PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-243.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Jul 17, 1998
Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Study Act of 1998 - Requires the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to submit to specified congressional committees a resource study of the Sand Creek Massacre Site, Colorado that: (1) identifies the location and extent of the Massacre Area and the suitability and feasibility of designating the Site as a National Park System unit; and (2) includes cost estimates for any necessary acquisition, development, operation and maintenance, and identification of alternatives for the management, administration, and protection of the Area. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Campbell, Ben Nighthorse [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-243.
Became Public Law No: 105-243.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H8077-8078)
Mr. Schaffer, Bob asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-697.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 396.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-697.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8538-8539)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8538-8539)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 464.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 105-244.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to Senate by Senator Murkowski with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. With written report No. 105-244.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior and Office of Management and Budget.
Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 105-491.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1200-1201)
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.1695 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.1695 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.1695 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.1695 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.