PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 107-137.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2001
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) purchase the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Complex in Dixon, Illinois, and related personal property; (2) designate the Complex as the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home National Historic Site; (3) enter into a cooperative agreement with the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home Foundation for the management, operation, and use of the Site; and (4) complete a general management plan for the Site.
People & committees
Rep. Hastert, J. Dennis [R-IL-14] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 107-137.
Became Public Law No: 107-137.
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 S193-194)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S193-194)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 307.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Received in the Senate.
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 H8061)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8061)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 400.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8061-8064)
Mr. Radanovich moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 163.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-268.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 107-268.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
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.400 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.400 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.400 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.400 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.