PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 21, 2025
This bill provides a process by which the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and Oregon may negotiate to amend or replace the existing agreement defining the tribe's hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights.
The current agreement, which was made effective by a January 12, 1987, consent decree by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, serves as the exclusive and final determination of the tribe's hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering rights. This bill instead allows a December 2, 1986, agreement between the United States, Oregon, and the tribe (known as the Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement) to define the tribe's rights until and unless it is amended or replaced upon mutual agreement of the tribe and Oregon.
The bill allows the tribe and Oregon to return to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to request the modification or termination of the January 12, 1987, consent decree.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill prohibits a new or amended agreement from (1) affecting the other rights of the tribe or any other Indian tribe, (2) limiting Oregon from entering into separate agreements with other tribes to address the authority to take species within the geographic scope of the agreement, or (3) being used in a civil or criminal action to modify any treaty or other right of a tribe.
People & committees
Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6] · D–OR
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: Jun 11, 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.1499 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.1499 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.1499 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.1499 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 · 2025-02-21 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.
The bill would let the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community and Oregon replace or amend their existing agreement on hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering. The existing agreement would continue until changed. New agreements would draw their harvesting rights solely from Oregon’s authority and could not determine tribal rights. The bill would also require a federal court to consider requests to change the related court decree without certain defenses based on earlier judgments.
The Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement shall remain in effect until and unless replaced, amended, or otherwise modified by 1 or more successor government-to-government agreements between the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community and the State of Oregon
All hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community in any successor agreement or amended agreement entered into under paragraph (1) after the date of enactment of this paragraph shall derive solely from the authority of the State of Oregon.
Nothing in this section, or in any successor agreement or amended agreement entered into under paragraph (1), shall have the force or effect of determining, defining, affirming, recognizing, abrogating, limiting, or affecting the rights or claims of any Indian Tribe, including any treaty and other sovereign rights.
the United States District Court for the District of Oregon shall review the application of the parties on the merits without regard to the defense of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
The proposal would replace section 2 of the Grand Ronde Reservation Act. It identifies the existing agreement as the one entered into by the United States on December 2, 1986, and the related consent decree as the federal court’s final judgment entered on January 12, 1987.
Section 2 of Public Law 100–425 (commonly known as the Grand Ronde Reservation Act) (102 Stat. 1595) is amended to read as follows:
The term Consent Decree means the final judgment and decree of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, in the action entitled Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon against the State of Oregon, entered on January 12, 1987.
The term Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement means the agreement entitled Agreement Among the State of Oregon, the United States of America and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon to Permanently Define Tribal Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, and Animal Gathering Rights of the Tribe and its Members and entered into by the United States on December 2, 1986.
The existing agreement would remain effective unless replaced or changed by one or more government-to-government agreements between the Grand Ronde Community and Oregon. Either the existing agreement or a successor agreement could be amended with both parties’ consent.
The Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement shall remain in effect until and unless replaced, amended, or otherwise modified by 1 or more successor government-to-government agreements between the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community and the State of Oregon relating to the hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community.
The Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement or any successor agreement entered into under paragraph (1) may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community and the State of Oregon.
Successor or amended agreements could not claim to establish, recognize, expand, waive, limit, or otherwise affect the Grand Ronde Community’s or another tribe’s underlying rights, including ancestral and treaty rights.
No successor agreement or amended agreement entered into under paragraph (1) shall— (A) purport to affirm, recognize, establish, expand, adjudicate, waive, limit, abrogate or otherwise affect the ancestral, aboriginal, treaty, statutory, equitable, or other applicable rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community or any other Indian Tribe;
Successor or amended agreements could not prevent Oregon from making separate agreements with other tribes about taking species in the same geographic area. They also could not be used in civil or criminal court cases to determine or change any tribe’s treaty or other rights.
No successor agreement or amended agreement entered into under paragraph (1) shall—
(B) limit the State of Oregon from entering into separate agreements with other Indian Tribes that address the authority to take species within the geographic scope of the agreement; or (C) be used in a civil or criminal action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, affect, or modify any treaty or other right of an Indian Tribe.
For successor or amended agreements entered into after this provision’s enactment, all Grand Ronde hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal-gathering rights in those agreements would have to come solely from Oregon’s authority.
All hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community in any successor agreement or amended agreement entered into under paragraph (1) after the date of enactment of this paragraph shall derive solely from the authority of the State of Oregon.
In federal-law actions seeking to rescind, overturn, modify, or obtain relief from the consent decree, the federal district court in Oregon would have to consider the parties’ application on its merits. It would disregard res judicata and collateral estoppel—defenses based on claims or issues having already been decided. This would require consideration, without directing the court to grant relief.
In any action brought in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to rescind, overturn, modify, or provide relief under Federal law from the Consent Decree, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon shall review the application of the parties on the merits without regard to the defense of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
The replacement section and any successor or amended agreement would not determine, recognize, limit, eliminate, or otherwise affect any tribe’s rights or claims, including treaty rights and other rights arising from tribal sovereignty.
Nothing in this section, or in any successor agreement or amended agreement entered into under paragraph (1), shall have the force or effect of determining, defining, affirming, recognizing, abrogating, limiting, or affecting the rights or claims of any Indian Tribe, including any treaty and other sovereign rights.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated June 11, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 21, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-06-11T23:26:37Z. 2025-02-21: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-02-21: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-21. 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 attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in 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 for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status in other versions or accompanying materials is not established.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The text contains a narrow procedural exception tied to a specific court decree. It is related to the bill’s main policy; identifying it does not imply improper intent or a guaranteed favorable outcome.
Parties seeking federal-law relief from the specified Grand Ronde–Oregon consent decree would receive a special opportunity for review: the court would have to consider their application without defenses based on previously decided claims or issues. The exception concerns this particular decree and does not guarantee relief.
The term Consent Decree means the final judgment and decree of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, in the action entitled Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon against the State of Oregon, entered on January 12, 1987.
In any action brought in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to rescind, overturn, modify, or provide relief under Federal law from the Consent Decree, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon shall review the application of the parties on the merits without regard to the defense of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 11, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI