PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-431.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 3, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Declares the term " legal membership" in the Osage Allotment Act of June 28, 1906, to mean the persons eligible for allotments of Osage Reservation lands and a pro rata share of the Osage mineral estate in Pawhuska, Oklahoma, as provided in such Act, not membership in the Osage Tribe for all purposes.
Reaffirms the inherent sovereign right of the Tribe to determine its own: (1) membership, provided that the rights of any person to Osage mineral estate shares are not diminished; and (2) form of government.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior, at the request of the Tribe, to provide assistance in conducting elections and referenda to implement this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [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.
Became Public Law No: 108-431.
Became Public Law No: 108-431.
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 S11566-11584; text as passed Senate: CR S11566)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11566-11584; text as passed Senate: CR S11566)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 697.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Campbell without amendment. With written report No. 108-343.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Campbell without amendment. With written report No. 108-343.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3562)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3562)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2912.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3562-3563)
Mr. Gibbons moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 286.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-502.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-502.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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: 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.2912 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.2912 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.2912 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.2912 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.