PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 14, 2025
This bill recognizes and settles the Akwesasne land claim in northern New York. (Akwesasne is a Mohawk territory that extends into the United States and Canada, specifically New York, Ontario, and Quebec.)
The bill authorizes, ratifies, and confirms a specified settlement agreement entered into by the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT), the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, the State of New York, Franklin and Saint Lawrence Counties in New York, the towns of Fort Covington and Bombay in New York, and the New York Power Authority. (Among its provisions, the settlement agreement restores land rights and provides access to land to SRMT, provides tuition assistance for tribal members to certain postsecondary institutions, and requires the New York Power Authority to make annual payments to SRMT.)
Additionally, the bill authorizes, ratifies, and confirms any transfer of land, right-of-way, or easement that is the subject of claims in specified court cases.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also recognizes as Indian country any land owned or subsequently acquired by SRMT within the settlement acquisition areas. (The term Indian country, for purposes of criminal jurisdiction, generally refers to all lands within a tribal reservation, dependent Indian communities, and tribal allotments.)
People & committees
Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21] · R–NY
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.
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 H5085)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5085)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2916.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5085-5086)
Mr. Crank moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 307.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-355.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-355.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs.
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: Sep 24, 2026. 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.2916 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.2916 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.2916 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.2916 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.