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

91–172 PDF 2015

S. Hrg. 113–704 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. JAMES C. MILLER III, 

STEPHEN CRAWFORD, D. MICHAEL BENNETT, 

AND VICTORIA REGGIE KENNEDY TO BE 

GOVERNORS, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. JAMES C. MILLER III, STEPHEN CRAWFORD, 

D. MICHAEL BENNETT, AND VICTORIA REGGIE KENNEDY TO BE 

GOVERNORS, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 

JULY 14, 2014 

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 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Professional Staff Member 

KATHERINE C. SYBENGA, Senior Counsel 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH D. MOELLER, Minority U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Markey ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 39 

Senator Markey ................................................................................................ 41 

Senator Warren ................................................................................................ 43 

WITNESSES 

MONDAY, JULY 14, 2014 

Hon. James C. Miller, III, to be a Governor, U.S. Postal Service ....................... 6 

Stephen Crawford to be a Governor, U.S. Postal Service .................................... 8 

D. Michael Bennett to be a Governor, U.S. Postal Service .................................. 10 

Victoria Reggie Kennedy to be a Governor, U.S. Postal Service ......................... 13 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bennett, D. Michael: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 130 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 146 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 150 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 165 

Crawford, Stephen: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 95 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 105 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 109 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 125 

Kennedy, Victoria Reggie: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 169 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 191 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 196 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 213 

Miller, Hon. James C., III.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 52 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 72 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 77 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 91 

(1) 

PENDING NOMINATIONS FOR GOVERNORS, 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 

MONDAY, JULY 14, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Carper. 

Also present: Senator Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER 

Chairman CARPER. The Committee will come to order, and that 

includes the former Senator from Connecticut who is sitting in the 

audience behind Senator Markey. 

Chris, nice to see you. I think all of us were for Vicki until you 

and Eddie showed up. [Laughter.] 

It will be a close call on that. We will see if we cannot get it 

through and try to get it done. 

Senator Markey, I do not know what kind of timeframe that you 

are on, but if you can give me some flavor, I want to be respectful 

of your time. 

I am going to give a statement for about the next probably 45 

minutes. [Laughter.] 

Probably the next 5 or 6 minutes and then introduce our nominees. 

And at some point in time, if you would like, you can go first in 

introducing Ms. Kennedy, or you can go later. What works for you? 

Senator MARKEY. Whatever is most convenient for you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Aren’t you nice? 

Senator MARKEY. Honestly, I am at your discretion. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. That was very senatorial, I thought. 

All right. Let me just give my statement. 

And Senator Coburn is flying in from Oklahoma. I think his 

plane will be in around a little before 3:30, and he will join us as 

quickly as he can. 

But we are meeting today to consider four nominations, as you 

know, to fill vacancies on the U.S. Postal Service’s Board of Governors—important positions. We are considering these nominations 

at what is a very challenging time for the Postal Service. 

I like to quote Albert Einstein. He used to say, in adversity lies 

opportunity. 
2 

And, while there is adversity for the United States Postal Service 

(USPS) now and in the last several years, there is great opportunity as well, and we will talk a little bit about that when we get 

underway. 

The Postal Service operates at the center of a massive printing, 

delivery, and logistics industry that employs millions of people. I 

have heard as many as seven or eight million people. And, even as 

First-Class Mail, like letters, greeting cards and even wedding invitations are losing ground to other forms of communication, I think 

the future is bright for the Postal Service in a number of ways. Advertising mail is still a popular and effective option for mail as we 

are reminded every day when we check our mail. E-commerce and 

package delivery are also booming, making the Postal Service a 

vital partner for businesses both large and small. Even the Postal 

Service’s traditional competitors rely on it to carry items the last 

mile, to the last 5 miles, or the last 10 miles or even further to 

rural communities around our country. 

For years, many people have questioned whether the Postal Service has a future. These developments that I have mentioned tell 

me, at least, that it does and potentially a very bright one. But all 

of this is at risk if those of us here in Congress continue to prove 

incapable of making the kind of tough decisions necessary to make 

the Postal Service competitive in the years to come. As important 

as the Board of Governors is, Congress holds the keys to the Postal 

Service’s future. The men and women on the Board—including 

those before us today, should they be confirmed—have little chance 

of success unless we do our jobs and pass comprehensive postal reform legislation. 

The Postal Service today carries barely enough cash to make 

payroll. Its line of credit with the Treasury, as you may know, is 

maxed out at $15 billion. And it has been incapable for years of 

making capital investments, including the technological investments necessary to compete with an United Parcel Service (UPS) 

or a Federal Express (FedEx). Things are so bad that the Postal 

Service has letter carriers on the streets today driving inefficient, 

sometimes unsafe vehicles that guzzle gas, break down, and are 

older than a lot of members of my staff. That is just not acceptable. 

Some observers point to the boom in package delivery and the 

fact that the Postal Service occasionally makes a small operating 

profit and say, well, things are OK, while they argue that tough 

decisions are not necessary and that we should be happy with a 

Postal Service that just limps along. 

For me, that is not acceptable. 

For Dr. Coburn, far be it for me to speak for him, but that is not 

acceptable to him either. 

The Postal Service is not acceptable to the majority of this Committee either. 

The Postal Service is just one major international crisis, one recession, or one big spike in gas prices away from failure. On top 

of that, with a few tools at their disposal and their efforts to keep 

the Postal Service afloat, postal management announced just the 

other week that it would be closing an additional 82 mail processing plants across our country and further slowing down mail delivery in every community in the country. 
3 

This comes after the loss of about half the Postal Service’s mail 

processing capacity in recent years. At a time when the future 

holds so much promise for the Postal Service, this is a potentially 

devastating blow that will further sap the confidence the public has 

in the Postal Service and its ability to remain relevant. If we want 

a Postal Service that our constituents can rely on, that families can 

rely on, that businesses can rely on, and one that has a chance of 

continuing the progress that we have seen made in package delivery, we need to pass a bill—not just any bill, a bill that looks a 

lot like the one that has been reported out by a strong margin in 

this Committee and sent to the full Senate. 

I think our Committee has done its work on this issue to date. 

In February, as I said earlier, we sent a bill to the full Senate that 

would save the Postal Service billions of dollars in pension and 

health care costs, including by allowing it to take full advantage of 

the investment its employers have made over the years in Medicare. 

The Postal Service pays more money into Medicare than any employer in the country. They do not get full value for that, and it 

is not fair. There is a serious equity problem there. Our legislation 

would also provide the Postal Service with an immediate cash infusion through a refund of its overpayment in the Federal employee 

retiree system and free it to compete in new lines of business. More 

importantly, our legislation will preserve existing service standards, including the 82 plants and Saturday mail delivery, at least 

for the time being, until a lot of the reforms have had a chance to 

bear fruit, to raise revenues and hopefully provide a profitable future for the Postal Service. 

I think our legislation is a solid, comprehensive, and realistic response to a very real crisis. In my opinion, it is the only one introduced in the House or Senate, in recent years at least, that would 

actually work. 

And Dr. Coburn and I, and I think the majority of our Committee, are interested and are committed to fixing this problem. 

This is one that can be fixed, and we are determined to do that, 

working with all the key stakeholders who care about this issue. 

The Postal Service has indicated that the legislation would give 

it the cash needed to pay down debt, account for its pension and 

health care obligations, invest in capital, and still have as much as 

$7 billion or more in cash on hand after 10 years. 

I think that is a huge step forward especially when you are 

thinking about a fleet of vehicles across the country. I think a couple hundred thousand vehicles in the fleet. I think the average age 

is over 20 years. They are fuel-inefficient. They are energy-inefficient. They are not configured to be able to carry a lot of packages 

and parcels. 

The mail processing equipment—a lot of the mail processing centers are a generation old, 20 years old. It is not well suited for 

packages and parcels. 

We need to help recapitalize the Postal Service, and the legislation that we have reported out of here will do that, I think, with 

$30 billion available in capital investments for the next 10 years 

or so. 
4 

We look forward to talking with our nominees today about what 

they think needs to be done to address the challenges facing the 

Postal Service, and the skills they think they bring to the table. If 

confirmed, this group of nominees would nearly double the size of 

the current Board. So there is an opportunity with this new injection of talent, combined with the enactment of a solid postal reform 

bill, to make significant progress in the very near future. 

And, with that having been said, what I think I will do is just 

introduce—Senator Markey, I am going to introduce Dr. Miller, 

and I will go first with him, then Stephen Crawford, and David 

Bennett. And then when I come to Ms. Kennedy, we will ask you 

to introduce her, and I may make a couple of ad libs on top of what 

you say. 

But let me just start off by, first of all, saying to all of you, 

thanks very much for your willingness to take on this important 

responsibility. 

James Miller is currently a senior advisor at the international 

law firm of Husch Blackwell. He is a member of the Board of 

Americans for Prosperity and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at the Stanford University. 

Earlier in his career, he was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the first Administrator of OMB’s 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

For you, no purgatory, straight to heaven. 

Mr. Miller has 8 years of prior experience in the position he is 

nominated for today, having served on the Board of Governors of 

the U.S. Postal Service from 2003 to 2011. 

He is itching to get back into the game. Well, I do not know that, 

but he is willing to get back into the game. 

Stephen Crawford, nice to see you. How are you? Mr. Crawford 

is a research professor at the George Washington Institute of Public Policy at George Washington University (GWU). 

And, previously, he served as Vice President for Policy and Research at the Corporation for Enterprise Development, and from 

2008 to 2009 he served as the Deputy Director of the Metropolitan 

Policy Program at the Brookings Institution. 

Mr. Crawford is a U.S. Army veteran, received a Bronze Star for 

his service as an infantry office in Vietnam. 

As somebody who spent a couple years over there myself while 

a naval flight officer, welcome home. It is great. Thanks for that 

service and for your willingness to service in this capacity. 

David Michael Bennett, Senior Vice President of Information 

Management and Chief Information Officer (CIO) of British Aerospace (BAE) Systems, a position he has held since 2010. Previously, 

he practiced law in various positions with Northrop Grumman, 

Electronic Data Systems (EDS) Corporation and the U.S. Department of Commerce. 

In 2012, he received the Minority Business Leader Award from 

the Washington Business Journal. 

Great to see you. Thanks for your willingness to be with us today 

and to assume this responsibility if confirmed. 

And to introduce our fourth nominee, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, 

is my friend, my colleague, Senator Ed Markey. 
5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARKEY 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much and 

thank you for allowing me to introduce my great friend, the incredibly talented Victoria Reggie Kennedy, who has been nominated by 

President Obama to serve on the Board of Governors of the United 

States Postal Service. 

Vicki Kennedy is a public service powerhouse for our country. A 

brilliant, gifted attorney, advisor and public servant, Vicki will be 

an outstanding member of the Postal Service Board of Governors. 

She will bring intellectual rigor, innovative and strategic ideas, 

leadership, and her endless energy to this post. Indeed, Vicki’s career is singularly suited to the Postal Service Board at a time when 

it needs public servants as dedicated and creative as Vicki. 

From our first Postmaster, Benjamin Franklin, to today, the 

Postal Service has been an integral part of our democracy. It 

pushes the frontiers of communication, rain or shine, through wartime and peace. 

Vicki will bring that same steadfast service to the Board and a 

wealth of expertise. When she was a partner at a major law firm, 

she helped banks reorganize and recapitalize. At a time when efficiency and funding are both issues for the USPS, her experience 

will be invaluable. 

Today, Vicki helps organizations develop strategies to resolve 

complex issues, and today’s Postal Service has no dearth of similar 

business matters to resolve. 

And like her husband, our beloved colleague, the legendary Senator Ted Kennedy, Vicki believes in the importance of helping government work at its best to serve the American people, and that 

is why she is the President of the Board and Co-Founder of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the U.S. Senate, created to educate 

the public about the unique role of the Senate in our democracy. 

Under Vicki’s leadership, this innovative hub of history will open 

next year, adjacent to the John F. Kennedy Library. The Institute 

will provide visitors a state-of-the-art, high-tech, interactive opportunity to learn lessons from America’s past and develop new ideas 

that can help shape a better future. 

She can do the same thing for the United States Postal Service. 

She is also a trustee of the Kennedy Center for the Performing 

Arts, a member of the Board of Overseers of the Museum of Fine 

Arts in Boston and a member of the Board of Directors of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management. 

She is a summa cum laude graduate of Tulane University School 

of Law, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Tulane University, and she 

has received honorary degrees from Boston University, Northeastern, University of Massachusetts, Suffolk University, on and 

on. And that is an impressive list of accolades and a testament to 

her intelligence, her character and her accomplishments. 

The Postal Service needs Vicki Kennedy. The Board needs talented, proven leaders who can assess the problems facing the 

USPS and creatively and capably help the Postal Service resolve 

those challenges. That is exactly who Vicki Kennedy is. 

We all greatly admire Vicki and have complete confidence in her. 

Vicki Kennedy will shine on the Board of Governors, and our country will be the better for her service. 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

All I can say, Vicki, is after listening to that introduction to our 

nominees, whenever I am nominated by some President someday, 

I want Ed Markey to introduce me, too. I figure even I could get 

confirmed with an introduction like that. 

Senator Markey, thank you so much. It was great to see you and 

then see over your left shoulder, my old friend, Chris Dodd. 

Chris, thank you very much for joining us. I know it means a lot. 

I always feel like I should ask you to come in here and sit with 

us, Senator Dodd, but I am told that is against the rules. But you 

know that is where my heart is. 

All right. I think before we proceed—and, Senator Markey, I 

know you have other things to do, if you need to leave. We should 

be done here by 9 tonight, but if you need to slip out before then, 

feel free to do that. 

Before we proceed with your statements, committee rules require 

that all witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony 

under oath. 

And I am going to ask if you all will please stand and raise your 

right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee 

will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; so 

help you, God? 

Mr. MILLER. I do. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I do. 

Mr. BENNETT. I do. 

Ms. KENNEDY. I do. 

Chairman CARPER. Please be seated. 

It is Dr. Miller, isn’t it? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, it is. 

Chairman CARPER. It is Dr. Miller. My staff keeps wanting to 

call you Mr. Miller. All that work—we are going to call you Doctor. 

But you are welcome to proceed with your statement. And if you 

want to introduce any family or friends here with you today, I 

would just invite you to do that; please feel free. 

Again, we are delighted that you are here that you are willing 

to serve once more in this capacity. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JAMES C. MILLER, III, TO BE 

A GOVERNOR, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I should point out that Mr. Jefferson once said there is no higher 

honor you can pay a man but to call him Mister and mean it. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting us here today. 

I have a prepared statement I ask to be included in the record.1

Chairman CARPER. Without objection. 

And one of my other favorite Jefferson quotes is if the people 

know the truth, they will not make a mistake. 

Is that not good? That is a good one for us these days. 

If people know the truth, they will not make a mistake. Please 

proceed. 
7 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

Thank you for your interest in the Postal Service. 

As you point out, the stress of the Postal Service brings forth opportunities. And the things you can do with this Committee, and 

the Senate can do and the House can do, can make the difference 

between restoring the Postal Service to a solid footing and seeing 

it become a very expensive ward of the State. 

And I commend you for the past—the progress on S. 1486. It is 

a very large step forward toward the goal of restoring the Postal 

Service. 

And, if you confirm me, I will work to obtain that end. I hope 

the House will pass a bill and that a conference bill will become 

law. 

I want to thank President Obama for nominating me, and thank 

Majority—Minority Leader McConnell for recommending me. 

Chairman CARPER. Now you are getting ahead of yourself just a 

little bit here. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER. And I would like to acknowledge the three distinguished individuals with whom I share this table, whom I have gotten to know in the last several months and admire. They will make 

splendid additions to the Board. 

As budget director for President Reagan, I think I knew the Hill 

pretty well, and I think most, Members of Congress knew me or 

knew of me. But that was over a quarter of a century ago. So let 

me tell you a little bit about myself. 

Since graduate school, I have pursued really four different careers, sometimes at the same time. 

The first was academic. I was trained as a college professor. I 

taught at two major universities, taught full-time, then part-time 

at several other universities. 

I have been associated with major think tanks—as you noted, the 

Hoover Institution but also Brookings and the American Enterprise 

Institute. I was on the Boards of the Air Force Academy and also 

the Board of George Mason University. Along the way, I have written 9 books and over 100 articles in professional journals. 

The second career was in the Federal Government. At the Department Transportation (DOT), I contributed to airline regulatory 

reform. At the Council of Economic Advisors, I wrote the chapter 

on regulation in the 1974 Economic Report of the President. At the 

Council on Wage and Price Stability, I made transparent the cost 

and benefits of regulation, back to your quote, Mr. Chairman. At 

the beginning of the Reagan Administration, I co-authored Executive Order 12291, which established the regulatory review program. I went over to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 

chaired the Federal Trade Commission for 4 years, and we put that 

agency back on the traditional path of law enforcement. I came 

back to be the Director of OMB, a member of the President’s Cabinet, and helped negotiate Gramm-Rudman-Hollings which brought 

the deficit down significantly and did other things there as well. As 

you have mentioned, I did serve a term at the Board of Governors 

of the U.S. Postal Service, where during the 3-years of my chairmanship my colleagues and I produced the Forever stamp, which 

I think has been a great success. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford appears in the Appendix on page 46. 

I had a career in elected politics that was not particularly successful. I ran for the U.S. Senate in Virginia in 1994 and 1996, and 

I helped my wife’s campaign for the House of Representatives for 

the 8th District of Virginia in 1998 and the year 2000. 

I have had a career in business. I have been on several boards 

of directors of companies. I have had a consulting practice of my 

own. I headed a consulting group for a major law firm. I am on the 

boards of three major mutual funds. I am on the board of Clean 

Energy Fuels, the largest provider of natural gas for vehicles in 

America. I am on the Chairman of the Audit Committee and the 

Designated Financial Expert for those firms. I am, as you mentioned here, with Husch Blackwell, and I am also Chairman of the 

Executive Committee of the International Tax Investment Center. 

Today, I ask you to confirm me for this important post. 

My wife of more than 50 years, Demaris Miller, asked me, why 

are you doing this? You have been there, done that. 

The answer is it is unfinished business. 

When I was at the Board of Governors, I worked very hard, trying to obtain the kinds of reform that you have outlined that are 

needed but without success. And I would like to go back and working with you, working with other Members of Congress, working 

with management, working with the stakeholders of this great institute, make those kinds of changes happen and restore the financial integrity and the viability of this important organization. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Well, Dr. Miller, I sat here listening to you 

talk about what you have been involved in, in your life, saying, 

what a life. What a life and still going strong. That is very impressive. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks again for your willingness to take 

this on and help us fix this problem. 

Stephen Crawford, you were in the Army, right? 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I was. 

Chairman CARPER. Tell us about your service just here very 

briefly, please. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN CRAWFORD1 TO BE A GOVERNOR, 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I served for three and a quarter years, the last 

of which I served in Vietnam as an infantry officer, as an advisor 

to an Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) infantry battalion 

in the Mekong Delta, lost a good friend in the Tet Offensive, but— 

so I think we all have mixed feelings about difficult years there, 

but certainly a learning experience. 

Chairman CARPER. I have been back a number of times since 

then. 

I led a Congressional delegation back there in 1991 to try to find 

the truth, what happened to a couple thousand of our men, mostly 

men, some women, and Senator McCain and Senator Kerry were 

involved in that effort in the Senate. And I feel very good about 

that and have been back a couple times since. 
9 

Every time I would talk to people who served over there, I always ask them, have you been back since the war? Most people 

have not, but I always encourage people to go. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I applaud that. 

My wife and I adopted a child from Vietnam who is now 14. 

Chairman CARPER. Did you really? Wow. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. And she is off at summer camp, or she would be 

here today cheering for us, and I could introduce her to you. 

But, yes, we went back to get her, and then we went back to visit 

with her family when she was about nine. 

Chairman CARPER. That is great. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. So it has been a good experience. 

Chairman CARPER. Well, thank you for that service. 

And if there is anyone in the audience that you would like to introduce, feel free and then proceed. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. Thanks so much. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Good afternoon, Chairman Carper, and thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today and to second what Jim, a 

hard act to follow, but what Jim—— 

Chairman CARPER. I would not want to have to follow that statement. I would just say, skip over me. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, right. 

Thank you for your leadership on postal reform legislation. It is 

been a long, hard struggle, I am excited about S. 1486 and commend the Committee for advancing it this far. 

I am truly honored to be nominated by President Obama to serve 

on the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service, and 

I am pleased to share with the Committee how, if confirmed, I 

would approach the responsibilities involved. 

As you know, the Postal Service faces enormous challenges. It is 

in these dire straits, I believe, for three main reasons: one, the 

growth of electronic communications and the resulting diversion of 

First-Class Mail; two, the recent recession and its lingering impact; 

and three, and perhaps most importantly, the unique regulatory 

environment in which it operates. While there seems to be broad 

agreement on these causes of the Postal Service’s problems and 

deficits, there is considerable disagreement about how to fix them. 

Some emphasize cutting costs by consolidating facilities, reducing 

delivery frequency and/or changing service standards. Some emphasize increasing revenues by adding new products and services. 

Some call for adjusting the price cap, and many call for changing 

the current requirements for prefunding the health benefits of future retirees. 

I believe that the challenges are so severe that the Postal Service 

should explore all the above, and I applaud the Committee for 

crafting and passing a bill that does so. 

I believe that my prior experience has prepared me to serve well 

on the Board and to make distinctive and significant contributions 

to its work. To be sure, I have never managed an organization of 

more than 50,000 employees. However, I have advised and worked 

closely with the top leaders of such organizations, especially State 

Governors but also corporate Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and 

university presidents. 
10 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Bennett appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

I have also served on various boards and commissions, and at 

present I am a member of the Board of Directors of the American 

National Standards Institute whose nearly 1,000 members include 

trade associations, professional societies, unions, consumer organizations, universities, government agencies and such companies as 

Apple, IBM, Caterpillar, ExxonMobil, Netflix, Verizon, et cetera, 

firms and organizations that represent more than 3.5 million professionals. 

Finally, as a member of the Obama-Biden Transition Team and 

later as a consultant to the Postal Service, I had exceptional opportunities to get acquainted with the problems and potential solutions facing the Postal Service, the mailing industry and such related agencies as the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) and the 

inspector general’s (IG) office. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for its efforts 

over many years to provide the policy framework needed to enable 

the Postal Service to accomplish its vital mission. It is clearly a difficult task in today’s rapidly changing environment, but I am optimistic that good solutions are within reach. I look forward, if confirmed, to working with you and all the Postal Service’s stakeholders on crafting and implementing such solutions. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today and welcome your questions. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you very much. That is a very strong 

resume as well and different from certainly that of Dr. Miller. 

But you all have different backgrounds. I think all of you do 

bring different strengths to the Board. 

So, thank you for all of that. 

Chairman CARPER. David Michael Bennett, it is great to see you. 

Mr. BENNETT. Michael is what I tend to go by. 

Chairman CARPER. Good to see you. 

We have a guy named Michael Bennett here. He serves in the 

U.S. Senate. He is from Colorado. I do not think he spells his name 

with two Ts. His family could only afford one. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I drop the T in my e-mail address. So I guess 

that—— 

Chairman CARPER. Oh, that is good to know. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. All right, nice to see you. Thanks, sir, for 

being here and for your willingness to serve. Please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF D. MICHAEL BENNETT1 TO BE A GOVERNOR, 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

I think my son, Michael Bennett, is here. Another Mike. 

Chairman CARPER. Where? 

Mr. BENNETT. I do not know. 

Chairman CARPER. He is back there, all right. He looks like he 

might be pretty tall. Is he? 

Mr. BENNETT. He is pretty fast. He is a track guy. 

Chairman CARPER. What are his events? What does he do? 

Mr. BENNETT. He is a 400 hurdler. 

Chairman CARPER. Wow. 
11 

Mr. BENNETT. Tough race. 

Chairman CARPER. At what level? Is he college? 

Mr. BENNETT. He is out of college. He is a personal trainer now. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. 

Mr. BENNETT. And coaching track. Just got back from his certification in coaching. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. 

Mr. BENNETT. And my mom, Johnnie Evans, is here. 

Chairman CARPER. Where? 

Mr. BENNETT. Right here. 

Chairman CARPER. Well, hi. How are you? Nice to see you, 

ma’am. A pleasure. 

Mr. BENNETT. And my partner, Pam Jackson, is here. 

Chairman CARPER. Is it Pam? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. All right, Pam, welcome. Which one is your 

mom? 

Mr. BENNETT. In the white. [Laughter.] 

All right, good joke today. 

Chairman CARPER. I have pretty good vision, too. 

Mr. BENNETT. I will hear about them when I get home. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Well, you are both welcome. Thank 

you all for coming. 

And, for your son, thank you for being here to have your dad’s 

back. That is great. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I will say good afternoon, Chairman Carper. 

And also, too, one of your staff the other day said at the end of 

their session with me, well, we have four very different nominees. 

And that is true. 

And all four of us have had a chance to get to know one another. 

I am the corporate guy. I am the guy who spent 95 percent of 

his career in corporate America. Even in the years I was practicing 

law, I was inside of a corporation. 

Let me say good afternoon to you, Chairman Carper, and a good 

afternoon also to Dr. Coburn when he arrives. 

So I have a prepared statement I would like to go through, if I 

may. 

Chairman CARPER. For each of you, your entire statement will be 

made part of the record and feel free to summarize as you wish. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

It is my pleasure to be here before you this afternoon. I want to 

thank President Obama for his decision to nominate me to become 

a member of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors. 

I believe that the Board of Governors has a critical role in our 

Postal Service and, ultimately, to the American people. So with integrity, pride and diligence will I serve on the Board. I am committed to exercising every aspect of my legal, business and technology experience to help the United States Postal Service continue 

to evolve with America. 

As a longtime resident of our Nation’s Capital, a native North 

Carolinian, proud graduate of Duke University. 

Chairman CARPER. Did you say native North Carolinian? 

Mr. BENNETT. Native North Carolinian. 

Chairman CARPER. Oh, really? Where were you born? 
12 

Mr. BENNETT. Charlotte. 

Chairman CARPER. Really. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. Ever hear of Boone? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, absolutely. 

Chairman CARPER. My wife is from there. 

Mr. BENNETT. Oh, OK. 

Chairman CARPER. She used to live in Charlotte. 

Mr. BENNETT. Great connection. 

Chairman CARPER. Got her to move to Delaware. 

Mr. BENNETT. OK. 

Chairman CARPER. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Anyway, I am a native North Carolinian, proud 

graduate of Duke University and the George Washington University Law School, at which my colleague is a professor. 

And, most importantly, I am someone who uses mail services on 

a very regular basis. I still pay all my bills by mail and send cards 

out and the whole bit and send letters. 

I believe in the mission of the Postal Service. 

My current experience as Chief Information Officer of a 100,000 

multinational company specifically gives me the skills necessary to 

drive change in our ever changing world. I am honored to have an 

opportunity to serve my fellow citizens through one of the most important institutions in America. 

Some of the changes in our culture have caused many to question 

the intrinsic value of the Postal Service. 

I believe that our Postal Service is an essential part of the fabric 

of our Nation. It is a vital part of our economy as well as a material force in our personal lives. 

It is sometimes the soul option for businesses in remote areas to 

receive products that are essential to maintain manufacturing machinery or a steady flow of product for resale. 

The Postal Service has personal impact for many who are unable 

to travel to a pharmacy, for instance, for various reasons, and essential medications are delivered to their doorsteps by a United 

States Postal Service carrier. 

It is the only institution in this country that can touch every single American every day. That is an incredible national asset. 

And that turns me on for some reason. I just find it incredible 

that you have an institution that can touch 300 million people 

every single day. 

There is probably no other country on the planet that has an institution with the capabilities of our United States Postal Service. 

Unfortunately, some take this 200-plus-year-old national treasure 

for granted. I recognize this treasure and want to be a part of creating even more value in it for the American people. 

I am honored, yes, but I am also excited about what is possible 

for the Postal Service. I am eager to explore all of the various ways 

the institution can serve the American people through its vast network of facilities, distribution networks and, most importantly, the 

employees. As I think about how many companies have transformed themselves over the past decade, to drive efficiency in and 

increase corporate value, solving challenging business problems, I 

get excited considering the possibilities for transformation in the 
13 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Kennedy appears in the Appendix on page 49. 

United States Postal Service. Transformation is driven by innovation. I look forward to working with the Board, with other Board 

members, and challenging management on various innovative ideas 

to drive value throughout the enterprise. 

Throughout my career, I have led transformational business programs which have led to cost savings, streamlined business processes and, ultimately, greater value to customers, employees and 

shareholders alike. I look forward to sharing my experience gained 

as a result of leading large, technology-centered innovation initiatives to create greater value for America. 

And, finally, we should continue to look for ways to leverage the 

knowledge and skills of our incredible workforce. Our people are 

our largest and most valuable asset. When I was growing up, my 

stepfather was a Postal Service mail carrier in Charlotte, North 

Carolina. There was not anything he did not know about locations 

and getting around Charlotte. We can leverage these human capabilities to continue transforming the Postal Service to be the business, current and future, America needs and wants. I want to get 

started. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman CARPER. I like that; I want to get started. It is good. 

We have a fellow who is the U.S. Secretary of the Department 

of Transportation, who is a former Mayor of Charlotte. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

Chairman CARPER. Anthony J. Foxx. I do not know if you know 

him. Foxx with two Xs. 

Mr. BENNETT. I do. 

Chairman CARPER. And I think he is very funny. 

Mr. BENNETT. In fact, he used to go to the doctor that my mother 

was the receptionist for. 

Chairman CARPER. Wow. 

Mr. BENNETT. When he was a little kid. 

Chairman CARPER. No kidding. 

Mr. BENNETT. So he knows my mother well. 

Chairman CARPER. Wow. So your mom was the Director of First 

Impressions at that office. 

Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. That is great. 

Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks for your testimony again. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. Ms. Kennedy, it is great to see you and thank 

you for your willingness to serve and please proceed. Your entire 

statement will be made part of the record. 

TESTIMONY OF VICTORIA REGGIE KENNEDY1 TO BE A 

GOVERNOR, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 

Ms. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to join James Miller, Stephen Crawford, and Michael Bennett to appear before you this afternoon as President 

Obama’s nominees to the Board of Governors of the United States 
14 

Postal Service, and I am honored and humbled by the confidence 

and trust that President Obama has placed in me. 

I look forward to answering your questions and hearing firsthand 

your thoughts and concerns about the Postal Service, and if confirmed, I look forward to working with the Committee and with 

other Members of Congress to strengthen the Postal Service in a 

long-term and comprehensive way. 

I would also like to thank my family for their support, and some 

of them are here today: my mother, Doris Reggie; my son—— 

Chairman CARPER. Your mom is here? 

Ms. KENNEDY. My mom is here, Doris Reggie. My son, Curran 

Raclin. My son, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, and his wife, Amy. 

And their two little ones were also here, but they have stepped out 

for a few minutes; they are very tiny. 

Chairman CARPER. Do they realize they are missing your testimony? [Laughter.] 

Ms. KENNEDY. Yes. I think that food has won out. 

And my daughter, Caroline Raclin, is working in the Philippines, 

and Ted Kennedy, Jr. has a campaign in Connecticut, but they are 

here in spirit. 

Chairman CARPER. I would call those excused absences. 

Ms. KENNEDY. I think so. 

And I really want to thank in a very personal way, my Senator, 

Ed Markey, for such a gracious and warm introduction, and my 

friend, Senator Chris Dodd, for being here. It really means the 

world to me that they are here. 

And I have other dear friends who are in the audience. 

Chairman CARPER. Well, let the record show I could barely see 

Chris Dodd’s lips moving when Senator Markey was speaking. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. KENNEDY. The Postal Service is a vital public asset. As my 

friend, Michael Bennett, said, it has near daily contact with every 

American household and business. There are more than 31,000 

post offices, stations and branches across this country, many of 

which serve as a focal point of local identity and a center of community interaction. With 500,000 hardworking and dedicated employees earning a solid middle-class income, the Postal Service is 

an essential part of the fabric of American life. Because of the governing principle of universal service, no matter where you live in 

the United States, you are entitled to the same postal service as 

every other American. And without a doubt, as our Founding Fathers understood when they included the Postal Clause in Article 

I of the Constitution, universal service unifies us as a Nation. 

As we meet today, however, and as we have been discussing, the 

Postal Service is facing a serious financial crisis. If confirmed, I 

would work with my fellow board members to look at comprehensive ways to address this crisis. I would, likewise, work with them 

to listen to the concerns and ideas of key constituency groups to 

craft long-term solutions to long-term problems, to position the 

Postal Service to be nimble and ready to take advantage of opportunities for growth in its core business, letter and package delivery, 

and not to undermine its essential strengths. I think it also important to look at the possibility of expanding into related business 
15 

lines while always maintaining timely universal service and protecting and nurturing the core business of the Postal Service. The mailing industry in this country generates $800 billion in 

economic activity, and the Postal Service is a key part of the distribution network for that activity. Its competitors even rely on its 

exceptional distribution infrastructure for the key last mile delivery, to connect the smallest towns and rural areas to e-commerce. 

A recent inspector general report has concluded that preserving 

that infrastructure could allow the Postal Service to reap as much 

as a half-billion dollars of additional revenue in the near future because of private sector manufacturing innovations, such as 3–D 

printing, that will need the sophisticated, full service delivery infrastructure that the Postal Service has in place. 

I believe that the Postal Service can and should be at the leading 

edge of innovation in envisioning the new ways that Americans 

communicate with each other and with the rest of the world. I also 

believe it should have the regulatory flexibility to take advantage 

of opportunity and innovation when it is in the public interest. 

If confirmed, I believe that my skills and experience can make 

a positive contribution. 

I would keep always paramount, if confirmed, a focus on the public interest. The Board of Governors should set policy to ensure the 

long-term financial well-being of the Postal Service, and it should 

assure that senior management follows and executes that policy. I 

believe in a full airing of the issues and a robust dialogue with all 

interested parties as we seek, in the public interest, the best way 

to return the Postal Service to a safe and secure financial footing. 

I look forward to discussing these and other issues with this 

Committee today and, if confirmed, with the Committee and Congress in the future. 

In closing, I again want to thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. You used exactly 5 minutes. [Laughter.] 

That does not happen every day. 

Ms. KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Chairman CARPER. That was good. Thank you. 

Thank you all. 

Now I will start my questioning with three standard questions 

that we ask of all nominees, and I am going to ask if you would 

just please answer after each question. 

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? 

We will start with Dr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Nothing, other than what I indicated in response to 

the questions to this Committee. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. No, nothing. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Ms. Kennedy. 

Ms. KENNEDY. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of anything. 
16 

Chairman CARPER. All right. No. 2, 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? 

Dr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. 

Mr. BENNETT. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Ms. Kennedy. 

Ms. KENNEDY. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. And the last one, do you agree, 

without reservation, to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee if you are 

confirmed? 

Dr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Absolutely. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I do. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I will. 

Ms. KENNEDY. Yes, I will. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Great. Thank you. 

Thanks for your interesting testimony, well prepared, well presented. 

I just want to start off by saying it is interesting what Mr. Bennett said about he still sends and pays his bills by mail. He still 

sends out cards and letters. 

So do I. 

And you are probably better at technology than I am, but I am 

not bad. 

And I have two sons, 24 and 25, who coach me. So I could get 

even better over time. 

But I was reminded of the service in the U.S. Postal Service that 

serves on Saturday. I was home for a bit, and the letter carrier delivered our mail just a little bit before 5 p.m. Sometimes it is later 

if he has a whole lot to deliver and sometimes not quite that late. 

But it was about 95 degrees outside, and he was delivering mail, 

cheerful, going about his work. 

And he is there when it is 95 degrees. He is there when it is 5 

degrees. 

He is there when the sun is shining, as it was on Saturday, and 

he is there when it is raining, sleeting, or snowing. 

And we are grateful for his service and those of the hundreds of 

thousands of postal employees across the country who have served 

us for years, who serve us today, and if we have anything to do 

with it, will serve us many years to come. 

We had sitting right here—I think, Ms. Kennedy, where you are 

sitting—a couple years ago was a fellow from—was it Wisconsin? 

Yes, a fellow, a very successful business person whose name was 

Joe Quadracci, and he runs a company called Quad Graphics. 

And as he sat before us that day, he talked about his business, 

which was—is it a paper business? Or, printing business? 

Paper and printing business, if you will. 
17 

And he talked about how they had figured out in a day and age 

when a lot of businesses in that industry had closed, had fallen and 

eventually been ended, how he talked about his business sort of did 

just the opposite. Instead of failing, faltering, going out of business, 

they have gotten stronger over time. 

And what has happened is they have taken the legacy business, 

the paper or printing business, and figured out how to be successful in the Digital Age; that is what they have done. 

And what I have been hoping for with respect to the Postal Service is the ability to do something like that. Find that intersect between maybe one of the longest living organizations in our country, 

and that is our Postal Service, and how to make an operation like 

that not just relevant in the Digital Age but successful in the Digital Age. 

And it is not that we are going to make them successful, but 

what do we need to do to enable them to be successful? 

And I think we can do that. 

We have had testimony here before when folks have come in, 

from different stakeholders, a lot of smart people like you, and they 

said to us in terms of the things we need to do that one of the 

things we need to do is to focus on the main thing. 

There was an old Methodist minister down in southern Delaware, in a little town called Seaford, who passed away a couple of 

years ago, but a guy who when I was Governor, before that, Congressman now and then later in the Senate. He had always given 

me great advice when I was down in Sussex County. 

He even once let me be a lay speaker in his church. It was a very 

special treat. 

But he used to say this; the main thing is to keep the main thing 

the main thing. That is what he said. 

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. 

And for some of the folks that have testified before us, they have 

said in terms of—I do not know if it was a main thing but a big 

thing for us to consider is health care costs of retirees. 

When we worked on legislation in 2006–2007, Senator Collins 

and I and others, one of the requirements, if you will, from the Administration of President George W. Bush was to not only recognize 

there is a large liability that is owed by the Postal Service, and the 

liability is for retiree health care costs. 

Some people think that is not really a liability and it is not something we need to be mindful of. 

When I was elected State treasurer at the age of 29, just a pup, 

the State of Delaware had the worst credit rating in the country. 

We are the best in the country at overestimating revenues and underestimating spending. 

Think about that. 

We are the best in the country at overestimating revenues and 

underestimating spending. That is how we got the worst credit rating in the country. We had no cash management system. We had 

no pension fund. And we had all our money in State-owned banks 

about to go under, and we had the lowest startup of new businesses of any State in the country. 

In fact, we used to sell revenue anticipation notes in order to 

have money, taxes and revenue anticipation notes in order to be 
18 

able to meet payroll and to pay pension checks. We were not a 

model of financial respectability. 

And nobody else wanted to run for State treasurer in our party. 

I got to run, and we won. 

Pete du Pont was elected Governor and did a great job. He was 

a great Governor for 8 years, and Mike Castle after him, and I succeeded Mike Castle. 

We started off with the worst credit rating in the country in 

1977, and we ended up in my second term as Governor with AAAs 

across the board. AAAs. We are very proud of that. 

And I will never forget, though, when we met with the rating 

agencies, they told us what they had done and why. They also said 

you have a bit liability out there that you have not recognized and 

you have not addressed at all. 

And we said, what is that? 

And they said, you have a lot of pensioners. 

And I said, well, we have a strong pension fund. It is admired 

for how fully invested and how well invested it is. 

And they said, no, that is not it. 

They said, your problem is all those pensioners are out there. 

They have enormous health care costs attached to each of them. 

And you have not recognized that, and you have not started setting 

money aside for that. 

They still gave us an AAA credit rating, but they flagged that for 

us. 

In my last year as Governor, we began to address that, not in 

a huge way. We acknowledge it was a liability, and we started to 

address that. 

The problem from 2006–2007 legislation is we agreed with 

George W. Bush. In order to get the President to sign the bill, we 

had to agree to, I think, a very aggressive schedule to pay down 

that liability for retiree health care costs. 

And what we found out in the years since then is that the Postal 

Service pays more into Medicare than any employer in the country. 

My wife is retired from DuPont. Hard to believe to look at her, 

but she just turned 65. 

And when she turned 65, the DuPont Company said to her, Martha, we love you, but from now on you have to sign up for Medicare 

Part A, Part B, maybe Part D, and we will provide a wraparound 

coverage for you. 

But they expect that for all their employees, or retirees, rather. 

And there are thousands of companies in this country who say 

that is what we expect. They will do the wraparound, but they expect the retiree to sign up for A, B and maybe Part D under Medicare. 

The Postal Service competes with FedEx and with UPS. I presume they have a similar kind of arrangement with their retirees 

when they reach 65. 

The Postal Service pays more money into Medicare than anybody 

else. They do not get equal value, and it is not fair. 

And it is one of the chief provisions in our bill. We call it Medicare integration. And it enables the Postal Service to pay down this 

obligation in a more timely way. 
19 

We will start off with Dr. Miller. I do not know if any of this 

sounds probably familiar to you. It may or may not sound familiar 

to our other nominees. 

In terms of the main thing, if we do not do this, if we somehow 

do not do this, I think we are going to be very disappointed in our 

inability to get anything done, Dr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, actually, I thought maybe Senator 

Markey might say a few words on my behalf. [Laughter.] 

I need that kind of help. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised at your insightful analysis because I know you have a degree in economics from the Ohio State. 

Chairman CARPER. I tell people I studied economics at Ohio 

State. My professors would say not nearly enough. 

Mr. MILLER. But you are spot-on in my judgment. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, I wholeheartedly endorse the plan in 

S. 1486 to require postal retirees, once they reach 65 and are eligible for Medicare, to make Medicare their primary coverage. As you 

say, it is almost universal in the corporate world. 

