PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 24, 2008
Colonel Charles Young Home National Historical Site Study Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, to conduct a study of the Colonel Charles Young Home, a National Historic Landmark in Xenia, Ohio, and associated locations and museums (the study area) to assess its national significance and the suitability and feasibility of including it as a unit of the National Park System. Requires the Secretary, if the study area meets the criteria for inclusion, to include it as a unit of the System.
Provides for: (1) the consideration of an affiliation of the study area with the National Museum of the United States Army, the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum, or other entities associated with Colonel Charles Young in order to focus on his life and the African-American military experience; and (2) an investigation of the historical relationship of the Colonel Charles Young Home with the Underground Railroad.
People & committees
Rep. Hobson, David L. [R-OH-7] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural 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: Aug 14, 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.6616 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.6616 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.6616 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.6616 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.