PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 398 - 5 (Roll no. 635). (text: CR H7280-7281)
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 19, 2012
Refers H.R. 5862, relating to members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah), to the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for a determination as to whether the Tribe and its members have Indian trust-related legal or equitable claims against the United States other than those currently pending in the Court.
Requires the chief judge to report back to the House of Representatives regarding the nature, extent, and character of those claims and the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States to the claimants.
People & committees
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 398 - 5 (Roll no. 635). (text: CR H7280-7281)
House roll call 635 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 398 - 5 (Roll no. 635).(text: CR H7280-7281)
House roll call 635 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7308-7309)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Ms. Lofgren, Zoe objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 668.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7280-7282)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Nov 15, 2019. 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.668 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.668 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.668 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.668 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.