H.R. 279 (119th)Bill Overview

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, unique ZIP Code for Fairlawn, Virginia, and for other purposes.

Government Operations and Politics|Government Operations and PoliticsPostal service
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jan 9, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill directs the United States Postal Service to assign a single, unique ZIP Code for Fairlawn, Virginia, within 180 days of enactment. It includes a "sense of Congress" explaining that shared ZIP Codes with the independent city of Radford have led to misallocation of sales tax revenue and that Fairlawn should be eligible for a separate ZIP Code for tax purposes.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize correcting tax allocation and local services

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise administrative directive that clearly states the problem and issues an unambiguous command to the USPS with a short deadline.

This bill directs the United States Postal Service to assign a single, unique ZIP Code for Fairlawn, Virginia, within 180 days of enactment.

It includes a "sense of Congress" explaining that shared ZIP Codes with the independent city of Radford have led to misallocation of sales tax revenue and that Fairlawn should be eligible for a separate ZIP Code for tax purposes.

Passage25/100

Substantively minor and uncontroversial, but single-community technical bills typically require inclusion in larger packages or local lobbying to reach final enactment.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise administrative directive that clearly states the problem and issues an unambiguous command to the USPS with a short deadline. It is structurally simple and focused.

Contention45/100

Progressives emphasize correcting tax allocation and local services

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Counties · Local governmentsLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • CountiesMore accurate allocation of sales tax revenue to Pulaski County instead of Radford.
  • Local governmentsImproves local administrative clarity and identity for Fairlawn residents and businesses.
  • Local governmentsMay simplify local budgeting and service planning by clarifying jurisdictional boundaries for data.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenUSPS will incur administrative and operational costs to create and implement a new ZIP Code.
  • Potential burdenBusinesses and residents may face address change costs updating records, marketing, and systems.
  • Potential burdenTax collection outcomes may not change if tax systems rely on billing addresses or geolocation, not ZIP codes.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize correcting tax allocation and local services
Progressive80%

Likely supportive because the bill corrects a local revenue-allocation problem and can restore funds for Pulaski County services.

It is a narrow, targeted federal action addressing a practical fairness issue rather than a broad policy change.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Cautiously favorable if the change is low-cost and narrowly implemented.

Sees the bill as a pragmatic fix to a concrete problem but wants safeguards on cost, process, and precedent.

Leans supportive
Conservative45%

Skeptical because it uses federal statutory direction for a highly local administrative matter.

Supports local revenue fairness but prefers state or local solutions and limits on federal micromanagement.

Split reaction
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood25/100

Substantively minor and uncontroversial, but single-community technical bills typically require inclusion in larger packages or local lobbying to reach final enactment.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether USPS interprets existing authority as requiring congressional action
  • Absence of a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate in text
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize correcting tax allocation and local services

Substantively minor and uncontroversial, but single-community technical bills typically require inclusion in larger packages or local lobby…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise administrative directive that clearly states the problem and issues an unambiguous command to the USPS with a short deadline. It is structurally simple a…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis