PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 5, 2019
This bill directs the United States to sever all relations with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma (i.e., Creek Nation) until the tribe complies with treaty and federal obligations.
Specifically, Creek Nation must restore full tribal citizenship to those individuals who can trace their ancestry to individuals listed on the 1906 Dawes Commission Rolls for the Creek Freedmen (i.e., Creek Freedmen, Freedmen, and Black Creeks).
The bill also suspends the tribe's authority to conduct gaming or administer any funds from gaming until the tribe is in compliance with all treaty and federal obligations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill requires the Department of the Interior to (1) coordinate with federal agencies and receive reports from such agencies; (2) submit monthly compliance reports; and (3) issue a report on the status of Freedmen in the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations of Oklahoma, including their access to tribal benefits.
The Department of Justice must issue a finding on whether the civil rights of the Freedmen have been violated by the Creek Nation, Interior, or both. The bill establishes a private right of action for Freedmen.
The bill directs the Government Accountability Office to issue an annual report on the tribe's expenditure of federal funds and whether the tribe is in full compliance with all federal laws related to the management and disbursement of such funds.
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Referred to the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 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 H.R.1514 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 H.R.1514 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 H.R.1514 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 H.R.1514 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.