relations committee. you can watch the entire hearing tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this weekend on c-span, live saturday at 5:30 p.m. eastern, "road to the white house 2020" at the new hampshire democratic party dinner with former missouri secretary of state jason candor. and sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern, our road to the white house 2020 coverage continues. on book tv on c-span2, saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern, a feature on black classic press in baltimore. and on sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, for his book "a benedikt option: a strategy for christians in a post-christian nation." on "american history tv" on c-span3, saturday at 4:55 eastern, prominent figures in american law, including supreme court justice elena kagan on the

late thurgood marshall. and on "reel america" two cbs "face the nation" programs with ronald reagan and george wallace. watch this weekend on the c-span networks. each weekend, this segment of the washington journal, we take a look at how your money is at work in a different federal program. this week president trump helped pick our topic with a series of recent tweets about amazon and its impact on the u.s. post service. joining us at our desk for this discussion is kevin co-sar. kevin, here is one of the president's recent tweets on this topic. from april 3rd. the president saying, i am right about amazon costing the united states post office massive amounts of money for being their delivery boy. amazon should pay these costs

plus and not have them borne by the american taxpayer. many billions of dollars. post office leaders don't have a clue. or do they? is the president wrong in his criticism of this amazon post office deal? >> well, the particulars are not quite correct, but he does resurface a larger issue. so let's take one of the particulars. the postal service is not paid for by taxpayers, it's paid for folks who sent the mail. it doesn't get appropriations each year. instead what happens is that mailers pay the postage that amounts to almost $70 billion a year to keep the place in operation. now, the bigger issue is the matter of large shippers and large mailers making deals with the postal service. and these deals, the details are just not publicly available. which, of course, plays into trump's long-term trope about washington insiderism. >> so what do we know about amazon and this deal? do we know how long it's been around or how much gets made off of this?

is there any way to get a freedom of information act request about it? >> well, the first thing is, yeah, the freedom of information act applies to the postal service as a whole but it carries exemptions. one of those exemptions is for commercially sensitive information. if you write to the postal service and say you want to see the deal, you're going to get a letter back saying no. as a result, we don't know about amazon or any other big companies' deals with the postal service. we don't know what they're paying and we don't know ultimately if they're lucrative. >> how long has the post office been entering into these deals? maybe not just amazon? when did they start doing this? >> i'm not sure which year but it's been going on for a long time. it has brought the postal service a whole lot of revenue. ten years ago, they were hardly in the parcels business. they did about $1.5 billion in revenue. out of a budget back then that was about $70 billion. so it was a small revenue stream. now the postal service's

revenues are stuck at $70 billion, but they're raking in $20 billion in parcel revenue. which is much-needed considering the rest of their lines of business are dying. >> we're talking about the u.s. postal service, its relationship with amazon this morning if your "your money" segment of the "wall street journal." kevin kosart is with us this morning. >> we are a almost 6-year-old think tank here in washington, d.c. we work in a variety of areas, criminal justice reform, postal reform, technology policy. we're into a whole bunch of areas. we've got about 55 employees and we're having a good time. >> talk about your background and how long have you studied postal issues? >> i first picked up postal issues in 2003 when i started

working at congressal research service. it's a funny situation. would you like to work on postal policy? i thought, well, i guess so, boss. two years later he retired and i became the head of the postal policy -- >> kevin kosar has joined us a few times to talk about post office reform efforts moving through congress. we'll talk about during this segment. we have a special line for postal workers. 202-748-8003 is that number. i want to come back to the package delivery that the postal service does. 5.7 billion pieces in 2017. that's up from 3.7 billion pieces just five years earlier. is this a place where the post office is making money? >> well, it's hard to tell. and you would think, why shouldn't it be easy to figure out, you know? revenue minus cost equals whether or not you have a profit. the postal service is a massive enterprise. figuring out how you attribute a

particular cost is way more complicated than you might expect, especially in a time of rapid growth. the number of parcels they're carrying has quintupled in ten years. >> i want to talk about the biggest expense for the post service. show viewers how much the post service made in fiscal year 2017. $69.6 billion. its expenses, though, $72.3 billion with a net loss of $2.7 billion. what do you attribute that loss to? >> well, certainly it's revenue stagnant. it's hard for any business to stay profitable when your main line of business has not grown. mail volume has actually fallen by close to 30% in the past decade. parcels are the sole exception there. which means the postal service has kind of been in a relentless financial crunch. >> with the amazon criticism from the president, five or six tweets in the past two weeks

about this, has the president ever gotten directly involved in the deals that get negotiated between the big shippers and the post service? >> oh, no. it's a very bureaucratic process laid out in federal regulation. the president plays zero role whatsoever, and i would presume has never actually seen the detail office any of these arrangements. >> so who are the people that actually make those arrangements? >> well, the postal service. they sit down with a big shipper or mailer and come to an agreement which gets september over to the postal regulatory commission. >> what is that? >> it's an independent regulatory body whose job is to keep an eye on the postal service and what it's charging people for postage. then it looks at it and says does this deal comport with law and the law itself is rather vague. if it does, the postal service and the company go forth. >> you said the post service hasn't said much about this deal with amazon. has amazon said anything about

it? >> no, i've not seen any details be released. this is not unusual. nobody should be sitting there and saying, wow, something sketchy is going on. they deal with tons of private businesses. none of them tweet out or publish these deals. why would you do that in a private sector? >> what level to you have to rise to in terms of shipping to get a separate deal with the post office? >> you have to be moving a lot of parcels. your typical mom and pop shop selling stuff on ebay or running a small business, they're not going to get the volume size. what the actual volume threshold is, i don't know, honestly. >> have any of those other deals been made, have any of those been made public? do we know what these arrangements generally look like? >> no, they haven't been made public, but there have been long simmering allegations about whether the postal service was underpricing. frequently the accusations have come from postal unions whose workers feel that they are bearing the brunt of having to carry more stuff, process more

stuff but not necessarily seeing the benefits in the terms of more revenues coming in. >> kevin kosar here to answer your questions. david's up first in denison, texas. republican. go ahead. >> caller: hi. i've got three or four questions. they're really just questions. you said that the post office wasn't getting taxpayer funds, but they're running these huge deficits. it's my understanding they're getting treasury loans that they can't repay. >> correct. the postal service by law can borrow up to $15 billion total from the treasury, and they maxed out that borrowing back in 2012. >> caller: okay. there's talk of a question about, well, they're not really costing the government any money. the only people i see -- the open -- believe me, we get plenty from amazon and i like that, but the only ones

delivered from amazon on sundays. it seems hard to believe that there is an efficiency there if most or practically all the service being done on sunday is just for amazon. let me couple that with another one if i could because i know i'm going to get cut off here at some point. the secret deal you just referred to. my understanding of the way these things are supposed to work, i've seen it in other areas of -- where there was competition being regulated by the government. they can't -- if i understand this right, they have a, quote, unquote, amazon deal, they would have categories of if you're this volume then you get this deal that would be available to anybody that can match that volume. which means that it shouldn't be secret or you couldn't verify that kind of thing was happening because if they truly had a volume set that only amazon could reach then that gives amazon yet another singular m

monopolistic capability. people talk about amazon. other companies have been huge and there have been complaints all throughout history. believe me, i'm a free market guy. i've listened to folks talk about it and the difference in how amazon is the first company, in fact, that they can think of that's been able to operate over a decade without making a profit, they're doing it based on their cap rate and their ability to raise money practically for free, not to mention they happen to be doing big parts of it during practically zero interest. all you have to do is watch the stock market and see what happens in anticipation. they can drive prices down, wait people out, run them out of business and come back. does anybody really think the prices aren't going up later after that type of thing? >> david, thanks for the questions. a lot to cover there. >> yeah, well, first, amazon's

interesting because it has positioned itself so that it is able to use any private shipper that it would like or use the postal service. and that's just smart. and what it does, in fact, is that it mixes and matches. in some places it finds the postal service better to use so it uses it there. in other places, it uses other shippers. it's cobbled together from the variety of shipping companies out there, arrangements that are working really remarkably. they're the first ones to start basically guaranteeing two-day delivery and making that the norm not the exception. now they've moved to this same-day delivery in some locations. they're way ahead logistically of so many other companies. >> one question when you were having the conversation with the caller, you mentioned the postal service has maxed out its borrowing limit, so what happened when they ran a $2.7 billion net loss in fiscal 2017? >> well, they do have a pretty

good supply of cash on-hand. so they're not having to turn out the lights, but, no, they can't reach into the treasury and borrow more. last i checked, they had about $12 billion in cash. that serves as a cushion to get them through. >> what happens when that runs out? >> they turn off the lights absent a congressional rescue. >> is there a congressional rescue on the way? >> there has been legislation worked on for a long time. postal policy always stakes a long time to get through congress because all the straer stakeholders want something different and you can't make everybody happy. >> to florida. line for democrats. linda. go ahead. >> caller: i get a lot of my shipping done because i'm handicapped and i really don't like to go do a lot of shopping. i get all kinds of packages that when you're checking out are

stated it will be u.p.s. or it will be fedex ground or whatever, and it comes by u.s. post office. i don't understand that. i'll take my answer offline. >> all right. well, thanks for the question. yeah, it is kind of confounding, isn't it? what happens is that shipments will be moved, different segments of the movement will be parcelled out, so to speak, to different companies. so the postal service is really well-positioned to do what's called last mile delivery. they have a couple hundred,000 letter carriers. they go to people's homes or businesses every day regardless. it's very easy for companies to hand it off to the postal service at the end. it's not unusual to have two or three different companies

handling a parcel before it reaches your hands. >> bill. west springfield, massachusetts. line for democrats. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, hi. i was -- i was kind of wondering, i guy said that amazon raises revenue for the post office. and he made it sound like it was a good thing. it really means nothing if the revenue is creating a loss. i'm self-employed. if i have $1 million worth of revenue but i was losing 10% on it, i'd go out of business. what bothers me most is he mentioned that these numbers are being kept secret. you can't even get the numbers as to whether or not, you know, what the price is that amazon is paying and so forth. whenever i hear something like that, all i think about is something shady going on. i just don't think it's right that we can't get these numbers. >> yeah, it's -- and the numbers, even if the numbers are released, how the numbers get

defined is a whole matter unto itself. again, you know, a profit should be revenue minus cost, in the simplest terms. well, how do you define cost? there have been longtime allegations the postal service is attributing parcel cost to letter and catalog and other sorts of mail costs. these things just keep swirling around. even when numbers get reported out that show the postal service, you know, they'll tell you of $20 billion in revenue for parcels, they own the had $13 billion in costs. that's a magnificent profit. people ask the question, how are you attributing those costs? the data and the argument hasn't been taken far enough and the public and obviously president trump are not satisfied. >> so here's another number. do you know where the president got this number from? this is from his march 31st tweet on this topic. the president saying, while we're on the subject, it is reported the u.s. post office will lose $1.50 on average for

each package it delivers for amazon. that amounts to billions of dollars. the failing "new york times" he says reports the size of the lobbying staff has ballooned, which doesn't include "the washington post" which is used as a lobbyist. if the post office increased its parcel rates, amazon shipping would rise by $2.6 billion. this post office scam must stop. amazon must pay real costs and taxes now. >> yeah, that figure came from a "wall street journal" op-ed that was published last summer. and that op-ed relied upon an analysis done by citigroup. and that analysis, funny enough, i had been looking for it for months and months and months and only about a week ago got my hands on it. josh barrow, a sharp business writer for "business insider" wrote a column taking issue with that number, which, again, is raising the question of, like, whose numbers are right and

what's the cost? but that's, i think, where trump got the number. >> do you have a number in mind that you think is right? >> no. no. i'm trained to look for data, to assess data before opening my mouth. my mouth. i know it is unusual in this time. no i do not. >> tom is in hollywood, florida. >>. >> caller: i want to comment on certain things. why would you tell everybody what you are doing with them. big business keep these things secret. number two, possibly, when they entered in this agreement with amazon, the numbers were favorable to -- people don't realize that much of the mail and parcels are going ton aircraft and raising the rates on cargo as well. so that's a factor.

