PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Rogers, Mike D. [R-AL-3] · R–AL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 24, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1580 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1580 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1580 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1580 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-25 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would require mail asking recipients to order goods or services to clearly identify itself as a solicitation. Covered mail without that notice could not be carried or delivered. The Postal Service would set notice rules, and an exception would apply to mail described in an existing law that the source does not reproduce.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), matter otherwise legally acceptable in the mails which constitutes a solicitation for the order by the addressee of goods or services, or both, is nonmailable matter, shall not be carried or delivered by mail
in accordance with regulations which the Postal Service shall prescribe— (A) the following notice: This is a solicitation
Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to matter described in subsection (d).
Section 1 would add a new subsection to federal postal law. The required notice would have to appear on the face of the mail in conspicuous, readable type that contrasts with other printing through typography, layout, or color.
Section 3001 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
unless such matter bears on its face, in conspicuous and legible type in contrast by typography, layout, or color with other printing on its face
The Postal Service would have to issue regulations for the notice. Senders could use “This is a solicitation” or alternative wording with the same meaning prescribed by the Postal Service.
in accordance with regulations which the Postal Service shall prescribe— (A) the following notice: This is a solicitation; or (B) in lieu thereof, a notice to the same effect in words which the Postal Service may prescribe.
Covered solicitations lacking the required notice would be barred from mail carriage and delivery, even if otherwise legally acceptable in the mail. They would have to be disposed of as the Postal Service directs.
matter otherwise legally acceptable in the mails which constitutes a solicitation for the order by the addressee of goods or services, or both, is nonmailable matter, shall not be carried or delivered by mail, and shall be disposed of as the Postal Service directs, unless such matter bears on its face
The new requirement would not apply to mail described in existing subsection 3001(d). The supplied text does not explain which mail that subsection covers.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to matter described in subsection (d).
The supplied action snapshot, updated July 24, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on February 25, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-24T14:16:28Z. 2025-02-25: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 2025-02-25: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-25. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Evidence is limited
The complete supplied introduced text was reviewed, but the existing statutory provision defining the exception is missing. The evidence does not establish whether that exception creates materially narrow preferential treatment.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 24, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI