PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 30, 1997
Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Federal Indian Services Restoration Act of 1997 - Restores Federal Indian services to the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma residing in Maverick County, Texas. Directs the Secretary of the Interior and the head of each department and agency, in providing such services, to consult and cooperate with appropriate officials or agencies of the Mexican Government (including joint funding agreements between such U.S. agency or department and the appropriate Mexican Government agencies and officials) to ensure that such services meet the special tricultural needs of members of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma residing in Texas. Allows any member of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma residing in Texas to apply for U.S. citizenship during a specified period. Entitles members of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma to pass and repass freely the U.S. borders and to live and work in the United States. Provides for the acquisition of certain land in Maverick County, Texas, by the Secretary for the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma.
People & committees
Rep. Watkins, Wes [R-OK-3] · R–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 Indian Affairs.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8469-8470)
Mr. Gilchrest moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 423.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
House Committee on Judiciary Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than Sept. 18, 1998.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-707, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 105-707, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Referred to House Judiciary
Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House 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.2314 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.2314 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.2314 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.2314 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.