S. 603Senate bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawPublic Lands and Natural Resources

A bill to designate the General George C. Marshall House, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byTim KaineD-VAIntroduced Feb 13, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 25, 2026) — Signed by President.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, May 20, 2026

This bill establishes the General George C. Marshall House in Leesburg, Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System to promote public appreciation of the historic contributions made by George Catlett Marshall, Jr. (George Catlett Marshall, Jr. served as Army Chief of Staff during World War II, and later as Secretary of State, president of the American Red Cross, and Secretary of Defense.)

The bill designates the George C. Marshall International Center as the management entity for the affiliated area. The Department of the Interior must enter into an agreement with the center that describes the roles and responsibilities for management of the affiliated area. Further, Interior may provide technical assistance and enter into cooperative agreements with the center for the purpose of providing financial assistance for the marketing, marking, interpretation, and preservation of the affiliated area.

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

23 comments

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

Sort
9
pine_ledgerDemoCT-3voted Yea10d ago
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 same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
9
arthur_readerDemoAZ-4voted Yea12d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. The committee report would settle it either way.
8
m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Yea11d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. None of that is settled by the summary.
7
TheLongViewDemoNY-6voted Nay10d ago
Face Value of 100, which is about as narrow as bills get. Worth saying when the score is high, or it only ever reads as an accusation.
4
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea10d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
7
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea12d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
granite_porchDemoKY-2voted Yea12d ago
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
7
b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Nay23d ago
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 want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
deltalibrarianDemoDC-ALvoted Yea10d ago
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? That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
3
deltalibrarianDemoDC-ALvoted Yea23d 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 rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
2
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay11d ago
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.
2
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Yea12d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. The committee report would settle it either way.
2
birch_districtDemoSC-5voted Yea12d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
2
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea15d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. The committee report would settle it either way.
2
SierraTrailDemoCA-12voted Yea15d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail.
1
greta.okaforDemoTX-3615d ago
That's the part I can't get past either — broad authority, thin guardrails.
2
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea15d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
2
granite_porchDemoKY-2voted Yea15d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
2
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Yea23d 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. None of that is settled by the summary.
1
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea23d ago
The states already trying this haven't seen the effects opponents predicted. That's evidence, for what it's worth.
1
rustbelt_rayDemoLA-2voted Nay11d ago
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? Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
1
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Yea11d ago
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?
1
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea23d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
Your position on S. 6030% Yea · 1 VoteWire user