HR-4284-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Sponsored by Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM)
What it does
This bill would amend the Small Tract Act of 1983 to allow the U.S. Forest Service to transfer, at no cost, parcels of National Forest land used or previously used as cemeteries — up to 40 acres, plus up to 1 adjacent acre — to qualifying state or local governments, federally recognized Indian Tribes, or recognized New Mexico community land grants (land grant-merceds). The transferred land could only be used as a cemetery, and ownership would revert to the federal government if the land is used for any other purpose. The bill also allows the Secretary of Agriculture to waive conveyance-related costs for recipients who demonstrate financial need.
Who benefits
Federally recognized Indian Tribes with ancestral or traditional burial sites on National Forest land. State and local governments that maintain or wish to maintain community cemeteries on federal land. New Mexico community land grant-merceds (qualified land grant-merceds) with historic ties to federal land. Families and descendants with relatives buried in these cemeteries who would gain more stable, locally managed access. Cemetery preservation and historic preservation organizations. Rural communities where federal land surrounds or contains historic burial grounds.
Who is hurt
The federal government would give up ownership of these parcels without receiving payment, representing a loss of federal land assets. Taxpayers broadly bear the administrative costs of processing conveyances and any waived fees. If a transferred parcel is later misused or neglected, the reversion process could create legal and administrative burdens for the Forest Service. Competing potential users of adjacent federal land (e.g., recreation, timber, conservation interests) could lose access to buffer areas included in transfers. Other groups with burial sites on federal land not covered by this bill's definitions may find their situations comparatively unaddressed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that cemeteries — especially those belonging to Indian Tribes and historic rural communities — represent irreplaceable cultural and spiritual heritage that should be managed by the communities most directly connected to them, not the federal government. They contend that the current framework, which treats cemetery parcels the same as other small tracts, creates bureaucratic barriers and uncertainty for families and tribes trying to maintain burial sites. The no-cost transfer with a cemetery-use restriction and reversion clause ensures the land remains protected while removing it from federal administrative burden, and the explicit preservation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ensures existing federal protections remain intact.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that transferring federal land without compensation sets a precedent for giving away public assets, and that the reversion mechanism — triggered only "at the discretion of the Secretary" — may be too weak to reliably prevent future misuse or conversion of the land. They contend that existing federal land management tools, such as special use permits and cooperative agreements, already allow communities and tribes to maintain cemetery access without permanently alienating public land. Critics may also raise concerns that the bill's definition of "qualified person" is narrow, potentially excluding non-federally recognized tribes or community groups with equally legitimate historic claims to burial sites on federal land.