PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 13, 1995
Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of 1995 - Designates nine new outlying areas as Chaco Culture Archaeological Protection Sites associated with Chacoan Anasazi Indian culture in the San Juan Basin and surrounding areas of New Mexico and Colorado. Expands the boundaries and removes or reduces the acreage of certain existing Sites. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to use a combination of land acquisition authority and cooperative agreements to accomplish the purposes of archeological resource protection at such sites. Directs the Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to assist the Navajo Nation in the: (1) protection and management of such Sites located on lands of the Navajos through a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement entered into pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Act; and (2) development of a Navajo facility to serve those who seek to appreciate the Chacoan Outlier Sites.
People & committees
Rep. Richardson, Bill [D-NM-3] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 104-11.
Became Public Law No: 104-11.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S5804)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S5804)
Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 42.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 409 - 7 (Roll no. 234).
House roll call 234 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 409 - 7 (Roll no. 234).
House roll call 234 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3105-3106, H3117-3118)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 29.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-56.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-56.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E91)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.517 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.517 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.517 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.517 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.