S. 5123Senate bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateScience, Technology, Communications

Lunar Landing Day Act

Sponsored byTim SheehyR-MTIntroduced Jul 23, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 20, 2026) — Held at the desk.

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.

Discussion

12 comments

Sort

avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Yea18h 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. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Nay1d 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. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

hollow_porchDemoHI-11d ago

Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.

OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay4h ago

The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.

kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Nay1d 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. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.

r_castellanoDemoMN-6voted Yea1d ago

Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.

aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Yea2d ago

This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The committee report would settle it either way.

delta_dawn_laDemoHI-22d ago

You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.

kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Nay2d ago

The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.

steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Yea16h ago

The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. The committee report would settle it either way.

avery.nbDemoWA-3voted Yea3h ago

Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.

lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay1d ago

My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.

Your position on S. 5123No positions yet