PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-443.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 27, 2000
Extends the authority of the Los Angeles Unified School District to use, for elementary school purposes, certain park lands in the City of South Gate, California, which were acquired with amounts provided from the land and water conservation fund.Directs the President of the Board of Education for the Los Angeles Unified School District to require periodic reports on: (1) progress in relocating Tweedy Elementary School from South Gate Park to a permanent location; and (2) the School District's construction plans for a new high school, middle school, and three primary centers in South Gate.
People & committees
Rep. Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D-CA-33] · D–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: 106-443.
Became Public Law No: 106-443.
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 S11180)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11180)
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 10/10/2000 H9623)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 10/10/2000 H9623)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9843)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Hansen 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5083.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9623-9624)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks 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.5083 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.5083 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.5083 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.5083 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.