H.R. 1031House bill · 119th CongressIn committeePublic Lands and Natural Resources

Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park Establishment Act

Sponsored byClaudia TenneyR-NY-24Introduced Feb 5, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 10, 2026) Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

9 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay3d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
8
sunset_almanacDemoVA-10voted Yea4h ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. None of that is settled by the summary.
1
b_haverfordDemoLA-63h ago
The states already trying this haven't seen the effects opponents predicted. That's evidence, for what it's worth.
8
pinecommuterDemoME-1voted Yea1d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
8
hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Yea3d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
7
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay16h ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
4
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Yea3d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
5
birch_ledgerDemoLA-23d ago
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
3
harborlightDemoCA-40voted Yea1d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
Your position on H.R. 1031No positions yet