PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-574.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 16, 2000
Dillonwood Giant Sequoia Grove Park Expansion Act - Requires the Secretary of the Interior to acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange all interest in and to specified land (Dillonwood Giant Sequoia Grove) for addition to Sequoia National Park, California.
People & committees
Rep. Radanovich, George [R-CA-19] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-574.
Became Public Law No: 106-574.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H12514; text as passed House: CR H12514)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(consideration: CR H12514; text as passed House: CR H12514)
Mr. Radanovich asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S11822)
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 10/30/2000 H11563-11569)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 10/30/2000 H11563-11569)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H11707)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Miller, George objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed until Oct. 31. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4020.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11563-11570)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E336-339)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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.4020 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.4020 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.4020 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.4020 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.