WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 1499

Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, S.B. No. 650.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by Rhetta Bowers

The bill preserves the Grand Ronde hunting/fishing rights until a successor treaty is agreed, then limits those agreements to not alter tribal rights and centers state authority fo

Reported enrolled
#alcoholicbeverageregulation(i0025) #resolutions--conf.comm.reports(i0693)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 1499

Summary — H.R. 1499 (Introduced Feb 21, 2025)

Title on filing: "Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, S.B. No. 650." Classification: resolution. Primary subject areas: Alcoholic Beverage Regulation; Conference Committee Reports; amendments to the Grand Ronde Reservation Act (Public Law 100–425).

Purpose

H.R. 1499 would amend Section 2 of Public Law 100–425 (the Grand Ronde Reservation Act) to (1) restate and define key terms related to the 1986–1987 consent decree and hunting/fishing agreement between the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, the State of Oregon, and the United States; (2) preserve the existing Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement until it is replaced by a successor agreement; (3) set limits and condition the legal effect of any successor or amended agreements; and (4) direct district court review procedures in actions seeking to rescind or modify the 1987 Consent Decree.

Key provisions

  • Definitions: Codifies definitions for “Consent Decree,” “Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement,” and “Indian Tribe” (referring to 25 U.S.C. § 5304).
  • Preservation and amendment:
    • The existing Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement remains in effect until replaced by one or more successor government-to-government agreements between the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community and the State of Oregon.
    • Successor agreements may be amended by mutual consent of the Tribe and State.
  • Limits on successor agreements:
    • A successor or amended agreement may not purport to affirm, recognize, establish, expand, adjudicate, waive, limit, abrogate, or otherwise affect ancestral, treaty, statutory, equitable, or other rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community or any other Indian Tribe.
    • Such agreements may not limit Oregon from entering separate agreements with other Tribes addressing authority to take species within the agreement’s geographic scope.
    • Successor or amended agreements may not be used in civil or criminal court proceedings to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, affect, or modify any treaty or other tribal right.
  • State-authority provision: States that for any successor or amended agreement entered after enactment, “all hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community … shall derive solely from the authority of the State of Oregon.”
  • Judicial review: In any action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to rescind/modify/obtain federal relief from the Consent Decree, the court shall review applications on the merits “without regard to the defense of res judicata or collateral estoppel.”
  • Non‑preclusion clause: A separate provision states that nothing in the section or any successor/amended agreement “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.”

Who would be affected

  • Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community (primary tribal party)
  • State of Oregon (as government party to agreements)
  • Other Indian Tribes with interests in Oregon resource rights
  • Federal judiciary (U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon) — procedural standard for litigation challenging the Consent Decree

Procedural history and status

  • Introduced in House: Feb 21, 2025; referred to House Committee on Natural Resources
  • Filed: May 31, 2025 (3-hour notice for consideration)
  • Laid before the House, adopted, record vote, and statements recorded in the Journal: June 1, 2025
  • Reported enrolled: June 1, 2025
  • Sponsor: Rep. Andrea Salinas (primary); cosponsors include Maxine Dexter, Val T. Hoyle, Suzanne Bonamici
  • Related companion: S. 643

Potential legal and practical considerations

  • The bill contains provisions that appear to limit the legal effect of successor agreements on tribal rights while simultaneously stating that rights in successor agreements “shall derive solely from the authority of the State of Oregon.” Those provisions could raise interpretive and legal questions about the provenance and durability of tribal rights under treaties, federal law, and state agreements.
  • The directive that district court review be conducted “without regard to” res judicata or collateral estoppel alters the preclusion analysis in litigation challenging the 1987 Consent Decree and may encourage fresh merits review of previously litigated matters.
  • The bill attempts to preserve government-to-government agreement processes while circumscribing the use of those agreements in litigation; this combination could affect negotiation dynamics between the Tribe and State and may prompt additional legal challenges to reconcile the provisions with existing federal Indian law and treaty rights.

For readers seeking the full statutory text, H.R. 1499 proposes specific amendments to Section 2 of Public Law 100–425 (102 Stat. 1595).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.