PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S9481)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 29, 2005
Provides for the disposition of the federal property located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, a portion of which is currently used by the District of Columbia as the Oak Hill juvenile detention facility.
Requires the transfer of specified portions of the property to: (1) the National Park Service; (2) the Secretary of the Army (acting through the Chief of Engineers) for use by the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA); and (3) the Administrator of General Services, who shall in turn convey that portion to Anne Arundel County, Maryland, for parkland and recreational use.
Requires the NSA Director, as a condition of the transfer, to enter into an agreement with the Mayor of the District of Columbia under which: (1) Oak Hill juvenile detention facility shall be closed; and (2) NSA shall pay (with reimbursement by Anne Arundel County) for the construction of a replacement facility at a site to be determined, with priority given to a location within the District of Columbia.
People & committees
Sen. Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S9481)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9481)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.1564 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 S.1564 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 S.1564 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 S.1564 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.