Postal Reform Bills: A Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 22 and S. 662

Order Code RL32903

Postal Reform Bills:

A Side-by-Side Comparison

of H.R. 22 and S. 662

Updated October 16, 2006

Kevin R. Kosar

Analyst in American National Government

Government and Finance Division

Postal Reform Bills: A Side-by-Side Comparison

of H.R. 22 and S. 662

Summary

The 109th Congress is considering two bipartisan bills that would reform the

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) — H.R. 22 and S. 662. H.R. 22 was introduced and

referred to the House Government Reform Committee on the first day of the 109th

Congress (January 4, 2005). On April 14, the Government Reform Committee

marked up H.R. 22 and ordered it reported by a vote of 39-0. Thereafter, H.R. 22

was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 28, discharged

therefrom May 27, and placed on Union Calendar No. 55 that same day. The House

passed H.R. 22 on July 26, 2005, by a vote of 410 to 20, and it was placed on the

Senate Legislative Calendar (Calendar No. 176).

S. 662 was introduced in the Senate on March 17, 2005, and referred to the

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On June 22, S. 662

was amended and reported by a vote of 15-1. S. 662 and amendments thereto were

agreed to by unanimous consent, incorporated into H.R. 22, and passed by the Senate

on February 9, 2006. That same day, the Senate also appointed conferees. The

House has not appointed its conferees.

H.R. 22 and S. 662 are similar to two bills from the 108th Congress — H.R.

4341 and S. 2468 — which cleared committee by unanimous votes but were not

brought to the floor. Like these previous bills, H.R. 22 and S. 662 would define the

categories of postal services and products as “competitive” or “market-dominant”

and prohibit the Postal Service from subsidizing competitive products with revenues

from market-dominant products. USPS could set rates for market-dominant products

but increases would be capped at the rate of inflation.

Although H.R. 22 and S. 662 are closer together than their counterparts in the

108th Congress, the two bills have significant differences:

!

!

!

!

!

!

the definition of “market-dominant” postal products and services;

the components and goals of the new ratemaking system for

market-dominant products and services;

disability payments and retirement;

retiree health benefits funding schedule;

the establishment of “modern service standards”; and

the make-up of the Board of Governors of the Postal Service.

This report will be updated to reflect significant legislative developments. Readers

seeking information on the most recent postal reform issues and activities should

consult CRS Report RL33618, Postal Reform, by Kevin R. Kosar.

Contents

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 22 and S. 662 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Title I — Definitions, Postal Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Title II — Modern Rate Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Title III — Provisions Relating to Fair Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Title IV — General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Title V — Enhanced Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Title VI — Inspectors General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Title VII — Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Title VIII — Miscellaneous, Technical and Conforming Amendments . . . 52

Title IX — Postal Pension Funding Reform Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Postal Reform Bills: A Side-by-Side

Comparison of H.R. 22 and S. 662

Overview

The 109th Congress is considering two bipartisan bills that would reform the

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) — H.R. 22 and S. 662. Both bills were sponsored by the

chairpersons and ranking minority members of the committees of jurisdiction. H.R.

22 was introduced and referred to the House Government Reform Committee on the

first day of the 109th Congress (January 4, 2005). On April 14, the Government

Reform Committee marked up H.R. 22 and approved it by a vote of 39-0. Thereafter,

H.R. 22 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 28,

discharged therefrom May 27, and placed on Union Calendar No. 55 that same day.

The House passed H.R. 22 on July 26, 2005, by a vote of 410 to 20, and it was placed

on the Senate Legislative Calendar (Calendar No. 176).

S. 662 was introduced into the Senate on March 17, 2005, and referred to the

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. On June 22, the

Committee amended S. 662 and ordered it to be reported by a vote of 15-1. S. 662

and amendments thereto were agreed to by unanimous consent, incorporated into

H.R. 22, and passed by the Senate on February 9, 2006.1 That same day, the Senate

also appointed conferees. The House has not appointed its conferees.

H.R. 22 and S. 662 share many features — more so than the postal reform bills

of the 108th Congress.2 To take three prominent examples, both bills would require

increased financial transparency at USPS by requiring USPS to prepare quarterly and

annual reports that contain the same information that publicly traded corporations file

with the Securities and Exchange Commission. H.R. 22 and S. 662 also now share

identical language regulating USPS discretion to enter into work-sharing agreements

with the private sector, a matter of concern to large mailers and postal employee

unions. Finally, the bills share identical language on the operation of the proposed

Postal Service Competitive Products Fund. Previously, the House and Senate

differed over USPS’s right to invest excess funds in private sector securities and

obligations. Now, H.R. 22 and S. 662 agree that any excess funds may be invested

only in U.S. Treasury investments, a concession to the Treasury Department.

1

This process, called the “hookup,” allows the two chambers to choose a bill on which to

go to conference. Following the Senate action, there are two versions of H.R. 22: the

version passed by the House, and the Senate amendment. For the sake of clarity, though,

this report will continue to refer to the Senate amendment as S. 662.

2

For a similar comparison of postal reform legislation in the 108th Congress, see CRS

Report RL32402, Postal Reform Bills: A Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 4341 and S.

2468, by Kevin R. Kosar.

CRS-2

Both bills propose changes that would have significant effects on the financial

condition of the Postal Service. H.R. 22 and S. 662 would transfer back to the

Treasury the responsibility to fund pension benefits arising from former military

service of postal workers. This would reverse a provision of the Postal Civil Service

Retirement System Reform Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-18) that could cost USPS (and its

customers) $27 billion. H.R. 22 and S. 662 would abolish the escrow account

provided for in P.L. 108-18.3

H.R. 22 and S. 662 also propose incremental reforms that would attempt to

make the Postal Service operate more openly and predictably. Both bills would

require USPS to focus on its core mission (the delivery of mail) by defining the term

“postal services.” H.R. 22 and S. 662 also would define various postal products and

services as “competitive” or “market-dominant” and prohibit USPS from subsidizing

competitive products with revenues from market-dominant products. Additionally,

the bills would transform the Postal Rate Commission into a broader regulatory body

with subpoena powers (the new Postal Regulatory Commission, hereafter PRC).

H.R. 22 and S. 662 would also replace the present adversarial postage ratemaking

process, which typically takes 10 to 14 months, with a rate-cap system that would

permit USPS to raise postage rates on market-dominant products at the rate of

inflation. The Board of Governors (BOG) of USPS would establish rates and classes

for competitive products.

While very similar, H.R. 22 and S. 662 do possess substantive differences,

which are described below.

The Definition of Market-Dominant Postal Products and Services.

H.R. 22 and S. 662 differ over the definition of market-dominant products. Both

bills would include first class, library, and media mail, as well as postcards, in their

definitions. S. 662 would include sealed parcels and single piece parcel post; H.R.

22 would not. The inclusion or non-inclusion of a product in this classification is of

concern to mailers and competitors of the Postal Service (such as UPS and FedEx)

because of the possible effects on product prices. Critics have long complained that

USPS keeps the prices for some products (such as parcels) artificially low, thereby

garnering a larger market share. USPS is accused of doing this by failing to attribute

the full cost of providing such a product; these products are said to be “crosssubsidized” by the large earnings USPS earns on first-class mail. Under both H.R.

22 and S. 662, products that are not defined as market-dominant would fall into the

“competitive products” category and the USPS would have to fully attribute the costs

of providing them. Some believe that including, for example, parcels in the

competitive products category would lead to increased prices for parcel delivery

service (which competitors would likely favor and large mailers would likely

disfavor).

The Components and Goals of the New Ratemaking System for

Market-Dominant Products and Services. While H.R. 22, Section 201, and

S. 662, Section 201, are similar on the components and goals of the new ratemaking

3

On pension and escrow issues, see CRS Report RL32346, Pension Issues Cloud Postal

Reform Debate, by Nye Stevens.

CRS-3

system, significant differences remain. Both would require USPS to cap the prices

of market-dominant products at the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,

but S. 662 would require the new ratemaking system to permit USPS to exceed the

rate cap only under “unexpected and extraordinary” circumstances and allow USPS

to raise rates for a class or service above the CPI by the amount that rate increases in

the previous year were less than the CPI. S. 662 also has what is colloquially referred

to as a “banking” provision that would allow USPS to draw on “unused rate

authority” to raise rates for any class up to 2% above the CPI for that year.

H.R. 22 would allow USPS to exceed the rate cap if PRC held a public hearing

and determined that breaking the rate cap “is reasonable and equitable and

necessary.” (The Postal Service would like to have this rate-cap escape clause

because it believes that staying below the CPI will be “extremely challenging” due

to falling revenues, the growing number of delivery points, and USPS’s limited

control over its costs.)4 H.R. 22 would prohibit USPS from raising the postage rate

of any subclass of mail more than the CPI without permission from PRC. S. 662

would apply this restriction at the class level — a provision the Postal Service prefers

because it gives USPS greater flexibility to adjust rates.

Finally, H.R. 22 would require the new ratemaking system to establish a “fair

and equitable” schedule for rates and the classification system; S. 662 uses the phrase

“just and reasonable” instead.

Disability Payments and Retirement. S. 662, Section 902, would

encourage injured workers of retirement age to retire rather than continue on

disability leave. Under current law, an employee suffering total disability from a

workplace injury is entitled to compensation of 66b% of monthly pay. S. 662 would

reduce this to 50%. H.R. 22 does not carry this provision and is, therefore, favored

by USPS unions, especially the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC).5

Retiree Health Benefits Funding. Both H.R. 22, Secs. 901-904, and S.

662, Secs. 802-804, would return the obligation for postal worker benefits

attributable to military service to the Treasury and establish a Postal Service Retiree

Health Benefits Fund for the purpose of pre-funding retiree health benefits. The two

bills, however, have different approaches to the unfunded retiree health benefits

liability. H.R. 22 would require USPS to make annual payments into the fund

consisting of a contribution to cover predicted retirement health care costs of current

postal workers and interest on the contribution owed for both current and future

4

Testimony of John E. Potter, Postmaster General/CEO, United States Postal Service,

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

Postal Service: What is Needed to Ensure its Future Viability?, hearings, 109th Cong., 1st

sess., Apr. 14, 2005, available at [http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/PMGTESTIMONY

FINAL412.pdf], pp. 15-17.

5

On reports of NALC’s involvement, see Stephen Barr, “Fate of Post Office Overhauls Up

for Debate,” Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2006, p. D4; Stephen Barr, “Communication

Breakdown Cited in Failed Postal Legislation,”Washington Post, p. D4; and NALC, EActivist Network newsletter, Sept. 30, 2006, available at

[http://www.unionvoice.org/nalc/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=1576837].

CRS-4

annuitants. The House bill also would require that two-thirds of the annual escrow

“savings” be devoted to the fund. S. 662 would also require an annual contribution

to the fund, but it would consist of a contribution to cover predicted retirement health

care costs of current postal workers and an installment payment on an amortization

schedule to reduce the unfunded liability. The Postal Service has expressed a

preference for S. 662 because it does not include the two-thirds provision (which

limits USPS discretion). USPS also has said that having a predictable annual

amortization payment would make operating under a rate cap easier. The

administration of George W. Bush has objected to the escrow and military benefits

proposals in both bills, arguing that any reform must be “budget neutral.”6

The Establishment of Modern Service Standards. S. 662, Title III,

would require USPS and PRC to establish service standards designed to achieve four

objectives (provided they are consistent with USPS’s universal service obligation):

!

!

!

!

Enhance the value of the Postal Service to both senders and

recipients;

Preserve regular and effective access to postal services in all

communities, including those in rural areas or where post offices are

not self-sustaining;

Reasonably assure USPS customers delivery reliability, speed, and

frequency consistent with reasonable rates and best business

practices; and

Provide a system of objective external performance measurements

for each market-dominant product as a basis for measurement of

USPS performance.

The Postal Service would be required to prepare a report each year that details its

progress in achieving objectives. The USPS Inspector General would be required to

examine this report and issue an assessment of its own on USPS compliance with the

law. Both reports would be submitted to Congress. H.R. 22 excludes this title

altogether. Instead, Section 204 of H.R. 22 would require USPS to develop its own

service standards and PRC to monitor its achievement of them.

Governance of the U.S. Postal Service. Both bills would amend present

law. The House bill would require that at least four of the Governors of USPS be

selected solely on the basis of their demonstrated ability in managing organizations

or corporations of “substantial size” (defined as possessing 50,000 or more

employees). S. 662 would require all Governors to be chosen on basis of “experience

in the fields of public service, law or accounting or on their demonstrated ability in

managing organizations or corporations (in either the public or private sector) of

substantial size.” The bill does not define the term “substantial size.” H.R. 22 would

require that an early vacancy on the Board of Governors be filled by a person

nominated with the concurrence of labor unions; S. 662 would not.

6

See, for example, Office of Management and Budget, “Statement of Administrative Policy:

H.R. 22 — Postal Accountability and Improvement Act,” July 26, 2006, pp. 2-3, available

at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-1/hr22sap-h.pdf].

CRS-5

Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 22 and S. 662

This side-by-side comparison uses H.R. 22 from the 109th Congress as passed

by the House on July 26, 2005, as its base. The left-hand column provides digests

of the sections of H.R. 22; the right-hand column holds digests of the sections of S.

662 — as amended and passed by the Senate on February 9, 2006 — from the 109th

Congress. As the reader will see, the titles and sections of the two bills are not

always the same. For example, S. 662 carries a title on “Modern Service Standards”;

H.R. 22 does not. H.R. 22 carries a section (601) that would create an Inspector

General of the Postal Regulatory Commission; S. 662 does not. In some cases, the

bills carry similar provisions but place them in different titles. For example, Section

407 of H.R. 22 proposes reforms to the structure of the collective bargaining process;

so does S. 662, but at Section 505. In such cases, the columns cross-reference one

another, directing the reader to the comparable provisions of the bills.

CRS-6

Side-by-Side Comparison of House and Senate Postal Reform Bills (109th Congress)

Sec. 101.

Definitions.

Sec. 102.

Postal

Services.

House bill

Senate bill

Title I — Definitions, Postal Services

Title I — Definitions, Postal Services

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 102 to define the following

terms: product, rates, market-dominant product,

competitive product, consumer price index, and year.

Sec. 101.

Definitions.

Identical except for slight difference in the definition of

the word “product.”

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 10 to define “postal service” as

“the carriage of letters, printed matter, or mailable

packages, including acceptance, processing, delivery, or

other services supportive or ancillary thereto.”

Would define “postal service” as “the physical delivery

of letters, printed matter, or packages weighing up to 70

pounds, including physical acceptance, collection,

sorting, transportation, or other functions ancillary

thereto.”

Would define “consumer price index” to mean the

“monthly Consumer Price Index for All Urban

Consumers.”

Equivalent provision at Sec. 201 (see below).

Would provide that “[n]othing in this title shall be

considered to permit or require that the Postal Service

provide any special nonpostal or similar services, except

that nothing in this subsection shall prevent the Postal

Service from providing any special nonpostal or similar

services provided by the Postal Service as of January 4,

2005.”

Sec. 102.

Postal

Services.

Would provide that “[e]xcept as provided in section

411, nothing in this title shall be considered to permit

or require that the Postal Service provide any special

nonpostal or similar services.”

CRS-7

House bill

Sec. 103.

Financial

Transparency.

Senate bill

Not included.

Would also include a conforming amendment to 39

U.S.C. 2003(b)(1) by striking “and nonpostal,” a

provision that USPS has used to justify entering

businesses outside its core mission.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 101 and 39 U.S.C. 5001 to

require the USPS to “be subject to a high degree of

financial transparency, including its finances and

operations, to ensure fair treatment of customers of the

Postal Service’s market-dominant products and

companies competing with the Postal Service’s

competitive products.”

Equivalent provision at Sec. 605.

CRS-8

Sec. 201.

Provisions

Relating

to MarketDominant

Products.

House bill

Senate bill

Title II — Modern Rate Regulation

Title II — Modern Rate Regulation

H.R. 22 would define market-dominant products to

include:

— single piece first-class letters (both domestic and

international);

— all first-class mail;

— single piece first-class cards;

— media mail;

— library mail;

— special services;

— periodicals;

— standard mail;

— bound printed matter.

— Not included.

Sec. 201.

Provisions

Relating

to MarketDominant

Products.

S. 662 would define market-dominant products as:

— first-class letters and sealed parcels;

— single piece international mail;

— Not included.

— first-class cards;

— Identical.

— Identical.

— Identical.

— Identical.

— Identical.

— Identical.

— single-piece parcel post;

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 3621 and 3622 to require the

new Postal Regulatory Commission (see Sec. 501 below)

to establish a “modern system for regulating rates and

classes for market-dominant products within 24 months.”

Identical except that PRC would be required to

establish the new rate regulation system within 12

months of enactment.

The proposed “modern rate regulation system” would be

required to:

Similar provision but would require new rate regulation

system to:

CRS-9

House bill

Senate bill

— Reduce the administrative burden of the

ratemaking process;

— Reduce the administrative burden and increase

the transparency of the ratemaking process while

affording reasonable opportunities for interested

parties to participate in that process;

— Create predictability and stability in rates;

— Identical;

— Maximize incentives to reduce costs and increase

efficiency,

— Identical;

— Allow USPS flexibility in pricing, assure adequate

revenues (including retained earnings)

— Allow the Postal Service pricing flexibility,

including the ability to use pricing to promote

intelligent mail and encourage increased mail

volume during nonpeak periods;

— Assure adequate revenues — including retained

earnings — to maintain financial stability; and to

maintain high quality service standards;

— Assure adequate revenues, including retained

earnings, to maintain financial stability and meet the

service standards established (see below);

— Establish and maintain a fair and equitable

schedule for rates and the classification system;

— Establish a “just and reasonable schedule for

rates and classifications” but would not prohibit

USPS “from making changes of unequal magnitude

within, between, or among classes of mail.” (This

provision was amended February 9, 2006.)

— Not included.

— Enhance mail security and deter terrorism by

promoting secure, sender-identified mail;

CRS-10

House bill

— Not included.

In crafting this system, PRC would be required to take

into account:

Senate bill

— Allocate the total institutional costs of USPS

equitably between market-dominant and competitive

products.

In crafting this system, PRC would be required to take

into account:

— “The value of the mail service actually provided

each class or type of mail service to both the sender

and the recipient, including, but not limited to the

collection, mode of transportation, and priority of

delivery;

Identical;

— “The direct and indirect postal costs attributable to

each class or type of mail service plus that portion of

all other costs of the Postal Service reasonably

assignable to such class or type;

— “The requirement that each class of mail or type

of mail service bear the direct and indirect postal

costs attributable to each class or type of mail

service through reliably identified causal

relationships plus that portion of all other costs of

the Postal Service reasonably assignable to such

class or type;”

— “The effect of rate increases upon the general

public, business mail users, and enterprises in the

private sector of the economy engaged in the delivery

of mail matter other than letters;

— Identical;

CRS-11

House bill

Senate bill

— “The available alternative means of sending and

receiving letters and other mail matter at reasonable

costs;

— Identical;

— “The degree of preparation of mail for delivery

into the postal system performed by the mailer and its

effect upon reducing costs to the Postal Service;

— Identical;

— “Simplicity of structure for the entire schedule and

simple, identifiable relationships between the rates or

fees charged the various classes of mail for postal

services;

— Identical;

— “The relative value to the people of the kinds of

mail matter entered into the postal system and the

desirability and justification for special classifications

and services of mail;

— Identical;

— “The importance of providing classifications with

extremely high degrees of reliability and speed of

delivery and of providing those that do not require

high degrees of reliability and speed of delivery;

— Identical;

— “The desirability of special classifications from the

point of view of both the user and of the Postal

Service;

— Identical;

CRS-12

House bill

Senate bill

— “The educational, cultural, scientific, and

informational value to the recipient of mail matter; and

— Identical;

— “The policies of this title as well as such other

factors as the Commission deems appropriate.”

— Identical;

— Not included.

— The need for the Postal Service to increase its

efficiency and reduce its costs to help maintain high

quality, affordable, universal postal service;

— Not included.

— The importance of pricing flexibility to

encourage increased mail volume and operational

efficiency. (This provision was added June 22,

2005.)

Would permit the rates and classes regulation system for

market-dominant products to include one or more of the

following characteristics:

Would require the new rate system to:

— price caps, revenue targets, or other forms of

incentive regulation;

— “include an annual limitation on the percentage

changes in rates ... that will be equal to the change in

the Consumer Price Index for All Urban

Consumers...”

— cost-of-service regulation;

— Not included.

CRS-13

House bill

— such other forms of regulation as the Commission

considers appropriate to achieve.”

Senate bill

— Not included.

Not included.

Would require the ratemaking system to include

“procedures whereby rates may be adjusted on an

expedited basis due to unexpected and extraordinary

circumstances.”

Would not permit USPS to “bank” unused pricing

authority. Would prohibit PRC from permitting any

subclass of mail to increase faster than the CPI unless

PRC determines such an increase to be “reasonable,

equitable, and necessary.”

Would allow USPS to “bank” unused pricing authority

for any class or service. Thus, USPS could raise rates

above the CPI but not by more than two percent more

than that year’s CPI. Unused banking authority may

be used in any of the subsequent five years. (This

provision was amended February 9, 2006.)

Would provide a transition rule that would require that

“[u]ntil regulations under this section first take effect,

rates and classes for market-dominant products shall

remain subject to modification in accordance with the

provisions of this chapter and section 407.”

Similar provision but also would provide that

proceedings for a recommended decision by the PRC

during this transition period be done in accordance with

regulations in effect before date of enactment. (This

provision was added February 9, 2006.)

See Sec. 206 below on workshare discounts.

Would define and establish rules on workshare

discounts (identical to H.R. 22, Sec. 206).

CRS-14

House bill

Sec. 202.

Provisions

Relating to

Competitive

Products.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 3631 to list the following as

competitive products:

— priority mail;

— expedited mail;

— mailgrams;

— international mail; and

— parcel post.

Senate bill

Sec. 202.

Provisions

Related to

Competitive

Products.

Similar provision but would define “competitive

products” as:

— Identical;

— Identical;

— Identical;

— bulk international mail; and

— bulk parcel post.

The Board of Governors (BOG) of USPS would establish

rates and classes for these products. BOG would be

required to publish these decisions in the Federal

Register at least 30 days before the effective date of any

new rates or classes.

Similar provision but would require “the written

concurrence of a majority of all of the Governors then

holding office” to establish rates and classes in the

competitive category.

These rates would be in accordance with PRC regulations

that “prohibit the subsidization of competitive products

by market-dominant products ... [and] ensure that each

competitive product overs its costs attributable ... and

ensure that all competitive products collectively make a

reasonable contribution to the institutional costs of the

Postal Service.”

Similar provision but uses text “cover their share of the

institutional costs” instead of “collectively make a

reasonable contribution to the institutional costs.”

CRS-15

House bill

Sec. 203.

Provisions

Relating to

Experimental

and New

Products.

Senate bill

Would differentiate between changes to rates and classes

of “general applicability” in the nation as a whole or a

substantial region thereof and changes not of general

applicability. For the former, BOG would need to

provide 30 days notice in the Federal Register before the

effective date of such changes; for the latter, BOG would

be required to file records of their decision with PRC at

least 15 days before the effective date.

Would require 30 days public notice of any changes to

rates or classes and review by PRC to ascertain whether

the proposed changes are in compliance with PRC

regulations prohibiting cross-subsidization and

requiring accurate cost attribution and appropriate

institutional cost contribution.

Not included.

Would also require PRC to conduct a review to

determine whether the institutional costs contribution

requirement for competitive products should be

retained in its current form, modified, or eliminated.

The first review would have to be five years after

enactment of this bill, with periodic reviews coming

every five years thereafter.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 3641, which provides for

temporary changes in postal rates and classes, to create a

process for testing new postal products.

Sec. 203.

Provisions

Relating to

Experimental

and New

Products.

Identical.

CRS-16

House bill

Senate bill

In order to test a new product, USPS would be required to

file a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission and

publish a notice in the Federal Register. PRC would

have the power to approve or disapprove of any new

product. A product would qualify for testing only if it

was a “significantly different product” and would not

create a market disruption or unfair competitive

advantage for the USPS. Applications for competitive

products would be required to include costs and revenues

attributable (PRC, though, would retain ultimate power to

determine whether a new product should be classified as

a market dominant or competitive product).

Identical.

Would prohibit market tests for new products from

exceeding 24 months; although upon written request of

USPS, PRC could extend the trial period 12 months for

the sake of determining the feasibility or desirability of a

product being tested.

Nearly identical provision, except that S. 662 would

require”[a]ny test that solely affects products currently

classified as competitive, or which provides services

ancillary to only competitive products, shall be

presumed to be in the competitive product category

without regard to whether a similar ancillary product

exists for market-dominant products.”

Would permit a product to be tested only if the total

revenue anticipated or received does not exceed $10

million per year nationwide.

Nearly identical, though Senate bill does not include the

term “nationwide.”

CRS-17

House bill

Senate bill

S. 662 would not empower PRC to “limit the amount of

revenues the Postal Service may obtain from any

particular geographic market as necessary to prevent

market disruption.”

Would empower PRC to “limit the amount of revenues

the Postal Service may obtain from any particular

geographic market as necessary to prevent market

disruption.” PRC may waive the requirement that a

tested product’s revenues not exceed $10 million if:

(1) Total anticipated or actual revenues do not exceed

$50 million per year;

(2) The PRC determines that the product is likely to

benefit the public and meet an expected demand; the

product is likely to contribute to the financial stability

of the Postal Service; and the product is not likely to

result in unfair competition.

Would permit PRC to move products not under the Postal

Express Statutes (18 U.S.C. 1696) between the marketdominant and competitive products categories.

Sec. 204.

Reporting

Requirements and

Related

Provisions.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 36 to require PRC to provide to

Congress and the President an annual report “concerning

the operations of the Commission under this title,

including the extent to which regulations are achieving

the objectives of the regulation of the prices of marketdominant products.

Would also require an estimate of the costs incurred by

the Postal Service in providing —

Identical.

Sec. 204.

Reporting

Requirements and

Related

Provisions.

Identical.

Not included here but Sec. 702 would require a

universal service study.

CRS-18

House bill

Senate bill

(1) postal services to areas of the nation where the

Postal Service either would not provide services at all

or would not provide such services in accordance with

the requirements of this title if it were not required to

do so;

(2) free or reduced rates for postal services as required

by this title; and

(3) other public services or activities which, in the

judgment of PRC, would not otherwise have been

provided by USPS but for the requirements of law.

Would require USPS to prepare and submit to PRC a

report including analysis of the costs, revenues, rates,

service quality, timeliness, and reliability of products no

later than 90 days after the end of each year. Would

require the analysis in the report to conform to

methodological specifications prescribed by PRC. Would

require the USPS Inspector General to audit “the data

collection systems and procedures utilized in collecting

information and preparing [this] report” and submit the

findings to PRC.

Similar provision except that S. 662 would not

empower PRC to prescribe the methodology and S. 662

would have the USPS Inspector General audit the report

itself — not the data collection systems and procedures

employed to produce it.

This report must include information on market-dominant

products for which workshare discounts were in effect

during the time covered, including the per-item cost

avoided by the Postal Service by virtue of such discount,

the percentage of such per-item cost avoided that the peritem workshare discount represents, and the per-item

contribution made to institutional costs.”

Identical.

CRS-19

House bill

Senate bill

H.R. 22 would define “workshare discount” as

“presorting, barcoding, dropshipping, and other similar

discounts, as further defined under regulations which the

Postal Regulatory commission shall prescribe.”(See Sec.

206 below for further language on workshare discounts.)

Identical.

Would also empower PRC to require USPS to provide

“summary data on the costs, revenues, and quality of

service” on experimental competitive products.

Identical provision but also would empower PRC to

demand such data on negotiated service agreements.

Would empower PRC to prescribe the form and content

of all reports. Would require PRC to take the following

into consideration in crafting its reporting prescriptions:

Identical except S. 662 would also require the

information to be timely;

— providing the public with adequate information to

assess the lawfulness of rates charged;

Identical.

— avoiding inflicting unnecessary or unwarranted

administrative effort and expense on USPS; and

Identical.

— protecting the confidentiality of commercially

sensitive information.

Identical.

Would require the Postal Service to submit to PRC its

comprehensive statement, performance plan, and program

performance reports. Would permit USPS to petition

PRC to be permitted to not disclose publicly any

information that falls within the exceptions to the

Freedom of Information Act as outlined at outlined in 5

U.S.C. 552(b).

Similar provisions but also would require USPS to

submit its strategic plan.

Similar provision.

CRS-20

House bill

Senate bill

Would require PRC to take comments of the public and

interested parties on the various reports, statements, and

plans submitted each year and would require PRC to

assess USPS compliance with laws and rules regarding

rates and whether USPS performance goals and marketdominant product service standards were met. Would

also empower PRC to require USPS to correct

noncompliant behavior.

Similar provision, but would not require PRC to assess

if market-dominant products met service standards.

H.R. 22 would have USPS devise its own service

standards for market-dominant products; S. 662 would

have PRC design them (see Title III below.)

Would provide for significant reforms in USPS financial

reporting. Would require USPS to file with the PRC

reports containing the same information as the quarterly

Form 10-Q, annual Form 10-K, and periodic Form 8-K

reports that publicly-traded corporations must file with

the Securities and Exchange Commission. USPS reports

would have to include information on the USPS’s

financial obligations to retirees. USPS would be required

to obtain the opinion of an independent auditor on the

information on its reporting on these obligations. Would

also require USPS to comply with the financial reporting

rules “prescribed by the Securities and Exchange

Commission implementing section 404 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262; P.L.

107-204) beginning with FY2007 and in each fiscal year

thereafter.”

Similar provision at Sec. 605 (see above).

CRS-21

House bill

Sec. 205.

Complaints;

Appellate

Review and

Enforcement.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 3662 and 3663 to permit

“interested persons” to lodge a complaint with the PRC

should they believe USPS is not operating in

conformance with the requirements of Chapters 1, 4, 6 of

39 U.S.C. 36, regarding rates, classifications, and

products.

Senate bill

Sec. 205.

Complaints;

Appellate

Review and

Enforcement.

Would permit “any interested party” who believes

USPS “is not operating in conformance with the

requirements of chapter 1 (except section 101(c)),

sections 401, 403, 404, 404(a), 601, or this chapter” to

lodge a complaint. (This provision was amended

February 9, 2006.)

PRC would have to begin proceedings on or dismiss such

cases within 90 days of receipt thereof. If PRC dismisses

a complaint, it must issue a statement of reasons

therefore.

Similar provision but would require PRC to find that

the complaint “raises substantial and material issues of

fact or law” in order to begin proceedings. (This

provision was amended February 9, 2006.)

If the complaint is ruled justified, the PRC may require

USPS to remedy the effects of noncompliance. To this

end, PRC is authorized to take steps it “considers

appropriate.” It may delay implementation of rates or

classifications and fine USPS. Would allow PRC to

suspend “implementation of rates or classifications ... for

a limited period of time pending expedited proceedings

under this section.”

Similar provision but would require PRC to find “clear

and convincing evidence [that] the complaint is

justified” to order USPS to take action that is

“necessary” to achieve compliance. Senate version

does not list any of the forms of action PRC may order

and does not explicitly provide PRC with rate

suspension authority. (This provision was amended

February 9, 2006.)

Any “person” dissatisfied with a PRC decision (including

USPS) may appeal adverse decisions to the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The term

“person” includes USPS.

Similar provision but would not include USPS in the

definition of “person.” (This provision was amended

February 9, 2006.)

Would empower PRC to impose fines for deliberate

noncompliance with the requirements of this title.

Identical.

CRS-22

House bill

Sec. 206.

Workshare

Discounts.

Would allow PRC to permit USPS to enter workshare

agreements that give greater discounts than costs avoided

by the USPS under the following conditions:

“(1) the discount is —

“(A) associated with a new postal service, a change

to an existing product or service, or a new workshare initiative related to an existing postal service;

“(B) necessary to induce mailer behavior that

furthers the economically efficient operation of the

Postal Service and the portion of the discount in

excess of the cost that the Postal Service avoids as a

result of the workshare activity will be phased out

over a limited period of time;

“(2) a reduction in the discount would —

“(A) lead to a loss of volume in the affected

category or subclass of mail and reduce the

aggregate contribution to the institutional costs of

the Postal Service from the category or subclass

subject to the discount below what it otherwise

would have been if the discount had not been

reduced to costs avoided;

“(B) result in a further increase in the rates paid by

mailers not able to take advantage of the discount;

or

Senate bill

Similar provision at Sec. 201.

CRS-23

House bill

Senate bill

“(C) impede the efficient operation of the Postal

Service;

“(3) the amount of the discount above costs avoided

—

“(A) is necessary to mitigate rate shock; and

“(B) will be phased out over time; or

“(4) the discount is provided in connection with

subclasses of mail consisting exclusively of mail

matter of educational, cultural, scientific, or

informational value.”

Would require USPS to provide a report to PRC that

explains reasons and analyses supporting USPS decision

to enter into any negotiated service agreements.

Sec. 207.

Clerical

Amendment.

Would amend heading and strike analysis for 39 U.S.C.

36, which presently sets forth the Chapter 36 sections on

“Postal Rate, Classes and Service,” which Title II

proposes to amend.

Sec. 206.

Clerical

Amendment.

Similar provision.

CRS-24

House bill

Senate bill

Not included.

Title III — Modern Service Standards

Not included. See Sec. 204 above for the brief H.R. 22

proposal for USPS-crafted service standards.

Sec. 301.

Establishment of

Modern

Service

Standards.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 36 to require USPS and PRC

to establish modern service standards for marketdominant products within 12 months of enactment of

this section.

Would require the modern standards to be designed to

achieve the following objectives (provided they are

consistent with USPS’s universal service obligation):

— Enhance the value of the postal service to both

senders and recipients;

— Preserve regular and effective access to postal

services in all communities, including those in rural

areas or where post offices are not self-sustaining;

— Reasonably assure Postal Service customers

delivery reliability, speed, and frequency consistent

with reasonable rates and best business practices;

and

— Provide a system of objective external

performance measurements for each marketdominant product as a basis for measurement of

Postal Service performance.

In establishing the standards to achieve the objectives,

PRC is to take eight factors into consideration:

CRS-25

House bill

Senate bill

— the actual service levels that customers receive

from USPS;

— present customer satisfaction with USPS;

— the needs of customers, including those with

physical impairments;

— mail volume and revenues projected for future

years;

— projected growth in addresses to be served;

— present and future costs of serving customers;

— the effect of technological innovation and

demographics on the efficient, reliable operation of

the postal delivery system; and

— the policies of this title as well as other factors

USPS deems appropriate. (This provision was

amended February 9, 2006.)

Not included.

Sec 302.

Postal

Service

Plan.

Would require the Postal Service — in consultation

with PRC — to create and submit to Congress a plan

for achieving these standards. The plan is to is due

within six months of establishment of the standards and

must include:

CRS-26

House bill

Senate bill

— performance goals and a description of any

changes needed to the Postal Service’s network to

meet the goals;

— a facilities plan that provides a description of the

long-term USPS vision to rationalize its facilities

and workforce and plans for achieving this vision, a

discussion of the impacts of such changes, USPS

needs for flexibility to make workforce changes, and

anticipated costs and benefits.

— procedures that USPS will use to provide

affected communities with adequate notice of

rationalization decisions, share data and information

used to reach such decisions, and to take into

account the input of affected persons in reaching

final decisions. (This provision was amended

February 9, 2006.)

Would require USPS to provide an annual report that

details how postal decisions have affected or will affect

rationalization plans and estimates of how other factors

(e.g., automation initiatives, worksharing) may affect

rationalization plans. Also would require the report to

include information on USPS plans for and actions to

reduce its facilities network, statutory or regulatory

impediments to network reduction, plans to expand

alternative retail outlets, and plans for reemployment

assistance and early retirement benefits for displaced

postal employees.

CRS-27

House bill

Senate bill

Would make effective on the date of enactment of this

bill that USPS could not close or consolidate any

processing or logistics facility without using procedures

for public notice and input listed above. (This

provision was amended February 9, 2006.)

Would require USPS to submit the report the Inspector

General of the U.S. Postal Service, who would prepare

a report detailing USPS compliance with the law and

the new service standards. Would require the Inspector

General to submit both reports to Congress.

CRS-28

House bill

Senate bill

Title III — Provisions Relating to Fair Competition

Title IV — Provisions Relating to Fair Competition

Sec. 301.

Postal

Service

Competitive

Products

Fund.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 20 to establish a Postal Service

Competitive Products Fund, “which shall be available to

the Postal Service ... for the payment of —

(1) costs attributable to competitive products; and

(2) all other costs incurred by the Postal Service, to the

extent allocable to the competitive products.” [This

includes any competitive products judgments against

USPS.]

Sec. 401.

Postal

Service

Competitive

Products

Fund.

Identical.

Deposits to the Competitive Product Fund would include:

(1) revenues from competitive products;

(2) amounts received from obligations issued by the

Postal Service;

(3) interest and dividends earned on investments of the

Competitive Products Fund; and

(4) any other receipts of the Postal Service (including

from the sale of assets), to the extent allocable to

competitive products.

Should the funds be in excess of current needs, USPS

would be permitted to invest those funds in obligations

of, or guaranteed by, the U.S. Government or in

accordance with the advice of the Secretary of the

Treasury.

Similar provision.

USPS may deposit excess funds in a Federal Reserve

bank or a depository for public funds with the approval of

the Secretary of the Treasury.

Identical.

CRS-29

House bill

Senate bill

USPS would be authorized to “borrow money and to

issue and sell such obligations as it determines necessary

to provide for competitive products and deposit such

amounts in the Competitive Products Fund.”

Similar provision.

Would compute the total assets of the Competitive

Products Fund as the greater of the assets related to the

provision of competitive products or the percentage of

total USPS revenues and receipts from competitive

products multiplied by USPS total assets.

Would compute the total assets of the Competitive

Products Fund by multiplying the quotient resulting

from the total revenues of the Competitive Products

Fund divided by the total USPS revenue and total USPS

assets.

Would permit the federal government to purchase USPS

issued debt and would provide USPS clear discretion over

the denomination, time of issuance, maturity dates,

prices, and rates of USPS debt issued.

Identical.

Obligations would not be exempt from taxation by any

state or locality nor would they be obligations of the

Government of the United States.

Identical.

Would require USPS to provide an annual report to the

Secretary of the Treasury on the operation and condition

of the Competitive Products Fund.

Identical.

CRS-30

House bill

Senate bill

Identical.

Would have the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation

with USPS, an independent accounting firm, and such

other advisers as the Secretary deems appropriate,

develop recommendations regarding:

“(1) the accounting practices and principles that should be

followed by USPS with the objectives of (A) identifying

and valuing USPS assets and liabilities associated with

providing competitive products — including the capital

and operating costs incurred in providing such

competitive products; and (B) preventing the

subsidization of such products by market-dominant

products; and

(2) the substantive and procedural rules that should be

followed in determining the assumed Federal income tax

on competitive products income of the Postal Service for

any year.”

These proposals would then be submitted to PRC, which

would accept comments by USPS, the public, and

interested parties, and then issue final accounting rules

for USPS.

Sec. 302.

Assumed

Federal

Income Tax

on

Competitive

Products

Income.

Would define “assumed Federal income tax” to mean the

net income tax that would be imposed by chapter 1 of the

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on the Postal Service’s

assumed taxable income from competitive products for

the year.”

Would require USPS to compute its assumed federal

income tax each year and transfer this amount to the

Postal Service Fund.

Sec. 402.

Assumed

Federal

Income Tax

on

Competitive

Products

Income.

Identical.

CRS-31

House bill

Sec. 303.

Unfair

Competition

Prohibited.

Sec. 304.

Suits By

and Against

the Postal

Service.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 4 by adding a provision that

prohibits USPS from establishing “any rule or regulation”

or “term of competition”unless USPS demonstrates that

the rule, regulation, or term “does not create an unfair

competitive advantage for itself or any federally funded

entity.”

Senate bill

Sec. 403.

Unfair

Competition

Prohibited.

Identical.

Would prohibit USPS from “compel[ling]the disclosure,

transfer, or licensing of intellectual property to any third

party” or “obtain[ing] information from a person that

provides (or seeks to provide) any product, and then offer

any product or service that uses such information, without

the consent of the person providing the information...”

Nearly identical except that bill refers to “any postal

service” instead of “any product or service.”

Would require PRC to prescribe regulations to carry out

this section.

Identical.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 409 so that USPS, with regard to

activities involved in providing competitive products,

would be considered a person — as used in the provisions

of law involved — and would not be immune under the

doctrine of sovereign immunity. Persons could bring

federal suits against USPS for violations of the

Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051) and Section 5 of

the Federal Trade Commission Act (on unfair or

deceptive acts and practices). Would deny USPS legal

representation by the Department of Justice in these

instances.

Sec. 404.

Suits By

and Against

the Postal

Service.

Similar provision except that S. 662 would apply

antitrust provisions to any product which is not

reserved to the United States under 18 U.S.C. 1696

(including private carriage under 39 U.S.C. 601). Also

would declare that to the “extent that the Postal Service

engages in conduct with respect to the provision of

competitive products, it shall be considered a person for

the purposes of the Federal bankruptcy laws.”

CRS-32

House bill

Senate bill

Similar provision but would also require USPS should

to “the extent practicable, model building codes should

meet the voluntary consensus criteria established for

codes and standards as required in the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 as

defined in Office of Management and Budget Circular

A1190. For purposes of life safety, the Postal Service

shall continue to comply with the most current edition

of the Life Safety Code of the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA 101).”

Also would require USPS, when building new buildings

or altering existent ones to comply with “one of the

nationally recognized model building codes” and to do so

only after “considering all requirements of zoning laws,

land use laws, and applicable environmental laws of a

State or subdivision of a State...”

Sec. 305.

International

Postal

Arrangements.

Would declare United States policy to be to:

— “promote and encourage communications between

peoples by efficient operation of international postal

services and other international delivery services for

cultural, social, and economic purposes;

Sec. 405.

International

Postal

Arrangements.

Identical except as below noted.

— “promote and encourage unrestricted and

undistorted competition in the provision of

international postal services and other international

delivery services...;

— “to promote and encourage a clear distinction

between governmental and operational responsibilities

with respect to the provision of international postal

services and other international delivery services by

the Government of the United States and by

intergovernmental organizations of which the United

States is a member; and

— Would not include “and other international delivery

services by the Government of the United States and by

intergovernmental organizations of which the United

States is a member.”

CRS-33

House bill

Senate bill

— “to participate in multilateral and bilateral

agreements with other countries to accomplish these

objectives.”

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 407 to give the Secretary of

State responsibility for the “formulation, coordination,

and oversight of foreign policy related to international

postal services and other international delivery services,

and shall have the power to conclude treaties,

conventions and amendments related to international

postal services and other international delivery

services...”. Would prohibit the Secretary of State from

concluding a treaty, convention, or agreement that would,

with respect to any competitive product, give an undue or

unreasonable preference to USPS or any private provider

of postal or delivery services.

Similar provision except that S. 662 does not empower

the Secretary of State with oversight of operations of

“other international delivery services.” Also uses the

text “treaty or convention” instead of “treaty,

convention, or other international agreeement.”

Before concluding any treaty, convention, or amendment

establishing international postage rates or classifications,

would require the Secretary of State to request a PRC

decision on whether such rate or classification is

consistent with the standards and criteria established by

the Commission under section 3622.

Similar provision, but would require Secretary of State

to request from PRC “its views.”

Would require the Secretary of State to ensure that each

treaty, convention, or amendment ... is consistent with

PRC decisions “except if, or to the extent, the Secretary

determines, by written order, that considerations of

foreign policy or national security require modification of

the Commission’s decision.”

Similar but would not permit exceptions and

modifications due to considerations of foreign policy or

national security by Secretary of State.

CRS-34

House bill

Sec. 306.

Redesignation.

Senate bill

Would define a private company as a company that is

“substantially owned or controlled by persons who are

citizens of the United States.”

Not included.

With respect to competitive products, would require the

“Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the

Department of Homeland Security and other appropriate

Federal agencies shall apply the customs laws of the

United States and all other laws relating to the

importation or exportation of such shipments in the same

manner to both shipments by the Postal Service and

similar shipments by private companies.”

Similar provision but refers to “the Customs Service”

instead of the “Bureau of Customs and Border

Protection of the Department of Homeland Security.”

39 U.S.C. 36 would be amended to include “ Subchapter

VI — General.”

Not included.

Title IV — General Provisions

Sec. 401.

Qualification

Requirements for

Governors.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 202(a) to require that at least

four of the Governors of USPS be selected solely on the

basis of their demonstrated ability in managing

organizations or corporations of “substantial size”

(defined as possessing 50,000 or more employees).

Governors may “not be representatives of specific

interests using the Postal Service” and may be removed

only for cause.

Title V — General Provisions

Sec. 501.

Qualification

Requirements for

Governors.

Would require Governors to be chosen on basis of

“experience in the fields of public service, law or

accounting or on their demonstrated ability in

managing organizations or corporations (in either the

public or private sector) of substantial size. Would not

stipulate that “at least four of the Governors” be

selected based on their experience managing entities of

a “substantial size.” Would not define “substantial

size.” (This provision amended on February 9, 2006.)

CRS-35

House bill

Sec. 402.

Obligations.

Senate bill

Would encourage the President to consult with the

Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority

leader of the House of Representatives, the majority

leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate

regarding nominees for open Governor seats.

Identical.

Would require that the passage of this act not “affect the

appointment or tenure of any person serving as a

Governor of the United States Postal Service under an

appointment made before the date of enactment of this

Act.”

Identical.

Not included.

Would reduce terms of governors from nine to seven

years and procedures for replacement of sitting

governors with nine-year terms in the event of death or

removal for cause and would limit governors to two

terms. (This provision amended on February 9, 2006.)

Would require that an early vacancy on the Board of

Governors be filled by a person nominated with the

concurrence of the major postal labor unions. This

person would serve a three-year term instead of a nineyear term.

Not included.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 2005 to limit USPS new

obligations for capital improvements and defraying

operating expenses to $3 billion per annum.

Sec. 502.

Obligations.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 2005(a)(1) to strike this text:

“In any one fiscal year the net increase in the amount of

obligations outstanding issued for the purpose of capital

improvements shall not exceed $2,000,000,000, and the

net increase in the amount of obligations outstanding

issued for the purpose of defraying operating expenses

of the Postal Service shall not exceed $1,000,000,000.”

CRS-36

House bill

Senate bill

Forbids pledging assets related to the provision of

competitive products.

Sec. 403.

Private

Carriage

of Letters.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 601 to permit the private

carriage of letters if:

— the amount paid for private carriage is equal to at

least 6 times the rate then currently charged for the 1st

ounce of a single-piece first class letter;

Identical.

Sec. 503.

Private

Carriage

of Letters.

Similar provision.

Sec. 504.

Rulemaking

Authority.

Identical.

— the letter weighs at least 12 ½ ounces; or

— such carriage is within the scope of services

described by regulations of the United States Postal

Service (as in effect on July 1, 2004) that purport to

permit private carriage by suspension of this section

(as then in effect).

PRC would be empowered to craft any regulations

necessary to carry out this section.

Sec. 404.

Rulemaking

Authority.

Would modify USPS’s rulemaking authority under 39

U.S.C. 401 to include the power “to adopt, amend, and

repeal such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with

this title, as may be necessary in the execution of its

functions under this title and such other functions as may

be assigned to the Postal Service under any provisions of

law outside this title.”

CRS-37

House bill

Sec. 405.

Noninterference With

Collective

Bargaining

Agreements.

Would declare that present employee and labor

organization privileges, rights, and benefits under 39

U.S.C. 12 are not restricted or expanded, except as

provided in Sec. 407 below.

Would continue free mailing privileges afforded to postal

unions.

Senate bill

Sec. 505.

Noninterference With

Collective

Bargaining

Agreements.

Identical provision at H.R. 22 Sec. 407 (see below).

Sec. 406.

Bonus and

Compensation

Authority.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 36 to permit USPS to create one

or more programs to provide employee bonuses or other

rewards.

Similar declaration made although S. 662 would amend

39 U.S.C. 1207 regarding labor disputes.

Identical provision.

Would change the collective bargaining arbitration

process (details below at H.R. 22 Sec. 407).

Sec. 506.

Bonus

Authority.

Identical.

Would limit annual executive compensation with bonuses

to no more than the “total annual compensation” of the

Vice President of the United States ($208,100 in 2005).

However, would allow BOG to permit “critical senior

executives positions” to earn annual compensation up to

120% of that of the Vice-President.

Identical but does not include provision regarding

“critical senior executives positions.”

Would require any bonus program to be approved by the

USPS Board of Governors, which also would be

empowered to revoke or suspend the Postal Service’s

bonus-granting authority under any program if should

find that the bonus program is fails to based on relative

performances among employees.

Identical.

CRS-38

House bill

Sec. 407.

Mediation

in

CollectiveBargaining

Disputes.

Senate bill

Would require USPS to report any bonuses or rewards

given in its annual comprehensive statement, including

the names of persons receiving a bonus, the amount of

these bonuses, and the amount by which these bonuses

exceeded employees’ permissible compensation.

Not included.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 1207(b) to require that in the

event of a labor dispute the Director of the Federal

Mediation and Conciliation Service “shall within 10 days

appoint a mediator of nationwide reputation and

professional standing ... who is also a member of the

National Academy of Arbitrators” instead of a factfinding

panel.

Identical provision found at Sec. 505.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 1207(c) to reduce from 90 to 60

days the period after the expiration of a bargaining

agreement that may pass before the parties would be

required to go through arbitration.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 1207(d) to require the

appointment of a mediator instead of a fact-finding

panel when a bargaining units is without an agreement

with USPS.

Thus, the labor dispute resolution process would include

the following steps:

1. A bargaining unit with an agreement with the USPS

that desires modification or termination of an

agreement must serve notice to that effect to the other

party no less than 90 days before the expiration of the

agreement;

CRS-39

House bill

2. Within 45 days of providing notice, the party

serving notice must notify the Director of the Federal

Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS);

3. If parties fail to resolve their differences (or provide

for a process for resolving their differences) before the

expiration of the agreement, then the Director of

FMCS must appoint a mediator within 10 days. Both

parties must work with the mediator and negotiate in

good faith;

4. If no resolution has been reached 60 days after

appointment of the mediator, then a three-person

arbitration board must be appointed. Each disputant

chooses one member and the two members chosen

choose the third member. The arbitration board is to

give both sides a full and fair hearing and render a

decision within 45 days of its appointment. If either

party fails to select a member or the two parties

disagree on the third member, then a list of nine

arbitrators will be provided and the parties must agree

to select from it. It is unclear what would happen if

the parties failed to do this. Under current law, the

Director would have the power to select members.

A similar procedure is created for bargaining units whose

recognized bargaining representative does not have an

agreement with the USPS.

Senate bill

CRS-40

Sec. 501.

Reorganization and

Modification

of Certain

Provisions

Relating to

the Postal

Regulatory

Commission.

House bill

Senate bill

Title V — Enhanced Regulatory Commission

Title VI — Enhanced Regulatory Commission

Would amend 39 U.S.C. to include a chapter 5 which

replaces the Postal Rate Commission with the new Postal

Regulatory Commission (PRC). PRC would have five

commissioners, appointed by the President with the

advice and consent of the Senate. Commissioners are to

be chosen solely on the basis of their “technical

qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated

expertise in economics, accounting, law, or public

administration, and may be removed by the President

only for cause.” Not more than three members may be

adherents of the same political party; commissioners are

to serve six-year terms. Would require PRC rules to

include “procedures which balance, inter alia, the need

for protecting due process rights and ensuring expeditious

decision-making.”

Sec. 601.

Reorganization and

Modification

of Certain

Provisions

Relating to

the Postal

Regulatory

Commission.

Identical provision at H.R. 22 Sec. 505.

Sec. 502.

Authority

for Postal

Regulatory

Commission

to Issue

Subpoenas.

Would empower “the Chairman of the Commission, any

Commissioner designated by the Chairman, and any

administrative law judge appointed by the Commission”

to issue subpoenas (provided a majority of PRC concurs).

Any person failing to obey a subpoena may be punished

for contempt of court by the district court of the U.S. in

the district in which the person subpoenaed resides or is

served. In cases involving documents exempt from

Similar provisions but also would require that “[n]o

Commissioner shall be financially interested in any

enterprise in the private sector of the economy engaged

in the delivery of mail matter.” Does not include text

requiring PRC rules to include “procedures which

balance, inter alia, the need for protecting due process

rights and ensuring expeditious decision-making.”

S. 662 also would require PRC to “designate an officer

of the Postal Regulatory Commission in all public

proceedings who shall represent the interests of the

general public.”

Sec. 602.

Authority

for Postal

Regulatory

Commission

to Issue

Subpoenas.

Similar provision.

CRS-41

House bill

Senate bill

public disclosure, USPS may respond to the subpoena

with written notification that explains the reasons for

keeping such documents from public view. PRC would

be empowered to render final decision over the public

disclosure or nondisclosure of such documents.

Sec. 503.

Appropriations for the

Postal

Regulatory

Commission.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 504(d) to authorize

appropriations for PRC out of the Postal Service Fund.

Each fiscal year, PRC would be required to submit a

budget of expenses to Congress in order to receive an

appropriation. Would have amendments in this section

“apply with respect to fiscal years beginning on or after

October 1, 2005.”

Sec. 603.

Appropriations for the

Postal

Regulatory

Commission.

Identical except that Sec. 603 reads “[t]he amendments

made by this section shall apply with respect to fiscal

years beginning on or after October 1, 2002.”

Sec. 504.

Redesignation of the

Postal Rate

Commission.

Would replace the words “Postal Rate Commission” with

“Postal Regulatory Commission” in Titles 39, 5, and 44

of U.S.C.

Sec. 604.

Redesignation of the

Postal Rate

Commission.

Identical.

Sec. 505.

Officer of

the Postal

Regulatory

Commission

Representing

the General

Public.

Would require PRC to designate “an officer of the Postal

Regulatory Commission in all public proceedings (such

as developing rules, regulations, and procedures) who

shall represent the interests of the general public.”

Identical provision at Sec. 601 above.

CRS-42

House bill

Senate bill

Title VI — Inspectors General

Not included

Sec. 601.

Inspector

General of

the Postal

Regulatory

Commission.

Would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5

U.S.C. Appendix) and 39 U.S.C. 504 to establish the

Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Postal

Regulatory Commission. The first PRC Inspector

General is to be appointed no later than 180 days from

enactment of this act. H.R. 22 would not enumerate

additional duties of the PRC IG beyond those carried in

present law.

Not included.

Sec. 602.

Inspector

General of

the United

States Postal

Service to be

Appointed

by the

President.

Would amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5

U.S.C. Appendix) to require presidential appointment of

the Inspector General of the U.S. Postal Service. Would

empower the IG to have oversight responsibility for all

activities of the Postal Inspection service. Appropriations

for the Office of the Inspector General would be available

beginning October 1, 2005.

Not included. Sec. 1003 would require GAO to

“review the functions, responsibilities, and areas of

possible duplication of the United States Postal

Inspection Service and the Office of the Inspector

General of the United States Postal Service and submit

a report [including legislative recommendations] on the

review to the Committee on Homeland Security and

Governmental Affairs of the Senate.”

Also contains provisions regarding public contracts and

the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986 (41 U.S.C. 51) and

purchasing regulations.

Includes a “sense of Congress” provision on

procurement reform at Sec. 1004 below.

Sec. 605.

Financial

Transparency.

Similar provision at H.R. 22, Sec.204.

CRS-43

House bill

Senate bill

Title VII — Evaluations

Title VII — Evaluations

Sec. 701.

Universal

Postal

Service

Study.

Would require the Postal Service to submit to Congress,

the President, and PRC, a written report on universal

postal service (within 12 months of enactment of this

act). The report must include a history of universal

service and how it has evolved, USPS recommendations

on universal service, along with descriptions of the scope

and standards of universal service under present law; any

geographic areas, populations, communities,

organizations, or other groups not covered by universal

service at present; and the scope and standards of

universal service likely to be required in the future.

Would further require PRC to prepare an analysis of the

USPS report on universal service, including estimates of

the costs of providing universal service under present and

prior law, and send it to the President within 12 months.

In preparing these reports, both USPS and PRC are

obliged to consult with governmental and

nongovernmental stakeholders.

Sec. 702.

Universal

Postal

Service

Study and

the Postal

Monopoly.

Similar provision but PRC would be charged with

preparing the report and would also need to provide an

assessment of the postal monopoly (on the delivery of

mail and access to mailboxes) and provide any

proposed changes to either universal service or the

monopoly. PRC would have 24 months after enactment

to submit this report.

Sec. 702.

Assessments of

Ratemaking,

Classification, and

Other

Provisions.

Would require PRC to provide, at least every five years, a

report to the President and Congress concerning the

operation of this act’s amendments to the law and any

recommendations to improve the efficiency of the postal

laws. USPS, after considering this report, would be

required to submit its comments, which would be

attached to this report. The report would be required to

include specific information on “cost-coverage relating to

competitive products collectively” and the operations of

the Competitive Products Fund and the assumed federal

income tax thereon.

Sec. 701.

Assessments of

Ratemaking,

Classification, and

Other

Provisions.

Similar provision but would require PRC to issue a

report every three years at least.

Would not include the requirement that the report

provide information on cost coverage on competitive

products, the Competitive Products Fund, or the

assumed federal income tax.

CRS-44

House bill

Sec. 703.

Study on

Equal

Application of the

Laws to

Competitive

Product

Senate bill

Within one year of the enactment of this act, the Federal

Trade Commission (FTC) would be required to prepare

and submit to the President, Congress, and PRC a report

“identifying Federal and State laws that apply differently

to the United States Postal Service with respect to the

competitive category of mail ... and private companies

providing similar products.”

Similar provision.

The study should include appropriate recommendations

for bringing “such legal differences to an end and, in the

interim, to account for the net economic effects provided

by those laws.”

Similar provisions but uses the phrase “legal

discrimination” instead of “legal differences” and

“economic advantages” instead of “economic effects.”

In preparing the report, the FTC shall consult with

governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders.

Identical.

PRC is to take into account the recommendations of the

study and “subsequent events that affect the continuing

validity of the estimate of the net economic effect ... in

promulgating or revising the regulations” required by 39

U.S.C. 3633.

Would not require PRC to take into account

“subsequent events that affect the continuing validity of

the estimate of the net economic effect.”

CRS-45

House bill

Sec. 704.

Greater

Diversity

in Postal

Service

Executive

and

Administrative

Schedule

Management

Positions.

Would require the BOG to “study and, within 1 year after

the date of the enactment of this act, submit to the

President and Congress a report concerning the extent to

which women and minorities are represented in

supervisory and management positions within the United

States Postal Service.” Would require data included in

the report to be “presented in the aggregate and by pay

level.”

Senate bill

Not included.

Also would require USPS to “take such measures as may

be necessary to ensure that, for purposes of conducting

performance appraisals of supervisory or managerial

employees, appropriate consideration shall be given to

meeting affirmative action goals, achieving equal

employment opportunity requirements, and

implementation of plans designed to achieve greater

diversity in the workforce.”

Sec. 705.

Plan for

Assisting

Displaced

Workers.

Would require USPS within one year to prepare and

submit to Congress and the Board of Governors a report

and a plan on assisting workers displaced as a result of

automation or privatization of postal functions.

Included at Sec. 302 above.

Sec. 706.

Contracts

Would require BOG to “study and, within 1 year after the

date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the President

Not included.

CRS-46

House bill

Senate bill

with Women,

Minorities,

and Small

Businesses.

and Congress a report concerning the number and value

of contracts and subcontracts the Postal Service has

entered into with women, minorities, and small

businesses.”

Sec. 707.

Rates for

Periodicals.

USPS and PRC would be required to collaborate on a

study concerning “the quality, accuracy, and

completeness of the information used by the Postal

Service in determining the direct and indirect postal costs

attributable to periodicals ... and any opportunities that

might exist for improving” efficiencies in the collection,

handling, transportation, or delivery of periodicals by the

Postal Service — including any pricing incentives for

mailers that might be appropriate. Would require copies

of the study to be submitted to the President and

Congress.

Not included.

Sec. 708.

Assessment

of Certain

Rate

Deficiencies.

Would direct the OIG of USPS, within 12 months of

enactment of this act, to submit to the President,

Congress, and USPS a study concerning the

administration of 39 U.S.C. 3626(k), often referred to as

the “cooperative mailing provision.” This section of the

law, and 39 U.S.C. 3626 generally, permit certain types

of mail materials sent by nonprofit groups and

organizations to qualify for reduced postal rates. The

study is to address “the adequacy and fairness of the

process by which assessments under 39 U.S.C. 3626(k)

are determined and appealable” and to consider whether

PRC or some other body ought to be assigned a role in

this administrative process. The study should further

Not included.

CRS-47

House bill

Senate bill

consider “whether a statute of limitations should be

established for the commencement of proceedings by the

Postal Service thereunder.” For further language on

nonprofit mailing rates, see Sec.808 below.

Sec. 709.

Network

Optimization.

Would require USPS to submit to PRC, Congress, and the

Board of Governors a written report on the postal

processing and distribution network. The report should

provide account of efforts taken to improve mail

processing,transportation, and distribution network and

actions taken to identify excess capacity. The report

should also identify any statutory or regulatory obstacles

to facility realignment or consolidation. USPS would be

required to treat optimization as a Government

Performance and Results Act (31 U.S.C. 1115 note)

performance goal.

Not included. Sec. 302 above, which describes

“modern service standards,” would require USPS to

develop a plan that includes a description of “the

long-term vision of the Postal Service for rationalizing

its infrastructure and workforce.”

Sec. 710.

Assessment

of Future

Business

Model of

the Postal

Service.

Would empower Comptroller General to appoint an

independent research organization to prepare a report

assessing the best business model for promoting ‘an

efficient, reliable, innovative, and viable Postal Service.”

Would require the report to consider the costs, benefits,

and feasible options associated with maintaining USPS in

its current form and transforming it into a corporation

wholly or partially owned by the government. Would

require the report to be submitted to Congress and the

President within 27 months of enactment of this act.

Not included.

Sec. 711.

Study on

Certain

Would require GAO to prepare a report on the costs and

benefits of increasing USPS’s discretion to permit foreign

air carriers to transport mail.

Not included.

CRS-48

House bill

Senate bill

Proposed

Amendments.

Not included.

Sec. 704. Report

on Postal

Workplace

Safety and

WorkplaceRelated Injuries

Would require the IG of USPS to submit a report to

Congress and the Postal Service — no later than six

months after enactment of this bill — that would:

— discuss any injury reduction goals established by

the Postal Service;

— describe the actions that the Postal Service has

taken to improve workplace safety and reduce

workplace-related injuries;

— assess how successful the Postal Service has

been in meeting its injury reduction goal and,

— identify failure to achieve these goals and

opportunities for making further progress in meeting

these goals.

CRS-49

House bill

Senate bill

Would require USPS to submit a report to Congress —

not later than six months after receiving the USPS IG

report — that details how USPS plans to improve

workplace safety and reduce workplace-related injuries

nationwide, including goals and metrics. These plans

should be “developed in consultation with the Inspector

General and employee representatives, including

representatives of each postal labor union and

management association...”

Not included.

Sec. 705.

Study on

Recycled

Paper.

Would require the (GAO) to study and submit to the

Congress, the Board of Governors of the Postal Service,

and to the Postal Regulatory Commission a report

concerning —

— the economic and environmental efficacy of

establishing rate incentives for mailers linked to the

use of recycled paper;

— a description of the accomplishments of the

Postal Service in each of the preceding five years

involving recycling activities...; and

— additional opportunities that may be available for

the United States Postal Service to engage in

recycling initiatives and the projected costs and

revenues of undertaking such opportunities.

Would also require the report to include

recommendations for any administrative or legislative

actions that may be appropriate.

CRS-50

House bill

Title VIII — Miscellaneous, Technical and Conforming Amendments

Senate bill

Somewhat similar title at Title X (see below)

Sec. 801.

Employment

of Postal

Police

Officers.

Would amend 18 U.S.C. 3061 to permit USPS to “employ

police officers for duty in connection with the protection

of property owned or occupied by the Postal Service or

under the charge and control of the Postal Service.”

Similar provision at Sec. 1001 but would amend 39

U.S.C. 404 to permit USPS to “employ guards for all

buildings and areas owned or occupied by the Postal

Service or under the charge and control of the Postal

Service, and may give such guards, with respect to such

property, any of the powers of special policemen”

provided under 40 U.S.C. 1315.

Sec. 802.

Date of

Postmark

to be

Treated as

the Date of

Appeal in

Connection

with the

Closing or

Consolidation of

Post Offices.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 404(b) so that any appeals to the

closure of post offices mailed or otherwise delivered

would be considered received based upon the postmark

date or, if delivered by other means, by paperwork

indicating the date contracted for delivery. This would be

effective three months after enactment of this act.

Not included.

CRS-51

House bill

Senate bill

Sec. 803.

Provisions

Relating to

Benefits

Under

Chapter 81

of Title 5,

United

States Code,

for Officers

and

Employees

of the

Former

Post Office

Department.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 1001 note so that USPS would

have the same “authorities and responsibilities” with

respect to any individual receiving benefits under the

former Post Office Department as it has to any officer or

employee of USPS receiving such benefits.

Not included.

Sec. 804.

Obsolete

Provisions.

Would repeal 39 U.S.C. 52 on the transportation of mail

by a surface carrier.

Identical provision at Sec. 1002, which was added June

22, 2005.

Sec. 805.

Investments.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 2003 to prohibit USPS from

investing monies from the Postal Fund in any obligations

or securities of a commercial entity.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 5005(b)(1), 5402(d), and 5605 to

eliminate restrictions on lengths of contracts.

Not included.

CRS-52

House bill

Senate bill

Sec. 806.

Reduced

Rates.

Would require USPS to permit a publication with a total

paid circulation of less than 5000 to be treated, for the

purpose of postal rates, as in-county mail even when

issues of said publication are mailed to locations outside

of the county in which it is produced.

Identical provision at Sec. 1002, which was added June

22, 2005.

Sec. 807.

Hazardous

Matter.

Would amend 36 U.S.C. 3001 to empower the Secretary

of Transportation to define hazardous materials and to

enumerate the prohibitions against the mailing of

hazardous materials and provide criminal and civil

penalties for violation of these prohibitions.

Not included.

Sec. 808.

Provisions

Relating to

Cooperative

Mailings.

Requires USPS to examine section E670.5.3 of the

Domestic Mail Manual to determine whether it contains

adequate safeguards against the abuse of rates for

nonprofit mail and the deception of customers.

Not included.

CRS-53

House bill

Sec. 809.

Technical

and

Conforming

Amendments.

Would amend 39 U.S.C. 3681 so that USPS may

“establish size and weight limitations for mail matter in

the market-dominant category of mail consistent with

regulations the Postal Regulatory Commission may

prescribe under section 3622. The Postal Service may

establish size and weight limitations for mail matter in

the competitive category of mail consistent with its

authority under section 3632.”

In addition to conforming amendments regarding revenue

forgone and appropriations and reporting requirements,

the act would amend 39 U.S.C. 404 to allow the Board of

Governors to establish “reasonable and equitable” classes

of mail and rates of postage. “Postal rates and fees shall

be reasonable and equitable and sufficient to enable the

Postal Service, under best practices of honest, efficient,

and economical management, to maintain and continue

the development of postal services of the kind and quality

adapted to the needs of the United States.” Also would

require USPS to maintain one or more classes of mail for

transmission of letters that would be sealed against

inspection.

Senate bill

Not included.

CRS-54

House bill

Senate bill

Title IX — Postal Pension Funding Reform Amendments

Title VIII — Postal Service Retirement and Health Benefit Funding

Sec. 901.

Civil

Service

Retirement

System.

Would amend 5 U.S.C. 83 to alter USPS’s contributions

to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Would

shift responsibility for pension payments related to

employee military service to the Department of the

Treasury.

Similar provision at Sec. 802 except for below noted

differences.

Would require an annual determination of USPS pension

payment surplus or supplemental liability by the Office of

Personnel Management. Any USPS surplus would be

transferred into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits

Fund, which would pre-fund retiree health benefits.

Would require the creation of amortization schedule

should a supplemental liability be found. Would permit

the cancellation of any existent supplemental liability

amortization schedule “to the extent of any amounts first

coming due after the close of the fiscal year to which

such determination relates” if OPM should find no CSRS

liability.

Would require that any determination or redetermination

made by OPM under this section shall, upon request of

the United States Postal Service, be subject to review by

PRC, which shall submit a report containing the results of

its review to USPS, OPM, and Congress. OPM then

would reconsider its determination or redetermination in

light of such report, and make any appropriate

adjustments. OPM would then be required to submit a

report containing the results of its reconsideration to

PRC, USPS, and Congress.

Similar provision added June 22, 2005 except that

review would be performed by an outside actuary, one

with membership in the American Academy of

Actuaries.

CRS-55

House bill

Sec. 902.

Health

Insurance.

Senate bill

Would establish the Postal Service Retiree Health

Benefits Fund, which would be administered by the

Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Similar provision at Sec. 803 except for differences

noted here.

Would establish the Postal Service Retiree Health

Benefits Fund, which would be administered by the

Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Identical.

Beginning September 30, 2006, USPS would be required

to pay into the Retiree Health Benefits Fund each year:

Beginning September 30, 2006, USPS would be

required to pay into the Retiree Health Benefits Fund

each year:

(A) the portion of the net present value for current and

future USPS annuitants that is attributable to the

current year’s service of Postal Service employees;

(A) the net present value of the future payments that

is attributable to the service of Postal Service

employees during the most recently ended fiscal

year; and

(B) interest on the net present value for that fiscal year

at the interest rate used to compute that net present

value.

(B) an annual installment computed as the difference

between the net present value of the excess of future

payments for current and future Postal Service

annuitants as of the fiscal year ending on September

30 of that year; and the value of the assets of the

Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund as of

the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that year

and the net present value of the future payments that

is attributable to the service of Postal Service

employees during the most recently ended fiscal

year. This amount is to be amortized to create a

series of annual installments that provide for the

liquidation of the liability by September 30, 2045, or

within 15 years, whichever is later.

CRS-56

House bill

Senate bill

Would allow the USPS contribution to the Postal Service

Retiree Health Benefits Fund in 2006 to be reduced by

any USPS contributions attributable to FY2006.

Similar provision.

Would require that any computation or regulation by

OPM “under this subsection shall, upon request of the

Postal Service, be subject to review by the Postal

Regulatory Commission. The Commission shall submit a

report containing the results of any such review to the

Postal Service, the Office of Personnel Management, and

the Congress .... Upon receiving the report of the Postal

Regulatory Commission, the Office of Personnel

Management shall reconsider its computation or other

determination in light of such report, and shall make any

appropriate adjustments. The Office shall submit a report

containing the results of its reconsideration to the

Commission, the Postal Service, and the Congress.”

Similar provision added June 22, 2005 except that

review would be performed by an outside actuary, one

with membership in the American Academy of

Actuaries.

Sec. 903.

Repealed.

Would repeal Sec. 3 of P.L. 108-18, which required that

savings resulting from the Postal Civil Service

Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003 be used

to reduce the debt of the Postal Service (in 2003 and

2004) and placed in escrow thereafter.

Similar provision at Sec. 804.

Sec. 904.

Ensuring

Appropriate

Use of

Escrow and

Military

Savings.

Would require OPM to calculate the per annum “total

savings” each year (2006-2015). If the amount USPS has

paid into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund

that year is equal to or greater than two-thirds of the total

savings for that year, USPS need take no further action; if

the payments are less than two-thirds, USPS must pay

into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund an

Not included.

CRS-57

House bill

Senate bill

amount equal to the difference. USPS could avoid paying

the difference in the instance of a fiscal year

underpayment being negated by an aggregate

overpayment over previous fiscal years (beginning 2006).

OPM would be required to report its calculations of total

savings to USPS, PRC, and Congress. Would permit

USPS to apply up to $3 billion of the savings toward

reducing USPS’s debt. Also would permit USPS to

submit a request to PRC that it be permitted to waive its

contribution to the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits

Fund if it is “reasonable and equitable and necessary” to

enable USPS to continue to maintain and develop postal

services.

Sec. 905.

Effective

Dates.

Identical provision at Sec. 805.

Makes the changes of this title effective October 1, 2005

and requires changes to government contributions to the

civil service retirement system begin on the first day of

the first pay period of October 1, 2005.

Not included

Not included.

Title IX — Compensation for Work Injuries

Sec. 901.

Temporary

Disability;

Continuation of

Pay.

Senate bill would also amend 5 U.S.C. 8117 so that a

USPS employee would not be entitled to compensation

or continuation of pay for the first three days of

temporary disability. During this time, a USPS

employee would be permitted to use annual leave, sick

leave, or leave without pay.

CRS-58

House bill

Not included.

Senate bill

Sec. 902.

Disability

Retirement

for Postal

Employees.

In order to reduce Postal Service expenses, this

provision would encourage Postal Service employees of

retirement age who are injured on the job to retire

rather than to draw disability compensation. To this

end, it would amend 5 U.S.C. 8105 and 8106 to reduce

compensation for work injuries for a postal worker

whose injuries occur after enactment of S. 662. If

enacted —

An employee suffering total disability from a

workplace injury would be entitled to compensation of

50 percent (currently 66 2/3 percent) of his monthly pay

on the later date of:

(1) the date on which the injured worker reaches

retirement; or

(2) one year after the employee begins receiving

compensation.

An employee suffering partial disability would be

entitled to 50 percent (currently 66 2/3 percent) of the

difference between his monthly pay and his monthly

wage earning capacity after the beginning of his partial

disability on the later date of:

(1) the date on which the injured employee reaches

retirement age; or

(2) one year after the employee begins receiving

compensation.

CRS-59

House bill

Senate bill

Not included

Title X — Miscellaneous

See Sec. 801 above.

Sec. 1001.

Employment

of Postal

Police

Officers.

Similar provision in H.R. 22 Sec. 801.

See Sec. 804 above.

Sec. 1002.

Obsolete

Provisions.

Similar provision at Sec. 804.

See Sec. 808 above.

Sec. 1003.

Reduced

Rates.

Identical to H.R. 22, Sec. 808.

See Sec. 602 above.

Sec. 1004.

Sense of

Congress

Regarding

Postal

Service

Purchasing

Reform.

Would declare that “the Postal Service should —

“(1) ensure the fair and consistent treatment of

suppliers and contractors in its current purchasing

policies...; and

“(2) implement commercial best practices in Postal

Service purchasing policies to achieve greater

efficiency and cost savings as recommended in July

2003 by the President’s Commission on the United

States Postal Service.”

CRS-60

House bill

Not included.

Senate bill

Sec. 1005.

Contracts for

Transportation

of Mail by Air.

Would amend the Rural Service Improvement Act,

which was passed in 2002 to improve the Alaska

bypass mail system, to allow the Postal Service to use a

wider variety of contract aircraft to deliver mail to

smaller villages in Alaska, some of which are not

equipped to handle the larger planes favored by the

2002 act. (This provision amended on February 9,

2006.)