PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-465.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 27, 2000
Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000 - Directs the Secretary of the Interior, upon a determination that sufficient land has been acquired by the National Park Service (NPS), to establish in Kiowa County, Colorado, the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site to commemorate the massacre of more than 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians who were murdered by U.S. soldiers along Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado territory on November 29, 1864. Directs the Secretary to: (1) administer the Site as part of the NPS; (2) develop a Site management plan; and (3) prepare programs which educate the public about the Site. Authorizes the Secretary to acquire land and interests within the Site's boundaries for such purposes.Requires descendants of such Indians to have special rights of access to, and use of, federally acquired land within the Site.Directs the Secretary to: (1) grant to any descendant or tribal member reasonable access to federally acquired land within the Site for carrying out traditional, cultural, or historical observance; and (2) dedicate a portion of the Site to certain burial and commemorative remains and objects.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: 106-465.
Became Public Law No: 106-465.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
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 H10497-10498)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10497-10498)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 2950.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10497-10498)
Mr. Young (AK) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S9998-9999)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S9998-9999)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9995, S9997-9999)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 827.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 418. (text of measure as reported in Senate: CR 10/5/2000 S9997-9998)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Murkowski with amendments. With written report No. 418.(text of measure as reported in Senate: CR 10/5/2000 S9997-9998)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-901.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S7844-7845)
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.2950 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.2950 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.2950 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.2950 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.