PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 24, 2003
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2003 - Requires that the share of the Tribe from amounts distributed to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation under the Indian Tribal Judgement Funds Use or Distribution Act (and including funds from the Fort Peck Reservation, et al. v. The United States of America, Docket No. 773-87) be made available for tribal health, education, housing and social services programs of the tribes, including programs for: (1) education and youth; (2) improvement of facilities and housing; (3) equipment for public utilities; (4) medical assistance or dental, optical or convalescent equipment; and (5) senior citizen and community services.Prohibits the per capita distribution of such share to any member of the tribe.
People & committees
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT] · D–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2600)
Introduced in Senate
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: Aug 18, 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 S.428 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 S.428 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 S.428 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 S.428 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.