Josh Hawley (R-MO)
No Bonuses for Bad Service Act
A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 570.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the No Bonuses for Bad Service Act. It stops the Postmaster General and the Deputy Postmaster General from receiving bonuses, awards, or extra money beyond their basic pay during certain fiscal years. Specifically, extra pay is blocked if the Postal Service fails to hit at least 95 percent on-time delivery performance for each target in a market-dominant product category. Extra pay is also blocked if the Postal Service runs a worse deficit than the previous year, or runs a deficit after having a surplus in the prior year. Additionally, the bill requires reports to be submitted to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural residents are most dependent on the USPS for basic service delivery.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires reporting of performance metrics to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
- Scored +2
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors often rely heavily on postal services for medicine and communication.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) prevents the Postmaster General and the Deputy Postmaster General from receiving bonuses or extra monetary compensation beyond basic pay if the Postal Service fails to reach at least 95 percent on-time delivery performance for each target in a market-dominant product category. This holds leadership accountable when mail delivery goals are missed.
-
Section 2(a) also stops these officials from getting extra pay if the Postal Service exceeds a previous year's deficit or runs a deficit after having a surplus. This protects the public interest by tying leadership pay to better financial management.
-
Section 2(b) requires reports to be submitted to the Postal Regulatory Commission, which increases transparency for the people.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions that outline potential negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents are most dependent on the USPS for basic service delivery. Would business owners be better off under this? — Improved on-time delivery is critical for e-commerce and business operations. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural farmers rely on reliable postal services for business and logistics. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households often rely more on the USPS for affordable communication. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees frequently use postal services for essential documents and prescriptions. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors often rely heavily on postal services for medicine and communication. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in mail service delivery benefits most households. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increased reliability of mail is beneficial for those with limited mobility. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Better delivery targets improve service in densely populated areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases fiscal accountability by tying executive bonuses to performance metrics. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Better mail delivery performance can benefit small businesses relying on USPS. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Potential reduction in spending by restricting bonuses for high-level postal officials.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires reporting of performance metrics to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
- 9/14/2026
- Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Paul with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 570.
- 8/6/2026
- Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 7/29/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut