Hershel ‘Woody' Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act
Latest action (Sep 2, 2026) — Presented to President.
What it does
Congressional Research Service, Mar 5, 2025This bill requires the authorized monument honoring Medal of Honor recipients to be located within the Reserve (the great cross-axis of the National Mall, which generally extends from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial and from the White House to the Jefferson Memorial).
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
13 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? Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
6
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. The committee report would settle it either way.
3
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
5
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
1
Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
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.
3
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
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. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
That's the part I can't get past either — broad authority, thin guardrails.
3
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
3
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. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
3
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
2
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The committee report would settle it either way.
Your position on S. 858No positions yet