PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-216.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 17, 1999
Authorizes the leasing of lands held in trust for the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation by their Indian owners, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, for public, religious, educational, residential, or business purposes for terms not exceeding 99 years.Grants the request of the Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Wisconsin to surrender the charter of incorporation issued to the Community on May 21, 1938, pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act, thereby revoking the charter.
People & committees
Rep. Bono, Mary [R-CA-44] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-216.
Became Public Law No: 106-216.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4909)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S4909)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 557.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported to Senate by Senator Campbell without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported to Senate by Senator Campbell without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
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. (text: CR H12131)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H12131)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1953.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H12131-12132)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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: Jun 20, 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.1953 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.1953 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.1953 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.1953 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.