PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

A bill to posthumously award the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, J. Christopher Stevens, and Sean Smith, in recognition of their contributions to the Nation.

Held at the desk.

Official summary

Version 55 · Passed Senate · Dec 15, 2020

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.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA] · D–MA

Committees

  • Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee
67 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Held at the desk.

  2. Received in the House.

  3. Message on Senate action sent to the House.

  4. Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S7508-7509)

  5. Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S7508-7509)

  6. Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S7508-7509)

  7. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.

  8. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.

  9. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

  10. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.2054 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.2054 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.2054 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.2054 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.

View full prompt & sources