H.R. 10480House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

Medal of Honor Access and Liaison Act

Sponsored byDon BaconR-NE-2Introduced Sep 17, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 17, 2026) — on Armed Services.

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

16 comments

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

Sort
9
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Nay17d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
9
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Yea19d ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
1
deltalibrarianDemoDC-AL19d ago
Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
9
delta_dawn_laDemoHI-2voted Nay20d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
5
mfitzhughDemoGA-920d ago
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
8
kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Yea16d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
5
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay17d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. The committee report would settle it either way.
3
r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Yea17d ago
The sunset point is the strongest thing in this thread and nobody's answered it.
5
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Yea20d ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay19d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
3
r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Yea17d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
2
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay16d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
2
harbor_machinistDemoNY-14voted Nay19d ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it.
1
TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Yea16d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
1
dev.oduyaDemoVI-ALvoted Yea18d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. None of that is settled by the summary.
1
MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Yea18d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
Your position on H.R. 10480100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user