PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 107-62.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 1, 2001
Authorizes the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor former President John Adams and his wife Abigail, former President John Quincy Adams and his wife Louisa, and their legacy of public service.
People & committees
Rep. Roemer, Tim [D-IN-3] · D–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 107-62.
Became Public Law No: 107-62.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10798-10799)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10798-10799)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 179.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 107-77.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 107-77.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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: CR H3472)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3472)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3491)
VACATING DEMAND FOR ROLL CALL - Mr. Jenkins asked unanimous consent that the order for the Yeas and Nays on the question of suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1668, as amended, be vacated. Agreed to without objection.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1668.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3472-3479)
Mr. Hefley moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Received from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E686)
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.1668 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.1668 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.1668 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.1668 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.