PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 7, 2011
Postal Service Protection Act of 2011 - Sets forth rules for the recalculation of annuities for employees of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and for the redetermination of surplus or supplemental liabilities under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Prescribes the "average pay" to be used in calculating annuities and surplus amounts.
Authorizes the transfer of surplus postal retirement contributions in FY2010 to the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, the Postal Service Fund, and the Employees' Compensation Fund under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) and to USPS for payment of its debt obligations.
Eliminates the requirement for pre-funding of the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth criteria for the closing or consolidation of postal facilities.
Allows USPS to provide any nonpostal service or product in a manner consistent with the public interest.
Provides for the mailing of wine and beer sent by a licensed winery or brewery in accordance with the laws of the state, territory, or district where the addressee or agent takes delivery.
Establishes in USPS the position of the Chief Innovation Officer who shall have proven expertise and success in the postal and shipping industry and in innovation, marketing, technology, and management. Establishes a Postal Innovation Advisory Commission. Requires the Postmaster General to report to Congress on a comprehensive strategy for maximizing USPS revenue through innovative postal and nonpostal products and services.
Prohibits USPS from reducing the frequency of mail delivery to fewer than six days each week or from increasing the expected delivery time for market-dominant products.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.3591 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.3591 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.3591 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.3591 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.