Protect Postal Performance Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2103
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-14: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-30T08:05:34Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Protect Postal Performance Act" (H.R. 2103) aims to reform the United States Postal Service (USPS) procedures for closing or consolidating post offices and processing and distribution centers. It seeks to enhance public participation, prevent service disruptions in underserved areas, and ensure that changes do not harm mail delivery performance.
Key Provisions
- Post Office Closures and Consolidations (Amendments to 39 U.S.C. § 404(d)):
- Requires a public hearing (in-person or virtual) during the existing 60-day notice period for proposed closures.
- Mandates that USPS publish a summary of the hearing on its public website within 7 days, including a description of public comments and the percentage supporting or opposing the change.
- Delays any closure or consolidation by 180 days after the summary is published.
- Prohibits closures for post offices that are the only one within 15 miles or serve as the nearest option for 15,000 or more people.
- Processing and Distribution Centers (New 39 U.S.C. § 417):
- Bans closures, consolidations, or downgrades if they would leave a geographically non-contiguous region (an area physically separated from the main part of a state by water or another state's land) with over 100,000 residents without such a center.
- Requires an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC, an independent agency that oversees USPS) before implementing operational changes to mail processing facilities; the PRC must issue this within 120 business days.
- Prohibits USPS from conducting its Mail Processing Facility Review program (or any successor) and bars federal funding for it.
- Prevents closures or moves of operations from centers in districts that failed to meet on-time delivery standards in the prior year: at least 93% for two-day first-class mail and 90.3% for three- to five-day first-class mail.
- Defines "processing and distribution center" as a central facility that handles incoming/outgoing mail distribution, provides guidance to mailers, and operates without attached stations or branches.
- Local and Regional Transportation Optimization (New 39 U.S.C. § 418):
- Prohibits USPS from implementing Local Transportation Optimization (LTO) or Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) plans that reduce mail pickups or drop-offs at any post office nationwide.
- Requires a PRC opinion before altering pickup/drop-off schedules under LTO or RTO; if the PRC does not recommend the changes, USPS cannot proceed anywhere in the U.S.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Expands public involvement in post office closure decisions by adding mandatory hearings and detailed online summaries, extending the timeline from 60 days to potentially over 240 days.
- Introduces outright bans on certain closures (e.g., isolated post offices or those serving large populations) and processing centers in remote regions, which were not previously restricted.
- Mandates PRC advisory opinions for facility changes and transportation optimizations, creating a new layer of external review not required under current law.
- Halts the Mail Processing Facility Review program entirely, limiting USPS's ability to evaluate and consolidate facilities without oversight.
- Ties processing center actions to delivery performance benchmarks, preventing changes in underperforming areas to prioritize reliability.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: USPS may face delays and higher administrative costs due to extended timelines, public hearings, and PRC reviews, potentially slowing efficiency efforts. The PRC will see increased workload in issuing opinions.
- On Citizens: Improves access to postal services in rural, remote, or densely populated areas by protecting local facilities, but could lead to slower modernization and higher postage rates if consolidations are blocked. Enhanced public input may empower communities to influence decisions.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though reliable domestic mail processing could indirectly support international mail handling.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- USPS Employees and Management: Operational constraints may limit restructuring, affecting job security and efficiency.
- Local Communities and Residents: Particularly in rural, isolated, or high-population areas, who benefit from protected access but may experience service changes elsewhere.
- Businesses and Mail Users: Those relying on timely first-class mail (e.g., e-commerce, billing) gain from performance safeguards but could face disruptions if optimizations are stalled.
- Postal Regulatory Commission: Gains expanded advisory role, influencing USPS decisions more directly.
- Federal Government: Taxpayer funds are protected from being used for prohibited reviews, but oversight increases bureaucratic involvement.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens procedural due process for closures by requiring public hearings and summaries, potentially making USPS actions more challengeable in court if not followed. The advisory opinions from the PRC are non-binding but create a formal record for accountability.
- Constitutional: Aligns with First Amendment protections by facilitating public participation in government decisions affecting communities, without imposing new taxes or burdens.
- Political: Reflects bipartisan support (introduced by representatives from both parties) for maintaining postal reliability amid concerns over service cuts; could face opposition from fiscal conservatives seeking USPS cost savings, potentially leading to debates on federal oversight of a quasi-independent agency.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]
Cosponsors (29)
Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Golden, Jared F. [D-ME-2], Rep. Bergman, Jack [R-MI-1], Rep. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1], Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3], Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Rep. Sorensen, Eric [D-IL-17], Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2], Rep. Bell, Wesley [D-MO-1], Rep. McDonald Rivet, Kristen [D-MI-8], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23], Rep. Walkinshaw, James R. [D-VA-11], Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray [D-CA-31], Rep. LaLota, Nick [R-NY-1]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-14: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 2025-03-14: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-14: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Protect Postal Performance Act — issued 2025-03-14 — PDF (7 pages)