To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the "Dionne Phillips Bagsby 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 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the "Dionne Phillips Bagsby 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
8
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The committee report would settle it either way.
8
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
7
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. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
2
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
6
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
4
That's the part I can't get past either — broad authority, thin guardrails.
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? The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
5
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do.
5
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. The committee report would settle it either way.
5
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
3
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.
4
Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.
3
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.
2
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.
2
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. The committee report would settle it either way.
2
Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
Your position on H.R. 102960% Yea · 1 VoteWire user