PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 29 · Reported to House without amendment, Part II · Apr 4, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on March 6, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to take lands identified as alternative lands in the Settlement of Land Claim (the agreement between the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Governor of Michigan executed on August 23, 2002, including the document titled Addendum to Settlement of Land Claim, executed on November 13, 2007) into trust for the benefit of the Community within 30 days after the Secretary has: (1) received a title insurance policy for the alternative lands that shows that such lands are not subject to mortgages, liens, deeds of trust, options to purchase, or other security interests; and (2) confirmed that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been complied with regarding the trust acquisition of the property.
Provides for the alternative lands to become part of the Community's reservation immediately upon attaining trust status.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the alternative lands to be taken into trust as part of the settlement and extinguishment of the Community's Charlotte Beach land claims and to be deemed lands obtained in settlement of a land claim within the meaning of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Extinguishes, concurrent with the Secretary taking the alternative lands into trust, all claims by the Community: (1) to the Charlotte Beach lands; or (2) against the United States, the State of Michigan, or any other person or entity based on or relating to claims to such lands, whether based on aboriginal or recognized title.
Approves and ratifies the Settlement of Land Claim, which shall be enforceable by the Community or the Governorn according to its terms. Vests exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
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.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 121 - 298 (Roll no. 458).
House roll call 458 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On passage Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 121 - 298 (Roll no. 458).
House roll call 458 · Individual votesOn motion to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 226 - 189 (Roll no. 457).
House roll call 457 · Individual votesMr. Rahall moved to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair (consideration: CR H6056-6057)
Mr. Hensarling appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the chair. (consideration: CR H6056)
Mr. Rahall raised a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. Rahall stated that the provisions contained in the motion to recommit were not germane to the bill. Sustained by the Chair.
Point of order sustained against the motion to recommit with instructions.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Hensarling motion to recommit with instructions, pending reservation of a point of order. The instruction contained in the motion seek to report the same back to the House with an amendment to repeal alternative fuel procurement requirement for federal agencies.
Mr. Hensarling moved to recommit with instructions to Natural Resources. (consideration: CR H6055-6056; text: CR H6056)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6055)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2176.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2176. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in this report shall be considered as adopted.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1298. (consideration: CR H6045-6058; text of measure as introduced: CR H6045)
Rule H. Res. 1298 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1298 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2176. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in this report shall be considered as adopted.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 345.
Reported adversely by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-541, Part II.
Reported adversely by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-541, Part II.
Ordered to be Reported Unfavorably by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than April 4, 2008 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(k) of rule X.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-541, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-541, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 5.
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.
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.2176 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.2176 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.2176 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.2176 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.