the hearing is an hour.

recess of the subcommittee at any time. the subcommittee is meeting today to your testimony on hr 1246 and hr 1532. under committee rule for s, any oral opening statements at a hearing are limiting to the chair man and ranking minority member. i therefore ask unanimous consent of all other members opening statements be made part

of the hearing record of prayer submitted with accordance to rule 30. without objection so ordered. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. today we are meeting to consider two bills i've introduced to ensure all have access to economic tools. hr 1246 to authorize leases of up to 99 years for federally recognized indian tribes to lease, sell, convey, warrant or otherwise transfer real property to which it holds the title without the consent to the federal government and for other purposes. i want to thank the ranking member, ms. gonzalez for their

support of hr 1246. i look forward to working with you all and other members of the committee on these bills. the first bill on the agenda, hr 1246 what have been the long term leasing act to authorize any federally recognized indian tribes to lease land held in trust for their benefit for turns up to 99 years subject to approval of the secretary of interior. for many indian tribes and alaskan natives, the property holdings are the basis for social, cultural, and religious life and often single most important economic resources. in 1844 with the enactment, land transactions were prohibited unless authorized by congress. over time the restrictions came to apply primarily to land held in trust by the united states

for the benefit of individual indians were indian tribes and land in the title subject to a restriction against alienation. in 1955, congress passed a long term leasing act which generally authorized any held in trust orlando subject to the restriction against alienation's to be leased subject to the approval of the secretary of interior. these were generally only allowed for 25 years with an option to renew for one additional term for a total of up to 50 years. unfortunately, the authority up to 99 years is needed for the personal leases and for some financing contracts. the fact is a 50 year lease term is simply too short. hr 1246 will ensure all tribes are negotiated effectively and on the same playing bill as

other landholders for the long-term leases. this can clear the way for further economic development especially in rural or extra rural areas. hr 1246 will also end the practice of individual tribes getting congress to pass legislation so that the tribe can offer the long-term leases. in other words, we trust them to make the right decision for their own people. congress has amended more than 50 times to adjust to the terms the terms andconditions of leasn land and authorized for a term of up to 99 years. it's time to end the approach of the past 67 years. by proactively extending this authority to all federally recognized tribes, economic development plans can proceed on a more expedited path. the second bill on our agenda is hr 1532, which would be by any

federally recognized. this would qualify the legal ability to lease, sell, convey, warrant or transfer any portion of the interest in property that the tribe owns that is not held in trust. in recent years the act has generally not interfered with the ability to buy, sell or lease land that it owes. however, it has generated a great deal of litigation throughout history that's resulted in several decisions on the issue. the u.s. supreme court in 2005 said the act remained substantially enforced today with tribal land without. some have also encountered interference with economic development and job creation when title insurance companies

have interpreted the indian nonintercourse act to apply to the real estate and wouldn't draft title insurance. congress waived the application of the indian nonintercourse act to several tribes but it's been needed on a case-by-case basis. again, the piecemeal approach requires congress to go back again and again to do something that should be clear already. tribal governments already seek to make the best decisions for their members for their social, cultural and economic security. we should ensure indian lands, whether they are owned in fee, restricted free or held in trust for the benefit of the tribes are able to be used as they ought to use them. i believe they are a good step forward to ensure that. i'm glad to see the sec. here to testify on the bills.

i would appreciated his insight on whether further technical changes to the bill are needed. i also want to thank the tribal witnesses for being here to tell your story to tell us how the bills would be beneficial to all tribes and if they need to be improved. the chair recognizes the ranking member for his statement. >> thank you madam chair and thank you for the hearing on the pieces of legislation. i am of the cosponsor of 1246 and thank the chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their work and today we hope to hear more from the witnesses. to convey, warrant or otherwise transfer property to which they

hold the title without the federal government. the barriers to tribal economic development and would preview the subcommittee's first oversight hearing earlier this month. in the research committee of the area and which cooperation and compromise and moving forward is the issues we are addressing today. with self-determination and amplifying the issue of sovereignty for the federally recognized tribes. the chair has outlined both pieces of legislation and i look

forward to the witnesses and thank them very much for being here. with that, let me yield back. >> thank you very much. i am now going to introduce the witness, the honorable brian, assistant secretary of affairs, u.s. department of interior, washington, d.c. the honorable marcella's in hollywood florida and at the honorable vice chair man united auburn california. let me remind of the witnesses that under the committee rule they must limit their statements to five minutes but the entire statement will appear in the hearing record. to begin your testimony, please press the top button on the microphone.

