PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
S.Res.250 / 116th Congress

A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of the Interior has broken a commitment to the Blackfeet Tribe to defend the cancellation of all leases in the Badger-Two Medicine area and urging the Department of the Interior to work closely with the Blackfeet Tribe to defend the Badger-Two Medicine area from oil and gas development.

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text: CR S3483)

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 13, 2019

This resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the Department of the Interior broke a commitment to the Blackfeet Tribe and must pursue and defend the cancellation of all oil and gas leases in the Badger-Two Medicine area.

The resolution also urges Interior to work closely with the tribe to protect the Badger-Two Medicine area from oil and gas leases and to remedy the mistakes that led to leases being issued without consultation with the tribe.

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

  • Energy and Natural Resources Committee
0 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. Referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text: CR S3483)

    2. 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

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.Res.250 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.Res.250 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.Res.250 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.Res.250 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