PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 18, 2003
Requires the Secretary of the Interior, within 30 days of receiving a title insurance policy for them, to take certain lands located in Otsego County, Michigan, and the city of Romulus, Michigan, and identified as alternative lands in a specified Settlement of Land Claim, into trust for the benefit of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
Declares that the alternative lands shall become part of the Tribe's reservation immediately upon attaining trust status and to be taken into trust as part of the settlement and extinguishment of the Tribe's claims to Charlotte Beach lands in Michigan. Deems such alternative lands to be lands obtained in settlement of a land claim under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (thus exempt from a certain prohibition against gaming).
People & committees
Rep. Dingell, John D. [D-MI-15] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.2793 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.2793 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.2793 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.2793 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.