PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2017

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 94.

Official summary

Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · May 22, 2017

(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)

Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2017

(Sec. 4) This bill extends federal recognition to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana.

(Sec. 5) The bill makes the tribe and its members eligible for services and benefits provided to federally recognized tribes and their members, without regard to the existence of a reservation or the location of the residence of any member. The service area of the tribe is considered to be the area comprised of Blaine, Cascade, Glacier, and Hill Counties, Montana.

(Sec. 7) The tribe must submit a membership roll to the Department of the Interior as a condition of receiving recognition, services, and benefits. The tribe must maintain the membership roll.

(Sec. 8) Interior must take into trust for the benefit of the tribe 200 acres of land within the tribe's service area to be used for a tribal land base.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT] · D–MT

Committees

  • Indian Affairs Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 94.

  2. Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Hoeven without amendment. With written report No. 115-75.

  3. Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Hoeven without amendment. With written report No. 115-75.

  4. Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported favorably.

  5. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

  6. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Dec 10, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.39 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.39 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.39 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.39 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.

View full prompt & sources