H.R. 3925House bill · 119th CongressOn the calendarNative Americans

Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Land Exchange Act

Sponsored byJay ObernolteR-CA-23Introduced Jun 11, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 20, 2026) — , Calendar No. 661.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 11, 2025

This bill authorizes a land exchange between the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (also federally recognized as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and the federal government. The tribe is located on the San Manuel Indian Reservation near the cities of Highland and San Bernardino in California.

Specifically, if the tribe offers to convey to the federal government all right, title, and interest of the tribe in and to approximately 1,460 acres of land, then the Forest Service must accept the offer and convey all right, title, and interest of the federal government in and to approximately 1,475 acres of National Forest System land. The Forest Service must accept the offer and convey the land as soon as practicable within 120 days of receiving the offer.

As a condition of the land exchange, within 120 days of the bill's enactment, the tribe must enter into an agreement with the Forest Service under which the tribe agrees to preserve the historical and cultural integrity of the Arrowhead landmark site. The site is located in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains directly above San Bernardino, California.

Land acquired by the Forest Service shall become part of the San Bernardino National Forest.

Face Value

as reported to the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

7 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Yea1mo ago
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? None of that is settled by the summary.
8
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Yea1mo ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
7
arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Nay1mo ago
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
6
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Nay1mo ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
6
b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Yea1mo ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
5
PurpleDistrictDemoSC-2voted Nay1mo ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
3
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Yea1mo ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
Your position on H.R. 3925No positions yet