[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 29, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H521-H522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY LAND TRANSFER

  Mr. SHERWOOD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2484) to provide that land which is owned by the Lower Sioux 
Indian Community in the State of Minnesota but which is not held in 
trust by the United States for the Community may be leased or 
transferred by the Community without further approval by the United 
States.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2484

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED TO VALIDATE LAND 
                   TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, without further approval, ratification, or authorization 
     by the United States, the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the 
     State of Minnesota, may lease, sell, convey, warrant, or 
     otherwise transfer all or any part of the Community's 
     interest in any real property that is not held in trust by 
     the United States for the benefit of the Community.
       (b) Trust Land Not Affected.--Nothing in this section is 
     intended or shall be construed to--
       (1) authorize the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State 
     of Minnesota to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise 
     transfer all or any part of an interest in any real property 
     that is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of 
     the Community; or
       (2) affect the operation of any law governing leasing, 
     selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise transferring any 
     interest in such trust land.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. 
Faleomavaega) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2484, legislation 
which will give the Lower Sioux Indian Community in Minnesota the 
right, without further approval from the Federal Government, to lease 
or sell land which the tribe has bought but which has not been taken 
into trust.
  Existing Federal law enacted in 1834 provides that an Indian tribe 
may not lease, sell, or otherwise convey land which it has acquired 
unless conveyance is approved by Congress. This antiquated law applies 
even though the land was purchased by the tribe with its own money, and 
even though the land is located outside the tribe's reservation, and 
even though the land has never been taken into trust for the tribe.
  The Lower Sioux Community has found this law to be a major detriment 
to economic development. The law puts the tribe at a distinct 
disadvantage, because it finds that it cannot develop or use land which 
it has acquired to its full advantage.
  H.R. 2484 will allow the Lower Sioux Indian Community to use the fee 
land it has purchased just like any other landowner, without having to 
come to Congress any time it wants to sell, lease, or even mortgage 
that land.
  Madam Speaker, this is important to this small Minnesota tribe and I 
recommend its adoption.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I certainly want to commend the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), my good friend, for sponsoring of 
this legislation. This legislation would permit the Lower Sioux Indian 
Community in Minnesota to lease or sell certain lands the tribe 
currently holds in fee status without further approval by the United 
States Government.
  This provision would apply only to lands held in fee by the tribe and 
not lands held in trust by the United States for the tribe's benefit.
  Current law and regulations established to protect Indian lands from 
alienation have been, in some instances, interpreted in a very 
restrictive manner. The Lower Sioux Indian Community has had trouble 
leasing and selling land which is not held in trust but in fee status 
without receiving prior approval of the Secretary of the Interior. This 
legislation would allow the tribe to make decisions and use land it has 
purchased and holds in fee status in the same manner as any other 
landowner, without having to commit to additional congressional or 
Secretarial approval.
  Madam Speaker, although no formal administration views have been 
received by us on this legislation, I have been told informally by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs that they do support the legislation, provided 
it does deal solely with lands held in fee status.
  Not all tribes have encountered problems like this, Madam Speaker, 
when selling or leasing fee land. However, we need to address the 
problems faced by the Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota, and I 
do urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Minge) in response to this bill.
  (Mr. MINGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINGE. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Speaker and I 
would like to thank the Chair and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for moving this legislation through the committee.
  I would also like to report that I am familiar with the Indian tribe 
that is involved here, the Lower Sioux community. It is in my 
congressional district. It is a relatively small Indian community, 
Native American community; but I would like to emphasize it is very 
well administered. It has acquired this land and feels that, in order 
to remove a cloud from title, this act of Congress is necessary.
  I would like to suggest to the subcommittee that it consider 
legislation that deals with this type of situation

