Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 244.
This bill directs the administrative transfer of approximately 72 acres in Washington from the U.S. Forest Service to the Department of the Interior, to be taken into trust for the Quinault Indian Nation. The land will become part of the Quinault Indian Reservation and be managed under federal Indian trust laws, subject to valid existing rights.
Progressives emphasize tribal sovereignty and land restoration benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive policy measure that clearly accomplishes a discrete legal change (taking a specific parcel into trust) and reasonably integrates relevant existing law.
This bill directs the administrative transfer of approximately 72 acres in Washington from the U.S. Forest Service to the Department of the Interior, to be taken into trust for the Quinault Indian Nation.
The land will become part of the Quinault Indian Reservation and be managed under federal Indian trust laws, subject to valid existing rights.
The transferred land is explicitly ineligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Act does not alter specified treaty rights, and the Secretary must meet CERCLA section 120(h) hazardous‑material disclosure requirements but is not required to remediate contamination.
Small, targeted transfer with low fiscal impact and compromise features raises probability, though environmental and local concerns create some risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive policy measure that clearly accomplishes a discrete legal change (taking a specific parcel into trust) and reasonably integrates relevant existing law. Its drafting provides concrete operative commands and some safeguards (e.g., gaming prohibition, CERCLA disclosure), but it omits fiscal acknowledgment, detailed transfer procedures, timelines, and formal accountability/reporting mechanisms.
Progressives emphasize tribal sovereignty and land restoration benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize tribal sovereignty and land restoration benefits.
Likely broadly supportive because the bill restores land to tribal trust status and expands tribal sovereignty.
Concern may exist about the provision that the Secretary need not remediate hazardous contamination; advocates may press for cleanup funding or assurances.
Generally favorable as a targeted, modest land transfer benefiting a tribe while including a gaming ban.
Sees sensible legal safeguards but wants clarity on environmental liability, costs, and local impacts.
Skeptical of converting federal Forest Service land into tribal trust land because it expands federal trust holdings and reduces local/state control.
The ban on gaming eases one major concern, but environmental and precedent issues remain salient.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Small, targeted transfer with low fiscal impact and compromise features raises probability, though environmental and local concerns create some risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize tribal sovereignty and land restoration benefits.
Small, targeted transfer with low fiscal impact and compromise features raises probability, though environmental and local concerns create…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive policy measure that clearly accomplishes a discrete legal change (taking a specific parcel into trust) and reasonably integrates rele…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.