[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3813-H3816]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REAFFIRMING AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO TAKE LAND INTO TRUST 
                           FOR INDIAN TRIBES

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 375) to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for 
Indian Tribes, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 375

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

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY REAFFIRMED.

       (a) Reaffirmation.--Section 19 of the Act of June 18, 1934 
     (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization Act''; 25 
     U.S.C. 5129), is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``The term'' and inserting ``Effective 
     beginning on June 18, 1934, the term''; and
       (B) by striking ``any recognized Indian tribe now under 
     Federal jurisdiction'' and inserting ``any federally 
     recognized Indian Tribe''; and
       (2) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``In said sections, the term `Indian tribe' means 
     any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 
     village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior 
     acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the Act of June 18, 1934 
     (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization Act''; 25 
     U.S.C. 5129), on the date of the enactment of that Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, 10 years ago, the Supreme Court handed down what is 
known as the Carcieri decision. In that decision, the Court determined 
that trust land acquisition under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 
only applies to Tribes that were under Federal jurisdiction in 1934.
  Mr. Speaker, up until 2009, the Department of the Interior, under 
both Republican and Democratic administrations, had consistently 
construed that the IRA authorizes the placement of land into trust for 
any Tribe so long as the Tribe is federally recognized at the time of 
the trust application.
  The decision overturned 75 years of agency practice, both Democratic 
and Republican administrations, and created a two-tiered system for 
trust land acquisition. This also opened up the Tribes to frivolous 
lawsuits on land

[[Page H3814]]

that they had held in trust for years, sometimes decades.
  While this has been great for lawyers and their firms, it is 
detrimental to the health of a Tribe. The money to defend these 
lawsuits could, instead, be used to provide and improve the lives of 
their members.
  We have had to pass standalone bills for individual Tribes on a 
piecemeal basis to protect their lands, and we should, since these 
Tribal lands are under direct assault right now. We must also address 
this going forward so that other Tribes do not find themselves in the 
same dire straits.
  Passage of H.R. 375 will restore clarity and stability for all 
federally recognized Tribes by ensuring they are all treated equally, 
regardless of date of recognition.
  Let's not forget history and the decimation of Tribes and their 
homeland by the hand of the Federal Government. It has taken almost a 
century for us to even attempt to undo the damage we inflicted upon the 
indigenous peoples of this Nation.
  This work is not complete. We are still federally acknowledging 
Tribes to this day. We are still striving to return merely a portion of 
the land back to Tribes. To say that Tribes that were recognized after 
1934 are somehow inferior to Tribes that were recognized by 1934 is 
dangerously ignorant of history.
  H.R. 375, introduced by Representative Cole of Oklahoma, is short, 
simple, and to the point. It will amend the IRA to ensure that all 
federally recognized Tribes are treated equally, regardless of their 
date of recognition.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished ranking 
member, for yielding time.
  I want to thank both my friends, the chairman and the ranking member, 
for their help in bringing this legislation to the floor. It could not 
have happened without both of their assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 375, legislation that 
would amend the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and reaffirm the 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for 
Indian Tribes.
  Between the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887 and the passage of the 
Indian Reorganization Act in 1934, the Indian landmass in the United 
States shrank by 86 million acres.

                              {time}  1400

  Since the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act, the Department 
of the Interior has taken back approximately 9 million acres of land 
into trust status. Tribes have used their trust lands to build 
community facilities such as schools, health centers, and housing that 
serve their Tribal members. This land is also used for Tribal 
enterprises and promotes economic development in communities that are 
often underserved and poverty-stricken.
  In 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned long-
existing precedent in its decision on the Carcieri v. Salazar case. The 
Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Secretary's authority to hold 
land in trust under the Indian Reorganization Act was limited only to 
recognized Tribes ``now under Federal jurisdiction,'' with the word 
``now'' meaning June 18, 1934, the date of the enactment of the Indian 
Reorganization Act.
  Previously, lower courts have viewed the word ``now'' as the instant 
when the Secretary invoked trust acquisition authority. However, the 
Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling on the interpretation 
that the term ``now under Federal jurisdiction'' in section 19 of the 
Indian Reorganization Act was to be interpreted. It found that the 
phrase refers only to those Tribes that were under Federal jurisdiction 
of the United States when the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 
1934.
  As a result of the Carcieri decision, the Secretary of the Interior 
may no longer use the Indian Reorganization Act to acquire trust land 
for any post-1934 Tribe without specific authorization from Congress. 
Because the Secretary has acquired lands in trust for dozens of Tribes 
recognized after 1934, the Carcieri ruling calls into question the 
validity of the trust status of such lands and jeopardizes their 
immunity from State and local taxation and regulatory jurisdiction.
  Many Tribes have been forced into court to defend the status of their 
trust land, costing them millions of dollars and compromising their 
investments and jurisdiction.
  H.R. 375 would amend the Indian Reorganization Act and clarify the 
language the Supreme Court ruled against by striking ``the term,'' 
which I have previously referenced, and inserting the words ``effective 
beginning on June 18, 1934, the term.'' It would also amend the statute 
language from ``any recognized Indian Tribe now under Federal 
jurisdiction'' to ``any federally recognized Indian Tribe.''
  The modest changes clarify that the Secretary does have authority to 
take land into trust for any Tribe that the Federal Government has 
recognized.
  As a member of the Chickasaw Nation and co-chair of the Native 
American Caucus, I commend the Natural Resources Committee for 
favorably marking up this legislation and this body for moving forward 
with the passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 375.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, first of all, if the 
gentleman from Arizona has any speakers. I do have several.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, we have one speaker.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to be here. I also 
appreciate Mr. Cole for his work on this particular issue and the time 
he has put in over the last decade in trying to find a Carcieri fix.
  That 2009 Supreme Court made the decision, but it actually opened up 
more questions than it provided solutions and answers in the process.
  In the years since that decision, the Democrats, when they controlled 
the House, the Senate, and the White House, did not find a solution. 
Republicans, when we were in the same situation, didn't find a solution 
either, probably because there is even a bigger question than what was 
decided in this particular case. That bigger question is one that is 
extremely complex and grave, and it indicates the complexity of this 
particular issue.
  Lands taken into trust by Tribes definitely have a benefit and an 
advantage to the Tribe, but it also has an impact on the counties and 
local governments where this trust issue is taking place.
  Let's be clear that, prior to Carcieri, the fee-to-trust process was 
broken and fraught with conflicts. In fact, many will still argue that 
even today, the current Bureau of Indian Affairs process provides very 
limited incentives for any community or stakeholder to be partners in 
this process. As a result, we are often left with conflict and 
political turmoil and accusations and recriminations on the local 
level.
  Some areas of local government, especially the California State 
Association of Counties, have been repeatedly asking us to try to come 
up with a reform to the overall process because the process impacts 
taxes and zoning in communities where these trust lands are acquired.
  Local governments, States, and stakeholders who have some kind of 
role to play in this area, should they have a seat at the table? Should 
they be consulted? Should they have some kind of input? Yes, obviously.
  Should they have a veto in the process? I don't think so.
  Where we draw that line to ensure that there is consultation, so you 
ensure that people have a voice in the process, that is the underlying 
question. That is the complex question.
  During markup of this bill, Mr. Huffman from California and Mr. Gosar 
from Arizona entered into a colloquy. They actually had a discussion, 
one of the few times a committee did what a committee is supposed to 
do, talking about the need to come up with some kind of variance to 
this underlying issue that is not necessarily the crux of the 2009 
decision. But how do we come up with this process?

  If this bill is going to go all the way to the Senate and ultimately 
become law, we need some help in finding a solution to the bigger issue 
of how much

[[Page H3815]]

