PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 6, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.10576 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.
Examine H.R.10576 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.
Examine H.R.10576 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.
Examine H.R.10576 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-24 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would expand the federal land covered by an existing land-transfer law for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota. It would provide for agreed, acre-for-acre substitutions of other national forest land in Cass County. To the maximum extent practicable, substitutions would avoid in-holdings—parcels surrounded by land under different ownership—and favor land near existing Leech Lake trust lands and land of cultural importance to the Tribe. The bill also seeks to preserve non-Tribal members’ hunting, fishing, and recreation rights and requires public engagement during implementation. These are proposed changes.
(ii) any other land managed by the Secretary, through the Chief of the Forest Service, located in the Chippewa National Forest in Cass County, Minnesota, which records maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs show was sold without the unanimous consent of the rightful landowners.
On agreement between the Secretary and the Tribe, the Secretary shall substitute, for purposes of the transfer under paragraph (1), alternative National Forest System land located in Cass County, Minnesota, on an acre-for-acre basis, for those parcels of Federal land to be transferred under that paragraph in a manner that avoids in-holdings and provides a preference for land adjacent to or near existing Leech Lake trust lands and lands of cultural importance to the Tribe, to the maximum extent practicable.
for purposes of ensuring that the hunting, fishing, and recreation rights of non-Tribal members remain unchanged
shall provide for public engagement and comment in accordance with applicable laws (including regulations).
Section 1 would name the bill the Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Amendments Act of 2026.
This Act may be cited as the Leech Lake Reservation Restoration Amendments Act of 2026.
Section 2(a) would replace part of an existing legislative finding with wording expressing no immediate intent to modify the use of the federal land. This wording expresses an intention; it does not itself prohibit future changes in land use. The surrounding finding is not supplied.
(a) Findings Section 2(a)(5) of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation Restoration Act (Public Law 116–255; 134 Stat. 1140) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following: (B) does not intend immediately to modify the use of the Federal land.
The bill would expand the existing law’s federal-land definition to include other Forest Service-managed land in the Chippewa National Forest in Cass County, Minnesota, when Bureau of Indian Affairs records show that the land was sold without every rightful landowner’s consent.
(ii) any other land managed by the Secretary, through the Chief of the Forest Service, located in the Chippewa National Forest in Cass County, Minnesota, which records maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs show was sold without the unanimous consent of the rightful landowners.
The bill would also insert a clause covering land transferred under a Secretary–Tribe agreement into the existing law’s subsection (b)(1)(B), renumbering its current clauses. Because that subparagraph’s surrounding language is absent, the supplied text does not establish how this insertion affects the definition’s inclusions or exclusions.
(B) in subparagraph (B)— (i) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as clauses (ii) and (iii), respectively; and (ii) by inserting before clause (ii) (as so redesignated) the following: (i) any land transferred pursuant to an agreement entered into between the Secretary and the Tribe under subsection (c)(2);
If the Secretary and the Tribe agree, the Secretary would have to substitute other National Forest System land in Cass County for parcels otherwise designated for transfer, using equal acreage. To the maximum extent practicable, the selection must avoid in-holdings—parcels surrounded by land under different ownership—and favor land adjacent to or near existing Leech Lake trust lands and land of cultural importance to the Tribe.
On agreement between the Secretary and the Tribe, the Secretary shall substitute, for purposes of the transfer under paragraph (1), alternative National Forest System land located in Cass County, Minnesota, on an acre-for-acre basis, for those parcels of Federal land to be transferred under that paragraph in a manner that avoids in-holdings and provides a preference for land adjacent to or near existing Leech Lake trust lands and lands of cultural importance to the Tribe, to the maximum extent practicable.
Under a substitution agreement, the Secretary could transfer land to the Secretary of the Interior in stages as parcels are identified and surveys are completed. The provision permits this timing rather than requiring all parcels to be transferred together.
(B) Frequency of transfers Pursuant to an agreement entered into under subparagraph (A), the Secretary may transfer land to the Secretary of the Interior on a rolling basis as that land is identified and surveys are completed.
The bill would revise the existing mapping language to call for maps and legal descriptions of land transferred under both the existing transfer paragraph and the new agreement paragraph, as applicable. It would also change related references to maps and legal descriptions to the plural.
by striking submit a map and legal description of the Federal land and inserting submit maps and legal descriptions of the Federal land transferred pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c), as applicable,
(B) in paragraph (2)— (i) by striking map and legal description and inserting maps and legal descriptions; and (ii) by striking map or legal description and inserting maps or legal descriptions; and (C) in paragraph (3), by striking map and legal description and inserting maps and legal descriptions.
The bill would narrow the reference to federal land in the existing law’s subsection (d)(1)(A) to land described in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), the existing land-description clause as redesignated. The underlying administrative requirement is not reproduced, so its precise operation cannot be established from the supplied text.
(i) by striking means the approximately and inserting means— (i) the approximately ; (ii) in clause (i) (as so designated), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and;
(3) in subsection (d)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting described in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i) after Federal land;
Congress would reaffirm the applicability of Minnesota Statutes section 97A.151 and the settlement agreement it ratified, with the stated purpose of keeping non-Tribal members’ hunting, fishing, and recreation rights unchanged by both the existing restoration law and these amendments. The referenced statute and agreement are not supplied, so the precise scope of those rights cannot be determined here.
(c) Reaffirmation Congress reaffirms the applicability of section 97A.151 of the Minnesota Statutes, including the settlement agreement ratified by that section, for purposes of ensuring that the hunting, fishing, and recreation rights of non-Tribal members remain unchanged by the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Reservation Restoration Act (Public Law 116–255; 134 Stat. 1139) and the amendments made to that Act by this section.
The Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, would have to provide public engagement and an opportunity to comment when implementing the amendments, following applicable laws and regulations.
(d) Implementation In implementing the amendments made by this section, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall provide for public engagement and comment in accordance with applicable laws (including regulations).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 6, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on September 24, 2026. It does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-06T08:06:04Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy attachment to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish the contents or attachment history of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending allocation meeting the stated definition was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version; it does not establish formal earmark status or the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception warranting a finding was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. Intended program beneficiaries, implementation criteria, and preservation of existing rights do not alone warrant classification as targeted benefits. This conclusion applies only to the supplied version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 6, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI