PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 21, 2003
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Postmasters Equity Act of 2003 - Amends Federal law to authorize an organization (other than an organization representing supervisors) that represents at least 20 percent of certain postmasters to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, and fringe benefit programs, and other programs relating to supervisory and other managerial employees.
Grants the postmasters and postmasters' organizations the same consultation and other rights afforded to supervisors and supervisors' organizations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides that if two or more postmasters' organizations exist such organizations shall: (1) be treated as if they constituted a single organization and in accordance with such arrangements as the organizations shall mutually agree to; and (2) in the case of any fact-finding panel convened by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service at the organizations' request, be jointly and severally liable for the cost of such panel, apart from the portion to be borne by the Service.
States that for purposes of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council's membership: (1) each of such two or more postmasters' organizations shall be treated as a separate organization; and (2) any determination of the number of individuals represented by each of those respective organizations shall be made in a manner consistent with this Act's purposes.
People & committees
Rep. McHugh, John M. [R-NY-23] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7178)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7178)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2249.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7178-7179)
Mr. Shays moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.2249 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.2249 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.2249 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.2249 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.