[[Page H522]]

because I expect that the Lower Sioux community is not the only Native 
American group in the United States that faces this type of obstacle to 
the disposition of land that it has purchased which has not been in 
trust status which is off of its reservation area.
  As we see here in the 21st century, we have a number of Native 
American communities that are becoming more prosperous. They are 
engaging in commerce. I think that it would certainly facilitate the 
activities of these communities if, in these fairly well-defined 
situations where there is not a concern about any abuse in connection 
with the assets of the community, that they had the flexibility to, on 
their own, make these transfers and not have the cloud on title that 
exists in situations such as this one.
  I have worked with the community in crafting this legislation, with 
the administration, and also with the committee and subcommittee staff. 
I would like to express my appreciation to the staff, members of both 
the committee and the subcommittee.
  At the request of the Lower Sioux Indian Community I have sponsored 
legislation that would exempt land owned in fee by the Community from 
the effect of the Indian Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. 177 (1994) 
(INA). In recent years, the Community has acquired several parcels of 
property outside the boundaries of its Reservation. It is likely that 
not all of those parcels will not be needed for the development which 
the Community contemplates. Therefore, the Community should have the 
ability to dispose of any unneeded portions of fee land as and when 
appropriate purchasers may appear. At present it is unclear whether the 
INA prohibits such transactions absent an Act of Congress. It was this 
problem which prompted the Community to seek legislation that will 
permit similar conveyances without resorting to the cumbersome and 
time-consuming legislative process each time an individual sale is 
agreed to.
  The terms of the INA does not distinguish between fee land and trust 
land. My bill states that ``No conveyance of lands from any tribe of 
Indians shall be of any validity unless the same be made by treaty or 
convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution.'' In the past, 
this has been interpreted to mean that Congress must either give direct 
approval or must establish the process for giving such approval. 
Although Congress has allowed the Secretary of the Interior to approve 
the conveyance of lands owned in trust for tribes by the United States, 
Congress has never set up any process for approving the conveyance of 
fee lands.
  The ``clouding'' effect of the INA is illustrated in a discussion 
contained in a brief filed with the United States Supreme Court by the 
United States Department of Justice, in Cass County, Minnesota v. Leech 
Lake Band of Chippewa Indians. The brief observed that ``[i]n recent 
times, Congress and the Executive Branch have assumed that the INA 
requires congressional approval of sales of all tribally owned lands, 
whether or not those lands are within a reservation''. [Brief of the 
United States as Amicus Curiae, supporting Respondent, Case No. 97-174 
(January, 1998), at 28 (footnote 13).] Congress repeatedly has passed 
legislation allowing individual fee parcels of tribal land to be sold. 
Congress has on several occasions in recent years adopted legislation 
similar to that which the Community seeks.
  For example, P.L. 86-505, Sec. 1, 74 Stat. 199, authorizing the 
Navajo Tribe to dispose of its fee lands without federal approval; P.L. 
101-630, 104 Stat. 4531, authorizing the sale of a parcel of land owned 
in fee simple by the Rumsey Indian Rancheria; P.L. 101-379, Sec. 11, 
104 Stat. 473, authorizing the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to 
convey a particular parcel of its fee land; P.L. 102-497, Sec. 4, 106 
Stat. 3255, authorizing the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to 
convey certain lands which it owned in fee.
  The Supreme Court has never ruled that the wording of the INA does 
not apply to fee lands. In fact, in a case decided just last year, the 
Court made a point of saying that the question is open: ``This Court 
has never determined whether the Indian Nonintercourse Act . . . 
applies to land that has been rendered alienable. . . . Cass County v. 
Leech Lake Bank,'' U.S., 118 S.Ct. 1904 (1998). The assumption has 
been, and still is, that the Act prevents the sale of fee land without 
congressional approval. This is the legal position of the United 
States, citing the amicus brief of the United States in the Cass County 
case. And the Department of the Interior has taken the position that it 
cannot not give the Lower Sioux Community permission to sell fee land 
because Congress has not given the Department that authority.
  Most importantly, purchasers assume that the consent of Congress is 
required before tribal fee land can be sold. The effect of all this is 
that the Lower Sioux Community is stymied. The wording of the INA seems 
to say that congressional permission is needed to sell fee land; the 
Justice Department acknowledges that; the Department of the Interior 
acknowledges that; Congress has acknowledged that; and purchasers 
acknowledge that. This bill will solve that problem for the Lower Sioux 
Indian Community. This is a matter of fairness.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2484.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________