PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Nov 21, 2003
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the Senate reported version is repeated here.)
National Women's History Museum Act of 2003 - Requires the Administrator of General Services to enter into an occupancy agreement for up to 99 years to make the Pavilion Annex (the building and immediate surroundings, including any land unoccupied as of the enactment of this Act) in Washington, D.C. that is adjacent to the Old Post Office Building, located on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., to the east of 11th Street N.W., and located on land bounded on three sides by the Internal Revenue Service buildings, available to the Museum Sponsor (National Women's History Museum, Inc.) for a National Women's History Museum.
Prescribes requirements for appraisal of such property at fair market value to determine the rent.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the renovation and modification of the Pavilion Annex to be carried out by the Museum Sponsor and to: (1) be commenced as soon as practicable but within five years after the execution of the occupancy agreement date; (2) sever the walkway to the Old Post Office Building; and (3) enhance and improve the Pavilion Annex consistent with the needs of the Museum and the adjacent structures.
Credits any expenses incurred by the Museum Sponsor for such renovation and modification against the first rent payment due five years after the execution of the occupancy agreement date.
Provides that, if the Administrator is unable to fully execute an occupancy agreement within 120 days of the enactment of this Act, then within 30 days thereafter, the Administrator shall report to specified congressional committees a summary of remaining unresolved issues.
Declares that nothing in this Act limits the authority of the National Capital Planning Commission.
People & committees
Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] · R–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text as passed Senate: CR S15390-15391)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text as passed Senate: CR S15390-15391)
Considered by Senate. By Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S15390-15393)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 404.
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins without amendment. With written report No. 108-204.
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Collins without amendment. With written report No. 108-204.
Committee on Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1741 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.1741 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.1741 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.1741 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.