PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 625.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Oct 5, 2018
Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017
(Sec. 4) This bill takes into trust for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria of California certain land owned by the tribe in Sonoma County, California. Land taken into trust is made a part of the tribe's reservation.
(Sec. 5) Gaming is prohibited on land taken into trust by this bill and in a specified area of Sonoma County. Gaming is prohibited until March 16, 2037, on land taken into trust for the benefit of the tribe after enactment of this bill.
(Sec. 6) The memorandum of agreement entered into by the tribe and the county that was approved by the county on March 10, 2015, is not subject to review or approval by the Department of the Interior.
People & committees
Rep. Denham, Jeff [R-CA-10] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 625.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Hoeven without amendment. With written report No. 115-344.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Hoeven without amendment. With written report No. 115-344.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 115-253.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5415-5416)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5415-5416)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 597.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5415-5416)
Mr. LaHood moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 139.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-202.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 115-202.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs.
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: Jun 20, 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.597 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.597 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.597 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.597 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.