Contents

• Background
• Current Costs for Mailers
• Legislation in the 112^th Congress
• Legislation in Previous Congresses
• 109^th Congress
• 110^th Congress
• 111^th Congress
• Conclusion: Observations and Possible Questions for Congress
• Observations
• Possible Questions

Summary

Members of the Armed Forces on duty in designated combat areas can send personal correspondence, free of postage, to addresses in the United States. However, there is not a comparable policy to permit individuals in the United States to send letters and packages to troops serving overseas free of charge.

H.R. 1935 has been introduced in the 112^th Congress to establish a new, free postage benefit. Military personnel who are deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq, or who are hospitalized as a result of such deployment, would receive one postage voucher or coupon per month. The recipient may then give this voucher to a person in the United States, who could use it to send a letter or a parcel to a deployed member of the Armed Forces. Similar legislation was introduced but not enacted in the previous three Congresses.

The federal government does subsidize the postage an individual pays to send mail to troops. A sender is charged only for the cost of the domestic portion of the delivery—the Department of Defense pays the cost to move the mail from the United States to troops overseas. Additionally, since October 2008 the U.S. Postal Service has offered a discounted package service to families wishing to send packages to members of the Armed Services stationed overseas.

This report will be updated to reflect significant legislative action.

Background

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has a long relationship with the Department of Defense (DOD) to facilitate correspondence and the exchange of gifts between service personnel and their families. Post offices throughout the country accept mail and packages for military personnel and deliver these items to military installations in the United States. Overseas military mail delivery is somewhat more complicated. The USPS delivers mail and packages to USPS gateway sites in New York, Newark, San Francisco, Miami, and Chicago. Domestic postage covers the cost of this service. The cost of transporting the mail from those sites to overseas Army/Air Force Post Offices (APOs) and Fleet Post Offices (FPOs) that serve members of the Armed Forces is borne by the military mail service. For mailers, then, the postage is subsidized—they pay only the domestic portion of the cost.

When the Armed Forces are engaged in combat or other dangerous activities, the President has the authority to permit service members to send personal correspondence, free of charge, to places within the delivery limits of a U.S. post office (39 U.S.C. 3401(a)(1)).¹ This privilege is currently available to service members in Iraq, Afghanistan, and certain surrounding countries and seas, and to service personnel hospitalized in a military facility as a consequence of service in the designated areas. The DOD pays the USPS for the costs of delivering this mail from the U.S. gateway sites to any domestic address. Free mail must have a complete APO or FPO return address and the word "free" written in the upper right corner with an APO or FPO postmark.

However, citizens of the United States have never been authorized to send mail to service members, whether overseas or not, without paying postage. It is the case that the government created "V-Mail" as a means for Americans to correspond with members of the Armed Forces during World War II.² But only members of the Armed Forces could send V-Mail free of postage. Families and friends had to pay postage at the standard rates of the day.

Current Costs for Mailers

Those wishing to send written correspondence to members of the Armed Forces overseas currently pay postage between $0.44 and $3.28 per letter (1 to 13 ounces).³

Someone wishing to send a package will pay the standard domestic package postage rates, which are calculated on a range of factors, including package size, shape, and weight.⁴ Alternatively, a mailer may take advantage of the discounted APO/FPO Priority Mail Flat-Rate Box.⁵ The USPS offers "free Military kits" to military families who want to send packages overseas.

The mailing kits can be ordered by phone by calling 1-800-610-8734 and asking for the Care Kit. Each kit includes two Priority Mail boxes, six Priority Mail Flat-Rate boxes, eight Priority Mail labels, one roll of Priority Mail tape and eight customs forms with envelopes.⁶

A sender must pay postage of $12.95, a discount of $2 off the standard postage, for each 12" by 12" by 5" box.⁷

Legislation in the 112^th Congress

Representative Peter King introduced H.R. 1935, the Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2011, on May 23, 2011. It was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

H.R. 1935 would

• establish a postage benefit for members of the armed services on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, and for individuals who are "hospitalized at a facility under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces of the United States as a result of a disease or injury incurred as a result of service in Iraq or Afghanistan,"
• provide a beneficiary with one coupon or voucher per month, which he or she could give to anyone who wished to send a letter of no more than 13 ounces or a parcel of no more than 15 pounds; and
• authorize an appropriation to the DOD to cover the cost of this program to the USPS. Funding is "not to exceed $75 million for the total period beginning with fiscal year 2012 and ending with fiscal year 2017."

H.R. 1935 is nearly identical to bills introduced in previous Congresses by Representative King—H.R. 704 (111^th Congress) and H.R. 1439 (110^th Congress).

Legislation in Previous Congresses

Legislation to establish a free-mail-to-troops postage benefit has been introduced in the 109^th, 110^th, and 111^th Congresses. None of the bills were enacted.

109^th Congress

Representative Vito Fossella introduced H.R. 923, the Mailing Support to Troops Act of 2005, on February 17, 2005. As introduced, the bill would have allowed family members of military service personnel to mail letters and packages free of charge to active members of the military serving in Afghanistan or Iraq, and to servicemen and women hospitalized as a result of disease or injury suffered in Afghanistan or Iraq. To receive this free postage benefit, mailers simply would have written on the envelope or box "'Free Matter for Member of the Armed Forces of the United States' or words to that effect [as] specified by the Postal Service." H.R. 923 would have forbidden this mail to contain advertisements. The bill would have authorized appropriations to reimburse the USPS for its extra expenses in transporting such mail.

Another approach to providing a free postage benefit was taken by Representative Harold E. Ford, Jr., in H.R. 2874, the Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2005, which was introduced on June 14, 2005.⁸ The bill would have provided a free postage benefit to both families of service members and charities. Soldiers mobilizing for overseas duty would have been given an allotment of special stamps (equivalent in value to $150 per calendar quarter) to send to their families or selected charities. These stamps would have permitted them to mail letters and packages to service members without postage. There would have been a 10-pound limit on packages mailed, and the DOD would have reimbursed USPS for providing this service. By putting individual service members into the authorization chain for the mail they received, this bill would have avoided the problem of the free postage benefit being used to send unsolicited mail to the troops. Additionally, capping the allotment per service member would have mitigated potential stress on the military postal system. H.R. 2874 was referred to the House Committees on Armed Services and Government Reform.

On September 29, 2005, the House Government Reform Committee marked up H.R. 923 and, in doing so, adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute that incorporated the core concept, as well as the title, of H.R. 2874. As amended and ordered to be reported by voice vote of the committee, the new version of H.R. 923 would have required the DOD, in consultation with the USPS, to establish a one-year program under which a qualified member of the Armed Forces would have received a monthly voucher. The voucher was transferable to a service member's family or friends, and would cover the postage to send one letter or parcel (weighing up to 15 pounds) to the service member. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that nearly all of the about 145,000 American service personnel who would have been eligible for the postage benefit would have taken advantage of it, and assigned it a budget cost of $30 million over FY2006 and FY2007.⁹

The House Armed Services Committee added the language of H.R. 923 as Sections 575, 576, and 577 of H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. The House passed H.R. 5122 on May 11, 2006. On June 22, 2006, the Senate substituted its own defense authorization language for the House language and passed H.R. 5122. Neither the Senate version of the FY2007 authorization bill nor the conference report (H.Rept. 109-702) included the free-mail-for-troops provision.¹⁰

Thus, the free postage provision was not included in either the FY2007 defense authorization act (P.L. 109-364) or the FY2007 defense appropriations act (P.L. 109-289).

110^th Congress

Representative Fossella and 13 cosponsors introduced H.R. 1439 on March 9, 2007. The bill would have established a postage benefit for members of the armed services on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, and for individuals who are "hospitalized at a facility under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces of the United States as a result of a disease or injury incurred as a result of service in Iraq or Afghanistan." A beneficiary would have received one voucher per month, which he or she could have given to anyone who wished to send him or her a letter or parcel free of charge. The bill would have limited the weight of letters to no more than 13 ounces and parcels to no more than 15 pounds. H.R. 1439 would have authorized an appropriation to the DOD to cover the cost of this program to the USPS. H.R. 1439 was referred to the House Armed Services Committee.

Senator Hillary Clinton and two cosponsors introduced S. 1444 on June 6, 2007. This bill was very similar to H.R. 1439, although it would have limited packages to no more than 10 pounds, and it would have capped the cost of the free postage program at $10 million in FY2008. S. 1444 was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, then to the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security.

On May 16, 2007, Representative Fossella offered a floor amendment (H.Amdt. 184) to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment was quite similar to H.R. 1439 and S. 1444. It would have required the Secretary of Defense to provide a "qualified individual" with one voucher every other month. As in earlier bills, a "qualified individual" would have been defined as a member of the Armed Forces serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a member of the Armed Forces hospitalized under the care of the military. This individual could have given the voucher to anyone, who then could mail, at no charge, a parcel (up to 10 pounds) or first-class mail piece (up to 13 ounces) to the same qualified individual. H.Amdt. 184 was adopted by voice vote immediately.¹¹

The House passed H.R. 1585 with the postage benefit provision on May 17, 2007, by a vote of 397 to 267. Again, the Senate passed its version of the defense authorization bill without the postage benefit provision on October 1, 2007, by a vote of 92 to 3. The conference report (H.Rept. 110-477) filed on December 6, 2007, did not authorize an appropriation for the postage benefit.

