Technical corrections only. The two versions of the bill are substantively identical, with the only change being the addition of the House Clerk's name in the attestation line of v4. No substantive policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6]
- Committees
- Indian Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 3, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 2389 transfers 72 acres of federal land to trust for the Quinault Indian Nation, expanding their reservation while prohibiting gaming and limiting federal environmental remediation responsibility.
What it actually does
This bill directs the administrative transfer of approximately 72 acres of land, known as 'Allotment 1157,' from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior. This land, located in Washington State, will then be taken into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation, becoming part of the Quinault Indian Reservation. The bill explicitly prohibits gaming on this land and clarifies that existing treaty rights are unaffected. It also stipulates that the Secretary of the Interior must meet hazardous substance disclosure requirements but is not obligated to remediate any such substances.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this land transfer is a vital step in restoring ancestral lands to the Quinault Indian Nation, promoting tribal self-determination and economic development. They contend that placing land into trust is a standard mechanism for supporting tribal sovereignty and rectifying historical land dispossession. The bill's clarity on treaty rights and the gaming prohibition may also be seen as addressing potential concerns from various stakeholders.
Opponents contend
Critics, if any, might raise concerns about the transfer of federal land out of general public ownership, particularly if the land has recreational or resource value that would be impacted. Some may also question the provision exempting the Department of the Interior from hazardous materials remediation, arguing it could leave the Quinault Nation with an environmental burden. However, for a specific tribal land trust bill of this nature, organized opposition is often minimal, especially with the gaming prohibition included.
The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for a quick read and understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(a)
Land Taken Into Trust for Quinault Indian Nation
This section mandates that approximately 72 acres of land in Washington State, specifically identified as 'Allotment 1157,' be transferred from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior. Once transferred, this land will be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation, meaning the federal government holds legal title while the tribe maintains beneficial ownership and use.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for tribal sovereignty and self-determination, allowing the Quinault Indian Nation to manage and utilize ancestral lands for the benefit of their community. It represents a commitment to fulfilling federal trust responsibilities.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision when it involves a clear, limited land transfer for tribal benefit, especially when other concerns like gaming are addressed. General concerns about federal land transfers might exist but are usually not focused on such specific tribal trust acquisitions.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is between federal land management for general public use (Forest Service) and the restoration of land to tribal trust for specific tribal governance and benefit. This bill prioritizes the latter.
Section 2(c)
Prohibition on Gaming
This section explicitly states that the 72 acres of land taken into trust for the Quinault Indian Nation will not be eligible for gaming activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This means the tribe cannot establish or operate casinos or other forms of gaming on this specific parcel of land.
This section requires the Secretary of the Interior to meet disclosure requirements for hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) but explicitly states that the Secretary is not otherwise required to remediate or abate those hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Section 2(e)
Why it matters:While standard to include environmental considerations in land transfers, the specific exemption from remediation responsibility is a critical detail that could be intentionally placed later to avoid drawing immediate attention. It shifts potential financial burdens.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision protects the federal government (specifically the Department of the Interior) from inheriting potentially significant and unforeseen environmental remediation costs, which could otherwise stall or prevent such land transfers. It ensures the transfer can proceed without immediate financial encumbrance on the federal budget.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision unfairly shifts the burden of potential environmental cleanup onto the Quinault Indian Nation, or leaves contaminated land unaddressed. They contend that the federal government, as the previous land manager, should bear responsibility for any existing hazardous conditions before transferring land into trust.
Estimated impact: The impact is potentially significant if hazardous substances are present on the 72 acres, as it determines who is financially responsible for cleanup. Without knowing the environmental status of 'Allotment 1157', the exact financial impact is unknown.