PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 14, 1997
Provides for the division, use, and distribution of specified judgment funds among the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan, Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians of Michigan, and the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan pursuant to dockets numbered 18-E, 58, 364, and 18-R before the Indian Claims Commission.
People & committees
Rep. Kildee, Dale E. [D-MI-9] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-143.
Became Public Law No: 105-143.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate receded from its amendment no. 61 by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S12692)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate receded from its amendment no. 61 by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S12692)
Message on House action received in Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to Senate amendments Nos. 1-60, 62 and 63 and disagree to Senate amendment No. 61 Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H10804-10806)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to Senate amendments Nos. 1-60, 62 and 63 and disagree to Senate amendment No. 61 Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H10804-10806)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Mr. Gilchrest moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to Senate amendments Nos. 1-60, 62 and 63 and disagree to Senate amendment No. 61. (consideration: CR H10804-10806)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1627 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1627 proposed by Senator Sessions for Senator Inouye.
Amendment SP 1626 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1626 proposed by Senator Sessions for Senator Inouye.
Amendment SP 1625 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1625 proposed by Senator Sessions for Senator Murkowski.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S12425-12426)
Received in the Senate.
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 voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Saxton objected to the Yea - Nay vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9931-9937, H9985)
Mr. Saxton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 204.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-352.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-352.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on 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: Apr 7, 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.1604 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.1604 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.1604 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.1604 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.