The top three priorities should bePage 4 of33 
100 

(1) Working with Congress to provide accurate and timely technical assistance as 

Congress seeks to enact meaningful postal service legislative reform that puts 

the Postal Service back on solid fiscal tooting 

(2) Working with the community to promote mutual understanding of key 

concerns between the Postal Service and its customers 

(3) The proper and timely completion of the 1 0-year rate review 

12. If confirmed, how would you coordinate and communicate with PRC staff to accomplish 

the PRC's goals? How have you coordinated and communicated with PRC staff in the 

past to ensure goals were met? 

If confirmed, I will maintain close contact with key staff members' individual 

cases through regular staff briefings and meetings, as well as through close 

coordination with my colleagues on the panel and our senior management team to 

accomplish the goals of the Commission. In the past, I have coordinated and 

communicated with my colleagues and Commission staff in the same ways I 

propose to engage with staff and senior management if l am confirmed. 

13. Does the PRC have the appropriate number of staff needed to accomplish its mission? 

Please explain. 

The Commission is regularly reallocating its appropriated funds to address 

shifting priorities at hand. A limited additional complement of expert counsel and 

analysts would improve the Commission's ability to complete our lawful duties. 

This is a particular priority in light of the upcoming 10-year rate review. 

14. Since your first term as commissioner, how has the PRC improved the management and 

timeliness of its docket while also maintaining or improving the quality of decisionmaking? In your opinion, in what ways do you believe the PRC could still improve in this 

area? 

The Commission has improved the management and timeliness of its docket 

system by-

(1) Revising Commission rules to streamline administration of dockets such as 

our Advisory Opinion process 

(2) Revising Commission rules to permit automatic closure of inactive dockets 

(3) Regular updating of Commissioners by senior management staff regarding 

current, pending, or changing priorities and work schedules 

The Commission now employs better use of proven business administration 

techniques such as dynamic critical path assessments- in aiding the 

Page 5 of33 
101 

Commission in better tracking key pending concerns and addressing each in a 

more efficient, timely manner. Another area that Commission staff is utilizing is 

executive management training, resources permitting; I would continue to 

encourage greater use of staff development opportunities. Further application of 

both helps ensure better docket management. 

15. The PRC is an independent agency. How do you understand that obligation of 

independence? How does such independence affect your approach to the evaluation and 

decision of cases? 

I understand the obligation of independence in that 1 am beholding to no power or 

outcome other than my best-faithed interpretation of the Commission's lawful 

responsibilities based on 14 years as a postal regulator. The Commission's 

independent nature advances fair and just administrative judicial review. 

16. How can the PRC effectively and efficiently fulfill the statutory mandate for the PRC to 

provide its views to the State Dcpm1ment regarding international postal arrangements? 

As we did recently in opening a public inquiry docket to solicit community input 

for Commission consideration prior to submitting our comments to the 

Department of State under Section 407(c). Via maintenance of a significant 

Commission staff component to engage the global community and advise the 

Commission regarding international postal concerns. In addition, Commission 

involvement through regular attendance of the Department of State Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) meetings a11d at other gatherings such as with 

the Postal Operations Council, assists the Commission fulfill its statutory 

responsibilities related to international mail. As with all Commission concerns, 

having a full complement of Commissioners also helps in fulfilling our statutory 

mandate. 

III. Policy Questions 

Previous Postal Service Reforms 

17. It has been nearly ten years since the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of2006 

(PAEA) (P.L. 109-435) changed postal pricing to provide the United States Postal 

Service (USPS or Postal Service) with more flexibility as well as improve the ratemaking process. 

a. Do you believe the Postal Service has effectively utilized the pricing flexibility 

provided by the PAEA? If yes why, if no why not? 

At the class level, prices are not allowed to increase above the price cap 

taking into account any available banked authority. However, within 

Page 6 of33 
102 

classes, the Postal St:rvice has the flexibility to give products aboveaverage and below-average price adjustments. In general, the Postal 

Service ha~ struggled in utilizing its pricing flexibility to ensure that many 

of its products and services cover its costs. In Docket No. R2015-4, a case 

involving a Postal Service request for Market Dominant rate adjustment, 

the Postal Service has managed to utilize its f1exibility to offer new annual 

promotional products such as the Earned Value Reply Mail Promotion, 

which provides a per-piece rebate on Business Reply Mail and Courtesy 

Reply Mail pieces that are returned to the registered customer during the 

promotional period, and Advanced and Emerging Technology Promotion, 

which continues the Postal Service's strategy of encouraging mailers to 

integrate direct mail with mobile technology and advances in print. Tn 

addition, the Postal Service has used its pricing Jlexibility to increase 

Competitive Products prices, and, when received and approved by the 

Commission, transfer Market Dominant products to the Competitive 

Product list. 

For "underwater" products, the Postal Service has not, in my view, always 

been able to give these products adequate rate adjustments to move closer 

toward making institutional contributions or breaking even. Part of the 

Postal service's finanl:ial problem lies in pricing imbalances. Tn our FY 

2010 Annual Compliance Determination, the Commission identified 10 

Market Dominant products and services with revenue that did not cover 

attributable costs, including flats, periodicals, and non-profit mail, totaling 

$1.7 billion in losses. For the Jirst time ever, the Commission found rates 

not in compliance with the statute, and directed the Postal Service to take 

action to end the intra-class cross subsidy for Standard Mail Flats as soon 

as practicable. 

In our FY 2015 Annual Compliance Determination, the Commission again 

found minimal progress being made to reduce the cost coverage deficit for 

Standard Mail Flats and required the Postal Service to provide a report on 

flats issues to better understand what can be done to improve cost and 

service efficiency for flats. The Postal Service filed its report on July 26, 

2016. The Commission is currently reviewing this report to determine 

compliance with the Commission's directives. 

h. Do you believe that the goal of increased llexibility was met? If yes why, if no 

why not? 

Generally speaking, yes. The former adversarial shared cost of service 

business model has been replaced through the P AEA, with a system that 

permits the Postal Service limited pricing flexibility within mail class 

beneath a moving Consumer Price Index rate cap. It is understandably a 

Page 7 of33 
103 

difficult balance to strike: the Postal Service wants still more pricing 

authority, while mailers prefer the more predictable, CPI-based rate 

approach under the P AEA. 

c. Should "flexibility" include the ability of the Postal Service to have different price 

increases for one class of mail versus another class? If yes why, if no why not? 

This is a question that the Commission may likely take up in our 

upcoming I 0-year review of the Market Dominant rate system and I am 

therefore reserving judgment until an opportunity for public comment has 

been provided. 

On December 20, 2016, the Commission intends to issue an Order to 

begin its 10-year review of the Market Dominant rate system. The Order 

will describe the approximate structure and timeframe within which the 

Commission will complete its review, as well as define the opportunities 

for public comment within the review. The deadline for comments is 

expected to be in early spring of2017 and by early autumn of2017, the 

Commission plans to issue an Order which will include its findings and, if 

necessary, preparatory rule-making information for any proposed changes 

to the system. 

d. Do the workshare provisions of the Commission rules, all else equal, foster 

flexibility? If yes why, if no why not? 

Yes, the workshare provisions provide the Postal Service with flexibility 

to leverage private business provider services when appropriate to 

maximize service and minimize cost. It is the regulator's role to review 

workshare arrangements to ensure that discounts provided do not exceed 

costs avoided. 

!8. The PAEA substantially changed the relative responsibilities of the Postal Service Board 

of Governors and the Commission. 

a. What do you believe are the most important decisions the Commission has made 

since the P AEA? 

l must preface this response by noting that I fully appreciate that most every 

Commission decision or advisory opinion has potentially important 

consequences for the Postal Service, users of the mail, the mailing industry 

and the American public. I would identify several key decisions that the 

Commission has taken since the enactment ofPAEA, as ofpaiiicu!ar 

consequence: 

Page 8 of33 
104 

o The promulgation of rules and regulations, months ahead of schedule, for 

a new CPI-based rate making system. This required much deliberation, 

after considering public and Postal Service comments to fine-tune and 

develop in accordance with Congress's direction in the PAEA. 

o The approval of a temporary exigent rate request of a 4.3 percent 

surcharge increase that was removed on April!O, 2016. (A Postal Service 

appeal of the most recent Commission order in the exigent rate proceeding 

is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit.) 

o The 1Mb rate cap decision the set forth a standard to determine whether a 

change to a mail preparation requirement has rate effects requiring 

compliance with the price cap rules. The Postal Service has appealed this 

decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. 

o The Commission's Advisory Opinions regarding the Postal Service 

Station and Branch Optimization and Consolidation Initiative and the 

Postal Service's plan to eliminate Saturday delivery, provide informative 

insight regarding these proposals. 

b. What are the key decisions you expect the Commission to make in the future 

under the PAEA? 

The Commission's second Section 701 Review of the PAEA and its 10-year 

review of the present system for regulating rates and classes of service for 

Market Dominant products. 

c. Generally, what approaches do you advocate the PRC should take in regulating 

USPS and why? 

Generally speaking and in my personal professional experience, the most 

productive approach that the Commission can take in executing our lawful 

responsibilities is to do so while working to ensure a healthy level of proper 

dialogue between the operator and the regulator and the postal community. 

The mandate included by Congress in the P AEA calling for consultation 

between the agencies when addressing specific reform directives (sueh as the 

development of modern service standards for instance) has proven critically 

important. I believe that this statutory requirement has permitted, encouraged 

and indeed forced a more productive exchange of ideas and thought, and 

driven an environment of shared information that I am not convinced would 

otherwise have developed to the same degree. 

Page 9 of 33 
105 

Since the enactment of the PAEA, the Commission has endeavored steadfastly 

to abide by the legislative mandate granting greater Postal Service pricing 

f1exibilities in exchange for more predictable rates in concert with enhanced 

disclosure and transparency. At the same time it has been my consistent view 

that in any rate cap regulatory program, guarding the integrity of the rate cap 

is a paramount regulatory concern. In evaluating the Postal Service's 

performance, the Commission bas adhered to the ex post facto regulatory 

model, employing our most important regulatory tool -the Annual 

Compliance Determination- in advising Postal Service management how the 

Postal Service activities comport with the provisions of the P AEA. The 

Commission has consistently encouraged Postal Service management to craft 

approaches balancing compliance and regulatory concerns with costs and 

operations. This record of involvement within the lawful bounds, and spirit of 

the provisions, of the P AEA is generally expressive of my regulatory 

approach which is to regulate in a manner in strict compliance with our lawful 

duties - nothing more, nothing less. 

19. What is your overall impression of how well the postal reforms under the P AEA have 

been implemented so far? What areas have been most challenging, and what areas do you 

believe need the most attention in the future? 

In some key respects the PAEA has been and is working as Congress intended, 

with the price-cap provision effectively driving greater Postal Service cost 

efficiencies. Despite the success of the price cap in forcing savings, cost cuts and 

other actions revenue bas not kept pace with obligations. Going forward, it is 

imperative that the Postal Service avoid financial insolvency due to a large and 

increasing debt load and a statutory limit on its borrowing authority. 

In performing its statutory oversight functions, the Commission can provide 

independent analysis of the costs and benefits of various Postal Service initiatives 

to adjust its products or service levels to improve its balance sheet. This type of 

independent review can assist the Postal Service and Congress in determining 

which initiatives to pursue. For example, the Commission, responding to a Postal 

Service request pursuant to section 802(c) of the PAEA, retained an independent 

actuarial tirm to assess the Otlice of Personnel Management's (OPM) calculation 

of the Postal Service's share of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) 

pension assets and liabilities, which also included a review of the methodology 

proposed in a Postal Service Office of Inspector General study. After a thorough 

review, the Commission issued the report prepared by Segal on June 29,2010. 

The report suggested that the methodology used to dete1mine the Postal Service's 

share of the CSRS pension fund does not follow current private sector accounting 

standards. If it did, it would reflect Postal Service overpayments of $50-55 

billion. While OPM concedes some principle findings of the Segal report, it will 

Page 10 of33 
106 

not release any of the CSRS funding in question- absent a legislative directive to 

do so. 

Responsible adjustments to one or both of these obligations, as recommended by 

bona fide independent experts, could provide some financial stability as the Postal 

Service restructures its operations and as Congress considers possible changes to 

the Postal Service's business model. 

In addition, there are specific provisions that I believe need attention. Two 

primary goals of the l'AEA were to offer mailers greater predictability of rates 

and planned rate adjustments, while affording the Postal Service a higher level of 

pricing flexibility. I believe that the P AEA has been most successful in terms of 

achieving the former, while pursuing the latter is more challenging. Going 

forward, the Commission should continue to work with the Postal Service and the 

postal community in exploring additional approaches which could encourage the 

Postal Service to exercise greater pricing flexibility, in keeping with the spirit of 

the PAEA. 

20. The PAEA set forth a new process for resolving complaints against the Postal Service. 

What do you believe must be done to ensure that the PRC will review and resolve any 

complaints promptly and fairly? 

In FY 2009, the Commission finalized rules outlining a reformed complaint 

mechanism. These rules consist of a two-tiered process for resolving complaints. 

One provides for an informal resolution that usually addresses service and rate 

inquiries that do not require more formalized procedures applicable to complaints, 

such as the location of one's mailbox. The other provides more formal 

procedures for broader more complex complaints. 

The first complaint filed under these rules was C2009-l, Complaint of GameFly, 

Inc., and the Commission found that the Postal Service had discriminated in rates 

regarding the mailing ofDVDs and directed it to offer mailing customers a more 

level playing field. In this docket, the Commission encountered and resolved a 

number of first-time procedural and administrative issues and was required to 

review an extensive record. Based, in part, on this experience the Commission 

issued an order on October 6, 2014, that listed elements that a person must show 

in order to bring a section 404a complaint along with what affirmative defenses 

are available to the Postal Service and defined terms. 

The Commission stands ready to review and resolve promptly and fairly any 

complaints properly brought before the agency. 

Postal Service Operations 

Page II of33 
107 

21. What role, if any, should the PRC have in the Postal Service's operational decisions? 

Aside from advisory opinion guidance [39 U.S.C. 366l(b) and (c)), the 

Commission should not have a role in Postal Service operational decisions. 

Postal managers must have the flexibility to make decisions on the day-to-day 

operations of the Postal Service network, while executive oversight of Postal 

Service management is one job of the Postal Board of Governors. 

As stated earlier, the Commission's role is to ensure that Postal Service products 

and service conform to title 39 as amended by the PAEA; that activities in 

furtherance of its business comply with the spirit of the P AEA. Beyond such 

regulatory guidance, the Commission's involvement with Postal Service 

operational decisions would appear to go beyond the scope of title 39. 

That said, the consultations between Postal Service officers and Commissioners 

regarding service standards does have a value in Commission/Postal Service 

communications by permitting the Commission to become better informed 

regarding broad operational decisions. These discussions, I believe, also aftord 

top Postal Service management with a first-hand view of the regulators priorities. 

I look forward to continuing discussions, whenever possible, that lead to better 

understanding. 

22. Should Congress modify or repeal the requirement for USPS to seek advisory opinions 

from the PRC, as some have proposed? Why or why not? 

Congress should not repeal the requirement for the Postal Service to seek advisory 

opinions from the Commission. The Advisory Opinion process provides a needed 

forum for public input. In particular, the Commission's Advisory Opinions 

regarding the Postal Service Station and Branch Optimization and Consolidation 

Initiative and the Postal Service's plan to eliminate Saturday delivery provided 

inlormative insight to the Postal Service regarding these proposals. 

In N2011-l (Retail Access Optimization Initiative), the Commission advised the 

Postal Service to ensure access to postal services in rural communities, explore 

more robust modeling techniques, and improve data collection efforts. 

In N20 12-1 (Mail Processing Network Rationalization), the Commission found 

that the Postal Service could realize substantial cost savings while preserving 

most overnight mail delivery. 

In N20 12-2 (Post Office Structure Plan), the Commission concluded that if 

implemented properly, the realignment of retail hours should help balance service 

and cost savings in a manner consistent with the law. 

Page 12 of33 
108 

During 2014, the Commission amended its procedural rules for advisory opinions 

in an effort to ensure more expedited consideration of Postal Service proposals. 

Congress may want to consider adding language to 39 U.S.C. 3661 requiring the 

Postal Service to provide a written response to Commission advisory opinions and 

submit its response to Congress prior to implementing such changes in service. 

23. What do you believe should be the role of the PRC in helping to ensure that the quality 

and timeliness of the Postal Service's data in cases before the PRC are adequate? 

The quality and timeliness of Postal Service data is vital to the Commission and 

interested parties in reviewing various cases before the Commission. The 

Commission has conducted public rulemaldng proceedings to establish reporting 

requirements designed to ensure the timely availability of necessary data. As is 

currently the case, the Commission should have final review authority in 

determining how to measure the adequacy of the data and methodologies used in 

determining the overall financial and operational impact of various rate 

adjustments or negotiated service agreements. 

In individual cases, the Commission reviews the Postal Service's data and 

determines if the information is accurate and if necessary requests additional 

information. For example, in Docket No. R2015-4, a case involving a Postal 

Service request for Market Dominant rate adjustment, the Commission issued 17 

separate infonnation requests, containing 114 individual questions, and returned 

the Postal Service's proposed price adjustments twice for correction or more 

information. 

24. The USPS continues to experience volume and revenue losses, ending Fiscal Y car (FY) 

2015 with a net loss of $5 .I billion. Costs are continuing to outpace revenue, with 

operating expenses for FY 16 Q2 growing 2.7% faster than operating revenue for the 

same period in FY 15. 

a. In your view, what is the PRC's role in overseeing USPS's efforts to improve its 

financial condition and exercising its flexibility to increase postal revenue and cut 

costs, while also meeting its universal service obligations and other statutory 

requirements? 

The principal regulatory review of Postal Service operations is the Annual 

Compliance Determination (ACD). The ACD provides a comprehensive 

review of Postal Service operations and finances over the previous year. The 

Commission notifies Postal Service management when there is insufficient 

cost coverage for a product and, when appropriate, requires corrective actions. 

The Postal Service can also use the findings to identify and promote profitable 

products and reduce costs. 

Page 13 of33 
109 

The Commission can offer valuable guidance when asked, through the 

Advisory Opinion process, regarding operational changes that could generally 

affect service on a substantially nationwide basis, concerning affiliated 

financial impacts and related considerations. 

In performing its statutory oversight functions, the Commission can provide 

independent analysis of the costs and benefits of various Postal Service 

initiatives to adjust its products or service levels to improve its balance sheet. 

This type of independent review can assist the Postal Service and Congress in 

determining which initiatives to pursue. 

For example, the Commission, responding to a Postal Service request pursuant 

to section 802( c) of the P AEA, retained an independent actuarial firm to 

assess the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) calculation of the Postal 

Service's share of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pension assets 

and liabilities, which also included a review of the methodology proposed in a 

Postal Service Office of Inspector General study. After a thorough review, the 

Commission issued the report prepared by Segal on June 29, 2010. The report 

suggested that the methodology used to determine the Postal Service's share 

of the CSRS pension fund does not follow current private sector accounting 

standards. If it did, it would reflect Postal Service overpayments of $50-55 

billion. While OPM concedes some principle findings of the Segal report, it 

will not release any of the CSRS funding in question- absent a legislative 

directive to do so. 

The Commission has also approved Market Tests of experimental Postal 

Service products, and encourages the Postal Service to exercise its pricing 

t1exibility wherever prudent. 

In short the Commission- with all due diligence- should fulfill its lawful 

oversight responsibilities outlined in the PAEA, including reviewing the 

Postal Service's universal service obligation and other statutory requirements, 

in a manner that does not compromise the flexibilities afforded to the Postal 

Service by law. 

b. How does this differ from the role of the Postal Board of Governors or the role of 

Congress? 

The Postal Board of Governors, akin to a corporate board of directors, sets 

organizational goals and policy. They broadly direct Postal Service activities 

managed by Postal Service executive leadership. The Commission on the 

other hand is responsible for developing an independent, primarily after-thePage 14 of33 
110 

fact, review of Postal Service finances, operations and activities as provided in 

title 39. 

Through legislation, Congress established the framework for the relative roles 

of both the Commission and the Postal Board of Governors. Congress's 

authority over both is paramount. 

25. In the PRC's Financial Analysis Report for FY 2015, the Commission stated that the 

Postal Service has "made significant efforts to reduce operating expenses and improve 

efficiency to ensure that expenses are better aligned with mail volumes." 

a. What additional steps do you believe the Postal Service should take that do not 

require Congressional action to improve its financial condition? 

The Postal Service should consider further review of its performance 

standards for all classes of delivery to explore changes in the existing modern 

service standards to help better capture savings and control costs while still 

meeting community and business expectations. 

