PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 672.
Congressional Research Service
Version 28 · Reported to House without amendment, Part I · Dec 8, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Postal Service Financial Improvement Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill requires the Department of the Treasury to: (1) invest a specified percentage of the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, using one or more qualified professional asset managers, in index funds modeled after those established for Thrift Savings Fund investments; and (2) ensure that the investment replicates the performance of the longest-term target date asset allocation investment fund established by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill establishes the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund Investment Committee, which Treasury shall consult regarding such investments.
The "specified percentage" to be invested is defined as 25% of the currently available portions of the fund as are not immediately required for payments from the fund, except that the committee may specify a higher percentage, not to exceed 30%, not earlier than five years after this bill's enactment and as appropriate thereafter.
Treasury shall annually engage an independent qualified public accountant to audit the financial statements of such investments and shall submit an annual management report that includes:
statements of financial position, operations, and cash flows;
a statement on internal accounting and administrative control systems;
the report resulting from the audit; and
any other comments and information necessary to inform Congress about the operations and financial condition of the investments.
People & committees
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 672.
Committee on the Budget discharged.
Committee on the Budget discharged.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on the Budget for a period ending not later than Dec. 8, 2016 for consideration of such provisions of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule X.
Reported by the Committee on 114-859, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on 114-859, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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 currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.5707 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.5707 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.5707 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.5707 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.