PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 117-74.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 21, 2021
This bill designates the federal building at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee (commonly known as the Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Federal Building), as the Odell Horton Federal Building.
People & committees
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 117-74.
Became Public Law No: 117-74.
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 S9085)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9085)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 171.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Carper without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Carper without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 422 - 2, 1 Present (Roll no. 364). (text: 11/3/2021 CR H6145)
House roll call 364 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 422 - 2, 1 Present (Roll no. 364).(text: 11/3/2021 CR H6145)
House roll call 364 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6200-6201)
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. 390.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6145)
Mr. Pappas moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 41.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 117-157.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 117-157.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Discharged.
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
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.390 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.390 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.390 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.390 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.