To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6 Pennsylvania Avenue in Matamoras, Pennsylvania, as the "PFC Edward Kuhn Memorial Post Office".
Latest action (Sep 2, 2026) — on Oversight and Government Reform.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Sep 2, 2026This bill designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6 Pennsylvania Avenue in Matamoras, Pennsylvania, as the "PFC Edward Kuhn Memorial Post Office".
Face Value
as introduced100Narrow
How much of this bill its name accounts for.
- Every bill starts at100
- Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.
Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out
Discussion
11 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
7
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
6
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
6
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
6
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
5
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
4
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. The committee report would settle it either way.
3
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me.
3
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests.
4
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
3
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
Your position on H.R. 10224No positions yet