To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1706 South Burnside Avenue in Gonzales, Louisiana, as the "Cpl. Lawrence Brown Post Office Building".
Latest action (Sep 3, 2026) — on Oversight and Government Reform.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Sep 3, 2026This bill designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1706 South Burnside Avenue in Gonzales, Louisiana, as the "Cpl. Lawrence Brown Post Office Building".
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
16 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
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.
8
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The committee report would settle it either way.
8
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. None of that is settled by the summary.
8
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
5
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
4
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
3
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
4
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
3
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
3
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
3
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
2
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
3
Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.
1
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
1
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
1
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
Your position on H.R. 102530% Yea · 1 VoteWire user