PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 110-76.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Aug 13, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on July 30, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Allows, subject to the provisions of this Act, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan to transfer, lease, encumber, or otherwise convey, without further authorization or approval, all or any part of the Tribe's interest in any real property that is not held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe.
Prohibits anything in this Act from intending to authorize the Tribe to transfer, lease, encumber, or otherwise convey, any lands, or any interest in any lands, that are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe.
Bars the United States from being held liable to any party (including the Tribe or any agent or instrumentality of the Tribe) for any term of, or any loss resulting from the term of any transfer, lease, encumbrance, or conveyance of land pursuant to this Act, except as specified. Makes such prohibition nonapplicable to land transferred or conveyed by the Tribe to the United States to be held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe.
People & committees
Rep. Kildee, Dale E. [D-MI-5] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-76.
Became Public Law No: 110-76.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10844)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10844)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H8827-8828; text of measure as introduced: CR H8828)
Mrs. Christensen asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-275.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 177.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-275.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
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.
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.2952 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.2952 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.2952 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.2952 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.