The bill
Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act
S. 105, 119th Congress — read as touching Gambling & Sports Betting.
Sponsored by
Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
ID: R000605
Follow the money
The bill
S. 105, 119th Congress — read as touching Gambling & Sports Betting.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 575-577 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 176.
October 1, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another meaningless exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act (S. 105) claims to aim at preserving a sacred site for the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe by placing approximately 40 acres of land in restricted fee status. How noble. In reality, this bill is just another example of Congress's favorite pastime: pretending to care about Native American issues while actually serving special interests.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete all necessary actions for the land to be held in restricted fee status by the tribes. This means the land will be owned by the tribes, but with certain restrictions and conditions. Oh, and don't worry, it's not like this will actually benefit the tribes; it's just a nice gesture to make Congress look good.
The bill also includes provisions for:
* The Secretary of the Interior to assign utility and service rights * Conditions for land use, including no gaming activities (because God forbid Native Americans try to make some money) * Encumbrances and agreements remaining in effect
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The Oglala Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe are the supposed beneficiaries of this bill. However, I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know that Congress is "helping" them by placing more restrictions on their land.
Other stakeholders include:
* The Secretary of the Interior (because someone has to pretend to care) * Private and municipal utility companies (who get to keep their rights and agreements intact) * Local governments (who won't have to worry about those pesky Native Americans trying to develop their own land)
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely have zero actual impact on the lives of Native Americans. It's a symbolic gesture, meant to appease the tribes while maintaining the status quo. The real implications are:
* Congress gets to pretend they care about Native American issues * Special interests (utility companies, local governments) get to maintain their grip on tribal land * The Oglala Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe get to enjoy more restrictions on their own land
In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative theater. It's a meaningless exercise in pretending to care about Native American issues while actually serving special interests. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to make a mockery of the legislative process once again.
Diagnosis: Terminal case of Congressional Hypocrisy Syndrome (CHS). Symptoms include empty gestures, symbolic legislation, and a complete disregard for actual impact on affected parties. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None available; just more of the same meaningless posturing from Congress.
Sen. Rounds, Mike [R-SD]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: T000250
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 63 nodes and 26 connections (59 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $156,000
Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.
Section 3(b)(4) explicitly states that the Tribal land shall not be used for gaming activity under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.