PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 29, 1995
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to Lake Gulch, Inc., a Colorado corporation, specified lands in Gilpin County, Colorado, in exchange for: (1) certain lands comprising approximately 40 acres located in Larimer County, Colorado, within the boundaries of Rock Mountain National Park; (2) certain lands located within and adjacent to the United States Bureau of Land Management San Luis Resource Area in Conejos County, Colorado; and (3) certain lands located within the United States Bureau of Land Management Royal Gorge Resource Area in Huerfano County, Colorado. Allows the Secretary of the Interior and Lake Gulch to agree to substitute alternative lands if one or more of the precise offered land parcels is unable to be conveyed. Directs the Secretary to notify and consult with the County and City and afford such units of local government the opportunity to acquire or reserve easements or rights-of-way parallel to North Clear Creek in Gilpin, Colorado, prior to transferring any lands which are contiguous to North Clear Creek out of public ownership. Expresses that the exchange will be contingent upon Lake Gulch executing an agreement with the United States: (1) containing terms which are acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior; (2) granting the United States a covenant that none of the selected lands (which currently lie outside the legally approved gaming area) will ever be used for gaming; and (3) permanently holding the United States harmless for liability and indemnifying the United States against all costs arising from activities, operations, or other acts conducted by Lake Gulch or its employees, agents, successors or assigns on the selected lands after their transfer to Lake Gulch.
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.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested executive comment from Department of the Interior, and Office of Management and Budget.
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands. Hearings held.
Referred to Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9428, S9430-9431)
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.985 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.985 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.985 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.985 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.