A bill to redesignate the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming, as the "Barbara L. Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center".
Latest action (Sep 25, 2026) — Signed by President.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Feb 27, 2025This bill renames the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center located in Casper, Wyoming, as the Barbara L. Cubin National Historic Trails Interpretive Center.
Face Value
as introduced100Narrow
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
20 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
9
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
1
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
8
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument.
8
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. None of that is settled by the summary.
7
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.
5
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
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
1
Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
4
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.
4
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.
5
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
4
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail.
4
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
3
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
3
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
2
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
1
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
1
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.
1
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
Your position on S. 7900% Yea · 1 VoteWire user