S. 3219Senate bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateNative Americans

Albuquerque Indian School Act of 2026

Sponsored byMartin HeinrichD-NMIntroduced Nov 19, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 5, 2026) — Held at the desk.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Nov 19, 2025

Albuquerque Indian School Act of 2025

This bill takes three tracts of specified federal land (approximately 9.89 acres) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, into trust for the benefit of the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico. (These three tracts of land were historically part of the Albuquerque Indian School, which was an Indian boarding school until 1981.)

The land is currently administered by the General Services Administration (GSA). Within 90 days of this bill's enactment and the relocation of all federal tenants, the bill requires (1) the GSA to transfer administrative jurisdiction over the land to the Department of the Interior, and (2) Interior to take the land into trust for the benefit of the 19 Pueblos.

The land taken into trust must be subject to a right-of-way easement, as determined by the GSA, on the federal land located within Tract 1 for purposes of retrieving or relocating federal property from the land to another location. (Tract 1, which is approximately 3.57 acres, contains a warehouse that is 76,682 square feet.)

The bill requires the land taken into trust to be used for the educational, health, cultural, business, and economic development of the 19 Pueblos. Further, the land must remain subject to existing private and municipal encumbrances, rights-of-way, restrictions, easements of record, and utility service agreements.

The bill prohibits gaming on the land taken into trust.

Face Value

as reported to the Senate
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

8 comments

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

Sort
8
b_haverfordDemoLA-6voted Nay7d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
8
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Yea7d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
6
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay2d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. The committee report would settle it either way.
6
asha.ferreiraDemoMN-6voted Nay7d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
4
pine_machinistDemoAZ-5voted Yea2d ago
Face Value of 100, which is about as narrow as bills get. Worth saying when the score is high, or it only ever reads as an accusation.
2
nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Yea2d ago
This is unglamorous plumbing, and unglamorous plumbing is usually what matters. Yes from me. None of that is settled by the summary.
1
PurpleDistrictDemoSC-2voted Nay7d 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. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
5
asha.ferreiraDemoMN-6voted Nay6d ago
Same conclusion, different route. I'm less worried about the reach and more about who ends up administering it.
Your position on S. 3219100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user