HR-9936-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Dale Strong (R-AL)
What it does
The bill would bar the Postal Service from paying the Postmaster General any bonus, incentive award, retention payment, or other performance-based pay in a fiscal year if, in the prior fiscal year, costs exceeded revenue, nationwide service targets were missed, the financial audit had a material weakness, adverse opinion, or disclaimer, or the required report was not filed. It would also require the Postmaster General to report to Congress within 30 days after each fiscal year on senior executive bonuses, the metrics behind them, financial results, and national and district service data. The Postal Service Inspector General would review each report and decide whether the Postal Service complied.
Who benefits
Taxpayers and mailers who may gain from stronger financial and service accountability at the Postal Service. Congressional oversight committees would receive annual data on executive pay and district-level service. The Postal Service Inspector General would gain a defined review role. Postal customers in districts with weak service could gain from added visibility into performance.
Who is hurt
The Postmaster General would lose eligibility for bonus pay in any year following a loss, missed target, audit finding, or late report. Because the Postal Service has often run annual deficits, the bar could apply frequently. The Postal Service would bear added reporting work, and the Inspector General's office would take on added review duties. The limit could make it harder to recruit or retain top executives, since it covers only the Postmaster General and not other officials.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that executive bonuses should depend on results, and that the Postal Service has reported net losses in most recent years while service targets have been missed. They contend that clear financial and service triggers, plus an annual report reviewed by the Inspector General, would give Congress reliable data and align leadership pay with performance.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that postal losses stem largely from statutory obligations, such as retiree benefit costs and universal service requirements, which the Postmaster General does not control. They contend that automatic bonus bans tied to a single year's results, including a late report, could be overly rigid, may deter qualified leaders, and add reporting burdens without improving performance.
Constitutional context
Congress has authority to establish post offices and post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7) and to structure agencies under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18), including setting limits on pay of officials. No clear constitutional conflict arises, since the bill does not alter appointment or removal of the Postmaster General, who is selected by the Postal Service Board of Governors.
Checks and balances
Congress gains oversight leverage over an independent executive-branch establishment through pay limits and annual reports, with the Postal Service Inspector General serving as the reviewing check.
Historical precedent
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 and the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022 previously modified postal governance and finances, and 39 U.S.C. 3686 already imposes reporting obligations on the Postal Service.