PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Dec 30, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the Senate reported version is repeated here.)
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act - Designates specified land and inland water within the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan as wilderness and as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), to be known as the Sleeping Bear Dunes Wilderness.
Requires the boundary of the Wilderness to be: (1) 100 feet from the centerline of adjacent county roads, and (2) 300 feet from the centerline of adjacent state highways.
Specifies this Act's effect on: (1) the maintenance and improvement of roads located outside the boundary of the Wilderness; (2) Michigan's jurisdiction with respect to the management of fish and wildlife, including hunting and fishing, within the National Lakeshore; and (3) any treaty rights or any existing valid private property rights.
People & committees
Sen. Levin, Carl [D-MI] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8552-8556; text as passed Senate: CR S8555)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8552-8556; text as passed Senate: CR S8555)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 266.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/17/2011 without amendment. With written report No. 112-104.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman under authority of the order of the Senate of 12/17/2011 without amendment. With written report No. 112-104.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 112-124.
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.140 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.140 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.140 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.140 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.