To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9995 Southeast Federal Highway in Hobe Sound, Florida, as the "Special Operations Chief Petty Officer Aaron Carson Vaughn 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 9995 Southeast Federal Highway in Hobe Sound, Florida, as the "Special Operations Chief Petty Officer Aaron Carson Vaughn 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
15 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
9
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
9
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
7
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.
6
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. None of that is settled by the summary.
6
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
1
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
4
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
3
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
4
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
3
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The committee report would settle it either way.
1
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
2
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
3
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
Your position on H.R. 102790% Yea · 1 VoteWire user