H.R. 8674House bill · 119th CongressIn committeeNative Americans

Geese House Site Conveyance Act

Sponsored byNicholas J. Begich IIIR-AK-ALIntroduced May 7, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 10, 2026) Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
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

17 comments

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

Sort
9
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Yea1d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
9
pinecommuterDemoME-1voted Nay3d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
7
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Yea3d 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. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
6
b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Nay3h ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
6
granite_porchDemoKY-2voted Nay15h ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
5
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay2d 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. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Nay2d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
2
petra.lindqvistDemoTX-19voted Nay10h 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.
2
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Nay11h ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong.
2
birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Nay1d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
2
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Nay2d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
2
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Nay3d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
3
deltalibrarianDemoDC-AL3d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
2
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay3d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. None of that is settled by the summary.
1
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Yea1d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
4
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-121d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
1
arthur_readerDemoAZ-4voted Nay3d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public.
Your position on H.R. 8674No positions yet