PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14] · R–TX
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 Oversight and Government Reform.
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: May 8, 2025. 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.1760 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.1760 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.1760 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.1760 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 · 2025-02-27 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.
The proposed Upholding a Secure Postal System Act, or USPS Act, would require recurring federal investigations into mail theft, mail delays, postal employee violations investigated by the Postal Service’s Inspector General, other criminal or civil violations within the Postal Inspection Service’s jurisdiction, and vandalism or theft of Postal Service property. The Comptroller General would report to Congress on these investigations, the Postal Service’s existing responses, and recommendations for addressing violations.
This Act may be cited as the Upholding a Secure Postal System Act or the USPS Act.
the Comptroller General of the United States shall investigate nationwide patterns and instances of the theft of mail, delays of mail, United States Postal Service employee violations investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Postal Service, any other criminal or civil violations under the jurisdiction of the Postal Inspection Service, and the theft or vandalism of Postal Service property, and submit a report on each such investigation to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
Any report under subsection (a) shall include a description of any measures the Postal Service has in place to address violations described under such subsection and recommendations on how the Postal Service and Congress can combat such violations.
The Comptroller General would have to investigate nationwide patterns and individual instances of mail theft and delays; postal employee violations investigated by the Postal Service’s Inspector General; other criminal or civil violations within the Postal Inspection Service’s authority; and theft or vandalism of Postal Service property.
the Comptroller General of the United States shall investigate nationwide patterns and instances of the theft of mail, delays of mail, United States Postal Service employee violations investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Postal Service, any other criminal or civil violations under the jurisdiction of the Postal Inspection Service, and the theft or vandalism of Postal Service property
The first investigation and report would be due within one year after section 2 became law, followed by annual investigations and reports for five years thereafter. Each report would go to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section and each year thereafter for 5 years
submit a report on each such investigation to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
Each report would have to describe the Postal Service’s existing measures to address the covered violations and recommend how the Postal Service and Congress could combat them.
Any report under subsection (a) shall include a description of any measures the Postal Service has in place to address violations described under such subsection and recommendations on how the Postal Service and Congress can combat such violations.
The Comptroller General would have to consult with both the Postal Service’s Inspector General and the Postal Inspection Service when carrying out these duties.
In carrying out this section, the Comptroller General shall consult with the Inspector General of the Postal Service and the Postal Inspection Service.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated May 8, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 27, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-08T13:45:15Z. 2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-27. 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 policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in 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 for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence 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 carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 8, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI