PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 115-108.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 8, 2018
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on March 15, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill redesignates the Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site in the state of Georgia as the "Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park." The bill replaces the current boundary map with a map of a proposed boundary revision dated June 2015.
People & committees
Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 115-108.
Became Public Law No: 115-108.
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 Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S8267-8269)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S8267-8269)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 62.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 115-49.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski without amendment. With written report No. 115-49.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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: CR H2065)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2065)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2071)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Tipton 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 The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.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. 267.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2065-2066)
Mr. Tipton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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.
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.267 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.267 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.267 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.267 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.