PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 27, 2015
Refers H.R. 3133, which directs the Department of the Treasury to pay an unspecified sum to the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan and its members pursuant to a judgment rendered by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, to the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for a determination as to whether the Band has legal or equitable claims for just compensation against the United States for land-related takings occurring between 1855 and 1900 within the areas reserved for the Band and its members by the Treaty with the Ottawa and Chippewa.
Directs the chief judge to report back to the House of Representatives providing findings of fact and conclusions of law to inform Congress of:
the nature, extent, and character of such claims;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
whether the Band has good cause to be excused from the limitations period established by the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946 for filing such claims (August 13, 1946, to August 13, 1951);
whether any other statute of limitations bar or the doctrine of laches is applicable to the Band's claims and, if so, whether the Band has good cause to be excused from its operation; and
the amount of just compensation, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States to the Band.
People & committees
Rep. Benishek, Dan [R-MI-1] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 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.Res.381 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.Res.381 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.Res.381 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.Res.381 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.