H.R. 10299House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 83 East Park Street in Alamo, Tennessee, as the "Kenneth Nolen Davis Post Office".

Sponsored byDavid KustoffR-TN-8Introduced Sep 4, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 4, 2026) on Oversight and Government Reform.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

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

5 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Nay5d ago
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 committee report would settle it either way.
9
birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Yea5d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. The committee report would settle it either way.
9
esme_watcherDemoCA-28voted Nay5d ago
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. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
5
kbmontroseDemoNM-25d ago
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
3
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Nay5d ago
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.
Your position on H.R. 10299No positions yet