Lunar Landing Day Act
Latest action (Aug 20, 2026) — Held at the desk.
What it does
not written yetThe 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
24 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
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? Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
9
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.
8
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.
2
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
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.
7
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.
6
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.
4
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. The committee report would settle it either way.
4
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
4
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
4
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
3
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.
3
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.
1
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
2
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
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.
1
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
4
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
1
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.
1
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.
4
Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.
1
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. 5123100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user