PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 16, 2019
This bill directs the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate to arrange for the posthumous award of a Congressional Gold Medal to commemorate Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, J. Christopher Stevens, and Sean Smith, four Americans killed in the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. (Stevens was the U.S. Ambassador to Libya at the time, Smith was an officer in the Foreign Service, and Doherty and Woods were both government contractors and former Navy SEALs.)
After the medal has been awarded, it shall be given to the Central Intelligence Agency Museum.
People & committees
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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.587 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.587 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.587 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.587 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.