PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 110-101.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 24, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 44 North Main Street in Hughesville, Pennsylvania, as the "Master Sergeant Sean Michael Thomas Post Office."
People & committees
Rep. Carney, Christopher P. [D-PA-10] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-101.
Became Public Law No: 110-101.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S12692-12693)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S12692-12693)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 392.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Lieberman without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Lieberman without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR 7/31/2007 CR H8838)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: CR 7/31/2007 CR H8838)
Mr. Davis (IL) asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: 7/31/2007 CR H8838)
Committee on Oversight and Government discharged.
Committee on Oversight and Government discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
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: Apr 7, 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.2765 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.2765 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.2765 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.2765 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.