PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-425.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 26, 2000
Santo Domingo Pueblo Claims Settlement Act of 2000 - Approves the May 2000 Settlement Agreement between the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Justice and the Pueblo of Santo Domingo (New Mexico) to Resolve All of the Pueblo's Land Title and Trespass Claims.Extinguishes certain Pueblo land and trespass claims. Sets forth provisions relating to the treatment of land or natural resources transferred by the Pueblo prior to this Act's enactment date and ratifies such transfers. Makes this paragraph effective upon the entry of a compromise final judgment in the case of Pueblo of Santo Domingo v. United States.Establishes the Pueblo of Santo Domingo Land Claims Settlement Fund to be expended by the Pueblo to acquire lands within the exterior boundaries of the exclusive aboriginal occupancy area of the Pueblo and for use for other tribal purposes. Authorizes appropriations. Prohibits disbursal of amounts in the Fund until: (1) the case of Pueblo of Santo Domingo v. Rael has been dismissed with prejudice; and (2) the compromise final judgment described above has been entered in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.Declares the boundaries of the Santo Domingo Pueblo Grant, as determined by the 1907 Hall-Joy Survey, to be the current boundaries of the Grant and that any lands currently owned or hereafter acquired by the Pueblo within such boundaries or the Grant shall be considered to be Indian country.
People & committees
Sen. Domenici, Pete V. [R-NM] · R–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: 106-425.
Became Public Law No: 106-425.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
By Senator Campbell from Committee on Indian Affairs filed written report. Report No. 106-506.
By Senator Campbell from Committee on Indian Affairs filed written report. Report No. 106-506.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H9963-9965)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H9963-9965)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 2917.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9963-9966)
Mr. Calvert moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S10268-10270)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S10268-10270)
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10268-10270)
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10268-10270)
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7545-7546)
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: Jun 20, 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 S.2917 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.2917 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.2917 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.2917 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.