PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 298.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Mar 2, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center Partnership Act - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a memorandum of understanding to establish a joint partnership with the Porter County Convention, Recreation and Visitor Commission with regard to the use of the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center as a visitor center for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
Allows the Secretary to: (1) plan, design, construct, and install exhibits in the Center related to the use and management of the resources at the Lakeshore, at a cost under $1.5 million; and (2) use park staff from the Lakeshore in the Center to provide visitor information and education.
States that, for the purposes of the acquisition of lands or interests in lands outside the present boundaries of the Lakeshore, lands may be considered contiguous to other lands if the lands touch them, or are separated from them by only a public or private right-of-way, such as a road, railroad, or utility corridor.
People & committees
Rep. Visclosky, Peter J. [D-IN-1] · D–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 298.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-148.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman without amendment. With written report No. 111-148.
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.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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 H9289)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H9289)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1287.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9289)
Mr. Grijalva 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.
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: 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 H.R.1287 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.1287 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.1287 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.1287 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.