[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


  H.R. 1246, TO AUTHORIZE LEASES OF UP TO 99 YEARS FOR LAND HELD IN 
   TRUST FOR FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES; AND H.R. 1532, TO 
    AUTHORIZE ANY INDIAN TRIBE TO LEASE, SELL, CONVEY, WARRANT, OR 
OTHERWISE TRANSFER REAL PROPERTY TO WHICH THAT INDIAN TRIBE HOLDS FEE 
  TITLE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER 
                               PURPOSES

=======================================================================

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         Friday, March 24, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-11

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-692 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------             
      

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     
                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		Grace F. Napolitano, CA		
Robert J. Wittman, VA		Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA		  CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ			Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA		Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA		Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR    Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN		Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT		Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI			Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL			Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT		Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO		Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR			Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA			Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU			Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY                                

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                 ------                                

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                     HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, WY, Chair

                JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, PR, Vice Chair

               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, NM, Ranking Member

Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Doug LaMalfa, CA                         CNMI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Ruben Gallego, AZ
Jerry Carl, AL                       Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jim Moylan, GU                       Ed Case, HI
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                              ----------                                
                               
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Friday, March 24, 2023...........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Hageman, Hon. Harriet, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wyoming...........................................     1
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Newland, Hon. Bryan, Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, 
      U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC............     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Questions submitted for the record.......................     7
    Osceola, Hon. Marcellus, Chairman, Seminole Tribe of Florida, 
      Hollywood, Florida.........................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Williams, Hon. John, Vice Chairman, United Auburn Rancheria, 
      Auburn, California.........................................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    12

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submission for the Record by Representative Westerman

        Michael Chavarria, Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, 
          New Mexico, Statement for the Record...................    22
                                     


 
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1246, TO AUTHORIZE LEASES OF UP TO 99 YEARS 
FOR LAND HELD IN TRUST FOR FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES; AND H.R. 
1532, TO AUTHORIZE ANY INDIAN TRIBE TO LEASE, SELL, CONVEY, WARRANT, OR 
 OTHERWISE TRANSFER REAL PROPERTY TO WHICH THAT INDIAN TRIBE HOLDS FEE 
  TITLE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                              ----------                              


                         Friday, March 24, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet 
Hageman [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Hageman, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon; 
and Grijalva.

    Ms. Hageman. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Indian and 
Insular Affairs will come to order. Without objection, the 
Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the Subcommittee at 
any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 
1246 and H.R. 1532. Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening 
statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the 
Ranking Minority Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that 
all other Members' opening statements be made part of the 
hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with 
Committee Rule 3(o). Without objection so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

    Ms. Hageman. Today, we are meeting to consider two bills 
I've introduced to ensure all tribes have access to economic 
tools: H.R. 1246 to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land 
held in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes, and H.R. 
1532, to authorize any Indian tribe to lease, sell, convey, 
warrant, or otherwise transfer real property to which that 
Indian tribe holds fee title, without the consent of the 
Federal Government, and for other purposes.
    I want to thank Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, Mr. 
Grijalva, Mr. LaMalfa, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, and Mr. Sablan for 
their support of H.R. 1246, and I look forward to working with 
you all and other members of the Committee on both of these 
bills.
    The first bill on the agenda, H.R. 1246, would amend the 
Long-Term Leasing Act to authorize any federally recognized 
Indian tribe to lease land held in trust for their benefit for 
terms up to 99 years, subject to approval of the Secretary of 
the Interior. For many Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives, real 
property holdings are the basis for social, cultural, and 
religious life and often their single most important economic 
resource.
    In 1834, with the enactment of the Indian Non-Intercourse 
Act, land transactions with Indians were prohibited, unless 
authorized by Congress. Over time, these restrictions came to 
apply primarily to lands held in trust by the United States for 
the benefit of individual Indians or Indian tribes, and to 
lands with a title that was subject to a restriction against 
alienation.
    In 1955, Congress passed the Long-Term Leasing Act which 
generally authorizes any Indian land held in trust or land 
subject to a restriction against alienation to be leased by the 
Indian owner, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the 
Interior. These leases were generally only allowed for 25 
years, with an option to renew for one additional term, for a 
total lease term of up to 50 years.
    Unfortunately, lease authority up to 99 years is often 
needed for today's long-term commercial leases and for some 
financing contracts. And the fact is, a 50-year lease term is 
simply too short. H.R. 1246 will ensure that all tribes can 
negotiate effectively and on the same playing field as other 
landholders for long-term leases. This can clear the way for 
further economic development, especially in rural or extra 
rural areas.
    H.R. 1246 will also end the practice of individual tribes 
needing Congress to pass legislation so that the tribe can 
offer these long-term leases. In other words, we trust the 
tribes to make the right decisions for their own people.
    Congress has amended the Long-Term Leasing Act more than 50 
times to adjust the terms and conditions of leases of Indian 
lands and to authorize specific Indian land or tribes to lease 
land for a term of up to 99 years. It is time to end this 
piecemeal 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 H.R. 1532, which would 
exempt lands held in fee simple by any federally recognized 
Indian tribe from the limitations imposed by the Indian Non-
Intercourse Act. This bill would clarify that any tribe has the 
legal ability to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or transfer any 
portion of the interest in real property that the tribe owns 
that is not held in trust.
    In recent years, the Indian Non-Intercourse Act has 
generally not interfered with the ability of tribes to buy, 
sell, or lease land that it owns in fee simple. However, it has 
generated a great deal of litigation throughout history, which 
has resulted in several court decisions on the issue.
    The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 said that the Indian Non-
Intercourse Act remains substantially in force today and can 
bar sales of tribal land without the consent of the Federal 
Government. Some tribes have also encountered interference with 
economic development and job creation when titled insurance 
companies have interpreted the Indian Non-Intercourse Act to 
apply to fee simple real estate owned by the tribes and would 
not grant title insurance.
    Congress has waived the application of the Indian Non-
Intercourse Act to several tribes, but it has been needed on a 
case-by-case basis. Again, this 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 that Indian lands, whether owned in fee, 
owned in restricted fee, or held in trust for the benefit of 
the tribes are able to be used as tribes want to use them. I 
believe these two bills are a good step forward to ensure that. 
I am glad to see the Assistant Secretary here to testify on 
these bills and would appreciate his insight on whether further 
technical changes to the bills are needed.
    I also want to thank our tribal witnesses for being here to 
tell your stories, to tell us how these bills would be 
beneficial to all tribes, and if they need to be improved.

    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member for 
his statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you 
for the hearing on these two pieces of legislation. I'm a co-
sponsor of H.R. 1246, and I thank the Chair and the Ranking 
Member of this Subcommittee, Representative Leger Fernandez, 
for their work on it. Today, we will hope to hear more from the 
witnesses.
    We are discussing the other piece of legislation, H.R. 
1532, which authorizes tribal governments to lease, sell, 
convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer real property to which 
they hold fee title, without the consent of the Federal 
Government. I think both bills address existing barriers to 
tribal economic development and were previewed at the 
Subcommittee's first oversight hearing earlier this month.
    And on the research committee if there is an area in which 
cooperation, and compromise, and moving forward--it is going to 
be around the issues that we are addressing today, and other 
issues. But this is a very important one and a step addressing 
the paternalism of the Federal Government with regard to 
tribes, amplifying tribal self-determination and amplifying the 
very critical issue of sovereignty for 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, I yield back to you, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you so much. I'm now going to introduce 
the witnesses. The Honorable Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary 
of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington 
DC; the Honorable Marcellus Osceola, Chairman of the Seminole 
Tribe of Florida, Hollywood, Florida; and the Honorable John 
Williams, Vice Chairman, United Auburn Rancheria, Auburn, 
California.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules they 
must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the talk button on 
the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light 
will turn green. When you have 1 minute left, the light turns 
yellow. At the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn red, 
and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will 
also allow all witnesses on the panel to testify before Member 
questioning.
    The Chair now recognizes Assistant Secretary Bryan Newland 
for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN NEWLAND, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INDIAN 
    AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    [Speaking Native language]. Good morning, members of the 
Committee. Thank you for having me here today to offer the 
Department of the Interior's testimony.
    Madam Chair, also I want to apologize for my tardiness this 
morning. I know I kept you waiting; it won't happen again. 
Thank you.
    The Department is here to present testimony on H.R. 1246 
and H.R. 1532. These two bills seek to address concerns raised 
by many tribes that have encountered barriers in the 
development and use of their lands due to laws designed to 
ensure the Federal Government fulfilled its responsibility as 
trustee.
    The Long-Term Leasing Act provides the authority for tribes 
to enter into surface leases with third parties with the 
approval of the Secretary of the Interior. This Act limits 
lease agreements, as Madam Chair indicated, to 25-year terms 
with an option to renew for an additional 25 years.
    Over the years, tribes have engaged in a wide range of 
activities to promote economic development and many leases 
require terms longer than 50 years to promote economic 
development. Since its enactment in 1955, Congress has added 60 
tribes to the Long-Term Leasing Act for this purpose, and each 
addition, as you've noted, Madam Chair, has required separate 
legislation, which is time-consuming and resource-draining for 
tribes.
    H.R. 1246 amends the Long-Term Leasing Act to add any other 
tribes listed pursuant to the List Act to enter into leases for 
up to 99 years, and the inclusion of all tribes will be in 
addition to the 60 tribes already listed through previously 
enacted legislation. The Department supports the goal of this 
legislation as it would promote economic development 
opportunities and avoid tribes having to acquire separate 
legislation for this purpose.
    Congress previously amended the Long-Term Leasing Act in 
2012 by passing the HEARTH Act which restored tribes' ability 
to control and lease their land under their approved tribal 
regulations without further approval from the Secretary of the 
Interior. Since that time, 82 tribes have adopted their own 
leasing regulations to regulate the use of their lands, and the 
implementation of this program has been a huge success for 
tribes across the country.
    While the Department recognizes and supports revising laws 
governing tribal land use, amending these laws must be done 
carefully to ensure that there are not unintended consequences. 
The Non-Intercourse Act was passed to ensure that the Federal 
Government had an 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 of the Non-
Intercourse Act, however well-intentioned, may create more 
confusion around the status of Indian lands and inadvertently 
harm tribes in the process. H.R. 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 that transaction. At this time, the 
Department cannot support H.R. 1532.
    While H.R. 1532 does not directly amend the Non-Intercourse 
Act, it expressly exempts land from restrictions in the Non-
Intercourse Act and may have unintended consequences. The 
Department understands that some tribes may ask for legislative 
relief, as commercial lenders and title companies often ask 
tribes to confirm that the Non-Intercourse Act is inapplicable 
to their fee land. We believe this is an unnecessary step, 
which unfortunately is used to raise the cost of transactions 
and business deals for tribes across the country.
    The Department appreciates the opportunity to present its 
views on H.R. 1532 and H.R. 1246. And Madam Chair and Ranking 
Members of the Committee, I look forward to answering your 
questions this morning and I will yield back the rest of my 
time
    [Speaking Native language].

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Newland follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary--Indian 
           Affairs, United States Department of the Interior
    Aanii (Hello)! Good afternoon, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger 
Fernandez, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bryan Newland. I 
am the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the 
Interior (Department).
    Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding H.R. 
1246, a bill to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in 
trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes, and H.R. 1532, a bill to 
authorize any Indian Tribe to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or 
otherwise transfer real property to which that Indian Tribe holds fee 
title without the consent of the Federal Government, and for other 
purposes.

H.R. 1246, a bill to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held 
in trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes

    Since the enactment of the Non-Intercourse Act of June 30, 1834, 
and predecessor statutes, land transactions with Indian Tribes were 
prohibited unless specifically authorized by Congress. The Act of 
August 9, 1955, or the Long-Term Leasing Act (LTLA provides the 
authority for Indian Tribes to enter into surface leases with third 
parties with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The LTLA 
limits lease agreement to 25-year terms with an option to renew for an 
additional 25 years.
    Since 1955, Indian Tribes have engaged in a diverse array of 
activities to facilitate economic development, and many have required 
lease agreements for terms longer than 50 years on their lands. 
Authorizing Indian Tribes to lease their trust lands for terms longer 
than the 50-year maximum requires Congress to amend the LTLA to add 
Tribes' names to it. Since its enactment in 1955, Congress has added 60 
Indian Tribes to the LTLA for this purpose. Each addition has required 
separate legislation, which is time consuming and resource draining for 
Tribes.
    H.R. 1246 amends the LTLA to add all Indian Tribes on the list 
published by the Secretary of the Interior as required by the Federally 
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act to enter into agreements for up to 99 
years. The inclusion of all Indian Tribes will be in addition to the 60 
Indian Tribes already listed through previously enacted legislation.
    In addition to legislation allowing certain Tribes to enter into 
leases of up to 99 years, Congress amended the LTLA in 2012, by passing 
the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act 
of 2012 (HEARTH Act), which restored Indian Tribes ability to control 
and lease their land under their approved HEARTH Act regulations 
without further approval from the Department. So far, 82 Tribes have 
adopted and regulate the leasing of their Tribal trust lands. The 
implementation of this program has been a success, and a great help to 
Indian Tribes in facilitating economic development.
    The Department supports the goal of H.R. 1246 to authorize any 
Indian Tribe to lease lands for up 99 years as it would facilitate 
economic development opportunities and avoid individual Tribes having 
to acquire separate legislation for this purpose. The Department looks 
forward to continuing working with the Subcommittee and sponsors of the 
legislation to ensure the language in the bill achieves the goal of 
removing barriers to economic development.

H.R. 1532, a bill to authorize any Indian Tribe to lease, sell, convey, 
warrant, or otherwise transfer real property to which that Indian Tribe 
holds fee title without the consent of the Federal Government, and for 
other purposes

    H.R. 1532 would expressly allow Indian Tribes to lease, sell, 
convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or part of the Tribe's real 
property that is not held in trust by the United States without further 
approval, ratification, or authorization by the United States. Under 
H.R. 1532, action by the United States is not required to validate the 
Tribe's land transactions for Tribally owned fee land. The legislation 
clearly states that H.R. 1532 does not authorize the Tribe to lease, 
sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer lands held in trust or 
affect the operation of any law governing such transactions.
    The Department does not support H.R. 1532. While H.R. 1532 does not 
directly amend the Non-Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 177, the bill 
expressly exempts land from restrictions in the Non-Intercourse Act and 
may have unintended consequences. The Department understands that some 
Tribes may ask for legislative relief as commercial lenders and title 
companies are asking Tribes to confirm that the Non-Intercourse Act is 
inapplicable to Tribally-owned fee land. This is an unnecessary step 
which, unfortunately, can raise the cost of business deals for Tribes.
    The Non-Intercourse Act was passed to ensure that the Federal 
Government had an orderly process to acquire lands from Indians, and 
over the past two centuries, a significant amount of case law has been 
built on this Act. Any legislation that would change the operation of 
the Non-Intercourse Act, however well-intentioned, may create more 
confusion around the status of Indian lands and inadvertently harm 
Tribes in the process.

    The Department appreciates the opportunity to present its views on 
H.R. 1532.
Conclusion

    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's 
views on these important bills. I look forward to answering any 
questions that you may have.

                                 ______
                                 
    Questions Submitted for the Record to Bryan Newland, Assistant 
       Secretary--Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Newland did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. How many inquiries on title insurance related to land 
owned by tribes in fee simple has the Department received over:

    1a) the past 5 years?

    1b) the past 10 years?

    1c)  Please estimate the amount of staff time has been spent 
responding to those inquiries, including but not limited to time spent 
researching, drafting, and reviewing solicitor opinions.

    Question 2. How many leases has the Department approved under the 
Long-Term Leasing Act for a tribe that had 99-year lease authority 
over:

    2a) the past 5 years?

    2b) the past 10 years?

    2c)  Please estimate the average length of time it takes a lease 
under the above authority to be approved or denied by the Department 
once it is submitted for approval by the Secretary.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. Could you provide to the Committee examples of the 
``unintended consequences'' in the case law related to the Non-
Intercourse Act that may arise under the passage of H.R. 1532, To 
authorize any Indian Tribe to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or 
otherwise transfer real property to which that Indian Tribe holds fee 
title without the consent of the Federal Government, and for other 
purposes.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Chairman Marcellus Osceola for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. MARCELLUS OSCEOLA, CHAIRMAN, SEMINOLE TRIBE 
                 OF FLORIDA, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA

    Mr. Osceola. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning Ranking 
Member Leger Fernandez, Ranking Minority Member Grijalva, and 
members of the Subcommittee.
    My name is Marcellus Osceola, Jr. I am the Tribal Council 
Chairman for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. In 2021, this 
Subcommittee advanced legislation to allow the Seminole Tribe 
to lease, sell, or otherwise transfer real property owned by 
the Tribe in simple fee. On November 23 of that year, the bill 
was signed into law.
    I am here today to provide an update on what that law has 
meant for the Seminole Tribe and to urge Congress to move 
quickly to enact H.R. 1532. That bill would give all federally 
recognized tribes the authority to lease and transfer certain 
fee lands without requiring prior congressional approval.
    Seminoles have lived in Florida for thousands of years. We 
are a sovereign government with our own schools, police, and 
courts. We run one of the largest cattle operations in the 
United States. We own Hard Rock International in 70 countries. 
We will continue our traditions of sewing, patchwork, chickee 
building, and alligator wrestling, but the world has changed, 
and we have adapted as well.
    A key part of the strategy has been to diversify our 
investments. Toward that end, we set up a sovereign wealth fund 
to invest in commercial real estate, but after identifying our 
first investment opportunity, the plan was stalled due to 
concerns raised by lender and title insurance companies over 
the Indian Non-Intercourse Act. The NIA dates back to the 1800s 
and in part was designed to prevent tribes from being 
defrauded.
    Today, it is 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 approached for our first transaction would not 
insure the lien of the mortgage due to the concerns about the 
NIA. This was completely unacceptable to mortgage lenders and 
effectively brought our ability to finance real estate 
acquisitions to a grinding halt. One title insurer eventually 
took the risk of ensuring titles, however if that insurer had 
changed their mind, failed, or been acquired by one of the 
other carriers, we would have not been able to proceed.
    The sustainable economic independence of the Seminole Tribe 
or any other federally recognized tribe should not depend on 
one title company's willingness to provide title insurance to 
lenders or buyers without an Act of Congress. In January 2021, 
in order to address this issue, Florida Representative Darren 
Soto, then a member of this Subcommittee, introduced H.R. 164. 
Florida Senators Rubio and Scott introduced a companion bill, 
S. 108. In November of that year, Congress approved the 
legislation and the President signed Public Law 11-65.
    That law gave the Seminole Tribe the opportunity to shop 
carriers and lenders and have the confidence to continue to 
acquire real estate investments. There have been other positive 
outcomes as well. Due to the lack of availability of housing on 
our reservations, the Seminole Housing Authority previously has 
purchased off-reservation homes for tribal members. Since then, 
we have been able to add to our trust land and build on-
reservation home sites for these tribal members.
    Thanks to Public Law 11-65, when off-reservation homes were 
no longer needed, we have the ability to sell them without 
having to seek an Act of Congress to provide a lengthy 
explanation to the title companies, so the law has eased the 
path of home ownership for tribal members and has cleared the 
barriers to the ability to diversify and provide for future 
generations. However, most tribes still face these barriers I 
have described.
    It is time for Congress to grant federally recognized 
tribes the authority and the ability to make their own 
decisions about managing tribal resources and generating tribal 
income without needing to obtain congressional approval.
    For these reasons, I want to thank the Subcommittee and 
Congress for enacting Public Law 117-65. I further commend 
Subcommittee Chair Hageman for introducing H.R. 1532 and 
encourage Congress to act quickly to approve the bill and 
ensure that NIA language is no longer hindering economic 
opportunities for the federally recognized Indian tribes.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 
and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Osceola follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Marcellus Osceola Jr., Tribal Council Chairman, 
                       Seminole Tribe of Florida
    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez and Members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Marcellus Osceola, Jr., and I am chairman of 
the Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. In 2021, this 
Committee advanced legislation to allow the Seminole Tribe to lease, 
sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer real property owned by the 
Tribe in fee simple. On November 23rd of that year, that bill was 
signed into law. I am here today to provide an update on what that 
authority has meant for the Seminole Tribe, and to urge Congress to 
move quickly to enact H.R. 1532, broader legislation that will give all 
federally recognized tribes the authority to lease or transfer certain 
fee lands without requiring prior congressional approval.
    Seminoles have lived in Florida for thousands of years. When 
President Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act in 
1830, we resisted efforts to displace us from our native lands. 
Instead, we settled deep into the Florida Everglades where we 
maintained our ways and traditions. Since then, we have grown and 
prospered and today number more than four thousand Tribal members. We 
are a sovereign government with our own schools, police, and courts. We 
run one of the largest cattle operations in the United States. We own 
Hard Rock International, with locations in 74 countries. We still 
continue our traditions of sewing, patchwork, chickee building, and 
alligator wrestling, but the world has changed, as it always has; and 
we have adapted, as we always have.
    A key strategy we have chosen to pursue in adapting to a changing 
world is diversification of our investments and revenue sources. Toward 
that end, in 2020 the Seminole Tribe established a sovereign wealth 
fund to invest in commercial real estate properties in order to create 
sustainable income and generational wealth for the Seminole Tribe. We 
set up a state chartered subsidiary entity to act as a holding company. 
The holding company, in turn, creates subsidiary entities to purchase 
and hold title to our investment properties, enter into typical 
mortgage financing transactions and grant lenders mortgage liens on 
each of the investment properties we acquire.

    After identifying the first investment opportunity, this investment 
diversification plan stalled due to concerns raised by the lender and 
proposed title insurance company over the Indian Non-Intercourse Act 
(NIA). The NIA states in part:

        ``No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or 
        of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe 
        of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless 
        the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant 
        to the Constitution.''

    The NIA dates back to the 1800's and in part was designed to 
prevent Indian tribes from being defrauded. Today, it is interfering 
with the ability to engage in normal and regular commerce and generate 
and diversify income streams for tribes that are eminently capable of 
making their own business decisions.
    Here is the problem we encountered with the NIA: For the properties 
we acquire through the investment fund, lenders require that they be 
granted a first-mortgage lien on the properties financed and that the 
first lien position be insured with a mortgagee title insurance policy. 
The title insurance companies we approached for that first transaction 
interpreted the NIA to apply to all real estate owned by the Tribe, 
even non-reservation lands owned by a state-chartered subsidiary entity 
of the Tribe. The title companies would not insure the lien of the 
mortgage without an exception for the NIA. This was completely 
unacceptable to mortgage lenders and effectively brought our ability to 
finance real estate acquisitions to a grinding halt.
    One title insurer eventually took the risk of insuring title. 
However, if that title insurer had a change of position, failed or was 
acquired by one of the other carriers, the Tribe would not have been 
able to proceed. The sustainable economic independence of the Seminole 
Tribe--or any other federally recognized Indian tribe--should not 
depend on one title company's ``current'' willingness to provide title 
insurance to lenders and buyers absent an act of Congress.
    In order to address this issue and provide certainty to lenders and 
title insurers as well as buyers of properties that the NIA does not 
apply to the Seminole Tribe's real estate transactions, Representative 
Soto introduced H.R. 164 in January, 2021 and Senators Rubio and Scott 
introduced the companion bill S. 108. In November of that year, 
Congress approved the legislation and the President signed into law 
Public Law 117-65.
    Prior to enactment of this law, all of the major title companies 
except for one had a specific policy that precluded them from insuring 
mortgage liens and sales undertaken by Indian tribes because of the 
potential application of the NIA. Only one company was willing to 
provide such insurance, but there is always the chance that the company 
could have a change of position, fail, or be acquired by another 
company with a different policy that prohibits insuring title to 
properties owned by an Indian tribe. P.L. 117-65 served to open the 
title insurance market to the Seminole Tribe giving us the opportunity 
to shop carriers and lenders and have the confidence to continue with 
the acquisition of real estate investments in the ordinary course of 
business, just like any other real estate investor, knowing that title 
insurance will be available.
    There have been other positive outcomes, as well. The Seminole 
Tribe previously established the Seminole Housing Authority (the 
``Authority''). The Authority, a sub-governmental unit of the Seminole 
Tribe, had authority over housing matters and had purchased certain 
off-reservation homes for Tribal Members, which homes are no longer 
needed. P.L. 117-65 has allowed the Seminole Tribe to dispose of these 
properties without the lengthy process of seeking an exception to the 
Non-Intercourse Act or explanation to the title companies.
    As you can see, enactment of P.L. 117-65 has eased the path to 
homeownership for Seminole Tribal members and has cleared away barriers 
to our ability to diversify and provide for future generations through 
real estate investment. The law is consistent with our goals of self-
determination and economic independence.
    However, most tribes still face the barriers I have described. It 
is time for Congress to free tribes from the NIA and grant all 
federally recognized tribes the authority and ability to make their own 
decisions about managing tribal resources and generating tribal income 
without needing to obtain congressional approval for what otherwise are 
routine real estate transactions.
    For all these reasons, I want to thank this subcommittee and the 
Congress for enacting P.L. 117-65. I further commend Subcommittee Chair 
Hageman for introducing in this Congress H.R. 1532, to extend authority 
to encumber land held by a tribe in fee simple to all federally 
recognized Indian tribes. I encourage Congress to act quickly to 
approve the bill. Your prompt action will assure that this outdated and 
paternalistic NIA language will no longer hinder economic opportunities 
for any federally recognized Indian tribe.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

