PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Mar 8, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Trust Act of 2005 - Authorizes the United States to take into trust certain land (formerly known as the Dawson Ranch) in Kiowa County, Colorado, owned by the Cheyenne and Arapaho Indian Tribes of Oklahoma (property). Directs the Tribes to convey title to the property to the United States. Declares that all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the property (except specified facilities) are to be held in trust by the United States for the Tribes.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) acquire by donation the improvements in fee; and (2) construct a facility on the property only after obtaining the agreement of the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and the Northern Arapaho Tribe. Permits the use of Federal funds to be expended only on improvements or facilities that are owned in fee by the United States.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to cause a survey to be conducted by the Office of Cadastral Survey of the Bureau of Land Management of the boundary lines and the description to be published in the Federal Register.
Requires the property to be administered in perpetuity by the Secretary as part of the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site, only for historical, traditional, cultural, or other uses in accordance with the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000.
People & committees
Sen. Allard, Wayne [R-CO] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 31.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 109-20.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 109-20.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.57 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.57 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.57 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.57 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.