To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the "Fred D. Thompson Federal Building and United States Courthouse".
Became Public Law No: 115-39.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 49 · Public Law · Jun 6, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
(Sec. 1) This bill designates the federal building and U.S. courthouse located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the "Fred D. Thompson Federal Building and United States Courthouse."
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3111)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S3111)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1547)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1547)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1574)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Johnson (GA) 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 The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.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. 375.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1547-1550)
Mr. Barletta moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 15.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 115-23.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 115-23.
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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 H.R.375 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 H.R.375 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 H.R.375 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 H.R.375 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.