PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 346.
Congressional Research Service
Version 29 · Reported to House without amendment, Part II · Apr 4, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on March 6, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to take lands identified as alternative lands in the Settlement of Land Claim (the agreement between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Governor of Michigan executed on December 30, 2002, including the document titled "Addendum to Settlement of Land Claim," executed on November 14, 2007) into trust for the benefit of the Tribe within 30 days after the Secretary has: (1) received a title insurance policy for the alternative lands that shows that such lands are not subject to mortgages, liens, deeds of trust, options to purchase, or other security interests; and (2) confirmed that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been complied with regarding the trust acquisition of the property.
Provides for the alternative lands to become part of the Tribe's reservation immediately upon attaining trust status.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the alternative lands to be taken into trust as part of the settlement and extinguishment of the Tribe's Charlotte Beach land claims and to be deemed lands obtained in settlement of a land claim within the meaning of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Extinguishes all claims by the Tribe to the Charlotte Beach lands or against the United States, the State of Michigan, or any other person or entity based on or relating to claims to such lands, whether based on aboriginal or recognized title, upon: (1) the Secretary having taken the alternative lands into trust for the benefit of the Tribe; and (2) congressional acceptance of the extinguishment of such claims to the Charlotte Beach lands by the Bay Mills Indian Community.
Approves and ratifies the Settlement of Land Claim, which shall be enforceable by the Tribe or the Governor according to its terms. Vests exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
People & committees
Rep. Dingell, John D. [D-MI-15] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 346.
Reported adversely by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-542, Part II.
Reported adversely by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-542, Part II.
Ordered to be Reported Unfavorably by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than April 4, 2008 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(k) of rule X.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-542, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 110-542, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 22 - 5.
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.
Source last updated: Dec 10, 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.4115 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.4115 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.4115 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.4115 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.