Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site Designation Act
Became Public Law No: 111-333.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 22, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site Designation Act - Designates the Longfellow National Historic Site in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as the Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 364 - 0 (Roll no. 628).(text: CR H8304)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8329-8330)
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 S. 1405.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8304-8305)
Mr. Rahall moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3429-3431; text as passed Senate: CR S3430)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S3429-3431; text as passed Senate: CR S3430)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 291.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-141.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-141.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Senate Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 111-282.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1405 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1405 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1405 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1405 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.