PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 1, 2016
Stop Postal Closures Act of 2016
This bill prohibits the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from: (1) closing or consolidating any postal facility without the approval of the Postal Regulatory Commission, or (2) closing or consolidating any postal facility or carrying out any network rationalization activity until the Commission has certified that the USPS has met the national service standards that were in effect on July 1, 2012, and that are reinstated by this Act.
For purposes of such prohibitions, "postal facility" means a USPS facility that is primarily involved in the preparation, dispatch, or other physical processing of mail but does not include: (1) any post office, station, or branch; or (2) any facility used only for administrative functions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Before making a determination to close or consolidate a postal facility, the USPS must conduct an area mail processing study, which includes: (1) a plan to reduce the capacity of the facility without closing it; and (2) an analysis of the effects of the closure or consolidation on the community, on small businesses, and on specified postal services to individuals.
If the USPS makes a determination to close or consolidate a postal facility after completing such study, it shall: (1) provide specified notice to Congress, the Commission, the public, and each person in the zip code served by such facility; (2) conduct at least three meetings to receive public comments; and (3) publish a justification of such determination. The Commission shall have 90 days to approve or disapprove the closure or consolidation.
The Commission shall determine annually if the USPS is meeting the national service standards for market-dominant products. If the Commission finds that the USPS is not meeting such standards, it may recommend corrective actions and reasonable performance targets. The Postmaster General shall respond within 60 days after receiving such recommendations on how the USPS will change operations to achieve them.
People & committees
Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2] · D–CA
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 currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.4656 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.4656 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.4656 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.4656 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.