Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 243.
This bill directs the United States to take approximately 1,082.63 acres of Federal land shown on a specified map into trust for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and to include that land in the Tribe’s reservation. It exempts that land from certain valuation/appraisal requirements, requires a Secretary-conducted survey and minor boundary corrections, applies Wild and Scenic Rivers Act management to the Elwha River portion consistent with prior law, prohibits Indian Gaming Regulatory Act treatment of the land, and states it does not affect Treaty of Point No Point rights.
Progressives highlight tribal restoration and ecological benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a focused substantive change—taking defined Federal land into trust for the Tribe—and integrates that change with relevant existing statutes and treaty protections.
This bill directs the United States to take approximately 1,082.63 acres of Federal land shown on a specified map into trust for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and to include that land in the Tribe’s reservation.
It exempts that land from certain valuation/appraisal requirements, requires a Secretary-conducted survey and minor boundary corrections, applies Wild and Scenic Rivers Act management to the Elwha River portion consistent with prior law, prohibits Indian Gaming Regulatory Act treatment of the land, and states it does not affect Treaty of Point No Point rights.
A narrowly focused, low-cost tribal land transfer with built-in compromises historically clears Congress absent procedural obstacles or local opposition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a focused substantive change—taking defined Federal land into trust for the Tribe—and integrates that change with relevant existing statutes and treaty protections. The bill supplies concrete legal effects and some implementation authority (surveying and minor corrections) while excluding gaming under IGRA.
Progressives highlight tribal restoration and ecological benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives highlight tribal restoration and ecological benefits
Likely supportive overall as a restoration of tribal land, cultural rights, and ecological stewardship.
Views the transfer as advancing tribal self-determination and habitat restoration while retaining river protections.
Cautiously favorable if administrative details are transparent and costs managed.
Sees benefits in clarifying land status but wants safeguards for public access and fiscal transparency.
Likely skeptical or opposed due to transfer of Federal parkland into trust, potential precedent concerns, and federal land management implications despite gaming prohibition.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A narrowly focused, low-cost tribal land transfer with built-in compromises historically clears Congress absent procedural obstacles or local opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives highlight tribal restoration and ecological benefits
A narrowly focused, low-cost tribal land transfer with built-in compromises historically clears Congress absent procedural obstacles or loc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly accomplishes a focused substantive change—taking defined Federal land into trust for the Tribe—and integrates that change with relevant existing statutes and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.