PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 9, 1998
Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act of 1998 - Authorizes the President to award, and present in the name of the Congress, a Medal of Valor to a public safety officer who is cited by the Attorney General, on the advice of the Medal of Valor Review Board (established by this Act), for extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty. Establishes a permanent Medal of Valor Review Board to select candidates as recipients of the Medal from among those applications received by the National Medal Office (established by this Act). Authorizes appropriations. Establishes within the Department of Justice a National Medal Office to staff the Review Board and to establish criteria and procedures for the submission of recommendations of nominees for the Medal. Repeals provisions of the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 establishing the President's Award for Outstanding Public Safety Service and the Secretary of Commerce's Award for Distinguished Public Safety Service. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) consult with the Institute of Heraldry within the Department of Defense regarding the design and artistry of the Medal of Valor; and (2) consider suggestions received by the Department of Justice regarding the design of the medal, including those made by persons not employed by the Department.
People & committees
Rep. McCollum, Bill [R-FL-8] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7439-7440)
Mr. Hutchinson moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 375.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-667.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-667.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held and Forwarded to Full Committee by the Subcommittee on Crime Prior to Introduction.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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: Aug 10, 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.4090 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.4090 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.4090 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.4090 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.