My understanding is that 10 percent of postal retirees who are 

eligible do not take Part A and 24 percent do not take Part B. And 

I have not done the numbers to figure out sort of what the cost implications are, but those are—especially that second number; that 

is huge. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. Senator, I agree. I think that, one, you are right; 

the main thing needs to stay the main thing. 

In my company and in the previous company I was with, Northrop Grumman, that is exactly the route that we have gone. I 

mean, there is no way that you can continue on this path. The 

Postal Service cannot continue on this path. Large companies have 

decided to do that a long time ago. So I agree completely. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Kennedy, please, will you react to this? 

Ms. KENNEDY. Yes, certainly. Obviously, the issue of health care 

and health care costs is something that is of great concern. It is 

my understanding that there is widespread support, both with the 

collective bargaining units and with management at the Postal 

Service, for the plan that you describe. And it is something that I 

look forward to learning a lot more about. It seems to make a lot 

of sense, but I would like to understand it in more depth as we go 

forward. 

Chairman CARPER. Fair enough. 

Let’s talk a little bit about this intersection between the—I will 

use an analog as an example of what we do at the Postal Service 

today. We deliver packages, parcels, pieces of mail. And we do it 

door-to-door. We do it 5 or 6 days a week and do it all over the 

country. And we use old vehicles to do it. 

Meanwhile, you have a lot of folks that are ordering stuff today 

as we speak, that they want to have delivered tomorrow, and they 

will look for somebody to deliver it. There are some good business 

opportunities there, including on Sundays, and the Postal Service 

is starting to take advantage of this. 
20 

I do not know if it was Ms. Kennedy. Somebody mentioned innovation. 

In our legislation, ironically, one of the provisions in the legislation that we have is it was legislation really lifted from Senator 

Bernie Sanders. Most people would not think of Bernie as like the 

chief innovation officer or the guy to be the most entrepreneurial 

guy in the Senate. 

I see Ed Markey smiling. 

But he is right on, spot-on, when it comes to the Postal Service. 

How do we help enable the Postal Service to use this legacy organization to find new ways to generate revenues and provide a service that is needed without stepping on the toes in an inappropriate 

way of the private sector? 

There is a call for, in our legislation, the creation of what I will 

call a chief innovation officer. 

We call for a summit with all kinds of people, including people 

from the digital world, to come in and say to the Postal Service, 

have you ever thought of doing this or that or the other? 

And we are going to do something, a similar kind of approach, 

with the census. So the next time we do the census, we will not 

be doing it with pen and paper; we will be doing it in a lot smarter 

way, less expensively and, hopefully, a lot more effectively. 

Talk to us about innovation. Start with talking to us about innovation and the things that you would like to see the post office do, 

that you think might be good ways for them to provide a service 

and make some money while they are doing it. 

And, again, I will ask Dr. Miller if you would just lead off with 

this, please. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the movement to the digital revolution has cost the Postal Service inasmuch as First-Class Mail has 

diminished, but on the other hand, it has created opportunities as 

well. That is a major reason that you see the growth in the packaging. Because people ordering through eBay and other ways, that 

has generated a great deal of increase in mail volume. 

I think that Mr. Bennett’s becoming a member of the Board 

would be a very positive thing to stimulate a lot of thinking at the 

Postal Service because he has those kinds of responsibilities at 

BAE. 

And there are other opportunities. I think Steve has talked about 

it, and Vicki had talked about it as well. 

So I think there are many opportunities there that need to be explored, that are being explored, frankly, at the Postal Service under 

Postmaster General Pat Donahoe’s leadership, but I think there 

are many opportunities as you have identified. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I enjoy reading the white papers 

that the inspector general’s office produces, and some of them are 

simply stimulating. I am not sure that they are politically or otherwise always going to survive and be implemented, but I would like 

to see the Postal Service have the flexibility to run pilots and experiments and try out. 

Let’s take non-bank financial services. We see a lot of foreign 

postal services make some money on that. Whether it makes sense 

for the U.S. Postal Service to get into that is a huge question. 
21 

The issue, though, it seems to me is to have the opportunity to 

experiment, whether it is that, whether it is the implications for 

3–D printing. There is just so much in the world of technology that 

is unfolding now. 

And this cannot be all or nothing; we are now going to implement this. 

Now the Postal Service, to be fair, already does do some studies 

and trials. If I were on the Board, that is an area that I would give 

special attention to. 

Chairman CARPER. Well, let me let you all finish, and then I will 

throw out a couple of ideas and let you react to those. Thank you. 

Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. This is really, Chairman, my sweet spot. I have 

led a number of innovation initiatives in my company, particularly 

from a technology perspective. 

I really get excited thinking about the different things that you 

can do with this incredible infrastructure that we have, with all 

these people, with all this logistics, that we deal with as a postal 

service every single day, that nobody else knows how to do. 

Imagine if you start partnering with a company like Sysco and 

take the kinds of things that they do from a networking perspective 

and connect those to our postal infrastructure. 

We have talked about 3–D printing. Imagine being able to have 

the companies who produce through these 3–D printers. 

At no cost to the Postal Service, put those printers in various locations in the Postal Service and have opportunities where they are 

able to fax, if you will, the model of a shoe and they want that to 

get to a particular customer in an hour. And the Postal Service 

says, great; we will get there within an hour, within a 10-mile radius. 

There are so many different things, so many opportunities. 

The moment I was nominated, I had the Chief Operating Officer 

(COO) of Sysco, senior executives at Microsoft, various people from 

different technology companies talk to me about things they would 

like to consider and to talk to the U.S. Postal Service about but 

have not had an opportunity to get in. 

I mean, this is just right in the area that I would really love to 

have an opportunity to help the Postal Service evolve and do a 

number of different innovative things over the course of the next 

decade. 

Chairman CARPER. Did you say fax someone a pair of shoes? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, absolutely. The technology exists. It is there. 

Chairman CARPER. Let me just say before you speak, Vicki, I do 

not know if the Board of Governors, if they have a committee or 

subcommittee on innovation. But, if you get confirmed, Mr. Bennett, I sure hope they put you on that committee; that would be 

good. 

Thanks. Ms. Kennedy. 

Ms. KENNEDY. I understand that there are shoe manufacturers, 

athletic shoe manufacturers, that are going to be taking orders for 

athletic shoes with your specifications and doing 3–D printing of 

those shoes in your exact size and with your specs, and they are 

going to want to distribute them. 
22 

And the distribution network that exists right now for the United 

States Postal Service is an incredible asset, and that is something 

that I believe we have to maintain, to be able to take advantage 

of that kind of innovation, to be able to reach people. 

When you talk about doing what we do, that is what the Postal 

Service does. It knows how to deliver. It has an infrastructure. 

And that is why one of the wonderful things in the last few 

months of waiting for this hearing is that we have all gotten to 

know each other, all of the nominees here. 

Chairman CARPER. If you do not mind my asking, how have you 

all gotten to know each other? 

Ms. KENNEDY. We have had lunch. It is a great thing. Talking. 

Regular lunch and talking and e-mailing, and so we have gotten to 

know each other. 

Chairman CARPER. Facebook? 

Ms. KENNEDY. No, not Facebook. [Laughter.] 

But it has been a very good thing. Collegiality and sharing ideas, 

it has been a very positive thing. 

So, if we are confirmed, I think we will hit the ground running, 

talking about what is out there in the future and being able to take 

advantage of that kind of innovation. 

One of the things that Steve Crawford just said in his opening 

statement, though, is will the regulatory structure restrict your 

being able to take advantage of innovation in other ways? 

There might be some 18-year-old in a garage right now, who is 

coming up with some great new innovation. Will the Postal Service 

be able to take advantage of that, or will it not? 

I believe we need to be nimble and able to take advantage of innovations that we do not know about as we are sitting at this table 

right now and be regulatorily nimble enough to be able to take advantage of those things for the future while building on the core 

strength of the Postal Service. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks. Thank you very much. That is 

very encouraging testimony. 

I want to turn now, if I could here, for a little bit to the pricing 

for postage. As you know, the Postal Service’s current inflationbased postal rate structure was set in place about 7 years and right 

before the beginning of the drastic drop in mail volume that continues to this day. 

You saw that, Dr. Miller, firsthand. 

Late last year, the Postal Regulatory Commission allowed the 

Postal Service to temporarily increase its pricing for postage above 

that normally allowed to make up for the losses in mail volume attributable to the Great Recession—an increase that our Committee’s bill would make permanent. It is roughly about 4 percent. We 

call it an exigent rate increase. 

The PRC said, let’s make that; put that in place for an interim 

period of time. 

And Dr. Coburn and I, in our proposal to our Committee, said, 

let’s make it the new base and then we will worry about other increases as we go, or not increases, as we go forward. 

In light of the Postal Service’s current financial difficulties, let 

me just ask. Again, I do not want to pick on you, Dr. Miller, but 
23 

let me just start with you—your thoughts on the postal rate structure as we have it currently and how it would be under our bill. 

Mr. MILLER. As I said in my response to a question from the 

Committee, I think that the inflation-adjusted cap needs to be liberalized a great deal, if not eliminated entirely, because it just 

means that the Postal Service will start searching for ways to 

change or alter the rate structure to try to raise additional revenue, and that further perverts the structure of prices. 

There is an analogy here with how the railroads performed under 

the old Interstate Commerce Act in squeezing additional revenue 

here and there. 

Give the Postal Service the discretion to make rate changes. 

There is a natural limit to how much a postal service would want 

to increase certain rates because of the falloff in volume. So it is 

not as though it is going to change the stamp price from 49 cents 

to—or, 55 cents to $1.80 or something like that. 

It really is an impediment. 

And there are other ways in which the Postal Regulatory Commission, despite having some very good people who work there, 

who are just as publically spirited as we are, where it inevitably 

slows down the process of introducing innovations and changes 

that would—experiments of the sort that Steve was talking about. 

So we need to have that kind of freedom to have the Postal Regulatory Commission intervene when they see a real danger of the 

Postal Service violating the law or about the violate the law. And 

you have addressed that in S. 1486, and I hope that provision prevails in any conference bill. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I agree with Dr. Miller’s analysis. I think the mail volume, especially for the standard mail, is so sensitive to prices that the Postal 

Service is not about to try to jack up that price. The notion of a 

monopoly position is not as much. It is not as hard a monopoly as 

some monopolies are. And I applaud S. 1486 for the reforms in the 

price cap. 

I am on record in previous writings for lifting the price cap and 

making adjustments. I think the Postal Service needs that flexibility. 

I think the Postal Regulatory Commission has a role to play in 

reviewing the reasonableness of those, but to do it ahead of time 

is just—as Vicki Kennedy was saying, we need to be nimble 

enough, the Postal Service does, to be able to make adjustments. 