    Sho-Na-Bish.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I appreciate your comment that you 
are eminently capable of making your own decisions. I think 
that is absolutely correct, and that is why we are here to make 
sure that you can.
    The Chair now recognizes Vice Chairman John Williams for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WILLIAMS, VICE CHAIRMAN, UNITED AUBURN 
                 RANCHERIA, AUBURN, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member 
Grijalva, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the 
Subcommittee. My name is John Williams, and I am the Tribal 
Vice Chairman of the United Auburn Indian Community. Joining me 
today from our Tribal Council are Honorable Tribal Secretary 
Gabe Cayton and Honorable Council Member Leonard Osorio.
    United Auburn is a separate band of Nisenan, Pomo, Washo, 
Maidu, and Miwok Indians. We originally occupied a village on 
the outskirts of Auburn, California. Along with many other 
California tribes, United Auburn was terminated by the 1958 
Rancheria Act. We were then restored by the 1994 Auburn Indian 
Restoration Act.
    United Auburn is here today to express our strong support 
for H.R. 1532. As you know, this bill addresses a problem that 
tribes can have when they try to lease or sell real property 
that they hold in fee simple status. A very outdated statute 
called the Indian Non-Intercourse Act prohibits tribes from 
engaging in these types of real estate transactions without 
formal approval from either the Interior Department or the 
Congress.
    H.R. 1532 would waive these requirements of the Non-
Intercourse Act and permit federally recognized tribes to lease 
and sell real property that they hold in fee simple status 
without the consent of the Federal Government. The original 
purpose of the Non-Intercourse Act was to protect tribes from 
losing their land through unfair real estate transactions. 
While tribes may have needed this protection centuries ago, 
there is no longer any need for the Federal Government to 
oversee or approve transactions on real property that is 
located outside of tribes' reservation or trust lands.
    Unfortunately, attempts to lease or sell fee lands owned by 
tribes have run into challenges with title insurance companies. 
According to our legal counsel, at least seven of the largest 
title insurance companies are known to have policies against 
allowing tribes to sell their fee lands without approval from 
the Interior Department. Tribes facing these problems are then 
forced to request a legal opinion from the Interior Department 
or persuade Congress to enact an exemption from the Act's 
restrictions.
    United Auburn is going through this process today with the 
Interior Department, as we are attempting to sell a public golf 
course on fee land that we purchased in 2012. The golf course 
is located outside of our other United Auburn lands. It is more 
than 16 miles from our tribal headquarters and more than 5 
miles from our casino resort, Thunder Valley.
    The title company involved with this real estate 
transaction is unwilling to write a title insurance policy 
without a legal opinion from the Interior Department that the 
land is not subject to the Non-Intercourse Act. The issuance of 
such an opinion will allow United Auburn's sale to go through, 
but the Department should not have to allocate its limited 
resources. Drafting an issue that cures this problem for all 
federally recognized tribes is a better solution.
    Over the past two decades, Congress has passed Non-
Intercourse Act waivers for specific tribes in Florida, Oregon, 
Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Michigan. However, instead of adopting 
a tribe-specific approach to curing this problem, H.R. 1532 
addresses this issue for all federally recognized tribes and 
avoids the need for Congress to continue to pass legislation 
for individual tribes.
    For all these reasons, United Auburn strongly supports H.R. 
1532 and urges 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 United 
Auburn's views on H.R. 1532.
    At the appropriate time, I'm happy to answer any questions 
that Members of this Subcommittee may have. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Williams, Tribal Council Vice 
              Chairperson, United Auburn Indian Community
    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is John Williams, and I am the Tribal Vice 
Chairperson of the United Auburn Indian Community (``United Auburn'' or 
``Tribe''). Joining me today from our Tribal Council are Tribal 
Secretary Gabe Cayton and Council Member Leonard Osorio.
    United Auburn is a separate band of Maidu and Miwok Indians, who 
originally occupied a village on the outskirts of the City of Auburn, 
California. In 1917, the United States acquired land in trust for the 
Auburn Band near the City of Auburn and formally established a 
reservation, known as the Auburn Rancheria. Tribal members continued to 
live on the reservation as a community despite great adversity.
    In 1958, the United States enacted the Rancheria Acts, authorizing 
the termination of Federal trust responsibilities to a number of 
California Indian tribes, including the Auburn Band.\1\ With the 
exception of a 2.8-acre parcel containing a tribal church and a park, 
the government sold the land comprising the Auburn Rancheria. The 
United States formally terminated Federal recognition of the Auburn 
Band in 1967.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ California Rancheria Termination Act, Public Law 85-671 (Aug. 
18, 1958).
    \2\ Auburn Rancheria in California, Notice of Termination of 
Federal Supervision Over Property and Individual Members Thereof, 32 
Fed. Reg. 11,964 (Aug. 18, 1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1970, President Richard Nixon declared the policy of termination 
a failure. In 1976, both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives 
expressly repudiated this policy in favor of a new Federal policy 
entitled Indian Self-Determination.
    In 1991, surviving members of the Auburn Band reorganized their 
tribal government as the United Auburn Indian Community and requested 
that the United States restore their Federal recognition. In 1994, 
Congress passed the Auburn Indian Restoration Act, which restored the 
Tribe's Federal recognition and confirmed that United Auburn may 
acquire additional trust lands in Placer County.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Auburn Indian Restoration Act, Title II, Public Law 103-434 
(Oct. 31, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              H.R. 1532 and the Indian Non-Intercourse Act

    United Auburn is here today to express our strong support of H.R. 
1532. As you know, this bill addresses a problem that Indian tribes can 
have when they try to lease, sell, or otherwise transfer real property 
that they hold in fee simple status. A very outdated statute, called 
the Indian Non-Intercourse Act (``Non-Intercourse Act''), prohibits 
Indian tribes from engaging in these types of real estate transactions 
without formal approval from either the Interior Department or the 
Congress.
    H.R. 1532 would pre-empt the requirements of the Non-Intercourse 
Act and permit federally recognized Indian tribes to lease, sell, 
convey warrant, or otherwise transfer real property they hold in fee 
simple status without the consent of the Federal government.
    This is a somewhat complicated issue and let me provide the 
Subcommittee with background on this issue.

                    The Non-Intercourse Act Problem

    The Non-Intercourse Act comprises a series of laws enacted by 
Congress between 1790 and 1834. The Non-Intercourse Act is codified at 
25 U.S.C. Sec. 177, which states:

        No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of 
        any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of 
        Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the 
        same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to 
        the Constitution.

    The original purpose of the Act was to protect Indian tribes from 
losing their lands through disadvantageous real estate transactions, 
except by treaty, an act of Congress, or some other form of Federal 
consent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See, e.g., Federal Power Comm'n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 
U.S. 99, 119 (1960) (stating that the original purpose of the Non-
Intercourse Act was to ``prevent unfair, improvident or improper 
disposition by Indians of lands owned or possessed by them to other 
parties'' without Federal consent.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While Indian tribes may have needed this protection in the 18th and 
19th centuries, much has changed in Indian Country since the early 
years of the United States. Tribal governments now have sophisticated 
electoral and governance processes, operate leading-edge enterprises, 
and use their resources to offer wide-ranging programs to benefit their 
members.
    There is no longer any need for the Federal government to oversee 
or approve real estate transactions on parcels held in fee simple and 
located outside of an Indian tribe's reservation, rancheria, or trust 
lands. Individual tribal governments are in the best position to ensure 
the financial well-being of their tribes and their members.
    Unfortunately, attempts to lease, sell, or otherwise transfer fee 
lands owned by an Indian tribe have run into challenges with title 
insurance companies. On a number of occasions, these companies have not 
been willing to write title insurance for the buyer of real property 
held in fee status by an Indian tribe, citing the Non-Intercourse Act. 
And the problem is widespread across the United States. According to 
our legal counsel, at least seven (7) of the largest title insurance 
companies are known to have policies against allowing Indian tribes to 
sell their fee lands without approval from the Interior Department.\5\ 
Tribes facing this problem are then forced to request a lands opinion 
from the Interior Department, or persuade Congress to enact an 
exemption from the Act's restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The seven (7) title companies known to have a Non-Intercourse 
Act policy are: Chicago Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land 
Title Insurance Company, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, 
First American Title Insurance Company, Old Republic National Title 
Insurance Company, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, and Westcor Land 
Title Insurance Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  The Role of the Interior Department

    The Interior Department is a sympathetic partner to tribes facing 
this problem and has determined that fee lands owned by a tribe are not 
subject to the Non-Intercourse Act.
    Solicitor's Opinion M-37023, issued in 2009, states the current 
legal position of the Department that ``Federal restrictions under the 
Non-Intercourse Act do not automatically attach to off-reservation 
parcels acquired by a tribe in fee simple absolute.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, 
Applicability of 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719 to Restricted Fee Lands, at 6 
(Jan. 18, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Solicitor's Opinion M-37023 also cited a 2008 letter from a senior 
Interior official to a tribal leader in Wisconsin regarding the status 
of fee lands located outside of reservation or trust lands. In this 
letter, the Department ``agreed with the Tribe that off-reservation 
land[s] the Tribe acquired in 2000 which were never owned by the Tribe 
or its members in restricted status, and never held by the United 
States for the Tribe or its members in trust status were not subject to 
the Non-Intercourse Act and the Tribe was not required to obtain 
Federal approval to convey the property.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id. at 7, citing Letter from George Skibine, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary--Policy and Economic Development, U.S. Department 
of the Interior, to Carl W. Edwards, President, Lac du Flambeau Band of 
Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (Dec. 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any tribe that is facing a Non-Intercourse Act problem with a real 
estate transaction involving lands outside of its reservation, 
rancheria, or trust lands can request that the Office of the Solicitor 
issue a legal opinion that the specific lands at issue are not subject 
to the Non-Intercourse Act and are freely alienable.
    United Auburn is going through this process today, as the Tribe is 
attempting to sell a public golf course on fee land that it purchased 
on the open market in 2012. After more than 10 years, the Tribe has 
determined, based on its business needs, that it no longer needs to own 
this property. The golf course is also located remotely from other 
United Auburn lands, more than 16 miles from our tribal headquarters 
and more than 5 miles from Thunder Valley, our casino resort located on 
trust lands.
    The title company involved with this real estate transaction is 
unwilling to write a title insurance policy for the purchaser of this 
public golf course without a legal opinion from the Interior Department 
that the land is not subject to the Non-Intercourse Act. The issuance 
of such an opinion will allow United Auburn's sale to go through, but 
the Department should not have to allocate its limited resources to 
draft and issue these Non-Intercourse Act opinions. A legislative 
solution that cures this problem for all federally recognized Indian 
tribes is far more preferable.

  Legislation to Exempt Individual Tribes from the Non-Intercourse Act

    Congress has already been active in this area, enacting legislation 
to exempt specific tribes from the restrictions in the Non-Intercourse 
Act and permitting these tribes to lease, sell, or otherwise transfer 
their fee lands. Specific examples include:

     A 2021 statute to authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida 
            to lease or transfer any real property that is not held in 
            trust by the United States; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Public Law No. 117-65 (Nov. 23, 2021).

     A 2018 statute, the Oregon Tribal Economic Development 
            Act, to allow 7 tribes in Oregon to lease or transfer their 
            fee lands; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Public Law No. 115-179 (June 1, 2018).

     A 2016 statute to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to 
            lease or transfer its fee lands; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Public Law No. 114-127 (Feb. 29, 2016).

     A 2014 statute to allow the Fond du Lac Band of Lake 
            Superior Chippewa in Minnesota to lease or transfer their 
            fee lands; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Public Law No. 113-88 (Mar. 21, 2014).

     A 2007 statute authorizing the Coquille Indian Tribe in 
            Oregon to convey land and interests in land owned by the 
            Tribe; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Public Law No. 110-75 (Aug. 13, 2007).

     A 2007 statute authorizing the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe in 
            Michigan to convey land and interests in land owned by the 
            Tribe; \13\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Public Law No. 110-76 (Aug. 13, 2007).

     A 2000 statute providing that fee land owned by the Lower 
            Sioux Indian Community in Minnesota may be leased or 
            transferred by the Community without further approval by 
            the United States.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Public Law No. 106-217 (June 20, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Summary of H.R. 1532

    Instead of adopting a tribe-specific approach to curing this 
problem, H.R. 1532 authorizes any federally recognized Indian tribe to 
lease, sell, or otherwise transfer any fee lands that it owns without 
the consent of the Federal government.
    A national approach to this issue will avoid the need for Congress 
to continue to pass legislation for individual tribes to exempt them 
from the Non-Intercourse Act. Additionally, the Interior Department 
will no longer need to respond to individual tribal requests for legal 
opinions confirming that real estate transactions involving fees lands 
are not subject to the Non-Intercourse Act.

                               Conclusion

    For all these reasons, United Auburn strongly supports H.R. 1532 
and urges 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 United Auburn's views on 
H.R. 1532.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you so much for that very important 
insight as to the situation that you are dealing with.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for 
questions, and the first Member this morning to ask questions 
will be Congressman Doug LaMalfa from California.

