PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 14, 2004
Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Trust Act of 2004 - Authorizes the United States to take into trust certain land in Kiowa County, Colorado, owned by the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indian Tribes of Oklahoma.
Directs the Tribes to convey title to the Dawson Ranch to the United States.
Declares that: (1) all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the Ranch, including all improvements and appurtenances to the Ranch and rights to all minerals, are to be held in trust by the United States for the Tribes; and (2) the Ranch is to become part of the Tribes' Indian reservation. Requires the Ranch to be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the law generally applicable to property held in trust for Indian tribes and the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000.
Instructs that the Ranch be used only for historic, religious, or cultural uses that are compatible with the use of the land as a national historic site.
People & committees
Rep. Musgrave, Marilyn N. [R-CO-4] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: Aug 18, 2025. 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.4562 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.4562 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.4562 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.4562 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.