H.R. 10755House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 475 East FM 1382 in Cedar Hill, Texas, as the "Eugene Gates Jr. Post Office Building".

Sponsored byJasmine CrockettD-TX-30Introduced Oct 6, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 6, 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.

Discussion

7 comments

Sort

hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay1d ago

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.

sylvie_civicDemoFL-11voted Yea1d ago

I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

cedarprecinctDemoTX-33voted Yea16h ago

In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.

birch_districtDemoSC-5voted Nay13h ago

The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.

birch_districtDemoSC-5voted Nay21h ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Yea1d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The committee report would settle it either way.

deltalibrarianDemoDC-ALvoted Nay1d ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.

Your position on H.R. 10755No positions yet