PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 178.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Dec 6, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends specified federal law with respect to the negotiated settlement of tribal claims.
Extends from December 31, 1999, to December 31, 2005, the earliest date on which an Indian tribe shall be deemed to have received a certain reconciliation report for purposes of calculating the statute of limitations on claims against the United States for the mismanagement of tribal trust assets.
(The reconciliation report, required by the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (AITFMRA), is a report by the Secretary of the Interior to specified congressional committees identifying for each tribal trust fund account for which the Secretary is responsible a balance reconciled as of September 30, 1995. The stated intent of AITFMRA is to provide recipients of reconciliation reports with the opportunity to postpone the filing of claims, or to facilitate the voluntary dismissal of claims, to encourage settlement negotiations with the United States.)
People & committees
Rep. Pombo, Richard W. [R-CA-11] · R–CA
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. 178.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-324.
Reported by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-324.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.4292 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.4292 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.4292 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.4292 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.