PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 30, 2007
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to proclaim as reservation for the benefit of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians a specified parcel of land in Michigan now held in trust by the United States for the Tribe.
States that the Secretary's proclamation shall be pursuant to section 7 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (relating to new Indian reservations), and shall be deemed effective as of April 19, 1988.
People & committees
Rep. Stupak, Bart [D-MI-1] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held.
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 passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Mrs. Christensen asked unanimous consent discharged from the Committee on the Whole on the State of the Union. (consideration: CR H8826-8827; text of measure as introduced: CR H8827)
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-273.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 175.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-273.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
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: 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.2120 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.2120 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.2120 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.2120 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.