Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill requires federal land management agencies to include tribal conservation priorities in their planning decisions.
The problem
Tribal nations have limited input in federal decisions about land and natural resources that affect their communities, even on traditional territories.
The proposal
The bill requires federal agencies managing public lands to consider and incorporate tribal conservation goals and priorities in their planning and management activities.
The impact
Tribal nations gain greater voice in land decisions. Federal agencies must change procedures. Conservation outcomes on public lands may shift based on tribal input.
Strengthens tribal sovereignty by giving Native American nations a formal role in decisions affecting their ancestral lands and resources. Recognizes tribes as key stakeholders in conservation planning.
Indigenous land management practices have proven effective for centuries. Including tribal knowledge could enhance ecosystem health and biodiversity protection on federal lands.
Early tribal consultation and inclusion in planning processes may reduce legal disputes and project delays. Creates collaborative relationships between federal agencies and tribal governments.
Protects sacred sites and traditional practices tied to land and wildlife. Allows tribes to pass cultural knowledge and practices to future generations.
Federal agencies may face increased costs and timeline delays consulting with multiple tribes on various projects. Could slow environmental assessments and project approvals on public lands.
Bill lacks detail on how agencies should weigh tribal priorities against other conservation goals or public interests. Could create legal conflicts if tribal priorities contradict existing law or policy.
Different tribes may have competing priorities on the same land. Tribal conservation goals might conflict with resource extraction, recreation, or environmental protection favored by others.
Bill language does not specify which federal agencies must comply or which lands are included. Vague requirements could lead to inconsistent application across different agencies.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.