PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 2014
Postal Facilities Preservation and Sales Reform Act - Revises requirements for making a determination as to the necessity for closing or consolidating any postal facility to require that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS): (1) hold at least three public meetings, located in the area affected by the closing or consolidation, at least 120 days prior to the determination; and (2) provide adequate notice of the closing or consolidation to persons served by such facility at least 180 days prior to the proposed date of such closing or consolidation.
Prohibits USPS from entering into any contract or agreement to sell or relocate a historic postal facility until the proposed decision to sell or relocate is reviewed in accordance with requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Requires USPS to use the Historic Surplus Property Program to dispose of a historic postal facility that has been determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places to be of national significance. Requires: (1) the Postmaster General to maintain a list of historic postal facilities and to publish such list on the USPS website, (2) the Postmaster General to maintain a separate preservation budget for such facilities, and (3) the USPS Federal Preservation Officer to notify the National Museum of American Art when New Deal art (art located at a postal facility that was commissioned by the federal government between 1933 and 1937) owned by USPS is loaned or relocated.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Postmaster General to develop a model covenant to be used and applied to any historic postal facility offered for sale that: (1) requires the purchaser of such a facility to allow public access to any historic artwork located within such facility, (2) requires USPS to contribute sufficient funds to the maintenance of such artwork, and (3) prohibits the purchaser of the historic postal facility from demolishing or altering it in any way that is incompatible with its historic character.
Nullifies the proposed rule published by USPS in the Federal Register on January 13, 2014, relating to a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for disposal of USPS facilities.
People & committees
Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-15] · D–NY
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.5377 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.5377 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.5377 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.5377 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.