Fuel costs can go up very quickly if there is a crisis abroad. We 

saw surcharges put on FedEx and UPS when there was a spike in 

gasoline prices. The Postal Service does not have that flexibility. I 

think they need it. I think it is fine to review it after the fact, and 

I think the new legislation has that exactly right. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. I will not repeat what my colleagues have said, 

but I do agree with the provision in S. 1486 relative to rates. 

One of the things that came up in the session with your staff on 

last Thursday was that there was a comment that in the private 

sector that you do not have any caps on pricing. Well, that is really 
24 

not true, I mean, because if you price yourself out of the market 

and you do not sell anything, then you are out of business. 

And I think the Postal Service needs the same level of flexibility 

that you have in the private sector—the kind of flexibility that will 

allow us to be market-driven. In fact, when that happens, I think 

oftentimes prices end up going down because you end up driving 

volume up and you end up driving prices down and you increase 

value in that institution and, in this case, increasing value for the 

American public. 

So I agree with that particular section completely and agree with 

my colleagues relative to having more flexibility. 

Chairman CARPER. At the urging of Dr. Coburn, whose airplane, 

I think, is—what do you think, Chris? On the ground? 

[Pause.] 

Yes, it is on the ground. 

Dr. Coburn has had an incredible career. He was a very successful business person. He did that for a number of years. 

And then he decided, well, I would like to be a doctor, and so he 

became an OB–GYN and was very successful there and delivered 

thousands of babies, probably tens of thousands of babies. And 

then he did that for a number of years. 

Then he said, I think I would like to be a Congressman, and so 

he became a Congressman from Oklahoma and did that for a while. 

Then he said, no, maybe I would like to be a Senator. So he has 

done that now for 10 years. 

And he has signaled he is going to step down 2 years early, before the end of his term this year, and God only knows what he 

will do next. 

Maybe he is going to land the plane. So we will find out when 

he gets here, but he should be here before too much longer. 

Ms. Kennedy, staying on the line of thought we have—— 

Ms. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman CARPER. Let me just say before you answer; one of the 

things that Dr. Coburn really insisted on and pushed for when we 

introduced our initial bill this past August—and he basically said: 

The Postal Service is not foolish, not stupid. They are not deaf to 

the marketplace. Let’s give them the flexibility to set rates, and if 

they charge too much, customers will stop using them. They will 

eventually find a sweet spot. 

In the end, we did not do that. There was huge push-back to that 

original proposal, as you can imagine, from the mailing industry 

and the printers and so forth. 

And we thought we had found a pretty good medium here with 

the exigent rate increase becoming the baseline and then having 

the consumer price index (CPI) cap going forward and then, in 

2017, the opportunity to essentially revisit this. And if you all are 

on the Board of Governors then you will have an opportunity to 

participate in that. Ms. Kennedy. 

Ms. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

As a general rule, as I have said, I believe in flexibility and being 

able to be nimble. 

On the specific issue of rates, I also believe in being cautious and 

not answering something that I am not as deeply familiar with as 

my colleagues here. So it is something that I would like to under-
25 

stand in a deeper and fuller way. So it sounds great. I think what 

they have said makes a lot of sense to me, but I would like to understand it more. 

Chairman CARPER. I understand. Just a little bit of background—what we have done with the exigent rate case, what it essentially does for folks at, we will say, your nonprofit. 

Before the exigent rate case, I think the cost of mailing an envelope was about 10 cents. And with the exigent rate case, it goes up, 

I think, a penny to 11 cents. For folks that are mailing magazines, 

I think the price is about 27 cents, and with the exigent rate case 

becoming the baseline, it goes up to 28 cents. 

And I think I might be wrong, but I think for catalogs the price 

is somewhere at 45, 46 cents, and it would go up by about 2 cents. 

So those are not outrageous increases, especially in a strengthening economy, but I know there are people who disagree with this. 

Ms. KENNEDY. I just want to say that I am familiar with what 

the provisions are. That was not the issue. It is just the whole underlying philosophy and theory behind them being set that I wanted to be—— 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Good enough. 

Dr. Miller, do you want to say something else? No? 

Mr. MILLER. No, Senator. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. I think I mentioned in my opening 

statement today that the Board of Governors and the Postmaster 

General announced a week or so that if we do not do something, 

if we do not do our job here in the Senate and in the House to pass, 

hopefully, thoughtful, effective postal reform legislation this year 

and put it in place, signed by the President, then they will feel 

compelled to go ahead and take a next step in closing mail processing plants. 

It was not that long ago we had 600, a few more than 600. We 

are down today. In 6 or 7 years, as I recall, we are down today to 

about 325. 

And the Postal Service is saying unless we do our job that they 

may be compelled, no help from the Congress and the President, 

to close another 80 or so starting at the beginning of the next calendar year. 

From our point of view, in our legislation, we have a stipulation 

that says 2 years after the enactment the Postal Service may move 

forward to reduce the number of mail processing centers. We actually had a similar provision in our legislation from 2 years ago that 

62 Senators, mostly Democrats, voted for, some Republicans. 

I would like each of you to give your thoughts to closing additional plants. 

What Dr. Coburn and I have tried to do with our legislation is 

to lay the groundwork so the Postal Service can pay off its obligations, recognize its liabilities, pay them down and become profitable, have money for capital investment, have money for pay raises 

and have money in the bank when all is said and done, 10 years 

from now. 

But I am not interested in seeing a lot of additional plants or any 

additional plants close. I just want to make sure that the Postal 

Service is profitable and viable. 
26 

And, Dr. Miller, if you would just lead us off on this, I would appreciate it, please. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, first, let me say that I have not done 

an analysis of these 82 and these specifics. There are some that 

may apply here to the points I am making and some not. 

My impression, based on my work on the Board of Governors 

ending 2 years ago, or 3 years ago, is that a number of mail processing facilities are there and have not—that are under ordinary 

market circumstances would have been relocated, would have been 

changed, but for the fact that there would be the impediments from 

Congress, displeasure from Members of Congress, restraints put in 

appropriations bills, not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) provisions, and 

have not been changed. 

That leads, interestingly, to a perverted outcome because when 

you think that there is going to be a change you want to make as 

many changes as you can on all in one fell swoop. 

So it is just an inefficient system. Unless you give the Postal 

Service some freedom to streamline and rationalize its logistical 

network, you are going to get this back and forth and, I think, inefficient decisionmaking about these installations. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thank you. Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I largely agree with Jim’s points. 

I think that the devil is in the details here. And it is not for the 

Board to dig into them; it is for the Board to set criteria and policy. 

But I think, in general, the Postal Service has been right. It needed 

to consolidate some of its facilities. It has already done a great 

deal. Whether it needs to do more or not, I am not capable of sitting here and saying, yes or no. And each time they do, that is 

painful for somebody somewhere. 

But, as Jim says, you are just pushing these problems to the future. Automation has made it easier to do a lot of this high-volume 

mail processing. 

So, on balance, without trying to avoid a commitment, I would 

just say this; it would be premature for me, given my level of understanding of the issue, to say anything about the next round of 

closings and consolidations of processing centers or plants, but I do 

think that it was appropriate to make some moves along those directions over the last 2 years. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. Mr. Bennett, please. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I am very familiar with the issue. 

I am not familiar with the details as to whether or not these specific plants should or should not be closed. 

However, what I would say, though, is that I think in this environment where we do have this incredible infrastructure that is in 

place, whether or not that facility is operationally efficient or not— 

the facilities that you are talking about—I think you have to be 

very careful when you start taking away some of your assets, to 

make sure that those assets could not drive future revenue. 

One of the things that I think that a lot of major corporations 

make a mistake, particularly very large ones, is when you start trying to cut costs, because you are so big, you start looking at your 

costs in silos and you do not think about how those costs impact 

revenue someplace else. And so you really have to be careful to 
27 

make sure that you consider the whole, prior to doing these individual silo cuts. 

So I do not have an answer to your question other than if I were 

looking at this more carefully that is what I would do. I would consider, how does it impact the whole enterprise versus just the silos 

that we oftentimes look at in budget cuts? 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. Ms. Kennedy. 

Ms. KENNEDY. I echo the concerns that Michael Bennett just set 

forth. I do not think you can cut your way to prosperity. I think 

you have to look at what the long-term implications are of closing 

these facilities. I do not know what those particular facilities are. 

I also worry about the impact on the universal service obligation. 

I do not know what it means for rural communities. I believe that 

universal service does not mean universal service someday. It 

means timely universal service. 

So what delays will happen by that many consolidations and 

closings—I think that matters because the Postal Service is a lifeline for so many communities, and I think that is something that 

needs to be looked at. 

And I think you also have to be poised to take advantage with 

this terrific infrastructure that is in existence for innovation, 

poised to take advantage of the next great opportunity, and I think 

all those issues need to be considered. 

Chairman CARPER. I will probably ask you to answer this next 

question for the record, but I might ask you to comment very briefly, and it relates to the potential closure of additional mail processing centers. 

The question that I would have us think about out loud for just 

a minute, each maybe, is the service delivery standards. As some 

of you will recall, it was not that long ago that the Postal Service 

had delivery standards to deliver the mail in one day. 

In sort of like the same metropolitan region or geographical region, it was feasible in one day. Outside, if you could not do that, 

the Postal Service was expected to deliver in 2 days. At the very 

least, if the mailer and the mailee are in the lower 48 States, contiguous States, there was 3-day business day delivery. So it was 

one-two-three. 

I think at our encouragement the Postal Service, while they have 

cut mail processing centers, they changed the standard, if you will, 

the standard of delivery, and they have gone from a one-two-threeday to a modified-one. 

So, if you are in the same metropolitan area—let’s say I live on 

one side of Washington, DC, I do not; I live in Delaware. One side 

of Washington, DC, and you lived on another side of this metropolitan area, if I mail to you today, you should get it tomorrow. That 

is modified-one. If we are outside of the metropolitan area, you 

might get it, but you may not. And this was modified-one-twothree. 

I think the Postal Service would like to go to two-three—a 2-day 

even in the same metropolitan area. It could be in one, but two 

would be the expectation, and then three. 

In terms of what is appropriate for us, I am not comfortable with 

the Postal Service saying this is how many mail processing centers 

we should have. 
28 

Some people have said the more appropriate thing for us to do, 

maybe with the involvement of the Postal Regulatory Commission 

and certainly the Board of Governors in the Postal Service, is to 

consider whether modified-one-two-3 days of service is appropriate 

or one-two-three is better or two-three is just fine. 

And I would welcome any comments that you all have in this regard. Ms. Kennedy, I picked on Dr. Miller all afternoon. Maybe I 

should come to you. 

Ms. KENNEDY. My first thought about that is if we have declining 

First-Class Mail volume to have more delayed First-Class Mail delivery does not make sense. I mean, if possible, I personally would 

like to see us have the faster standard of delivery. That concerns 

me. I think those two things would be inversely related. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

Ms. KENNEDY. You would have fewer people mailing letters. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. Just off the cuff, I think the faster standard of delivery would be better primarily because of customer service. I 

mean, it is the Postal Service. This is a service organization. Every 

company in this country that has focused on service is focused on 

how to provide a better service to this customer than somebody 

else. And having deliveries 2 or 3 days after you put it in the post 

is probably not a good way to make sure that your customers are 

happy. And if you have customers happy on one end, then they are 

going to want to use you for something else. So I would focus on 

how do I make my customers most happy, and I would think that 

would be more of a faster service, to help my business. 

Chairman CARPER. OK. Thanks. Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. What strikes me when I think about this question, Mr. Chairman, is my daughter, who is 14 and lives on her 

iPhone when she is not at camp. And she finds e-mail to be slow 

and cumbersome. Instant messaging is so much quicker, she tells 

me. To me, e-mail is just so rapid; it is incredible. But the new generation is accustomed and expects what they want to arrive on the 

door, within minutes and instant sort of gratification. And we 

worry about that in some respects, but in other respects it is a tribute to the new communications and transportation capabilities that 

we have developed. 

And given that shifting culture and those expectations for speed 

and on-time delivery, I am reluctant. You have to look at the economics of all this and the tradeoffs and costs, but I hate to see the 

Postal Service give up one-two-three. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. Dr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, two things. 

One, as I recollect, the rationale for this change in service standards was developed after I left. So I do not know the details of it, 

and I hesitate to answer because without having time to analyze 

the data. Second, there is a tradeoff, obviously. You cannot do all 

things for all people, and you have to make some choices here. The 

service standards should be an input into the question of plant and 

logistical rationalization, it seems to me, but I just do not have my 

hands on the information necessary. 

Chairman CARPER. I understand. 
29 

Mr. MILLER. Everything else equal, I think there is something 

nice about having, as you characterize it, a one-two-three kind of 

standard. And you would deviate that only for a good reason, but 

I do not—whether there is a good reason there or not, I just simply 

cannot say at this time. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

I think I mentioned earlier on Saturday I was home for a little 

bit at about 5 in the afternoon and our letter carrier came and delivered our mail on Saturday. And it turned out there were some 

things in the mail that we actually very much wanted to receive. 

It is not always the case, but it sort of was on that Saturday. 

Part of the debate that surrounds postal reform these days is, 

should we continue to have 6-day-a-week service except when we 

have like a holiday that mixes in, like July 4th if it is on a Friday 

maybe, or should we allow the Postal Service at some point in time 

to go from 6 to 5-day-a-week service? 

When we passed our legislation 2 years ago, 62 Senators voted 

for it. In that bill, you may recall, there is a version that said the 

Postal Service could eventually go from 6 to 5-day service if they 

chose to, but you have to wait for at least 2 years after enactment 

of that legislation, or that legislation if it had been enacted. 

That means the Postal Service would have been free this year to 

go from 6 to 5-day-a-week service in 2014 and to do the same thing 

in terms of closing additional mail processing centers, in 2014. 

Well, the bill did not get enacted. It is 2014. And now we are 

grappling with the same issues—mail processing centers, standards 

for delivery and 6 or 5-day-a-week service. 

We have taken a little different approach, as you may know, this 

year with respect to our legislation from six to five. 

For years, I have sat here with our labor friends from the postal 

unions, especially to the letter carriers, and urged them to work 

with the Postal Service to find a way to continue to deliver mail 

on Saturday and with a wage benefit structure/compensation structure that makes the Postal Service more competitive and that does 

not lose as much money. 

We were told a couple years ago that going from 6 to 5-day-aweek service for the Postal Service would save $3 billion a year for 

every year going forward. 

And we are told now that because of those changes in the wage 

benefit structure that have been negotiated between the Postal 

Service and the letter carriers, and maybe the rural route letter 

carriers as well, that that is no longer $3 billion savings. It is 

somewhere between 1.5 and maybe $2 billion a year, which makes 

it more—the Postal Service may lose money, but there is a tradeoff 

there maybe between service and service delivery and labor cost. 

We took a different approach in the legislation that Dr. Coburn 

and I have brought to the Committee and the Committee has reported out. And our legislation says we are not going to say to the 

Postal Service, for 2 years, you are forbidden to go to 5-day-a-week 

service. 

What we say with our legislation is let’s look at a volume trigger. 

And the Postal Service last year, I think, delivered about 158 billion pieces of mail, give or take. 
30 

And what we put it in is a volume trigger that says, if that number drops below 140 billion pieces of mail, then the Postal Service 

would be free to go from 6 to 5-day-a-week delivery. It does not 

have to if they are losing money. If they are making money hand 

over fist, maybe they would not want to; maybe they are continuing 

to find ways to use that Internet digital connection and to make 

money. 

But the reason why we decided to take this approach, to use a 

volume trigger instead of somebody saying, well you can go to 5- 

day-a-week service in 2 years, is because we want to realign the 

incentives. We want to incentivize postal employees to work harder, to sell harder, sell products, whether you happen to be on a 

rural route or you happen to be in a post office in a town, a city, 

or a community. But we want them to be incentivized to sell more. 

We want to incentivize the mailers, whatever they happen to be 

mailing. Whether they happen to be nonprofits, whether that be 

catalogs folks or magazines, we want to incentivize them to want 

to mail more in order to avoid the volume trigger, to keep 6-daya-week if that is what they want. 

I just want you to react to the different approaches—what we put 

in our bill 2 years ago on 5-day-a-week, where we said you cannot 

do that for at least 2 years after enactment, as opposed to some 

kind of volume trigger today, and what you like about it or not. 

Please, Dr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my response to questions 

from the Committee, I think the Postal Service made a mistake in 

trying to obtain permission, or first stated it would accomplish this 

without Congressional acquiescence but then tried to obtain permission, to do 5-day—go from 6-day to 5-day delivery. I think they 

should have asked for delivery flexibility. 

There are a lot of places in America where 6-day delivery makes 

eminently good sense. Some places, 7-day delivery makes good 

sense; other places, 5-day delivery; other places still, 2 or 3-day delivery, per week. 

The Postal Service needs to have that kind of flexibility. I think 

the Postal Service can provide what any reasonable person would 

say is universal service to some places in America at 2 days or 3 

days, where the costs are just extraordinary of doing 6 days a 

week. 

The Postal Service did couple its proposal with a provision that 

the post office would remain open on Saturdays. If someone were 

expecting a water bill or payment or box of medicine or something 

like that, they could come to the post office and get it. 

I live on a lane. I have to go a third or half a mile every day 

to pick up my mail at my mail box. A lot of people go pick up their 

mail at the post office. 

And I know a lot of people are in very remote locations, et cetera, 

especially in rural communities, more rural than mine. 

But I think with some flexibility the Postal Service could inconvenience a few people somewhat but save a lot of money—money 

that is being provided by other postal rate payers. 

For the most part, what we are talking about in terms of the 

Postal Service’s revenue base is not money from the taxpayer; it is 
31 

money from other postal patrons. They are paying for the losses 

that are ascribed to service that is just economically prohibitive. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thank you very much for that insight. Mr. Crawford, please. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Just to add to those very thoughtful comments, 

Jim, I see it as a last resort. 

When I was on the transition team, the volume in 2008 was 203 

billion pieces; 158 billion this year. From second quarter results, it 

will be 151 billion pieces or so in 2014. 

That 140—we are approaching some of the thresholds that are 

in the bill. 

But what has struck me since I was here 2 years ago—and I 

learned this from the reform legislation that you and Dr. Coburn 

have introduced—is the potential savings in retirement and health 

care expenses, which exceed even what I imagined when I had 

done earlier examinations. 

And I think in light of the really large possibilities there, that 

it may not be necessary to go to 5-day delivery. I think Jim makes 

a good point about it depends on where you are and what makes 

sense. And I do believe the Postal Service should have the flexibility. It would be better if it were not just legislated that they had 

that capability. 

But at the same time, as a Governor, I view any reduction in 

service—it is a little like one-two-three—and service standards, 

highly regrettable and should only be taken as a last resort—and 

I think the numbers show—that there would be some savings. As 

you say, 2 or 3 billion a year, that is not chicken feed. 

But next to what we are talking about in the health care and our 

time and expenses, it just may not be necessary. 

And for a lot of people who deliver catalogs—I get my Economist 

most weeks on Saturday. That would be a loss, to have to wait 

until Monday or Tuesday on a holiday week. 

So I would like to see us keep 6-day delivery but to have the 

flexibility to reduce if we need to. 

Chairman CARPER. All right. Thanks. Thank you very much. Mr. 

Bennett, please. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I think that 6-day delivery is something that 

is kind of a foundation at the post office in that people expect that, 

and I think it would—that customer service would probably almost 

demand it in most cases. 

However, that said, I think we have to be careful to try and have 

a one-size-fits-all fix for all the various problems and, as Jim pointed out, that sometimes there may be some areas where 5-day delivery is just fine and some areas where 7-day delivery is most important. 

But, at the end of the day, I think that we have to be very careful not to try and fix the—have a one-size-fits-all kind of solution 

to the various challenges. 

If this is just about the financial issues, I think, as Stephen 

Crawford said, that there are other ways that you have included 

in the bill to address the major financial issues. So just to make 

that change for the purpose of financials, as big of a savings as it 

would have, I am not sure that that is the right thing. 
32 

And, again, if you go back and think about the model I talked 

about where you have these various silos of cost. If you start driving cost out of one area, you may end up driving cost up in some 

other areas. 

Ending Saturday delivery while we have this trigger of 140 billion pieces of mail before you can actually drop Saturday delivery, 

if you drop it, all of a sudden your pieces of mail start to fall further. So the savings impact could end up causing revenue losses in 

other areas that we have not thought about. 

So I think that there needs to be a careful analysis in that area, 

to look at what the impact is across the enterprise. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. Ms. Kennedy. 

Ms. KENNEDY. I really support what my colleagues said, and I 

really do not need to repeat it, only to say that I think that we 

need to project a Postal Service that is working and that is available for people to want to use. 

And I really reiterate strongly what Steve Crawford said. Any 

time you have a cutback in service in any way, whether it is delivery standards, whether it is daily delivery, 6 days a week, I think 

it is a black eye. I think it hurts us. 

And we want people to feel that the Postal Service is excellent 

in every way, that the mail, when they drop that letter in the mailbox, when it is picked up by their postal carrier, that it is going 

to get where they want it to go, that it is going to get there in a 

timely fashion, that they can rely on the United States Postal Service. That is the image we want to project. That is what we want 

to have happen. 

