PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on International Security. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 1999
Post Office Community Partnership Act of 1999 - Modifies Federal postal law to revise requirements for the closing or consolidation of a post office and apply them, as well, to its relocation or construction. Requires a 60-day notice before an office's relocation, closing, consolidation, or construction. Requires such notice to be: (1) hand delivered or delivered by mail; and (2) published in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the zip codes served by such post office. Sets forth provisions which: (1) allow any person served by the post office to offer an alternative relocation, closing, consolidation, or construction proposal within such 60-day period; and (2) require the Postal Service to conduct a hearing, if requested by such person, to allow the individual to present oral or written testimony. Revises the factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to relocate, close, consolidate, or construct a post office to include: (1) the extent to which the post office is part of a core downtown business area; (2) the sentiment of the community; (3) the adequacy of the existing post office; and (4) whether all reasonable alternatives to relocation, closing, consolidation, or construction have been explored. Requires the Postal Service to respond in a consolidated report to all of the alternative proposals offered within the 60-day notification period by persons served by the post office in question. Requires the Postal Service to follow a community's public participation procedures to address the relocation, closing, consolidation, or construction of buildings in the community if such procedures are more stringent than those provided in this Act. Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to a temporary customer service facility used for less than 60 days. Allows for a one-time suspension of this Act with respect to a single emergency for any specific post office for a maximum 180-day period.
People & committees
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on International Security. Hearings held.
Referred to Subcommittee on International Security.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2369-2370)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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 S.556 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 S.556 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 S.556 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 S.556 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.