PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 15, 2000
Amends Federal law to declare that, in the case of mail matter (cooperative mailings) sent (or proposed to be sent) by or on behalf of an organization authorized to mail at non-profit postage rates, which also has a contractual or any other business relationship with an entity not so authorized, non-profit postage rates shall apply if those rates would apply in the case of identical mail matter sent by an authorized organization without such a relationship with an unauthorized organization.Declares that it is the sense of the Congress that nothing in this Act should be considered to alter the authority of the U.S. Postal Service to: (1) to apply regular postage rates, rather than non-profit rates, to specified other mail matter; or (2) enforce any criminal law within its jurisdiction.
People & committees
Rep. Ehrlich, Robert L., Jr. [R-MD-2] · R–MD
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 Government Reform.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2228-2229)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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, 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.5675 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.5675 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.5675 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.5675 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.