PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 117-123.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · May 12, 2022
Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park Expansion and Redesignation Act
This bill redesignates the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site as the Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park and expands the park.
The park is expanded to include the land and interests in land as generally depicted on the map titled Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park Boundary Additions and Affiliated Areas, and dated February 2022, and more particularly described as
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
the Summerton High School site in Summerton, South Carolina;
the former Scott's Branch High School site in Summerton; and
approximately one acre of land adjacent to Monroe Elementary School in Topeka, Kansas.
The Department of the Interior may acquire this land by donation, exchange, or purchase. Any property owned by South Carolina, Kansas, or any political subdivision of those states may be acquired by donation.
Interior shall submit to Congress an amendment to the management plan for the historical park to include the portions of the historical park in Summerton.
The bill establishes as affiliated areas of the National Park System
the Robert Russa Moton Museum in Farmville, Virginia;
the Delaware Brown v. Board of Education civil rights sites, including Claymont High School in Claymont, Delaware; and
the John Philip Sousa Middle School in the District of Columbia.
Interior shall develop a management plan for each affiliated area.
People & committees
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] · D–DE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 117-123.
Became Public Law No: 117-123.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
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 H4475-4476)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 270.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4475-4477)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.
The committee amendment withdrawn by Unanimous Consent. (CR S2054)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S2053-2054)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 295.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Manchin with an amendment. With written report No. 117-87.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Manchin with an amendment. With written report No. 117-87.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 117-440.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
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
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.270 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.270 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.270 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.270 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.