111^th Congress

Representative Peter King introduced H.R. 704, the Supply Our Soldiers Act of 2009, on January 27, 2009.¹² The same day, Representative Kathy Castor introduced H.R. 707, the Home Front to Heroes Postal Benefits Act. H.R. 704 and H.R. 707 were referred to the House Armed Services Committee, and then to its Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Like earlier bills, both H.R. 704 and H.R. 707 would have given one free-postage voucher per month to each "qualified individual" in the Armed Forces. Each voucher would have provided free postage on letters weighing up to 13 ounces or packages weighing up to 15 pounds. The DOD would have provided advance transfers of funds to the USPS to cover the Postal Service's costs in delivering the mail to the APOs and FPOs. H.R. 704 and H.R. 707 would have authorized this postage benefit for one year.

Though similar, H.R. 704 and 707 differed in two significant ways.

(1) H.R. 704, Sec. 2(b) defined a "qualified individual" as

a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on active duty (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code); and ... serving in Iraq or Afghanistan ... or ... hospitalized at a facility under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces of the United States as a result of a disease or injury incurred as a result of service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

10 U.S.C. 101(d)(1) defined "active duty" to mean

full-time duty in the active military service of the United States. Such term includes full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned. Such term does not include full-time National Guard duty.

Meanwhile, H.R. 707, Sec. 2(b) defined a "qualified individual" as "a member of the Armed Forces described in subsection (a)(1) of section 3401 of title 39, United States Code, who is entitled to free mailing privileges under such section." This definition of "qualified individual" may be broader than the definition included in H.R. 704 because 39 U.S.C. 3401(a)(1) includes

an individual who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on active duty, as defined in [10 U.S.C. 101], or a civilian, otherwise authorized to use postal services at Armed Forces installations, who holds a position or performs one or more functions in support of military operations, as designated by the military theater commander....

(2) H.R. 704 did not define who may use a postage voucher. H.R. 707, Section 2(e) would have permitted qualified individuals to transfer a voucher to "a member of the family of the qualified individual, a nonprofit organization, or any other person selected by the qualified individual for use to send qualified mailings to the qualified individual or other qualified individuals."

When the House passed H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, on June 25, 2009, it included the text of H.R. 707 as Section 666. However, when the Senate approved an amended version of H.R. 2647 on July 23, it did not include the free postage benefit. Additionally, neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations Committee included a free postage benefit when it approved H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Ultimately, the 111^th Congress did not enact a free-mail-to-troops postage benefit.

Conclusion: Observations and Possible Questions for Congress

The recent postage benefit bills prompt at least two observations and four questions.

Observations

(1) It is unclear whether any concerns exist about the voucher-type free postage proposals. As indicated above, during the 109^th, 110^th , and 111^th Congresses, measures advanced but were not enacted. In each instance, the House bill carried the free postage benefit, and the Senate bill did not. The conference committee reports did not elaborate on why the Senate version was preferred, and the Congressional Research Service has not located any published accounts that detail any objections to these postage benefit bills.

(2) It is unclear how much a free-mail-to-troops postage benefit would cost annually. Only one of the aforementioned bills was scored—the CBO scored the final version of H.R. 923 (109^th Congress), at $30 million for the 2006 calendar year, "including $17 million for postage, and $13 million for the DoD's transportation and administrative costs."¹³

Possible Questions

(1) None of the free postage for troops bills described the means through which the DOD was to provide postage vouchers to military personnel overseas; nor did the bills describe how these individuals would transfer these vouchers to family members or friends back in the United States. Rather, legislation has required the DOD to devise the means for administering the benefit. (The CBO's scoring of H.R. 923 during the 109^th Congress, it should be noted, did not include an estimate of the costs of either voucher distribution to military personnel or voucher transference to persons in the United States.) Should legislation provide guidance or direction for this aspect of implementation?

(2) What precautions would be adopted to ensure that vouchers were not counterfeited? Is there any risk that individuals could sell or trade postage vouchers for cash?

(3) Recent bills would have permitted a voucher to be used either to send correspondence or a package. As noted above, currently a mailer must pay between $0.44 and $3.28 in postage to send written correspondence. Should this relatively low-cost mailing be further subsidized by enacting a free-mail-to-troops postage benefit?¹⁴ And are senders likely to use a voucher for letters that can be used to cover the more expensive parcel postage?

(4) The dimensions and shape of a package significantly affect the USPS's costs to deliver it.¹⁵ For example, mailing 15 pounds of widgets in a 20" by 4" by 4" package (320 cubic inches) from the Silver Lake, Ohio zip code 44224 to the APO zip code 96278-2050 would require over $20 in postage. Sending the same 15 pounds of widgets in a 12" by 12" by 5" Priority Mail Flat-Rate Box (720 cubic inches) would cost $14.95. (Whether the DOD experiences similar cost differences for package delivery is unclear.) To reduce delivery costs, should any free postal benefit require recipients to use a box of a particular size and shape?

Footnotes