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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32903

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** October 16, 2006
- **Citation:** RL32903

## Text

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.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32903. Public record. Not legal advice.