PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 118-336.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Nov 8, 2023
Hershel "Woody" Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act
This bill requires the authorized commemorative work 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).
People & committees
Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 118-336.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: 11/6/2023 CR H5416)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: 11/6/2023 CR H5416)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5648)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Westerman objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2717.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5416-5418)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 216.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-267.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-267.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2717 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2717 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2717 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2717 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.