i would ask you to please complete your statement and i will ask all witnesses to testify before the member questioning. the chair recognizes the assistant secretary for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. good morning members of the committee and thank you for having me here today the department of the interior testimony i want to apologize i know i kept you waiting. the department is here to present testimony on hr 1246 and 1532. these two bills seek to address concerns raised by many tribes that have encountered barriers in the development and use of their land is new to the laws designed to ensure the federal government fulfilled its responsibility as trustee. the long term leasing act provides the authority for the tribes to enter into the surface

leases with the approval of the secretary of the interior. the fed limits of the agreements as the madam chair indicated to 25 year terms with an option to renew for an additional 25 years. many leases require terms longer than 50 years to promote economic development. congress has had its 60 tribes to the long-term leasing act for this purpose and each addition as you've noted is required to submit legislation that is time consuming or resource training for tribes. hr 1246 mn does it have any other tribes listed pursuant to the act to enter into leases for up to 99 years and the inclusion of all will be in addition to those already listed three

previously enacted legislation. the departments goal of the legislation as it would promote economic development opportunities and avoid having to acquire separate legislation for this purpose. congress previously amended 2012 by passing the act that restored tribes ability to control and lease their land under their approved tribal regulations without approval from the secretary of the interior. since that time, edie to tribes have adopted their own leasing regulations to regulate the use of their land in the implementation of the program has been a huge success for the tribes across the country. while the department of recognizes and supports the reviving laws governing the tribal land use, amending these laws must be done carefully to ensure there are a lot of not ud consequences. it was passed to ensure the federal government out of the

orderly process to acquire lands from indians and over the past two centuries a significant amount of case law and federal law has been built on top of that act. any legislation that would change the operation, however well-intentioned, and may create more confusion among the status in an inadvertently harmed tribes in the process. hr 1532 would expressly allow tribes to lease, sell or transfer tribal lands not held in trust by the united states, without any further action of the department to validate the transaction. at this time the department can support 1532. while hr 1532 does not directly amend the act, it expressly exempts land from restrictions and may have unintended consequences. at that apartment understands that some tribes may ask for legislative release as commercial lenders and title companies often asked tribes to

confirm that the act is inapplicable to their feed land and we believe this is an unnecessary step which unfortunately is used to raise the cost of transactions into business deals across the country. the department appreciates the opportunity to present its views on hr 1532 and 1246 and madame chair and ranking member and members of the committee i look forward to answering your questions this morning and i will yield back the rest of my time. >> thank you. the chair recognizes you for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair, good morning. ranking member fernandez and ranking minority member, members of the subcommittee, i am the tribal council chairman. in 2021 the subcommittee had a legislation to allow them to lease, sell or otherwise

transfer to real property owned by the tribe and simple feed. on november 203rd of that year it was signed into law. i'm here today to provide an update on what that is meant for the tribe and urge congress to move quickly to enact hr 1532. the bill would give all federally recognized tribes the authority to lease and transfer certain lands without requiring prior congressional approval. they've lived in florida for thousands of years. we are a sovereign government with our own beliefs and courts. we run large cattle operations in the united states and 70 locations and 70 countries. we will continue the traditions of sewing patchwork to keep building, but the world has changed and we have adopted as well. the key part of the strategy has been to diversify our investments towards that end we

