Protect Postal Performance Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 14, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to prevent service reductions by imposing new procedural hurdles and outright prohibitions on USPS facility closures and operational changes, particularly in rural or underserved areas.
What it actually does
The bill significantly restricts the United States Postal Service's ability to close or consolidate post offices and mail processing and distribution centers. It mandates public hearings, extended waiting periods, and prohibits closures in certain areas. It also requires advisory opinions from the Postal Regulatory Commission before implementing operational changes and bans specific optimization programs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill is essential to protect vital postal services, especially in rural and remote communities, from cost-cutting measures that degrade service quality and accessibility. They contend that current USPS procedures do not adequately consider community impact and that the proposed changes will ensure greater transparency and accountability, preserving on-time mail delivery.
Opponents contend
Opponents, likely including USPS management, would argue that these restrictions severely hamper the Postal Service's ability to modernize its network, achieve financial stability, and adapt to changing mail volumes and operational efficiencies. They might contend that the bill could lead to increased costs, slower overall service improvements, and prevent necessary adjustments to maintain long-term viability.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(1) of the bill, amending 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(4)
Enhanced Public Process and Delay for Post Office Closures
This provision requires the USPS to hold a public hearing, accessible in-person or virtually, during the 60-day notice period for any proposed post office closure or consolidation. Within seven days of the hearing, USPS must publish a summary online, detailing public comments and the percentage of support or opposition. Crucially, no closure or consolidation can proceed until 180 days after this summary is published.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this ensures community input is genuinely heard and considered, provides more time for communities to adapt or challenge decisions, and significantly increases transparency in a process that often feels opaque to the public.
Critics contend
Opponents would contend that these requirements add substantial delays and administrative burden to necessary operational adjustments, potentially hindering USPS efficiency and financial health by prolonging the operation of unviable facilities.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for greater community involvement and transparency in postal service decisions against the USPS's need for operational flexibility and efficiency in managing its retail network.
Section 2(2) of the bill, adding 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(7)
Geographic and Population-Based Protections for Post Offices
This provision establishes two specific conditions under which a post office cannot be closed or consolidated. First, if the post office is not located within 15 miles of any other post office, it is protected. Second, if the post office is the closest postal facility for a population of 15,000 individuals or more, it also cannot be closed or consolidated.
Section 3(a) of the bill, adding 39 U.S.C. 417(a)
Protection of P&DCs in Geographically Non-Contiguous Regions
This provision prohibits the USPS from closing, consolidating, downgrading, or taking similar actions with respect to any Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) in a State if such an action would result in no P&DC being located in a geographically non-contiguous region of that State inhabited by more than 100,000 permanent residents. A 'geographically non-contiguous region' is defined as an area physically separated from the main body of the State by a significant body of water or land controlled by another State.
Section 3(a) of the bill, adding 39 U.S.C. 417(b)
Mandatory PRC Advisory Opinion for Mail Processing Facility Changes
This provision prohibits the USPS from implementing any changes to its mail processing facilities (including consolidation, partial consolidation, or aggregation of operations) until the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) issues an advisory opinion on the proposed changes. The PRC is given 120 business days to issue this opinion for each affected center. If the PRC's opinion determines that a proposed change will lead to slower on-time mail delivery, USPS must publish a report on mitigation practices, and the changes cannot be implemented for an additional 180 days after that report is published.
Section 3(a) of the bill, adding 39 U.S.C. 417(c)
Ban on Mail Processing Facility Review Program
This provision explicitly prohibits the United States Postal Service Mail Processing Facility Review (MPFR) program, or any successor program designed to achieve similar objectives. Furthermore, it forbids the obligation or expenditure of any federal funds, including those from the Postal Service Fund, to carry out such a review.
Section 3(a) of the bill, adding 39 U.S.C. 417(d)
P&DC Closure Ban in Districts Failing Delivery Benchmarks
This provision prohibits the USPS from closing, consolidating, or moving operations from any Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC) located within a Postal Service district that, at any point in the immediately preceding calendar year, failed to meet specific on-time delivery rates. These benchmarks are 93% for two-day single first-class mail and 90.3% for three to five-day first-class mail.
Section 3(a) of the bill, adding 39 U.S.C. 418(a)
Ban on Decreased Mail Pick-up/Drop-off Frequencies
This provision prohibits the USPS from implementing any Local Transportation Optimization (LTO) or Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) efforts if those efforts would result in a decrease in the number of times mail is either picked up or dropped off for any post office in the country.
Section 3(a) of the bill, adding 39 U.S.C. 418(b) and (c)
PRC Review and Veto Power over LTO/RTO Schedule Changes
This provision requires the USPS to request a Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) opinion before changing drop-off and pick-up schedules at post offices as part of its Local Transportation Optimization (LTO) or Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) plans. Furthermore, if the PRC does not recommend implementing these changes in its advisory opinion, the USPS is explicitly prohibited from moving forward with LTO or RTO optimization efforts anywhere in the United States.
This subsection defines 'processing and distribution center' (P&DC) as a central mail facility that distributes and dispatches incoming and outgoing mail, provides instructions to mailers, and is a sectional center facility, a general mail facility, or a dedicated mail processing facility without a station or branch. It also defines 'State' to include the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
Section 3(a), adding 39 U.S.C. 417(e)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms used within a section, but the specific criteria for what constitutes a P&DC are crucial for understanding the scope of the protections established earlier in the section.
Case for: Defining 'P&DC' precisely ensures that the protections apply to the intended facilities and prevents ambiguity or attempts to circumvent the law by reclassifying centers.
Case against: The specificity might inadvertently exclude certain types of facilities that perform similar functions but do not perfectly fit the definition, potentially creating loopholes or unintended gaps in protection.
Estimated impact: The definition directly determines which facilities are covered by the prohibitions and requirements of Section 417, impacting potentially hundreds of facilities nationwide.
This subsection prohibits the 'United States Postal Service Mail Processing Facility Review (or any successor program)' and forbids the use of federal funds for it.
Section 3(a), adding 39 U.S.C. 417(c)
Why it matters:The 'successor program' language is a common legislative technique to prevent evasion, but its broadness can be overlooked, making the prohibition more far-reaching than a casual read might suggest.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the intent of the ban is fully realized, preventing USPS from simply creating a new program with a different name but the same objectives and impacts.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such broad language could stifle legitimate future efforts by USPS to review and optimize its network, even if those efforts are genuinely different from the original MPFR program.
Estimated impact: This prevents USPS from conducting any comprehensive, agency-wide review of its mail processing facilities that resembles the MPFR, significantly impacting its long-term network planning.
This subsection states that if the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) does not recommend implementing Local Transportation Optimization (LTO) or Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) changes in an advisory opinion, the Postal Service may not move forward with LTO or RTO optimization efforts 'anywhere in the United States.'
Section 3(a), adding 39 U.S.C. 418(c)
Why it matters:This clause significantly amplifies the PRC's power beyond a typical advisory role, effectively giving it a veto over nationwide optimization programs based on a single opinion. This broad impact might not be immediately apparent without careful reading.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that if a specific optimization plan is found to be detrimental to service, it cannot simply be implemented elsewhere, providing a strong safeguard against widespread negative impacts.
Case against: Opponents would contend this grants the PRC an unprecedented and overly broad veto power, allowing a single negative opinion to halt potentially beneficial optimization efforts across the entire country, regardless of local conditions or specific proposals.
Estimated impact: This provision could halt all LTO/RTO efforts nationwide, potentially preventing billions in cost savings or efficiency improvements if the PRC issues a non-recommendation.