PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 13, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Heart Mountain Relocation Center Study Act of 2010 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct and report to Congress on a special resource study of the Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Park County, Wyoming.
Requires the Secretary, in conducting such study, to: (1) evaluate the national significance of the Relocation Center and surrounding area; (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the Relocation Center as a unit of the National Park System; (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, protection, and interpretation of the site; (4) identify cost estimates for any federal acquisition, development, interpretation, operation, and maintenance associated with such alternatives; (5) identify potential impacts on landowners of designation of the site as a System unit; and (6) consult with interested public and private entities and private property owners that may be affected by any such designation or other interested individuals.
People & committees
Rep. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
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 Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
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 H5512-5513)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5512-5513)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3989.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5512-5513)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 302.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-529.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-529.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
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.
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.3989 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.3989 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.3989 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.3989 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.