set up a fund to invest in commercial real estate. but after identifying the investment opportunity the plan will stall due to concerns raised by lender companies over the act. it dates back to the 1800s and in part was designed to prevent tribes from being defrauded. today it's interfering with the ability to encourage a normal business activity for tribes that are eminently capable of making their own business decisions. the title insurance companies we approach would not end short of the lien of the mortgage due to the concerns. this was completely unacceptable to the mortgage lenders and brought the ability to finance the acquisitions to a grinding halt. one title insurer took the risk of ensuring the title however if they changed their mind, failed or had been acquired by one of the other carriers we wouldn't

have been able to proceed. the sustainable economic independence of the tribe or any other federally recognized tribes should not depend on one title company's willingness to provide title insurance to lenders. in january of 21 in order to address this issue, darren soto, then a member of the subcommittee introduced hr 164. senators rubio and scott introduced a companion bill. in november of that year congress approved the legislation and the president assigned public law 11-65. that gave the tribe the opportunity to shop carriers and lenders and have the confidence to continue to acquire the investments. there've been other positive outcomes as well. due to the lack of availability, housing, reservations previously purchased off the reservation homes for tribal members.

since then, we've been able to add to the trust land and build on the home sites for these members. thanks to the public law 11 —-dash 65 when they were a little longer needed, we had the ability to solve them without having to seek congress to provide a lengthy explanation to the companies. so, they used the path of home ownership for the tribal members and has cleared the barriers to the ability to diversify and provide for future generations. however most still face the barriers that i've described. it's time to grant federally recognized tribes the authority and ability to make their own decisions about managing the resources into generating tribal income without needing to obtain the congressional approval. for these reasons i want to thank the subcommittee and congress for enacting 11 —-dash 765. i further commend the chair for introducing hr 1532 and encourage congress to act quickly to approve the bill and

ensure the language is no longer hindering the economic opportunities for the recognized tribes. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. i appreciate your comment, eminently capable of making your own decisions. i think that is absolutely correct, and that is what we are here to make sure. the chair recognize chairman john williams for five minutes. >> thank you, chair, ranking member fernandez and members of the subcommittee, my name is shawn williams and i'm the tribal vice chairman of the indian community. joining me today from the tribal council or the honorable tribal secretary, the council member, a

separate band we've occupied on the outskirts along with many tribes. it was terminated by the 1958 act. we were then restored by the 1994 auburn indian restoration act. neither alber and is here today to express the strong support for hr 1532. as you know, the bill has addressed a problem that tribes can have when they try to lease or sell real property that they hold in simple status. a very outdated statue called prohibits them from engaging in these types of real estate transactions without approval from either the interior department or the congress. hr 1532 would waive these requirements of the nonintercourse act and prevent

federally recognized tribes to lease and sell real property that they hold without the consent of the federal government. the original purpose of the act was to protect tribes from losing their land through unfair real estate transactions while tribes may have needed this protection centuries ago, there was no longer any need for federal government to oversee or approve transactions on properties located outside of the reservation or trust lands. unfortunately, attempts to lease or sell the land owned by tribes have run into challenges with insurance companies according to the legal counsel at least seven of the largest are known to have policies against allowing tribes to sell without approval from the interior department.

tribes facing these problems are then asked opinion from the department or to persuade congress to enact in the the exemptionfrom the restricti. united auburn is going to do this process today with of the interior department as we are attempting to sell a public golf course on the land that we purchased in 2012. the golf course is located outside of our other land's and it's more than 16 miles from the tribal headquarters and 5 miles from the resorts. it is unwilling to write the policy without any legal opinion from the interior department.

over the past two decades congress has passed the waivers for florida, oregon, oklahoma, minnesota and michigan. however instead of adopting the specific approach to curing this problem, hr 1532 addresses this issue for all federally recognized tribes and avoids the need for congress to continue to pass legislation for indefensible tribes. for all these reasons, they strongly support hr 1352 and urge the members of the committee on natural resources to support this legislation and vote it favorably out of committee. thank you for the opportunity to present the views on hr 1532.

at the appropriate time i am happy to answer any questions members of the subcommittee may have. thank you. >> thank you so much for that important insight into the situation that you are dealing with. the chair will recognize members for five minutes for questions and the first member this morning to ask questions will be the congressman from california. >> thank you madam chair. first, let me welcome our friends and colleagues, vice chair it's great to have you here today. thank you. is it elijah? i think it's a special day for another one of your colleagues.

at 10-years-old today. congratulations. i hope your birthday is a lot of fun. thank you, madam chair. to the questions here, i would like to -- one sidebar to answer the opportunity, an important issue affecting my constituents you are reviewing the gaming proposal about 130 miles from the current location and it was previously rejected by the department to meet the department requirements, supposed by several of the legislators at california and oregon and your offices found

that 11 tribes including my district to the west with the impact of the projects and as what hundreds of employees your office from what we can tell has yet to meet with these tribes and talk about what the effect is going to be on them. hearing what their issues are going to be with 170 miles fromm its current location is approved. >> thank you, congressman. under the current regulations the department is required to consult with tribes that are located within 25 miles of a proposed gaming site. i'm generally happy to meet with tribal leaders when it comes to the formal.

i'm happy to hear from them on issues of importance that there's a differentiation between the formal process required by the regulations it's been pretty effective but there's including the two i mentioned in my immediate neighborhood. so when you're talking about a project from the current location it seems like that would kind of opened the window the 25 miles if something you would have to adhere to as tightly. does that seem fair? >> again, i've met with other tribes who expressed concerns about that project or proposal. >> i urge you to please meet

with the others involved. to jump to hr 3052 i think a very good piece of legislation. this country looked a whole lot different. the relationship between the people from europe at that time and the folks looked different at that time as well. how does that look any different to make autonomous decisions to set aside restricted trust land in the conversation for the moment. >> how is that any different from me, a citizen making a transaction for farmland or something like that. why should it be different to have a third-party intervene?

tribes have the ability to buy and sell the land of the reservation under existing legal authority today so the tribal leaders here today about the challenges posed by the private lenders and title insurance companies if the department disagrees with whether this legislation is necessary in the first place. a. >> dealing with of these properties we will explore this more in a little bit. it doesn't seem right if we are talking that they should have these challenges to have a sign off from a congressional action or department action the same as anybody else. i yield back.

thank you, madam chair. the chair recognizes the ranking minority member from the beautiful state of arizona. >> as you spoke about the testimony, it doesn't apply to be a point of concern and the communications particularly it was a point of concern for title insurance and lender companies.

did they make it clear that clarifying the legislation was necessary in order for them to proceed and do business with the tribe as they do any other entity? >> in a roundabout way they have made that mentioned. we visited with several title companies and it serves on the properties we purchased in the past and we've met with a lot of red tape so to speak and it all comes back. we introduced legislation with the representative back in 20 want to help clarify that for us and others seek to solve this path as well as we have we are not the first one to do it and we hope we aren't the last but i want to make sure what we've accomplished at the tribe in florida and we want everyone else to accomplish the same thing and remove the hurdles that are in the way of us prospering in a way that everyone else has.

>> assistant secretary, welcome. good to see you again. at the outset, let me thank you as they made inquiries into the offices we've been able to refer them. maybe there wasn't a resolution at this moment, but the attention and the time and the effort and the respect that was given is very much appreciated by all of us. thank you. hr 1532 specifically the department's are weary of

impacting the case law. the react but going back to the question i asked the chairman, this seems to be a reaction from title and lending institutions. they interpret it as differently and it becomes an impediment. given that issue, does the department have any recommendations in terms of the legislation and working with the author of the legislation of the chair, exchanges that would tread if it is even possible? >> thank you ranking member i appreciate the kind words.

again, when it comes to recommendations on how to address that, i would be happy to sit down with you and your team and other members of the committee to talk about that and give that some thought. often times including in my own experience, the attorneys who are advancing this theory if they were to buy a business office here in washington, d.c., that there has to be an extra transaction cost on top of that to the company because it's an indian tribe buying the land. it's just it's a solution in search of a problem and what we have done over the past two centuries is billed this and it's relevant today and a lot of

cases we are seeing even in the supreme court and in the past several years the indian land tenure so the concern the department has for this unintended consequence on that body of law that benefits and protects tribes and the real issue is the attorneys and lending institutions that add to the transaction costs without any basis. >> so the issue is potentially undoing the precedent that could be on the other side harmful to the issue of self-determination sovereignty and to tribal governments and tribes, correct? i yelled back. the chair recognizes jennifer gonzalez from puerto rico. >> welcome everybody and happy

birthday to one of our guests here today. vice chair and chairman, in the testimony of the assistant secretary raised department concern of any changes to the operation of the act that it may have unintended consequences. i would like to give you the opportunity both the chance to comment on that. do either of you have any concerns at all raised with this bill that it would cause any unintended consequences? >> good morning congresswoman. thank you for the time. we appreciate the ability to be here this morning. the question raised by the interior i think are not all concerns at this time the seminole tribe and i think we've recognized the benefits of the bill that was passed in 2021 the

tribe has flourished in its sovereign wealth fund activities. we've bought eight properties, nine total and kept eight at this point and hope to continue to further expand on that. our girdle was every company we went to except for the exception of one told us we needed to have congressional approval to get the insurance of the lien or even title, anything of that property in our name. there was a challenge that we had and as i stated in my statement, that the ability for us to do that without congressional approval but many hurdles in the way and we actually lost deals if anyone knows how it works it doesn't sit on the table for long and we lose the opportunity to bid, purchase that stuff in the future. so this was the removal of that it helped us and a lot of others. we were not the first one, and i

think every other tribe that came before us would share the same sentiment that i'm sharing with you today on behalf of the tribes that will come after me and the seminole tribe will express the same thing. did you want to add something? >> to make sure this goes through we always enjoy working with our partners, make things easier for the native american tribes. >> thank you. i do believe in both bills they will and sure clarity in the process and allow expedited processes. the remainder of my time i want

to yield to my member, fellow member and colleague. >> thank you. assistant secretary, bottom line is it the department's position that the legislation will change how the department administers on trust land or land held in restricted fees? >> thank you, congressman. i wouldn't say yes to that, but the troubles we face in this legislation as we don't know the consequences and how it would interact with two centuries of case law that have been built on top of the nonintercourse act and how it would affect of the thetenure and other places in or contexts.

>> okay so not a yes, but an issue. two of them i think we're west of the mississippi so there's a whole bunch of states that didn't have the legal status at the time. i think tribes these days are certainly up to the task of figuring out how to protect themselves and we've heard testimony today about the ability to do simple transactions and the title insurance is tainted or seen as impossible so that reflects and restricts the ability. i don't know that they'd need

that much protection from themselves as the department is asserting. i appreciate the time and i will yield back. >> thank you. the chair recognizes herself. over the past ten years do you know how many leases the department is approved under the long-term leasing act of up to 99 years? >> i don't, but i would be happy to follow up with an answer to that. >> but you are aware that there have been some? >> yes. >> from your experience, have they been beneficial to the tribes? >> on the whole i believe so, yes. >> how have they supported efforts for the tribal leaders to have the longer term leases? >> we had the leasing regulations to try to make the process faster. and i believe that has been

successful to provide more deference the leasing under tribal law we try to get those approved expeditiously so we are are. you voiced concerns about 1532 and you mentioned you believed there were potentially unintended consequences but nothing in relation to how this particular act would play out against the existing case law. is that correct? is there anything beyond your concern about the relationship between this act and the long history? >> not at this time. what i can add if you would

like, madam chair, i don't dispute into the department doesn't dispute the issues raised because i've experienced those myself. the issue is not the law as it exists right now it allows them to purchasing a cell feed land for business purposes, homesites that already exist. the issue is the lack of understanding of the law by some of these lending institutions. we are happy to continue the discussion as the vice chair noted, but the law itself is not the impediment. it is a lack of understanding. >> that raises an interesting point. it isn't necessarily unusual to clarify a particular law.

i see the role of congress if there is confusion or something that needs to be addressed because as you say they just need to go and read the case law, i don't necessarily disagree with that but if we have the opportunity to clarify something that is going to give the tribes the autonomy that they seek, don't you think that that could be beneficial? just last year the supreme court made decisions about the status of reservations, and it's all built upon the nonintercourse act which was one of the very first that this congress and acted to address the acquisition of indian land. so much of it rests on top of that wall and our concern if we pull the block out from the bottom rope, we don't know how

that affects everything else. >> could i request a commitment from you to address what some of those other issues may be so that we can clarify and make this easier and better to have the autonomy that they so rightfully deserve? >> i would be happy to have those conversations and help tribes not have to endure the hassle of those imposed by some of the companies. >> i have a couple of questions for you. the testimony detailed how uncertain it was to deal with title insurance lenders without the certainty of having the waiver legislation signed into law. do you know why the title insurer took the risk of the insuring title into did they have a different understanding

of the companies? >> we did what we could to try to get them to understand the law, but i think the question that is raised it's that there are so many other lending agencies that were not up to speed. those are the challenges we all face that maybe one might understand how it works but not all and they are not keeping up with legislation. i think that is the challenges that they are not willing to go and look at the legislation. and yes it is a call for additional fees and attorney fees and we have to try to educate them and if we didn't do a good job or they didn't do a good a job understanding with the education process was from our side or their side, then they deny it and we are not able to move forward and we are able to find that one company out of so many that we looked for to find somebody in the areas where we were buying real estate submit was based on not only us but the tribes as i understand

the concerns raised by the department. but again we are all moving fast in a world that is growing beyond us. we need to keep up and this is one of the ways we believe we can advance ourselves even further if we can get this removed and if not and as you are so speaking with the secretary on how to make it easier for everybody because we have experienced since 2021 and that is being introduced and past we have experience to acquire land off the reservation. >> 1532 is quite simple and straightforward, and i would assume our title insurance companies could read that and understand it and perhaps that just takes away one of those parts that we don't need.

>> with that, i believe that -- please go ahead. >> thank you. the two issues, the two pieces of legislation i support one very much and continue to do so and the second one i support the concept and the intention that we have to treat the tribes and representatives with equity as we do with others.

i support that intent. the challenge causes me hesitation in the sense of that the unintended consequences could be pretty big in terms of tenure and other issues established by case law. could you provide to the committee perhaps in that overview and discussion that the chair is going to engage with you is the issue, some examples that potentially could be and i say that because as we go further through the legislation and it moves along, those are examples that are going to come

up and then there's going to be the challenges to the legislation based on what could happen for the self-determination of sovereignty for tribes. avoiding that, i want to avoid that. i know the chair does as well so if we could provide some examples about what needs to be done and how we can legislate to the title insurance and lenders in terms of how they deal with tribes specifically and generally and i have to rely on a piece by piece legislation because they are worried about market share or competition to the region. thank you for the indulgence. >> wonderful. thank you. i'm just going to ask one more question and want to make sure i

have a question for the vice chair. you mentioned in your remarks that they are refusing to provide title insurance to the company that wants to purchase your public golf course. they are telling you the interior department wants to issue a legal opinion stating it's not subject to the act there've been various responses and we are in a process of getting that legal opinion but the golf course property is not subject to the act. however as the problem becomes more widespread, the department could be overwhelmed with these types of requests. it makes more sense for congress to act on this more up front. hr 1532 does that. >> thank you very much and i want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony

traveling to washington, d.c. i hope that you have the anopportunity to see some of the beautiful chair each trees and blossoms. it was a beautiful drive this morning. the members of the committee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we would ask you to respond to these things in writing under the committee ruled the members must submit questions for the committee clerk by 5 p.m. on friday, thursday, march 301st, is it thursday? the hearing record will be open for ten business days for these responses. if there is no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]