PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Held at the desk.
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.)
Minuteman Missile National Historic Site Boundary Modification Act - Amends the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site Establishment Act of 1999 to modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South Dakota by including in the Historic Site a visitor facility and administrative site located on a specified parcel of land that consists of: (1) approximately 25 acres of land within the Buffalo Gap National Grassland in Jackson County, South Dakota; and (2) approximately 3.65 acres of land at the Delta 1 Launch Control Facility for the construction and use of a parking lot and for other administrative uses.
Transfers administrative jurisdiction over such land from the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to the Secretary of the Interior.
Modifies the boundary of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland to exclude the transferred land.
People & committees
Sen. Johnson, Tim [D-SD] · D–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
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 S8554)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8552-8556; text as passed Senate: CR S8554)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 289.
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. 112-128.
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. 112-128.
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. 112-224.
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.
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 S.1478 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.1478 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.1478 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.1478 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.