Gary Peters (D-MI)
Tribal Conservation Priorities Inclusion Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Tribal Conservation Priorities Inclusion Act seeks to change the Food Security Act of 1985. Its main goal is to include Indian Tribes in specific rules regarding priority resource concerns. This involves adding tribal entities and tribal lands to various conservation programs.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +10
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Directly expands access to multiple federal conservation and stewardship programs for Indian Tribes.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Specifically includes tribal lands in federal conservation and stewardship management provisions.
- Scored +6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Enables tribal lands to be designated as priority resource concerns and critical conservation areas.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Including "tribal" and "an area on tribal land" allows Indian Tribes to be part of these priority resource provisions (Section 2(a)).
-
Conservation Stewardship Program: Adding "tribal" and "tribal land" expands these provisions to include Indian Tribes (Section 2(b)).
-
Stewardship Contracts: Including "tribal" before "and local" allows for the inclusion of Indian Tribes in these contracts (Section 2(c)).
-
Critical Conservation Areas: Inserting "tribal" before "or local" allows Indian Tribes to be included in these areas (Section 2(d)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Directly expands access to multiple federal conservation and stewardship programs for Indian Tribes. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improves resource management in rural tribal areas. Would farmers be better off under this? — Benefits tribal farmers and land managers by granting access to conservation programs. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Potentially benefits low-income tribal members through increased conservation funding on their lands.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Specifically includes tribal lands in federal conservation and stewardship management provisions. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Enables tribal lands to be designated as priority resource concerns and critical conservation areas. Does this invest in rural communities? — Increases federal conservation support for rural tribal lands. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Expands conservation programs which generally support environmental health.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Increases inclusion and access to conservation programs for Indian Tribes.
- 6/17/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Deb FischerRepublican · Nebraska