PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 30, 2010
Fountainhead Property Land Transfer Act - Requires, immediately after completion of a survey required by this Act, receipt of consideration and costs, and satisfaction of all terms specified by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army, the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over specified federal property in McIntosh County, Oklahoma, within the boundary of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (the Tribe), from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the Interior, who shall take such land into trust for the benefit of the Tribe.
Requires the Tribe to pay: (1) to the Secretary of the Army fair market value for the property; and (2) all costs and administrative expenses associated with the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of the property and the taking of it into trust, including costs of the survey and any environmental remediation.
Subjects the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of the property and the taking of it into trust to such other terms and conditions such Secretaries consider appropriate for the protection of U.S. interests, including reservation of flowage easements for the Lake Eufaula project.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the Tribe from conducting gaming activities on land taken into trust pursuant to this Act: (1) as a matter of claimed inherent authority; or (2) under any federal law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and any regulations promulgated by the Secretary or the National Indian Gaming Commission pursuant to such Act.
People & committees
Rep. Boren, Dan [D-OK-2] · D–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421 - 1 (Roll no. 411). (text: CR 6/29/2010 H4927)
House roll call 411 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421 - 1 (Roll no. 411).(text: CR 6/29/2010 H4927)
House roll call 411 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5232-5233)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1554.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4927-4928)
Mr. Boren moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 293.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-513.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-513.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.1554 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.1554 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.1554 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.1554 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.