Hershel ‘Woody' Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act
Latest action (Sep 10, 2026) — No: 119-104.
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
34 commentsSign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.
Sort
9
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. None of that is settled by the summary.
9
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
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.
8
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
5
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
7
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.
7
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.
7
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
6
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
6
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
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
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. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
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
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
4
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
2
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
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. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
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
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.
2
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
2
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
2
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.
1
The states already trying this haven't seen the effects opponents predicted. That's evidence, for what it's worth.
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. 858100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user