PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
Ensuring the Safety of Our Mail Act of 2025
This bill increases from 5 to 10 years the maximum prison term for a defendant who commits mail theft.
People & committees
Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 4, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1292 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1292 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1292 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1292 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would increase the maximum penalty for mail theft from five years to 10 years. It changes the maximum penalty, rather than requiring a 10-year sentence.
2. Increasing the maximum penalty for mail theft Section 1708 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking not more than five years and inserting not more than 10 years.
Section 1 names the proposal the Ensuring the Safety of Our Mail Act of 2025.
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Ensuring the Safety of Our Mail Act of 2025.
Section 2 would amend the existing federal criminal law at 18 U.S.C. §1708 by replacing “not more than five years” with “not more than 10 years.”
Section 1708 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking not more than five years and inserting not more than 10 years.
The supplied action snapshot, updated February 4, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 13, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-02-04T04:11:35Z. 2025-02-13: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or appropriations policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow benefit, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Feb 4, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI