S. 64 (119th)Bill Overview

A bill 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
Democratic
Introduced
Jan 9, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

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 to Fairlawn, Virginia, within 180 days of enactment. The bill includes a Sense of Congress explaining Virginia’s independent-city structure and claims that shared ZIP Codes cause misallocation of e-commerce sales tax revenue to Radford instead of Pulaski County.

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize tax-fairness and local services

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise administrative directive that clearly states a problem and prescribes a single agency action with a deadline; it provides a minimally adequate operational command but omits several implementation and integration details that would normally accompany even a narrow administrative change.

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

The bill includes a Sense of Congress explaining Virginia’s independent-city structure and claims that shared ZIP Codes cause misallocation of e-commerce sales tax revenue to Radford instead of Pulaski County.

The statute’s operative requirement is the USPS ZIP Code designation for Fairlawn.

Passage40/100

Technically simple and noncontroversial but narrowly local, so passage depends on legislative calendar and USPS acceptance.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise administrative directive that clearly states a problem and prescribes a single agency action with a deadline; it provides a minimally adequate operational command but omits several implementation and integration details that would normally accompany even a narrow administrative change.

Contention15/100

Progressives emphasize tax-fairness 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
  • CountiesCould improve accuracy of electronic commerce sales tax allocation to Fairlawn and Pulaski County.
  • Local governmentsMay increase local sales tax receipts if current revenues are misattributed to Radford.
  • Local governmentsCould reduce intergovernmental disputes over tax revenue allocation between localities.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenUSPS will incur administrative costs to create and implement a new ZIP Code.
  • Potential burdenResidents and businesses may face costs and time burdens updating addresses and legal records.
  • Potential burdenShort-term mail delivery and database mismatches could cause confusion among shippers and service providers.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize tax-fairness and local services
Progressive90%

Likely supportive: views the change as a narrow corrective to revenue misallocation that can protect local public services.

Wants assurances the ZIP change actually redirects sales tax receipts to Pulaski County and helps community identity.

Leans supportive
Centrist80%

Pragmatic conditional support: sees this as a narrowly targeted administrative fix if low-cost and effective.

Wants clear implementation plans and evidence that a ZIP Code will resolve the tax misallocation.

Leans supportive
Conservative70%

Generally favorable but cautious: supports local fiscal fairness and clarity, yet worries about federal micromanagement of USPS and potential costs or precedent.

Prefers local funding of any administrative expenses.

Leans supportive
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 likelihood40/100

Technically simple and noncontroversial but narrowly local, so passage depends on legislative calendar and USPS acceptance.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • USPS willingness and operational feasibility
  • Absence of cost estimate or implementation plan
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 tax-fairness and local services

Technically simple and noncontroversial but narrowly local, so passage depends on legislative calendar and USPS acceptance.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise administrative directive that clearly states a problem and prescribes a single agency action with a deadline; it provides a minimally adequate operationa…

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