In addition, in the Commission's FY 2014 Annual Compliance Determination 

(ACD), the Commission issued directives to the Postal Service for products 

comprised of Hats to improve service performance results during FY 2015 or 

explain why efforts to improve performance were ineffective and identify 

further planned changes to improve those results. In its FY 2015 ACD, the 

Commission found flats products remained substantially below their targets, 

and in all but one ease, the performance results declined. In FY 2015, the 

attributable costs of two products consisting of Hats, Outside County 

Periodicals and Standard Mail Flats, combined to exceed revenues by over $1 

billion. The ACD further notes that the Postal Service's related efforts to 

improve Hats performance and profitability are ongoing. As a result, the 

Commission required the Postal Service to provide a report on Hats issues 

within 120 days that quantifies what the Commission understands to be the 

main drivers of these significant and ongoing service failures and cost issues. 

The Commission is currently evaluating the report and may usc the 

information provided to form the basis for establishing a new proceeding or 

other appropriate action. 

b. What legislative changes do you believe Congress should consider to help 

improve the Postal Service's financial condition? 

Both the Senate and House of Representatives have postal reform legislation 

pending before it that include several provisions worthy of careful 

consideration. 

Page 15 of33 
111 

The P AEA set a unique, and what appears to be an overly-ambitious, 

timeframe for the Postal Service to prefund its Retiree Health Benefit Fund 

obligations. This view is supported by independent findings developed, as 

authorized by statute, by Commission consultant The Mercer Group in its 

expe11 review of the Postal Service's health benefit funding methodology. 

Also, at the Postal Service's request and as authorized by law, the 

Commission retained an independent actuarial firm to assess the Office of 

Personnel Management's (OPM) calculation of the Postal Service's share of 

the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pension assets and liabilities, 

which also included a review of the methodology proposed in a Postal Service 

Office oflnspector General study. After a thorough review, the Commission 

issued the report prepared by Segal on June 29,2010. The report suggested 

that the methodology used to determine the Postal Service's share of the 

CSRS pension fund does not follow current private sector accounting 

standards. !fit did, it would reflect Postal Service overpayments of$50-55 

billion. 

Responsible adjustments to one or both of these obligations could provide the 

short term financial stability the Postal Service needs to restructure its 

operations as Congress considers possible changes to the Postal Service's 

business model. 

In facilitating long term change, Congress may wish to consider: 

o Although the Commission will be conducting its review of its system for 

regulating rates and classes of service for Market Dominant pricing, 

Congress may wish to consider further changes to the PAEA postal 

pricing model providing active input from the postal community. 

o Removal of the requirement for six-day delivery remains on the table, yet 

only in light of the Commission's Advisory Opinion findings concerning 

costs and services impacts of such a change, any such change must be 

tempered by ensuring that rural, remote and non-contiguous areas of the 

Nation continue to have adequate service. 

26. In your view, how can the Postal Service return to viability in a market in which ecommerce and electronic communication and payments are increasing and mail volume 

is declining? What role do you believe the PRC should play in shaping the future Postal 

Service given these rapid changes? 

Despite an environment where new and emerging technologies offer faster, often 

cheaper communication alternatives, the need for postal service products remain 

Page 16 of 33 
112 

significant, especially in delivery of mail for the last mile. In even a resized 

market segment, the Postal Service still delivered 154.1 billion pieces of mail in 

FY 2015. In a broad sense, the Postal Service is in the midst of a challenging 

right-sizing period wherein its legacy "supply" capabilities are coming to terms 

with a new "demand" model. Adjusting Postal Service institutional resources to 

meet its modern niche will help ensure sustainability. As the Postal Service 

makes critically needed operational, infrastructural market presence and product 

pricing adjustments, the call for active Commission engagement is perhaps more 

crucial now than ever before. 

As one example, it is imperative for the Postal Service to take appropriate action 

to end the growing Standard Mail intra-class cross subsidy as the Commission has 

directed every year since its 2010 Annual Compliance Determination. The Postal 

Service has the flexibility to achieve this through cost-cutting, price adjusting (or 

both), or the introduction of proven new methodologies, but meaningful progress 

toward improved cost coverage is needed. In addition, the Commission continues 

to monitor Postal Service pricing and encourage the development of new core 

products and strategies to maximize profit while maintaining adequate service to 

the Nation. 

27. Since enactment ofPAEA, the PRC has interpreted the term "non-postal service" through 

consideration of various USPS proposals for new products and services. 

a. Do you believe the Postal Service should be allowed to compete with the private 

sector? If so, under what circumstances? 

Under current law, the PAEA limits the Postal Service's authority to provide 

"nonpostal services" to those that it offered as of January 1, 2006. 39 U.S.C. 

§ 404( e )(2). The P AEA defines "postal service" to mean "the delivery of 

letters, printed matter, or mailable packages, including acceptance, collection, 

sorting, transportation, or other functions ancillary thereto[.]" !d.§ 102(5). 

"Nonpostal service" is defined as "any service that is not a postal service 

defined under section 102(5)." Jd. § 404(e)(l). The PAEA requires the 

Commission to "review each nonpostal service offered by the Postal Service" 

on the date that the PAEA was enacted (December 20, 2006) to determine 

whether it should continue. !d.§ 404(e)(3). In its analysis, the Commission 

must take into account "(A) the public need for the service; and (B) the ability 

of the private sector to meet the public need for the servicc."Jd. On April 12, 

2012, the Commission resolving remaining inconsistencies identified by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As such, 

any new non-postal products would be prohibited under current law. 

Page 17 of33 
113 

Competitive products offered by the Postal Service compete with the private 

sector, but must comply with 39 U.S.C. 3633, where Market Dominant 

products are prohibited from subsidizing Competitive products, each 

Competitive product must cover its costs, and ensure that Competitive 

products as a whole contribute an appropriate share of the institutional costs of 

the Postal Service. The Commission has determined that 5.5 percent is the 

appropriate share for the Postal Service and will be conducting another review 

to determine whether the institutional costs contribution requirement should 

be retained in its current form, modified, or eliminated. 

These requirements imposed on Competitive products help to provide some 

assurance that the Postal Service does not have an unfair competitive 

advantage over the private sector. 

b. What concerns, if any, do you have about such efforts? 

If the Postal Service is allowed to offer new non-postal services, a powerful 

regulatory presence is needed to guard against misuse of monopoly status to 

promote unfair competition, and to prevent the Postal Service from 

"poaching" private sector business initiatives. 

c. What role do you believe the PRC should play in the introduction or pricing of 

new products? 

It is Postal Service management's role to develop, price, and request 

regulatory review new postal products. 

As the regulatory, the role the Commission should play in the introduction or 

pricing of new products has been established by 39 U.S.C. 3642, and 

depending on whether or not the product is Market Dominant or Competitive 

determines what other requirements must be met. 

For Market Dominant products 

o Ensure the price cap is not pierced 

o Rates cover attributable costs 

o If any workshare discounts are offered, that these discounts do not exceed 

avoided costs 

For Competitive productso Ensure costs are covered 

o No cross subsidy from Market Dominant product to Competitive product 

Postal Ratemaking 

Pagel8of33 
114 

28. During consideration of the P AEA, there was debate about the impact of a strict 

consumer-inflation-based rate cap. In your opinion, how has the rate cap helped the 

Postal Service, the mailing community, and postal customers? How has the rate cap hurt 

these groups? 

My overall impression is that the rate cap has effectively driven greater Postal 

Service cost efficiencies. Yet, despite the success of the price cap in driving 

savings, cost cuts and other actions have not kept pace with Postal Service 

obligations such as prefunding its Retiree Health Benefits Fund. 

I have previously stated that there are specific provisions that I believe need 

attention. Two primary goals of the P AEA were to offer mailers greater 

predictability of rates and planned rate adjustments, while a1Tording the Postal 

Service a higher level of pricing flexibility. The PAEA has been most successful 

in terms of achieving the former, while pursuing the latter is more challenging. 

Going forward, the Commission should continue to work with the Postal Service 

ru1d the postal community in exploring additional approaches which could 

encourage the Postal Service to exercise greater pricing flexibility, in keeping 

with the spirit of the P AEA. 

ln this pursuit, on December 20, 2016, the Commission intends to issue an Order 

that will institute the I 0-year review of system for regulating rates and cases of 

service for Market Dominant products. The Order will establish a timeframe 

within which the Conunission expects to complete its review, and will create 

opportunities for public comment. The deadline for comments is expected to be 

in early spring of2017, and by early autumn of2017, the Commission anticipates 

issuing an Order which will include its findings and, if necessary, preparatory 

rule-making information for any proposed changes to the system. 

29. Cu!Tent proposed postal reform legislation includes an increase in the base rate for 

market dominant products. In your view, what drawbacks and advantages exist to 

increasing postal rates through legislation, rather than through the existing ratemaking 

process? 

Drawbacks: Congress may not have at hand the legal and technical resources 

needed to thoroughly assess rate base adjustments and consequences. 

Advantages: Congress does control the full spectrum of fundamental business 

model changes that may be needed to enact balanced reform. 

30. In December 2016, the PRC will begin the review of the rate-cap system, as required by 

the P AEA. What do you view is a reasonable time frame for completing this review? 

Does the PRC have the resources to complete the review? Please explain. 

Page 19 of33 
115 

At the Commission's quarterly public meeting on September I, 2016, the 

Commission outlined its preliminary plans for the upcoming review of the 

existing ratemaking system. On December 20,2016, the Commission intends to 

issue an Order that will initiate the I 0-year review of the system for regulating the 

rates and elasses of service for Market Dominant products. The Order will 

establish a timeframc within which the Commission expects to complete its 

review, and will create opportunities for public comment. The deadline for 

comments is expected to be in early spring of 2017, and by early autumn of 2017, 

the Commission anticipates issuing an Order which will include its findings and, 

if necessary, preparatory rule-making information for any proposed changes to the 

system. 

31. As Commissioner, how will you balance the objectives and factors of the review as 

required by 39 U.S.C. § 3622? Do you believe certain objectives or factors should be 

weighted above others? 

I believe it would be premature for me to comment on such matters as my views 

in these matters will be informed and shaped by the comments and information 

provided to the Commission during the public proceedings to be instituted later 

this year. 

32. The Postal Service lost $1.2 billion from underwater products in 2015 despite the exigent 

increase in January 2014. Since 2008, it has lost $3.9 billion in Standard Flats alone. 

How would you fix the cost coverage problem of underwater products? 

For "underwater" products, the Postal Service has not always given these products 

adequate rate adjustments to move closer toward making institutional 

contributions or breaking even. Part of the Postal Service's financial problem lies 

in pricing imbalances. As the regulator, an important key element to crafting a 

workable solution is to learn more about the nature of the problem. 

In our FY 2010 Annual Compliance Determination (ACD), the Commission 

identified 10 Market Dominant products and services with revenue that did not 

cover attributable costs, including flats, periodicals, and non-profit mail, totaling 

$!.7 billion in losses. For the first time ever, the Commission found rates not in 

compliance with the statute, and directed the Postal Service to take action to end 

the intra-class cross subsidy for Standard Mail Flats as soon as practicable. In the 

Commission's FY 2014 ACD, the Commission issued directives to the Postal 

Service for products comprised of flats to improve service performance results 

during FY 2015 or explain why efTorts to improve performance were ineffective 

and identify fmther planned changes to improve those results. 

In its FY 2015 ACD, the Commission found flats products remained substantially 

below their targets, and in all but one case, the performance results declined. In 

Page 20 of33 
116 

FY 2015, the attributable costs of two products consisting of flats, Outside County 

Periodicals and Standard Mail Flats, combined to exceed revenues by over $1 

billion. The ACD further notes that the Postal Service's related efforts to improve 

flats performance and profitability are ongoing. As a result, the Commission 

required the Postal Service to provide a report on flats issues within 120 days that 

quantifies what the Commission understands to be the main drivers of these 

significant and ongoing service failures and cost issues. The Commission is 

currently evaluating the report and may use the information provided to form the 

basis for establishing a new proceeding or other appropriate action. 

Service Standards and Other f'eiformance Obligations 

33. Debates about postal reform legislation raise fundamental questions about the role of the 

Postal Service in our nation, including the nature of the Postal Service's universal service 

obligation. 

a. What is your view of the Postal Service's universal service obligation? 

As the Commission found in the 2008 Report on Universal Service and the 

Postal Monopoly, the USO is defined by a variety of core elements including 

geographic scope, access, delivery, pricing, quality and range of products. 

The Postal Service must provide an accessible communications charrnel for all 

U.S. and territorial residents at affordable, uniform pricing. 

b. Do you believe the concept of universal service has evolved since the 2008 

report? If so, how? How do you believe USPS can adapt to meet that obligation? 

Yes, the dynamic core elements of the USO- geographic scope, access, 

delivery, pricing, quality and range of products- develop, often independently 

as time and technology advance. The powerful emergence of the Internet and 

social media as factors in the USO consideration is primarily, at this point at 

least, one of access- most importantly uniformity (or prevalence) of access. 

The Commission's work on the USO provides a solid framework for future 

consideration of precisely how these changing components may be developing 

and interacting to impact the totality of the USO. 

c. In your view, what is the PRC's role in preserving universal service? 

The Commission's role in preserving universal service is to ensure that the 

postal operator, in accommodating a changing postal landscape, endeavors to 

maintain a proper balance of the several central aspects of the universal 

service obligation. 

Page 21 of33 
117 

d. What PRC decisions or opinions have you been involved in that uphold the Postal 

Service's responsibility to provide universal service, and what has been your view 

about the universal service obligation in deciding these cases? Should the PRC 

encourage use of the complaint process? 

Any person may file a complaint with the Commission, as its complaint 

pwcess is open to alL 

Given that the Commission has identified the core elements of the universal 

service obligation (USO) to include geographic scope, access, delivery, 

pricing, quality and range of products, nearly every impottant postal 

regulatory action or finding impacts some element of the USO. The exigent 

case, for example, affected pricing. The elimination of Saturday delivery 

Advisory Opinion would affect delivery. Post Office closing appeals affect 

access. The "postal" verses "nonpostal" products determination affects the 

range of products offered. This expression of comprehensive concern is the 

nature of universal service. 

34. What do you believe should be the PRC's role in establishing performance standards for 

postal products and services and for monitoring the Postal Service's results in meeting 

these standards? Do you believe that the Postal Service has sufficient business incentives 

to provide good service? If yes why, if no why not? 

As required by the P AEA, the Postal Service established modern service 

standards and has consulted closely and regularly with the Commission 

throughout the process. Reasonable service standards should be reflective of 

consumer needs. Since Market Dominant product customers have no alternate 

service provider, meaningful consultation with stakeholders is essential to 

accurately assess and meet their needs. The Commission conducted public 

outreach through field hearing and reviewed formal public filings in the 

Commission's docket. Additionally, the Commission through our observation at 

Mailers Technical Advisory Committee discussions, representation at public 

forums and meetings with individual mailers, has taken an active approach in the 

establishment of modern service standards (39 U.S. C. 3691) measurement. 

Recently in the FY 2015 Annual Compliance Determination, the Commission 

found that the majority of products failed to meet their service performance 

targets for FY 2015. While the Postal Service met its service performance targets 

for High Density and Saturation Letters, Standard Mail Parcels, Bound Printed 

Matter Parcels, Media Mail/Library Mail, and most Special Services products, 

service performance results for all First-Class Mail products, both Periodicals 

products, most products in Standard Mail, and Bound Printed Matter Flats did not 

meet their targets despite Postal Service initiatives to improve performance. The 

Page 22 of33 
118 

Commission found service performance results for flats products during FY 2015 

remained substantially below their targets, and in all but one case, the 

performance results declined. The Commission also found that the Postal 

Service's plans to improve service performance results, where provided for 

certain products pursuant to the FY 2014 ACD directives, are not adequate to 

address the service performance issues. 

As a result, with respect to First-Class Single-Piece Flats, First-Class Presort 

Flats, Periodicals In-County, Periodicals Outside County, Standard Mail Flats, 

Standard Mail Carrier Route, and Bound Printed Matter Flats, the Commission 

found that additional information regarding service performance is needed, and 

directed the Postal Service to provide a repmi. 

Also, in the FY 2015 ACD, the Commission indicated its concern with the 

dramatic decline of service performance for First-Class Mail Single-Piece 

Letters/Postcards with a 3-5-Day service standard and determined that First-Class 

Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards did not meet its service performance target 

and, therefore, was not in compliance. The Postal Service must provide an 

explanation in the FY 2016 ACR identifying specific efforts targeted to improve 

service performance results for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in 

FY 2016. It must also provide a detailed, comprehensive plan to improve service 

performance for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards within 90 days of 

issuance of that ACD. 

The Commission's role, monitoring the Postal Service results, sufl'ers from 

insufficient data. Despite the Postal Service's assurance that Intelligent Mail 

barcode (1Mb) data would provide robust data for analyses, the IMb platform has 

not yet achieved its anticipated potential. 

Lastly, as a service provider it is incumbent upon the Postal Service to provide 

standards of service that meets customers' needs. If this does not happen, volume 

will fall with corresponding decrease in revenue. 

35. The Postal Service continues to face the problem of reducing costs while also 

maintaining fast and reliable service. In your opinion, how can the PRC help the Postal 

Service try to find this balance? 

The Commission can help the Postal Service find a balance between reducing 

costs and maintaining fast and reliable service by assisting the Postal Service in 

identifying needed metrics and developing relevant and robust data systems that 

help address costing questions and delivery delays. 

Page 23 of33 
119 

36. The PRC found that in 2015 the Postal Service did not meet its service performance 

targets for all of First-Class Mail products, both Periodical Class products, most products 

in Standard Mail and Bound Printed Matter Flats. How concerned is the PRC with the 

current decline in service performance? How can the PRC make sure that a customer of 

the Postal Service receives the service it is paying for? How do you feel delays in service 

impact the price of postage? 

The Commission is extremely concerned about the current decline in service 

performance. 

In the Commission's FY 2015 Annual Compliance Determination (ACD), the 

Commission found that the majority of products failed to meet their service 

performance targets for FY 2015. While the Postal Service met its service 

performance targets for High Density and Saturation Letters, Standard Mail 

Parcels, Bound Printed Matter Parcels, Media Mail/Library Mail, and most 

Special Services products, service performance results for all First-Class Mail 

products, both Periodicals products, most products in Standard Mail, and Bound 

Printed Matter Flats did not meet their targets despite Postal Service initiatives to 

improve performance. The Commission found service performance results for 

flats products during FY 2015 remained substantially below their targets, and in 

all but one case, the performance results declined. The Commission also found 

that the Postal Service's plans to improve service performance result~, where 

provided for certain products pursuant to the FY 2014 ACD directives, are not 

adequate to address the service performance issues. 

As a result, with respect to First-Class Single-Piece Flats, First-Class Presort 

Flats, Periodicals In-County, Periodicals Outside County, Standard Mail Flats, 

Standard Mail Carrier Route, and Bound Printed Matter Flats, the Commission 

found that additional information regarding service performance is needed, and 

directed the Postal Service to provide a report. 

In addition, in the FY 2015 ACD, the Commission indicated its concern with the 

dramatic decline of service performance tor First-Class Mail Single-Piece 

Letters/Postcards with a 3-5-Day service standard and determined that First-Class 

Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards did not meet its service performance target 

and, therefore, was not in compliance. The Postal Service must provide an 

explanation in the FY 2016 ACR identifying specific efforts targeted to improve 

service performance results for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in 

FY 20 J 6. It must also provide a detailed, comprehensive plan to improve service 

performance for First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards within 90 days of 

issuance of that ACD. 

Page 24 of33 
120 

3 7. Given the growing shortfalls in on-lime performance for First-Class Mail Flats since 

2011, in your opinion, what is the PRC's role in making sure the Postal Service meets the 

service performance standards it sets? 

The Commission's role in making sure the Postal Service meets the service 

performance standards it sets is to ensure transparency and thereby foster 

accountability. In this respect, the Commission, for First-Class Single-Piece 

Flats, First-Class Preso1i Flats, Periodicals In-County, Periodicals Outside 

County, Standard Mail Flats, Standard Mail Carrier Route, and Bound Printed 

Matter Flats, found that additional information regarding service performance is 

needed, and directed the Postal Service to provide a report. 

The Commission also indicated in its FY 2015 Annual Compliance Determination 

(ACD) that it is concerned with the dramatic decline of service performance for 

First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards with a 3-5-Day service standard 

and determined that First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards did not meet 

its service performance target and, therefore, was not in compliance. The Postal 

Service must provide an explanation in the FY 2016 ACR identifying specific 

efforts targeted to improve service performance results for First-Class Mail 

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in FY 2016. It must also provide a detailed, 

comprehensive plan to improve service performance for First-Class Mail SinglePiece Letters/Postcards within 90 days of issuance of that ACD. 

38. The PAEA requires the Postal Service to consult with the PRC in establishing modem 

service standards, as well as in modifying the standards and planning for future standards. 