gasoline is a factor with all their vehicles. like mr. kosar said, the huge organization have lots of costs. they have been making an effort to try to get a handle on this and i don't believe the numbers are losing $1.50 a parcel. they would not enter into a contract like that. and the numbers are secret, where are they getting the numbers from? >> mr. kosar. >> you raise a point tom. they get reviewed up front. what happens consequently, you know, it can go either way. if there's excessive bad weather for months. that's going to drive up transportation costs. a rise in fuel costs or imagine something like an airline strike or something like that. you never know how complex deals

are going to play out. that's an important point. >> who does the postal regulregula regulatory commission report to? >> congress. that's about it. they are an independent regulatory body. one of the seats are open and it is a presidential appointee, so some of the folks in time who watch postal issues wondering if trump is going to put someone there and come in with an ax on parcels. >> they review one of the deals that may come to the postal service? >> that would be extraordinary, i don't know if that a legally allowed. >> kevin kosar with us about the next ten minutes taking your calls as we talk about amazon and the postal service. mark from virginia, go ahead. >> caller: i'm curious since we

are discussing the post office losing money, is it true that the post office was to fund retirement for 75 years and funding retirement for people who aren't even born yet. is that actually the case, didn't that cause the post office, the postal office to be in the red? >> good question. that is a popular rumor. which has a little of the truth but isn't actually true. no, the postal office didn't have to fund 75 years of benefits for unborn postal workers. it did require the postal service to pre-fund the current employees, future retirement benefits. the way it pre-funds pensions. it was a good concept to protect postal workers to make sure they get benefits and to make sure

the taxpayers didn't have to bail them out. the the execution was terrible. and that's on congress. an aggressive ten-year payment schedule that the postal office couldn't make. they defaulted and didn't put a nickel in since then. >> why does the postal service needs to be profitable when it is mandated in the constitution. >> it is not in the constitution, the only thing is that congress is given the power, article 1-section 8 to create post roads and post offices butten don't have to have a postal service. few go back to the days of ben franklin, you will be intreeked to find that there were taverns and you can do business through

there. prior to 1971, the postal service was a general service and taxpayer dollars did flow in. and created as a government corporation that was supposed to be funding. >> when it go into the package delivery business, did you think it was a good idea? >> we didn't see it happening. they have been in packages since 1913 and the market share was small. not a big deal. and they were not known to be good at it. the tracking system was not great. and the packages getting beat up and the e commerce error hit and they went from a big player to a major player. private shipping companies have to be concerned about this. and the subsidies helping them do it. they complained but i don't

think anybody in congress paid attention. they love the fact that parcels can get to people through postal service. >> 3.7 billion package delivery in 2013 and over 5 billion last year. barbara in ohio, independent. >> caller: good morning, does your guess have information on the salary and bonuses? >> sure. actually, postmaster general salary and bonuses those are publicly reported each year in the annual report published on the website. if you google postal service financials, you can see the annual report and you can see megan brennan compensation. it is not -- i can't give you the exact number. it is not extraordinary, compared to the ceo of a private

company, what she is getting paid is poultry and doesn't get stock options because they are a government agency. >> north carolina, independent. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. the reason i'm calling is because i'm hearing about the rate commission. for the board of governors, i worked in a post office for 36 years, the post office was basically run by them and what they did was every time the postal service will say we need a rate increase. i'm going back to the 5-cent stamp. what does a candy bar cost now? that is one example. the postal service wanted to get into electronic mail when it first came out and the board of governors shut them down and

fedex and u.p.s., it was fine as long as it was not first-class mail. and then able to carry express mail. the board of governors, or the postal rate commission, they are responsible for the position they are in. ronald reagan made the postal service pay back over $300 million a year towards cost of benefits. that's one reason they never make a profit. the board of governors will not give them the money they need and ronald raegon's deal with i forget who it was but it was over $300 million every year they had to put out. and one other issue i forgot -- >> that's all right, david, you raised a few for us. we will let kevin take them on. >> they do have some discretion

over postal operations. but one surprising fact is there are no governor's presently. postal service had a ghost shipboard for almost two years. >> how did that happen? >> they are presidential appointees and have term limits. if the person doesn't get through senate confirmation, no board. so it has been able to run itself. as far as the different lines of business, the postal service is one to get into other stuff and the question is should theb allowed to. do we want them competing with the private sector? the postal service should stick to postal things. >> kevin kosar is with the institute, public policy, vice president there. you can check out his work or on

twitter. always appreciate the time. >> c-span, washington journal live everyday with news and policy issue that is impact you. coming up friday morning, barbara lee will come to the studio to talk about potential military action against syria. and congressman buddy carter will join us in talking about congress's role in the opioid crisis. join the discussion. >> next a house hearing on the national guard's 2019 budget request. and sun any perdue on the budget for next year and montana gov nar steve bullock. and the implications of russian president vladimir putin's re-election. >> the chieff