PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Apr 2, 2026
North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2026
This bill allows North Dakota to exchange certain state land grant parcels (e.g., lands granted to North Dakota by Congress when it became a state) located wholly or partially within an Indian reservation for certain federal land of substantially equivalent value. North Dakota manages oil, gas, and agriculture leases on state land grant parcels to generate revenue for education and other public benefits. However, tribal reservations were created on state land grant parcels and reduced the amount of land available for revenue generation.
Specifically, the bill allows the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands to exchange with the Department of the Interior state land grant parcels located wholly or partially within tribal reservations for certain public land in North Dakota administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Upon the request of a tribe, Interior must hold exchanged land within the tribe's reservation in trust on behalf of the tribe.
Further, the bill provides for the continuation of active grazing operations on land exchanged under this bill.
People & committees
Rep. Fedorchak, Julie [R-ND-At Large] · R–ND
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3567-3569)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3567-3569)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2252.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3567-3570)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 501.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-581.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-581.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 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.2252 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.2252 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.2252 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.2252 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.