    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me welcome 
our friends and colleagues from my neighborhood at home. Vice 
Chairman Williams, great to have you here today, thank you. And 
is Elijah present here? Elijah Montez?
    Mr. Montez. Hey.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Welcome. Thanks for coming all the way to 
Washington, DC with your dad today. And I think it is a very 
special day for another one of your colleagues. Raymond? Hey 
Raymond, 10 years old today. Congratulations, right? Raymond 
and Ceenas, good to see you. I hope your birthday is a lot of 
fun. You can have fun in this town; it is possible.
    So, anyway, thank you, Madam Chair. To the questions here, 
I'd like to--well one sidebar, I need to take advantage of the 
opportunity here with Assistant Secretary Newland in the room 
here. A very important issue affecting my constituents and some 
just north of my district as well; you are reviewing a gaming 
proposal by the Coquille Tribe about 170 miles from the Tribe's 
current location, and it was previously rejected by the 
Department for failing to meet Department requirements. It is 
opposed by several legislators in Northern California and 
Oregon, and your office has found that 11 tribes, including the 
Karuk in my district, and the Tolowa to the west of me, would 
be seriously impacted by the project, as would hundreds of 
their employees. But 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.
    Can you commit to sitting down or meeting with these tribes 
and hearing what their issues are going to be with a tribe that 
is going to be 170 miles from its current location if approved?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. Under our current 
regulations, the Department is required to consult with tribes 
that are located within 25 miles of a proposed gaming site, but 
as a general matter, I generally have an open door when it 
comes to tribal leaders about matters of importance and am 
generally happy to meet with tribal leaders.
    When it comes to the formal consultation required by our 
regulations, that is a little bit different, so again, happy to 
hear from them on issues of importance and just that there is a 
differentiation between the formal process required by our 
regulations and----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Understood. I understand that well, the 25 
miles, and in the past it has been pretty effective, but indeed 
there are 11 tribes, including the two I mentioned right in my 
immediate neighborhood: the Karuk and Tolowa, so when you are 
talking about a project that Coquille is doing 170 miles from 
their current location, it seems like that would kind of open 
the window that the 25 miles isn't necessarily something you 
have to adhere to as tightly, right? Does that seem fair?
    Mr. Newland. Congressman, again I've met with other tribes 
who have expressed concerns about that project, or that 
proposal, and others, and I'm happy to do that.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Alright, I urge you to please meet with the 
others involved.
    Let me jump to H.R. 1532. I think this is a very good piece 
of legislation. What we are reflecting upon is, and what our 
panel has talked about, we are talking about an 1834 law. This 
country looked a whole lot different.
    The relationship between the people that were settling here 
from Europe at that time and the folks that were native to the 
country looked a whole lot different at that time as well. So, 
what we are looking at is an issue where H.R. 1532, where it 
applies to fee land, I would like to know how does that look 
any different, where tribes are trying to make autonomous 
decisions on fee land--we will set aside restricted or trust 
land in the conversation for a moment--how is that any 
different than me, for example, as a U.S. citizen making a 
transaction having to do with farmland or something like that? 
Why should it be different for tribes to have to have a third 
party intervene?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. We 
don't believe that it is different. We believe, at the 
Department, that tribes have the ability to buy and sell fee 
lands off the reservation under existing legal authority today. 
So, it is not that the Department disagrees with the esteemed 
tribal leaders here today about the challenges posed by private 
lenders and title insurance companies. It is that the 
Department disagrees with whether this legislation is necessary 
in the first place.
    Mr. LaMalfa. My neighbor, United Auburn, is running into 
issues just dealing with the piece of golf course property, so 
we will explore this more in a little bit, as my 5 minutes have 
already eclipsed here, but it doesn't seem right, we are 
talking fee land, that they should have these challenges that 
have to have a sign-off from a congressional action or 
Department action the same as anybody else would. I yield back.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Grijalva, from the beautiful state 
of Arizona.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much for the ``beautiful state 
of Arizona,'' that was nice. Chairman Osceola, you spoke about 
in your testimony, as the Department stated today, that the 
Non-Intercourse Act does not apply to fee lands, and that this 
is still a point of concern and a point of contention with 
yourself and your members.
    And your communications are particularly a point of concern 
for title insurance and lender companies. So, in your 
communications with these companies, did they make it clear to 
the Tribe that clarifying this legislation from Congress was 
necessary in order for them to proceed and do business with the 
Tribe as they do with any other entity?
    Mr. Osceola. In a roundabout way, yes sir, they have made 
that mention. We have visited with several title companies and 
insurers for the liens and mortgages on any of these properties 
that we have purchased in the past, and we have been met with a 
lot of red tape, so to speak. And it all comes back to the NIA, 
and we introduced legislation with Representative Soto back in 
2021 to help clarify that for us.
    And other tribes have sought this path as well as we have; 
we are not the first one to do it, and we hope we are not the 
last, but we just want to make sure that in what we have 
accomplished at the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and we want 
everyone else to accomplish the same thing and to remove those 
hurdles that are in the way of us prospering in a way that 
everybody else has.
    Mr. Grijalva. Assistant Secretary, welcome. Good to see you 
again. At the outset to me, let me thank you. Your office and 
your team have been very responsive as tribal leaders and 
communities have made inquiries into our offices, we have been 
able to refer them to yours, and maybe there isn't a resolution 
at this moment, but the attention, the time, the effort, and 
the respect that was given to those communities and tribal 
leaders is very much appreciated by all of us; thank you very 
much.
    Other than H.R. 1532, Mr. Secretary: specifically, the 
Department is kind of wary of impacting the existing case law 
pertaining to the Non-Intercourse Act. Maybe there is not a 
legal need for clarifying the Act; it is a question, the Act's 
effect on fee lands, but going back to the question I asked the 
Chairman, there seems to be a reaction from title and lending 
institutions, title insurance. They interpreted it as 
differently, and it then 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, the Chair, with text changes 
that would thread that needle, if it is even possible.
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Ranking Member. Thank you for your 
kind words, I really appreciate that.
    Again, when it comes to recommendations on how to address 
that, I'd 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. The Department doesn't dispute that this is an issue 
from lenders and title insurance companies, and oftentimes, 
including in my own experience, the attorneys who are advancing 
this theory that if the Seminole Tribe were to buy a business 
office here in Washington, DC that there has to be an extra 
transaction cost on top of it, to the company, because it is an 
Indian tribe buying the land, the attorneys need to take an 
Indian law class, because it is a solution in search of a 
problem and what we have done over the past two centuries is 
build all this body of law on top of the Non-Intercourse Act, 
and it is still relevant today in a lot of cases we are seeing, 
and even in the Supreme Court in the past several years, that 
deal with Indian land tenure, so that the concern the 
Department has is unintended consequences on that body of law 
which benefits and protects tribes.
    And the real issue are these attorneys and lending 
institutions that add these transaction costs on tribes without 
any basis.
    Mr. Grijalva. So, the issue is potentially undoing a 
precedent that could be, on the other side, harmful to the 
issues of self-determination, sovereignty, and to tribal 
governments and tribes, correct?
    Mr. Newland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Grijalva. I yield back, thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Jenniffer 
Gonzalez-Colon from Puerto Rico.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good 
morning to everybody here. Happy birthday to one of our guests 
today.
    Vice Chairman Williams and Chairman Osceola--in his 
testimony, the Assistant Secretary raised Department concerns 
that any changes to the operation of the Non-Intercourse Act 
may have unintended consequences. I would like to give you both 
the opportunity to comment on that. Do either of you have any 
concerns at all that were raised with this bill that will cause 
any unintended consequences?
    Mr. Osceola. Good morning, Congresswoman. Thank you for the 
time. We appreciate the ability to be here this morning. The 
concern raised by the Interior, I think, are not our concerns 
at this time of the Seminole Tribe, and I think we recognize 
the benefits of the bill that was passed in 2021.
    The Tribe has flourished in its sovereign wealth fund 
activities. We have bought nine properties total--we sold one 
and we have kept eight. At this point, we hope to continue to 
further expand on that. Our hurdle was that every title company 
we went to except for the exception of one, told us that we 
needed to have congressional approval to get the insurance of 
the lien or even title, anything of that property, in our name.
    That was a challenge that we had, and again, as I stated in 
my statement, the ability for us to do that without 
congressional approval put many hurdles in the way and stalled, 
and we actually lost deals. If anyone knows how a deal works, 
it doesn't sit on the table for long, and we lose the 
opportunity to bid, purchase, and acquire any of that stuff in 
the future.
    So, the removal of that helped us, and I am sure it helped 
a lot of other tribes, because we weren't the first ones. There 
were other tribes that came before us, and I think that every 
other tribe that had come before us would probably share the 
same sentiment that I'm sharing with you today on behalf of the 
Seminole Tribe and the tribes that will come after me and the 
Seminole Tribe will probably express the same thing. I do agree 
there might be some challenges for other tribes, but again, I 
think the sophistication of the world that we live in today 
that we adapted, and we are ready to conquer. Thank you.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I do agree with you 100 percent. 
Chairman Williams, do you want to add something?
    Mr. Williams. Yes Madam, we would just like to work with 
the Department to make sure this goes through. We always enjoy 
working with our partners to make things easier for Native 
American tribes. Thank you.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Very politically correct. I 
do believe in both bills, and they will ensure clarity to the 
process and, of course, allow you guys to have an expedited 
process to make those deals.
    The remainder of my time I wanted to yield to my fellow 
Member and colleague from California, Mr. LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, my great colleague from Puerto 
Rico, I appreciate it. I agree with you on your positions there 
too. So, to Assistant Secretary Newland, just following up: 
bottom line, is it the Department's position that this 
legislation will change how the Department administers on trust 
land or land held in restricted fee?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. The Department's 
position, I wouldn't say yes to that, but the challenge we face 
with this legislation is 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 Non-Intercourse Act and how it would affect 
Indian land tenure and other places in other contexts.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, so not a clear yes, but indeed an issue 
``unintended consequence''; I've heard it several times 
alright, and again we are talking about--the original law in 
1834, the United States only had 24 states at that time. Only 
two of them, I think, were west of the Mississippi. So, there 
were a whole bunch of states that didn't have a legal status at 
the time.
    I think tribes these days are certainly up to the task of 
figuring out how to protect themselves. We have heard testimony 
a couple times here too about the ability to do simple 
transactions, to get title insurance, is tainted or maybe seen 
as impossible, so that really restricts their ability to 
directly do business in a modern age. I don't know that they 
really need that much protection from themselves as the 
Department is asserting here, so I appreciate the time, and I 
will yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes herself 
for my questions.
    Mr. Newland, over the past 10 years, do you know how many 
leases the Department has approved under the Long-Term Leasing 
Act that were for a period of up to 99 years?
    Mr. Newland. I don't, Madam Chair, but will be happy to 
follow up with an answer to that.
    Ms. Hageman. But you are aware that there have been some?
    Mr. Newland. Yes.
    Ms. Hageman. OK, from your experience and professional 
knowledge, have these leases been beneficial to the tribes?
    Mr. Newland. On the whole I believe so, yes.
    Ms. Hageman. Good. And how has the BIA supported efforts 
for tribal leaders to have longer term leases?
    Mr. Newland. Ten years ago, we reformed the BIA's leasing 
regulations to try to make that process faster, and I believe 
that has been successful and provides more deference to tribes 
in making decisions about leases, both in terms of compensation 
and term, as well as implementing the HEARTH Act, which we are 
almost to 100 tribes that have taken over the leasing under 
tribal law and we try to get those requests approved 
expeditiously so that we are not interfering with tribal land 
use decisions.
    Ms. Hageman. You have voiced some concerns about H.R. 1532 
and you have mentioned that you believe that there were 
potentially unintended consequences and that is in relation to 
how this particular Act would play out against the existing 
case law. Is that correct?
    Mr. Newland. Yes, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Hageman. Is there anything beyond your concern about 
the inter-relationship between this Act and the long history of 
case law that we have?
    Mr. Newland. Not at this time. What I can add, if you'd 
like Madam Chair, is I don't dispute, and the Department 
doesn't dispute, that the issues raised by the tribal leaders 
on the panel are real, because I've experienced those myself.
    The issue is not the law. The law as it exists right now 
allows tribes to purchase and sell fee land for business 
purposes, home sites. That already exists. The issue is the 
lack of understanding of the law by some of these lending 
institutions and title insurance companies, and we are happy 
to, again, continue this discussion and assist tribes, as the 
Vice Chairman noted, but the law itself is not the impediment--
it is the companies' lack of understanding of it.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, that raises an interesting point, which 
is it isn't necessarily unusual for Congress to clarify a 
particular law to address those kinds of concerns, isn't that 
right?
    Mr. Newland. Correct.
    Ms. Hageman. OK, so I see the role of Congress that if 
there is confusion or there is 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 
our tribes the autonomy that they seek, don't you think that 
that could be beneficial?
    Mr. Newland. I do. Generally, Madam Chair, we saw again 
just last year, the Supreme Court made decisions about the 
status of reservations in Indian land tenure and it is all 
built upon the Non-Intercourse Act, which was one of the very 
first laws that this country's Congress enacted to address the 
acquisition of Indian lands. So much that we rely upon in 
Indian Country rests on top of that law, and our concern is if 
we pulled a Jenga block out from the bottom row, we don't know 
how that affects everything else.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Newland, could I request a commitment from 
you to work with us to address what some of those concerns may 
be so that we can clarify and make this easier and better for 
our tribes to be able to have the autonomy that they so 
rightfully deserve?
    Mr. Newland. Madam Chair, I would be happy to have those 
conversations and to help tribes not have to endure the hassle 
and the expense that are imposed by some of these companies 
that they deal with.
    Ms. Hageman. And Chairman Osceola, I have a couple of 
questions for you. Your testimony detailed how uncertain it was 
to work with title insurance and lenders without the certainty 
of the Tribe having Non-Intercourse Act waiver legislation 
signed into law. Do you know why the one title insurer took the 
risk of insuring title, and did they have a different 
understanding than the other title companies?
    Mr. Osceola. We did what we could to try to get them to 
understand the law, but I think the question that is raised is 
that there are so many other lending agencies that weren't up 
to speed, as Secretary Newland has mentioned, that is a 
challenge that we all face as tribes, that maybe one might 
understand how it works, but not all understand how it works, 
and they are not keeping up with legislation.
    And I think that is a challenge, that they are not willing 
to go and look at the legislation, and yes it calls for 
additional fees, attorney fees and closing fees, because we 
have to try to educate them, and if we didn't do a good job or 
they didn't do a good job understanding what that education 
process was from our side or their side, then they deny it and 
we are not able to move forward. Then we were able to find just 
that one company out of so many that we looked for, and it was 
not only in the state of Florida, but all across the country, 
just to find somebody and the local areas where we were buying 
real estate, so the challenges are faced not only by us, but by 
the tribes. I understand the concerns raised by the Department, 
but again we are all moving fast and the world is growing way 
beyond us, so we need to keep up as tribes, and this is one of 
the ways that we believe at the Seminole Tribe that we can 
advance ourselves even further if we can get this removed, if 
not amended, as you are so speaking with Secretary Newland on 
how we can make it easier for everybody, because what we have 
experienced since 2021 and that law being introduced and 
passed, we have experienced a lot easier path to acquiring 
lands off-reservation.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, H.R. 1532 is quite simple and 
straightforward, and I would assume that our title insurance 
companies could read that and understand it, and perhaps that 
just takes away one of those moving parts that we don't need.
    Mr. Osceola. Agreed.
    Ms. Hageman. With that, I believe that--please go ahead.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair for indulgence. Mr. 
Secretary, it is the two issues, the two pieces of legislation. 
I support one very much and will continue to do so. The second 
one, I support the concept and the intention on the title 
companies, and insurance, and the lenders, that you have to 
treat federally recognized tribes and their representatives 
with equity as you do any other, whether it is the 
municipality, or an individual, or whatever. So, I support that 
intent.
    The challenge to some precedents and the Intercourse Act 
causes me hesitation in the sense that, as my colleague said, 
unintended consequences. The unintended consequences could be 
pretty big in terms of tenure and other issues that have been 
established by case law. Could you provide to the Committee 
perhaps in that overview and that discussion about text that 
the Chair is going to engage with you in, some examples that 
that potentially could be. And I say that because as we go 
further through this legislation and it moves along, those 
examples are going to come up, and then there are going to be 
the challenges to the legislation based on an unintended 
consequence and an example of what could happen to dilute self-
determination and sovereignty for tribes. I want to avoid that 
and I know the Chair does as well, so if you could provide us 
some examples and that maybe leads to the conversation about 
what needs to be done with text and how we can legislate the 
intent to title, and insurance, and lenders in terms of how 
they deal with tribes specifically and generally not have to 
rely on a piece-by-piece legislation that a given Senator might 
hold up for years because they are worried about market share 
or competition to their region. So, if you would, I would 
appreciate it.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, for the indulgence.
    Ms. Hageman. Wonderful, thank you. I'm just going to ask 
one more question that I want to make sure, I have a question 
for Vice Chairman Williams. You mentioned in your remarks that 
a title company is refusing to provide title insurance to the 
company that wants to purchase your public golf course. They 
are telling you that the Interior Department needs to issue a 
legal opinion stating that the sale is not subject to the Non-
Intercourse Act. Is the Department of the Interior being 
cooperative in responding to your request for this legal 
opinion?
    Mr. Williams. Yes, Madam Chair, they have been very 
responsive, and we are in the process of getting a legal 
opinion that our golf course property is not subject to the 
Non-Intercourse 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 and 
address this problem up front. H.R. 1532 does that.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you very much, and I want to thank 
the witnesses for your valuable testimony and for traveling to 
Washington, DC. I hope that you have an opportunity to see some 
of the beautiful cherry trees, the cherry blossoms out there. 
It was a gorgeous day coming in this morning.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Thursday, March 30, and the hearing record will be held 
open for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 9:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

                        Statement for the Record
                           Michael Chavarria
           Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico

Introduction
    Thank you, Chairperson Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and 
Subcommittee Members for the opportunity to share our experience with 
99 year leasing authority for our lands. My name is J. Michael 
Chavarria and I am the Governor of the Pueblo of Santa Clara in New 
Mexico. The ability to negotiate leases with a period that may last up 
to 99 years better respects our status as a sovereign Tribal Nation and 
has produced vital benefits to the Pueblo in the forms of economic 
development and building long-term business relationships with 
nationally known and diverse companies.
Our Pueblo
    The Pueblo is a sovereign Tribal Nation located in north-central 
New Mexico. The Pueblo and our sister Pueblos have operated as 
sovereign governments since time immemorial. We have formed political 
relationships with foreign governments dating back to at least the 16th 
century, when we negotiated treaties with the Spanish conquistadores 
during their early explorations of the southwest. Both the Spanish 
Crown and the United States recognized the Pueblos' right to self-rule 
and declared that Pueblos be presided over by tribal Governors with 
ownership of their land. In acknowledgment of our intimate and time-
honored connection to our land and nation-to-nation relationship, 
President Lincoln bestowed each pueblo with a silver-tipped cane, which 
we proudly carry today. The Pueblo has land sites that can be traced 
back to our original land grant which we now hold in restricted fee 
simple status. The Pueblo's land base includes land sites within a 
major metropolitan area in Northern New Mexico.
    The Pueblo actively pursued the expansion of its 99-year leasing 
authority resulting in the enactment of Public Law 115-227 in 2018. 
Prior to the enactment of Public Law 115-227, the Pueblo's 99-year 
leasing authority was limited to lands held in trust by the federal 
government, but that excluded our restricted fee lands, which encompass 
the most attractive locations for potential business lessees. The 2018 
Act extended 99-year leasing authority to all of our lands.
    In coordination with our wholly owned Santa Clara Development 
Corporation (SCDC), the Pueblo currently utilizes the ability to 
negotiate 99-year leases to create economic opportunities on our land 
for the benefit of our citizens and community. In 2019, the Secretary 
of the Interior approved our 99-year leases between the Pueblo and 
SCDC. SCDC now uses its approved leases to enter into diverse business 
arrangements and subleases with other entities to support the essential 
governmental and community services of the Pueblo. As discussed below, 
the Pueblo's ability to leverage its 99-year leases has furthered our 
sovereignty, incentivized investments on our land, and allowed us to 
attract businesses to build valuable partnerships.
Sovereignty
    Our Pueblo's ability to negotiate leases for a duration that best 
meets our community's needs, as determined by our leaders, is key to 
our sovereign status. Current restrictions under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415(a) 
limit a Tribal Nation's ability to negotiate longer term leases even if 
Tribal leaders determine that negotiating a longer lease term is 
appropriate. The current limitation of 25-year leases for those Tribal 
Nations not listed in the exceptions under Section 415(a) substantially 
restricts those Tribal Nations from exercising their sovereignty to 
determine whether to negotiate a lease with a term that exceeds 25 
years. The Pueblo, not subject to the 25-year limit, is able to 
exercise its sovereignty to determine whether to negotiate leases with 
a longer term in light of the various considerations in leasing 
arrangements.
Incentivizing Investments
    The Pueblo's ability to enter into leases for a longer duration 
incentivizes much-needed outside investment in our community. A common 
challenge for tribal leaders across Indian Country is finding 
successful business opportunities, particularly from non-Indian 
companies, that can be leveraged to grow our local economies. The 
ability to negotiate leases for up to 99 years better reflects current 
realities within the business world and allows Tribal land to better 
attract business opportunities that can benefit our citizens and 
community.
    In our experience, businesses generally expect commercial property 
leases to have a duration that justifies the investments required to 
operate their business at a profit. Currently, restrictions on Tribal 
land leases do not reflect current market expectations and, therefore, 
poses a challenge to economic development. For example, the Helping 
Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 
(HEARTH Act) only permits business leases for up to 25 years with the 
potential to renew for up to two additional terms which may not 
individually exceed 25 years. While the HEARTH Act represents 
significant legislation for Tribal self governance, it is constrained 
by applicable lease term limits that prevent the law from reaching its 
full potential and reflecting current business realities. Therefore, 
H.R. 1246 is an important step in amending federal law to reflect 
current business expectations by permitting longer term property 
leases. The Pueblo hopes that other relevant federal statutes, such as 
the HEARTH Act, can be amended to permit longer term leases of Tribal 
land to further promote Tribal sovereignty and economic development.
    For example, the Pueblo recently partnered with a national 
telecommunications provider to lease our land for a cellular tower. As 
a result of this transaction, the telecommunications provider would pay 
the costs to build the cell tower which is owned by the Pueblo. In 
exchange, the Pueblo agreed to allow the telecommunications provider to 
use the tower for their services without paying a fee for a specified 
number of years.
    The crucial component to this arrangement was the term of the lease 
which allowed the transaction to be mutually beneficial. As a result of 
a long-term lease, the telecommunications provider is able to recover 
its investments in building the tower and is then able to enhance its 
services through using the Pueblo's tower. The Pueblo benefits from 
this transaction as it receives a cellular tower without having to pay 
for its construction. Additionally, the Pueblo can then use this tower 
to enter into agreements with other telecommunications providers to use 
the tower for their services at a fee. This is a valuable opportunity 
to the Pueblo which was made possible by the ability to negotiate 
leases for a longer term.
    Looking forward, the Pueblo and SCDC plan to leverage our 99-year 
leasing authority to negotiate and attract a regional or national 
retailer to our land. The flexibility in negotiation from our 99-year 
lease can incentivize a retailer to invest in a business on our land 
with the ability to recover that initial investment throughout the term 
of a lease.
Building Relationships
    The Pueblo's ability to negotiate long-term leases supports strong 
relationships with our business partners and encourages other 
businesses to partner with the Pueblo. Longer term leases allow the 
Pueblo to develop trusted partnerships with those businesses that 
decide to operate on our land. These trusted partnerships improve the 
Pueblo's standing in the business community and our ability to enter 
into new profitable relationships.
    For example, SCDC has entered into an arrangement by which a 
Fatburger restaurant franchise has opened up on our land. Longevity in 
our partnership with Fatburger was core to this arrangement for both 
SCDC and the Fatburger chain. Fatburger, like all other businesses, is 
working to grow its brand and expand its business operations in a 
sustainable manner. A longer term lease not only allows the Fatburger 
franchise to grow but also demonstrates the Pueblo's commitment to 
supporting the Fatburger chain as a valued business partner.
    The ability to negotiate a longer term lease can enable Tribal 
Nations to build strong and trusting relationships with their partners. 
A shorter term lease can be subject to disruption that prevents the 
partnership from reaching its full potential such as premature lease 
expiration. The Pueblo has experienced significant interest in entering 
conversations on economic partnerships when outside companies are aware 
of potential lease lengths.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Pueblo's experience 
with its 99-year leases. The Pueblo's ability to leverage its 99-year 
leases has furthered our sovereignty, incentivized investments on our 
land, and allowed us to attract businesses to build valuable 
partnerships. On behalf of the Pueblo of Santa Clara, kuunda and thank 
you.

                                 [all]