How do you believe this consultation should be carried out? What additional value, if 

any, do you believe the PRC can bring to this process? Do you believe PRC consultation 

has been effective thus far? If yes why, if no why not? 

Generally speaking and in my personal experience, the mandate included by 

Congress in the P AEA calling for consultation between the agencies when 

addressing specific reform directives (such as the development of modern service 

standards for instance) has proven critically important. I believe that this 

statutory requirement has permitted, encouraged and indeed forced a more 

productive exchange of ideas and thought, and driven an environment of shared 

information that 1 am not convinced would otherwise have developed to the same 

degree. 

In that regard, the consultations between Postal Service officers and 

Commissioners regarding service standards does have a value in 

Commission/Postal Service communications by permitting the Commission to 

become beiter informed regarding broad operational decisions. These discussion, 

I believe, also atlord top Postal Service management with a first-hand view of the 

Page 25 of33 
121 

regulators priorities. I look forward to continuing discussions, whenever possible, 

that lead to better understanding. 

In addition, the Advisory Opinion process provides a needed forum for 

community input. In particular, the Commission's Advisory Opinions regarding 

the Postal Service Station and Branch Optimization and Consolidation Initiative 

and the Postal Service's plan to eliminate Saturday delivery, provided informative 

insight to the Postal Service regarding these proposals. 

o In N201 1-1 (Retail Access Optimization Initiative), the Commission 

advised the Postal Service to ensure access to postal services in rural 

communities, explore more robust modeling techniques, and improve data 

collection efforts. 

o In N2012-J (Mail Processing Network Rationalization), the Commission 

found that the Postal Service could realize substantial cost savings while 

preserving most overnight mail delivery. 

o In N2012-2 (Post Office Structure Plan), the Commission concluded that 

if implemented properly, the realignment of retail hours should help 

balance service and cost savings in a manner consistent with the law. 

39. In your view, what degree of transparency should the Postal Service provide to Congress, 

mailers, and the public on delivery performance goals and general quality of delivery 

services? Do you believe the PRC has sufficient information to monitor service quality? 

The Commission's role in making sure the Postal Service meets the service 

performance standards it sets is to ensure transparency and thereby foster 

accountability. In this respect, the Commission, for First-Class Single-Piece 

Flats, First-Class Presort Flats, Periodicals In-County, Periodicals Outside 

County, Sta11dard Mail Flats, Standard Mail Carrier Route, and Bound Printed 

Matter Flats, found that additional information regarding service performance is 

needed, and directed the Postal Service to provide a repOit. 

The Commission also indicated in its FY 2015 Annual Compliance Determination 

(ACD) that it is concerned with the dramatic decline of service performance for 

First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards with a 3-5-Day service standaTd 

and determined that First-Class Mail Single-Piece Letters/Postcards did not meet 

its service performance target and, therefore, was not in compliance. The Postal 

Service must provide an explanation in the FY 2016 ACR identifying specific 

efforts targeted to improve service performance results for First-Class Mail 

Single-Piece Letters/Postcards in FY 2016. It must also provide a detailed, 

Page 26 of33 
122 

comprehensive plan to improve service performance for First-Class Mail SinglePiece Letters/Postcards within 90 days of issuance of that ACD. 

40. In March 2011, the PRC issued an advisory opinion about the USPS's proposal to reduce 

delivery to five days per week. In its opinion, the PRC identified many shortcomings in 

the USPS's proposal, including a lack of consideration for the dispropmiionatc efiect the 

proposal would have in rural areas. 

a. What is the role of the PRC in mail delivery service frequency dete1minations? 

The Commission's role in mail delivery service frequency determination 

should be to inform the decision makers in Congress concerning what the 

likely consequences of eliminating Saturday mail delivery would be 

throughout the Nation, including rural, remote and non-contiguous areas. 

In the Commission's Advisory Opinion on the Postal Service's proposal to 

eliminate Saturday delivery, the Commission found that a likely outcome 

would be fewer savings and a greater impact on service than anticipated by 

the Postal Service. Most troubling for me, however, was the Commission's 

view that the Postal Service may not have adequately evaluated the impact of 

its proposal on customers who reside or conduct business in rural, remote, or 

non-contiguous areas. In addition, the Commission found that the Postal 

Service's contention that broadband Internet access would effectively fill the 

gap in serving this population was unrealistic at current penetration levels. 

With that in mind, the Commission also found greater access to, and adoption 

of, new and emerging technologies should help bridge this gap over time. 

Accordingly, the circumstances under which I believe that Congress should 

allow the Postal Service more flexibility to reduce the frequency of mail 

delivery includes a greater availability and adoption of electronic or other 

alternative access capabilities throughout the Nation. I should note that the 

Postal Service, over the course of the development of its proposal for the 

elimination of Saturday delivery, demonstrated a willingness and capability to 

adapt its plan to address key business concerns. For example, the Postal 

Service has proposed accommodations for Saturday package delivery and 

remittance mail users. Perhaps an arrangement could be made to ensure that 

rural, remote and non-contiguous customers receive an appropriate, if not 

similar level of service. 

b. Do you believe the PRC's opinion on this matter should be binding rather than 

advisory? Please explain. 

Given all of the above, a change in the frequency of the Nation's postal 

delivery from six days to five is in my view, certainly an issue of sufficient 

Page 27 of 33 
123 

magnitude to warrant Congressional determination. This is an instance, 

however, where I feel that, should Congress so decide, the Commission is the 

governmental agency most suited to render that binding judgment. 

While the Postal Service elected to respond to the Commission's Advisory 

Opinion on the elimination of Saturday delivery, some have suggested that the 

Postal Service should be required to respond before initiating its proposals. l 

agree that this would provide greater transparency into Postal Service 

decisions. 

41. Many postal stakeholders have raised concerns about the adequacy of the Service's 

financial transparency. The PAEA requires the Postal Service to meet the financial 

reporting requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. What is your opinion of this 

mandate and do you believe the Postal Service has satisfied this mandate? Are further 

improvements necessary to make Postal Service finances more transparent? If yes, what 

additional improvements are needed? 

The PAEA Sarbanes-Oxley reporting requirements have resulted in an 

improvement in transparency and substantial cost savings. The "SOX" 

requirements function in concert with P AEA policy driving the Postal Service to 

operate in a more business-like manner as well as ensuring greater transparency 

and accountability. The PAEA requires the Postal Service to report (for 

disclosure) to its regulator, financial and operational details in the same fashion as 

corporations report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

I believe that the Postal Service has met the P AEA Sarbanes-Oxley reporting 

requirement. All indications are that the SOX protocols are in full compliance 

and Postal Service management reports that SOX practices has proven to be a 

useful diagnostic management tool in identifying new opportunities for increasing 

operational (cost) efJ:iciencies. 

Page 28 of33 
124 

Post Office Closings and Relocations 

42. In your opinion, does the existing process for closing and relocating post offices 

adequately protect the interests of postal customers and the affected communities, 

especially in small towns and rural areas? If yes, how? If not, what additional protections 

do you believe are necessary? 

When the regulations and procedures established for the closing and relocating of 

post offices are properly thoroughly and consistently administered, yes. In my 

view, present protocol does afford postal customers and affected communities 

adequate opportunity to make their views and concerns known. The key here is in 

ensuring due process- that is the regulator's concern upon appeal. 

43. To what extent do you think the availability of postal services at alternative locations 

should be a key factor when considering closing or consolidating traditional retail 

facilities? 

Access to facilities is one aspect of the universal service obligation and the 

availability of service through appropriate alternatives should be a central 

consideration for the Postal Service before closing or consolidating traditional 

retail facilities. In that regard, workable alternative postal services including 

locations should be a key consideration in any Post Office closing- particularly 

in regard to those in rural and remote areas of the country. As a native 

Kentuckian, born and raised, I appreciate the special place that the Post Office 

occupies in many smaller rural/remote communities. Even more so than in urban 

areas, the Post Office plays a pivotal role in keeping both individuals and 

businesses connected in smaller rural/remote communities. The Commission in 

our Advisory Opinion regarding the elimination of Saturday delivery highlighted 

the disparate impact of such a service change in rural and remote America, and I 

believe that that effect conveys likewise to Post Office closings. Such special 

consideration stresses the need for the ready availability of alternative service in 

those locations where Post Offices are closed or relocated. 

44. Do you believe the Postal Service should have additional flexibility to more quickly and 

easily close post offices? If so, what impact do you believe this will have on the USPS's 

current retail network? 

Although the Postal Service has the authority to manage its network, any changes 

to the manner in which individual post office operations are terminated must 

ensure that the Postal Service meets its legal obligation to properly observe the 

need protocols for informing and engaging communities before, during and after 

the closure consideration process. Key considerations should include proper 

public input as well as suitable alternative access arrangements that adequately 

accommodate the universal service obligation. Any needed facility realignments 

Page 29 of 33 
125 

made in accordance with present rules and regulations, should work to promote 

both the vitality and viability of its retail network. 

45. Many members of the public have expressed a concern that the Postal Service does not 

adequately involve affected communities in the decision-making process for the closings 

of post offices and processing facilities. What are your views on this issue? 

If the Postal Service follows proper protocol, the process should be adequate. 

Indeed, it is the role of the Commission's "appeals" process to ensure that the 

Postal Service has administered a proper review. 

46. Are improvements needed to the PRC's appeals process related to closing and 

consolidating post offices? If yes, what specific changes do you believe are needed? If 

no, please explain why you believe the current process is viable. 

As one if its statutory requirements, the Commission will be conducting its 

second Section 701 Review ofihe PAEA, at which time, this issue may be 

considered during this review. 

47. In your opinion, does the existing process for closing and consolidating postal processing 

facilities adequately protect the interests of postal customers, especially those in small 

towns and rural areas? If not, what additional protections do you believe are necessary? 

The existing process for closing and/or consolidating postal mail processing 

facilities is determined by the Postal Service as appeals do not apply to the closing 

and/or consolidating postal mail processing facilities. However, if the Postal 

Service is making operational changes that could generally affect service on a 

substantially nationwide basis that involves the closing and/or consolidating 

postal mail processing facilities, the Postal Service is statutorily required to file a 

request for an Advisory Opinion. That was the case in N2012-l (Mail Processing 

Network Rationalization). Under the Postal Service's plan, 80 percent of all FirstClass Mail would be delayed by at least one day and service standards would be 

modified for Periodicals, Standard Mail and Package Services. The plan included 

cost savings from the consolidation of229 of its 461 processing plants. In its 

Advisory Opinion, the Commission found that the Postal Service could realize 

substantial cost savings while preserving most overnight mail delivery. It 

concluded that it was possible for the Postal Service to undertake significant 

network rationalization and realize substantial cost savings while preserving most 

current service levels. However, the Commission advised the Postal Service to 

consider alternatives that would preserve service levels before proceeding with 

full implementation. 

In addition, the Commission found that the Postal Service did not take full 

advantage of its network modeling tools and that its modeling effort could be 

Page 30 of33 
126 

improved by starting with a baseline model that is validated against known 

conditions, including actual plant productivities. The Commission found that the 

Postal Service should review its underlying assumption that larger plants process 

mail less expensively than smaller plants. The Commission also found that a 

network rationalization solution that shifts mail processing to plants that currently 

exhibit higher productivities than other plants should be considered. 

The Commission concluded that in order to capture the anticipated $1.6 billion 

net cost savings upon full implementation of the initiative, the Postal Service 

would have to improve average system-wide productivity by over 20 percent. The 

Commission cautioned that improvements of this magnitude are ambitious and 

involve some risk. 

The Commission estimated that the initiative's cost savings may be as low as $46 

million annually assuming mail processing productivities remain at current levels, 

or as high as $2 billion annually if all proposed assumptions prove correct, and 

that these cost savings may be offset by reduced contribution to the bottom line 

t!·om volume loss by mailers who no longer believe the level of service provided 

meets their postal needs. 

The Commission encouraged the Postal Service to study the effects of the service 

standard changes during the initial implementation phase to inform its decisions 

before going forward with full implementation. While these evaluations may not 

be cost free, given the magnitude of service changes contemplated, it is important 

for the Postal Service to proceed with accurate information. 

48. Should the PRC have greater input over the closures or consolidations of post offices or 

postal processing facilities? Why or why not? 

No. I do, however, believe that the Commission should hold responsibility to 

review, if requested by the community, post office closures to ensure proper 

adherence to relevant process and procedures. 

Again, any needed facility readjustments made in accordance with present rules 

and regulations, should work to promote both the vitality and viability of its retail 

network. It is already the Commission's role to guard against Postal Service 

shortcuts in managing such changes either through a post office appeal or an 

advisory opinion. In the end, it is my impression that many of postal service 

facility changes and the stresses inherent with these changes are not a 

consequence of lack of regulatory involvement, but instead are one "side effect" 

of a postal service business model in need of legislative reform akin to that now 

pending. In other words, meaningful postal service reform should lessen 

Page 31 of33 
127 

management's focus on aggressive cost containment measures such as proposed 

rural post office closures. 

V. Assistance 

49. Are these answers your own? Have you consulted with the l'RC or any other interested 

parties? If so, please indicate which entities. 

Yes. I have consulted with the Commission and staff. 

Page 32 of33 
128 

Æ 

Chairman Ron Johnson 

Supplcmentall'rc-hcaring Questionnaire 

For the Nomination of Mark Acton to be 

Commissioner, l'ostal Rcgulatot-y Commission 

I. 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? 

Yes, I agree without reservation to comply with any request or summons to 

appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if I am 

confirmed. 

2. Do you agree without reservation to comply fully, completely, and promptly to any 

request f(lr documents, communications, or any other agency material or information 

fi·om any duly constituted committee of the Congress if you are confirmed? 

Yes, agree without reservation to comply fully, completely, and promptly to any 

request for documents, communications, or any other agency material or 

information from any duly constituted committee of the Congress if I am 

conlirnwd. 

accurate, and complete. 

Page 33 of 33