So I would love to see us find other ways to keep our finances 

robust and to maintain the Postal Service. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

I just want to reflect on this for a moment. The legislation that 

was reported out of this Committee a couple of months ago allows 

the Postal Service to consider whether or not to reduce service from 

six to five with a number of caveats, including the post office has 

to be open on weekends. People have access to their mailboxes and 

that kind of thing. Certain kinds of items still have to be delivered, 

I think, including pharmaceuticals and medications and that kind 

of thing. 

But at the encouragement of Senator Levin, we did not just use 

a straight trigger, a 140 billion volume trigger, to say, when the 

mail volume drops under 140 billion, even if that is next year, you 

can go to 5-day-a-week delivery. We did not do that. 

We have a provision that says you cannot do it before 2007. And, 

effectively, the Postal Board of Governors, even if they were to see 

the volume plummet, I do not think we are going to with the economy coming back, God willing. 

But the effect of what we put in our legislation is at the earliest 

we could go to from 6 to 5 in the first part of 2018. So we will see 

how it works out. I think the challenge for us here, the challenge 

to the Postal Service, is for employees to figure out how to get more 

people to use the service. 

How do we make Saturday delivery—how does the Postal Service 

make Saturday delivery not something that loses $1.8 billion a 
33 

year but actually make it even profitable? That is the key. How do 

we do that? 

As we figure out how to better get this digital intersection—so, 

figure it out. 

And, Mr. Bennett, if you get on this Board of Governors, I know 

you are going to help us do that. But I think that is the challenge 

for us. How do we use this? How do we take this legacy organization and make money with it and do so without encroaching in inappropriate ways on the private sector? 

We are still hoping Dr. Coburn is going to join us. He is flying 

in from Tulsa. And you know the old song, the Gene Pitney song, 

Only 24 Hours from Tulsa. It does not take quite that long to get 

here from Tulsa, but Dr. Coburn’s flight has been delayed somewhat. Chris, do you have any updates for us? 

[Pause.] 

All right. I have some bad news for you, and that is that Dr. 

Coburn’s flight has been apparently delayed further and he is not 

going to be able to be here until 8. So we will have dinner, and you 

guys can get to know each other even better. [Laughter.] 

No, I think we are going to wrap it up. Knowing Dr. Coburn, he 

will have plenty of questions for the record. And, if he has not had 

a chance to meet with you, my guess is he will want to do that, 

and I would urge you to try to make time to do that. He is a very 

thoughtful, creative person. [Laughter.] 

He is blessed with good staff and so am I. They keep us out of 

trouble most of the time. 

A lot of times what I will do with a hearing, if we have an opportunity—you were invited to make an opening statement, and I 

thought you had very good ones. Sometimes when we have time, 

I like to give our witnesses a chance to give a closing statement, 

not 5 minutes, just to reflect on what you have heard, what you 

said and what others have said and some questions that were 

asked. 

But if you would just take a moment and give us a closing statement, just to take maybe a minute or so to do that. And I will 

make a couple of comments, and then we will call it a day. Ms. 

Kennedy, would you like to lead off? 

Ms. KENNEDY. Sure. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here today, and 

thank you for your very thoughtful questions. I think the challenges are there, but I think there are great opportunities. The 

United States Postal Service is a tremendously vital asset for this 

Nation. 

And I look forward to having the opportunity to serve, and if confirmed, I look forward to serving with these magnificent gentlemen 

here to my right and having a great continuing conversation with 

you and with Dr. Coburn and the rest of the Members of the Committee. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you, ma’am. David Michael Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. All right. 

Chairman CARPER. From Charlotte, North Carolina. 

Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely. This is a really neat process. Thank 

you so much for the opportunity to be here and to go through it. 
34 

Chairman CARPER. Confirmation hearings are not normally this 

much fun. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I have had a good time. 

Chairman CARPER. Sometimes they can be downright—as Dr. 

Miller knows, sometimes they can be pretty terrible. 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I have had a great time. 

Chairman CARPER. It has been a good one. 

Mr. BENNETT. Maybe that is more of a comment on my personality than anything else, but this is a real opportunity I look forward to having the chance to tackle. 

I mean, the problems that the Postal Service has and that we 

have talked about today and that we have talked about at our 

lunches are really challenging, but they are the same kinds of problems that other businesses have faced for the last decade. 

IBM transformed themselves. Sysco is having to transform themselves now. Company after company have had to transform themselves, and they have come out on the other side, better than they 

were before. 

I think we have an opportunity to take this 200-plus-year-old organization and make it better than it was before, do some things 

that are different. 

I mean, maybe in a year we are not even talking about the number of pieces of mail that we have delivered. Maybe we are talking 

about the number of shoes or the number of other items that have 

been faxed that we have had a chance to delivery. 

The world is changing, and we have an opportunity. I think now, 

at this critical juncture, we have an opportunity to take the most 

unique organization in the world, in terms of logistics and moving 

things around, and make it something really special for the American people. 

I look forward to the opportunity, and I hope I get the opportunity to serve on the Board of Governors and help make that happen. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. And I hope you will, too. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Crawford. For the closing statement, I want to recognize Dr. 

Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I appreciate that. 

Chairman CARPER. I kept asking myself, is he a Mister or is he 

a Doctor? Finally, they told me you are a Doctor. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Well, I was sort of—— 

Chairman CARPER. All those times I called you Mister, I apologize, Dr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I will just take this opportunity to say, I was 

here 2 years ago almost to the day for my hearing the first time 

around, and S. 1789 was then—it had actually passed in the Senate. 

Since then, my wife has said to me this classic question that we 

have all been asked: Why do you want to do this? The Board cannot fix what is wrong with the Postal Service. Congress seems to 

be reluctant to act. 

And, to be perfectly frank, I had to ask myself, does this make 

good sense? 
35 

And it has been so gratifying to come back this time because 

S. 1486 has been reported out of the Committee and I am just so 

impressed by the changes that it holds forth and am hopeful 

enough that something like those will be enacted, that I find myself 

almost sharing Michael David Bennett’s enthusiasm. 

And the fact that there are four of us together here now, with 

such an interesting background, I have to confess that I, too—and 

it is not like a cynical old professor, an Army officer. But I, too, am 

enormously enthusiastic about this opportunity because of the legislation that is underway and because of the team that is here together. So, thank you for the opportunity. 

Chairman CARPER. You are welcome, and Dr. Crawford, thank 

you for your willingness to take this on yet again and try to get 

it done this time. OK? 

Thank you. Dr. Miller, please. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity of being here today, and I appreciate also the opportunity 

or the prospect of serving with these three individuals whom, as I 

say, I have gotten to know and respect. I think great things could 

come from the Postal Service’s being led by them as well as the 

current Governors. 

I concur with what Dr. Crawford has just said about the two legislative vehicles. I think the current one is much improved over the 

former one—a matter which gave rise, I think, to some lack of cohesion 2 years ago. 

I think Mr. Bennett, summarized things well and made the case 

for something I have been saying all along, and that is I think the 

Postal Service really needs the freedom, the flexibility, to operate 

like a business. 

Those businesses that have remade themselves have been able to 

do that because they had the freedom to experiment and to do 

things of a sort that Stephen mentioned earlier. All along, we have 

to be cognizant of the public service mandate the Postal Service 

has, as articulated by Ms. Kennedy. I think we can do that. 

I think working with Congress, both houses. As you know, the 

other body has not come with a proposal that is quite similar to 

the one that you have. There is more work to be done. I think, 

though, that the prospects are reasonably good because the situation of the Postal Service is so dire. 

And I congratulate you on the progress that this Committee has 

made, and I urge your prompt attention to the nominations and to 

the prospect of a full board operating in high gear. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman CARPER. Thank you. 

Thank you all. Those are wonderful closing statements. 

Let me add a couple of things—one, sort of humorous, and the 

other more serious. Not long ago my wife and I happen to be driving by a cemetery. And she is always after me to update our wills. 

And I said, Martha, I have no intention of dying anytime soon. She 

said, oh, we need to update our wills. Then one day, she said to 

me while we were driving by a cemetery; she said, ever think about 

what you would like to have on your tombstone? And I thought 

about it for a moment. 
36 

I said, I think I would like to have these words: Return to Sender. [Laughter.] 

Return to Sender. It is not just a great song but a pretty good 

something to put on a tombstone. It fits nicely, too, I think. 

The leaders are many things. You all have been leaders throughout your lives. I think leaders are humble, not haughty. 

We lead by example. It is not do as I say, but do as I do. 

I like to think leaders are those who have the courage to keep 

out of step when everyone is marching to the wrong tune. Leaders 

are also purveyors of hope. Those are not my words. That is 

Camus. Leaders are purveyors of hope. And this is not a hopeless 

situation. It is actually quite a hopeful situation. 

I have been up here drinking water. Sometimes I have to be 

careful not to drink too much in these hearings when I am by myself. But this is a glass half-full situation. 

And, if we can get our act together here in this body, on Capitol 

Hill, working with the President and all the key stakeholders, this 

can turn out a whole lot better than some were willing to believe 

just a few years ago. 

Part of the key to this is having the right folks on the Board of 

Governors. 

And when people say to me, what is your all-time favorite job, 

I tell them my best job I ever had was at Ohio State University, 

where I was a pots and pans man at the Delta Gamma sorority 

house. That was a great job. A close second would be Governor of 

Delaware. I loved being Governor. Please to serve here, but I loved 

being Governor, and I tell people I am a recovering Governor when 

they ask what I do. 

To people who really do not know me, I say, I am a recovering 

Governor. And some day I hope you will have the chance to say 

that you are recovering Governors, too. 

I think, Dr. Miller, you have already been able to say this for a 

while. But I think you will be a great addition to the Board of Governors. 

Dr. Coburn and I will have a chance to talk tomorrow and talk 

about how he would like to move forward and do it in a timely way. 

With that, let me just say that, again, we are deeply grateful to 

each of you for your time and preparation today, for meeting with 

our staffs. 

All four of our nominees have filed responses to their respective 

biographical and financial questionnaires, answering pre-hearing 

questions submitted by our Committee. 

You have had your financial statements reviewed by the Office 

of Government Ethics. 

Without objection, this information will be made a part of the 

hearing record with the exception of the financial data, which are 

on file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

Without objection, the record will be kept open until 5 p.m. tomorrow for the submission of any written questions or statements 

for the record. 

I am sure Dr. Coburn will have some additional questions, and 

my guess is that some of our colleagues will, too. 

And, with that, it is a wrap, and we will adjourn this hearing 

today. Thank you, again, so much. 
37 

[Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 

Æ