PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 622.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 10, 1996
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Claims Settlement Act - Declares that the United States hearby approves, ratifies, and confirms a certain Settlement Agreement concerning the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe. (Sec. 5) Establishes Tribal and allottees settlement trust fund accounts and makes amounts held in such accounts available to the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to the Tribe and affected allottees. Provides for specified cash payments. (Sec. 6) Sets forth provisions and limitations regarding the acquisition and placement of lands into trust. Allows the Tribe to conduct gaming on only one site within the acquired lands. (Sec. 7) Provides for permanent flowage easements to be conveyed by the U.S. to the Coachella Valley Water District and the Imperial Irrigation District as to all Indian Trust lands and all Federal lands located within and below the minus 220-foot contour of the Salton Sink. (Sec. 10) Authorizes appropriations. (Sec. 11) Sets forth effective dates.
People & committees
Rep. Bono, Sonny [R-CA-44] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 622.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10145-10153)
Mr. Gallegly moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 418.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-777.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 104-777.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs.
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.
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.3640 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.3640 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.3640 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.3640 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.