PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 48.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Mar 26, 2019
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2019
This bill extends federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana.
The bill makes the tribe and its members eligible for services and benefits provided to federally recognized tribes and their members, without regard to the existence of a reservation or the location of the residence of any member. The service area of the tribe is considered to be the area comprised of Blaine, Cascade, Glacier, and Hill Counties, Montana.
The tribe must submit a membership roll to the Department of the Interior as a condition of receiving recognition, services, and benefits. The tribe must maintain the membership roll.
Interior must take into trust for the benefit of the tribe 200 acres of land within the tribe's service area to be used for a tribal land base.
People & committees
Rep. Gianforte, Greg [R-MT-At Large] · R–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 48.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 403 - 21 (Roll no. 129). (text: CR H2813-2814)
House roll call 129 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 403 - 21 (Roll no. 129).(text: CR H2813-2814)
House roll call 129 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2816-2817)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 297.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2813-2814)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States.
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: May 28, 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.297 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.297 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.297 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.297 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.