National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Extension Act
Latest action (Sep 11, 2026) — Signed by President.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Feb 24, 2026This bill reauthorizes the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation to establish in Washington, DC, a monument to commemorate the commitment and service represented by emergency medical services. This authorization expires seven years after enactment of the bill.
Face Value
as enrolled100Narrow
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
11 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? None of that is settled by the summary.
9
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
7
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
7
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
4
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
6
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
5
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
4
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. None of that is settled by the summary.
3
Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
1
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. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
Your position on H.R. 2196100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user