Comer Statement on Democrats’ Unnecessary Postal Bailout Bill

WASHINGTON – House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) today issued the following statement on the House Democrats’ unnecessary $25 billion bailout for the U.S. Postal Service. The bill is nothing more than a giveaway to unions and trial lawyers that will hamstring the Postal Service, exacerbating their pre-existing fiscal problems.

“Democrats have fabricated a baseless conspiracy theory about the Postal Service and now they are asking American taxpayers to foot the bill for their fake crisis. The Postal Service does not need a bailout. They have enough cash on hand to get them through the next year and have access to a $10 billion line of credit if needed.

“The Democrats unnecessary bill was crafted in secret with no public hearings or markups. The intention of the bill clearly is to sow fear about the integrity of the election and provide trial lawyers with a litigation loophole to sue the Postal Service if President Trump is reelected by the American people. But all Democrats reap by advancing this unnecessary bill is to hamstring the Postal Service from making reforms to ensure ballots are delivered on time and protect its workforce during the pandemic. Americans deserve an improved Postal Service, but this bill doesn’t deliver.”

Summary of the House Democrats’ bailout bill (H.R. 8015):

The bill attempts to prohibit the USPS from making any changes during the COVID-19 public health emergency, which is defined as the public health emergency declared by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on January 27, 2020.

It includes $25 billion in unneeded bailout appropriations as well as overly stringent prohibitions barring the Postmaster General from dealing with underused or inadequate mailboxes or retiring unnecessary mail sorting machines.

Additionally, the bill is confusing. It is unclear whether any change, even obviously good ones, would be prohibited, or if the prohibitions only apply to changes that would “impede prompt, reliable, and efficient services.” Such potential legislative confusion is ripe for litigation that would cause even greater service issues and unnecessary disruptions.

The bill also creates a private right of action which would appear to allow individual voters or voter groups the right to file suit against the USPS, if election anomalies occur. This is concerning since it would embroil the USPS in litigation and potentially cost the Postal Service money that could be used to improve operations.

Some of the specific “changes” prohibited by the bill include the following:

• Any change in the nature of postal services which will generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis;
• Any changes to service standards;
• Any closure, consolidation, or reduction of post office or business hours at USPS’ facilities;
• Any change or reduction in the payment of overtime for USPS’ employees;
• Any change that would prevent the Postal Service from meeting its service standards or cause a decline in performance relative to those standards; and
• Any change that would in effect delay the mail or increase the amount of undelivered mail.

The bill purports to prioritize ballots, however if this action would diminish or change service in any other way, it may be prohibited. This contradictory language and intent likely arose as a result of this bill not being subjected to regular order committee-level vetting.

The bill prohibits or could be interpreted to prohibit the Postal Service from implementing changes to post office closures from what was in place at the beginning of the year. For example, if a post office needs to temporarily shut down due to a COVID positive employee for cleaning, it would or could be interpreted to be banned from doing so under this bill. USPS would also be prevented from reducing post office hours due to employee availability as a result of the pandemic.

###