consultation should take place and who should have their voices heard 
in the overall process, a process that does not happen right now.
  There is a pathway to solve these problems. We can address Carcieri 
or we can move forward to prevent future litigation that has plagued 
the land-in-trust process. The Tribes and every stakeholder in this 
process deserve as much.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), my colleague and chair of the 
Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 375 
introduced by my friend Representative Cole from Oklahoma.
  H.R. 375 is a simple, straightforward fix to a problem that has 
caused chaos and uncertainty in Indian Country for a decade.
  Ten years ago, the Supreme Court handed down what is now known as the 
Carcieri decision. In that decision, the Court determined that 
eligibility for trust land acquisition under the Indian Reorganization 
Act of 1934 only applies to Tribes that were federally recognized as of 
1934.
  The acquisition of trust land for the benefit of Indian Tribes is 
absolutely essential to Tribal self-determination, economic 
development, and protection of Tribal homelands. The Carcieri decision 
created an unfair, impractical, two-tiered system for Tribes that 
wanted to engage in this essential function of Tribal sovereignty.
  H.R. 375 simply amends the IRA to ensure that all federally 
recognized Tribes are treated equally, regardless of the date of 
recognition.
  The Carcieri decision and its consequences harken back to the Federal 
Government's shameful history of oppression in Native communities. The 
decimation of Tribes and their homeland by the Federal Government is 
well documented. For centuries, we ignored their treaties and 
systematically stripped them of their land. It has taken almost a 
century for us to even begin to undo the damage we have inflicted on 
indigenous peoples.
  Mr. Speaker, that work is nowhere near done. To this day, we are 
still federally recognizing tribes that the government tried to 
destroy. We are still striving to return merely a small portion of 
ancestral land back to Tribes so they can have homelands to call their 
own.
  In order to continue to undo the harm we have done, we must end this 
system of haves and have-nots for trust land acquisition. We must level 
the playing field and alleviate the catastrophic consequences this 
decision has had in Indian Country.
  We must pass H.R. 375, the clean Carcieri fix. If we do not, this 
administration will continue to strip trust land from Tribes like the 
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, which is the subject of another bill on the 
floor today. Tribes will continue to suffer needlessly, once again at 
the hands of the Federal Government.
  Indian Country has been clamoring for this clean, simple fix for a 
decade, and we cannot make them wait any longer.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Bishop for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the current form of 
H.R. 375.
  In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, 
with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. 
H.R. 375 reverses a major 2009 Supreme Court decision, and the bill 
would lead to future abuses of IGRA.
  The bill gives unelected bureaucrats a blank check to take any land 
in trust without respect for impacted communities, including other 
Tribes. More importantly, H.R. 375 allows reservation shopping and for 
lands to be taken into trust for off-reservation casinos in places 
where States, local governments, and other Tribes oppose such action.
  H.R. 375 will result in a flood of new off-reservation casinos that 
cause harm to States and local communities. Many of these casino 
locations that are nowhere near Tribes' historic reservations will be 
handpicked by gambling investors and Washington bureaucrats.
  If H.R. 375 passes, all Tribes would have to do in order to get land 
taken into trust and open off-reservation casinos is to show that they 
are federally recognized by the Department of the Interior.
  In the Natural Resources Committee markup of this bill, the gentleman 
from the Second District of California, Mr. Huffman, and I engaged in a 
productive debate on this bill. We both agreed to try to find common 
ground on which to respond to my concerns about off-reservation casino 
abuse and the valid concerns brought to the committee by State and 
county governments. Bringing H.R. 375 up via suspension this week and 
not allowing any amendments prohibits us from making good on that 
agreement.
  H.R. 375 should have been amended prior to being brought to the floor 
to address these bipartisan concerns.
  Taking land into trust divests the affected State and local 
governments of jurisdiction. When land is taken into trust, for 
example, the Tribe will not pay any applicable taxes on the land, but 
the county or city in which the land is located might nonetheless be 
required to supply the Tribe with county and city services, and non-
Tribal residents will pay for it. At least consultation should be a 
minimum.
  The bill as currently drafted therefore increases the power of an 
unelected bureaucracy to divest nonconsenting State and local 
governments of jurisdiction over their land. This, by itself, is a 
great cause of concern.

  Let's be clear about H.R. 375 and how a bill of this scope and 
magnitude deserves more careful consideration than is being given here 
today.
  Currently, there are almost 600 recognized Tribes in the United 
States, about 240 of which have gaming operations. H.R. 375 removes the 
dam that provided some restraint on the number of Tribal casinos and 
would be a dramatic departure from existing Federal law that has been 
in place for almost a century.
  Before voting on this bill, I hope Members all understand that H.R. 
375 will open the floodgates to off-reservation Tribal casinos all over 
the United States. If H.R. 375 passes, all federally recognized Tribes 
will be eligible to receive land in trust and potentially open off-
reservation casinos. This includes any Tribe recognized by the 
Department of the Interior that was ineligible to receive land in trust 
and/or was denied land in trust prior to H.R. 375.
  According to the National Indian Gaming Commission fact sheet, as of 
2016, approximately 329, or 58 percent, of the recognized Tribes had no 
gaming operations.
  President Trump opposes H.R. 312 and with good reason. That bill 
gives land in trust and a casino to a single Tribe that is otherwise 
ineligible to receive those benefits, as well as reverses Federal court 
and Interior decisions. But H.R. 375 does all that and more.
  Instead of giving land in trust to only one Tribe, it lets an 
unelected bureaucracy give whatever land it wants to all recognized 
Tribes. Thus, the same concerns that exist with respect to H.R. 312, 
which we will be talking later about, exist at an even greater level 
with respect to H.R. 375.
  The purpose of considering bills under suspension is to dispose of 
noncontroversial measures expeditiously, but H.R. 375 has controversy 
written all over it.
  H.R. 375 has ridden alongside H.R. 312 largely unnoticed, and no one 
has pointed out two crucial facts: one, that it exists as a contingency 
plan in case its sister bill, H.R. 312, fails; and two, that its effect 
would be national rather than local.
  H.R. 375 and H.R. 312 are two heads of the same snake, one large, one 
small. Senator Warren, regardless, will get her casino if either bill 
passes.

                              {time}  1415

  Further, passage of H.R. 375 will allow for new off-reservation 
casinos to be opened in your States and communities and for land to be 
ripped away from local jurisdictions without recourse.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Bishop for the opportunity to

[[Page H3816]]

speak on this important issue. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 375. Send it back to get consultation, at least, put in.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his assistance, 
for his leadership on this important issue, and for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate has been 10 years in the making for Indian 
Country. A decade ago, a Supreme Court ruling created unnecessary 
confusion in the interpretation and application of the Indian 
Reorganization Act of 1934.
  This bill, H.R. 375, would clarify the ensuing confusion. Among other 
things, it would ensure the IRA applies to all Native American Tribes 
recognized by the Federal Government, regardless of their date of 
recognition.
  For the last 10 years, the unnecessary confusion has caused 
uncertainty for Tribes seeking recognition and recognized lands, has 
halted economic development projects on Tribal lands, and has resulted 
in costly and protracted litigation.
  Members and staff on both sides of the aisle deserve significant 
recognition for getting us to where we are today. But, in particular, 
Chairman Grijalva, Representative McCollum, and Representative Cole 
have been extraordinary. I thank them for their incredible leadership 
on Tribal issues, and their perseverance in pursuing a clean Carcieri 
fix.
  I am honored to have the opportunity to speak on this. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva).
  If we, indeed, are going to be serious about a legislative solution 
to Carcieri, then we need to work out some kind of compromise that 
could pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President.
  I have been encouraged by the debate not only on the floor here, but 
also in our committee, regarding the need to consult with affected 
parties before land is taken into trust.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Grijalva whether he will commit to work with 
us on this type of legislation to solve this underlying problem as this 
bill moves forward?
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, when a Tribe applies to have land taken 
into trust through the Department of the Interior, local concerns are 
already strongly considered, even more so when the land is located away 
from existing reservation lands.
  However, I do recognize there is a desire from some Members on both 
sides of the aisle to work on stand-alone legislation that would codify 
some of the process.
  I agree with the gentleman's statement about veto abilities. Any 
provision which would give counties or local governments veto power 
over trust land decisions is, frankly, a nonstarter. Local input is 
vital to these decisions and should be taken into account. However, 
Tribal consultation is solely the responsibility of the Federal 
Government, as is any final decision on transferring land into trust.
  And I think because of the national implications of the question of 
trust land and the role that communities, i.e., counties and 
municipalities, would play, I think there is a need to somehow 
accommodate a level of Tribal consultation, because they are going to 
be the most affected party by any decision that is made.
  With that said, I do commit, Mr. Speaker, to looking at any proposal 
on the issue and to work moving forward if it is to the betterment of 
all the stakeholders and I would assist the legislation in its final 
passage.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's commitment and I appreciate the comments that he will be 
there.
  There is this bigger question that needs to be answered. Where we 
draw the line is a matter that still needs some kind of discussion, I 
recognize that.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a brilliant letter from me to 
Chairman Grijalva on this particular issue'
                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                      Washington, DC, May 6, 2019.
     Hon. Raul Grijalva,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: It is frustrating that the Democrat 
     Leadership has scheduled H.R. 375, legislation to reverse 
     Carcieri v. Salazar, under suspension one week after the 
     committee markup of the bill. It disregards what I believe 
     was a bipartisan agreement to work on an amendment to the 
     bill to improve consultation between the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs (BIA) and states and counties to mitigate the impacts 
     of taking land in trust in their jurisdictions. The Carcieri 
     decision created vast uncertainty over the fee-to-trust 
     process for tribes and impacted stakeholders. I voted for 
     H.R. 375 in committee as a display of my support for 
     resolving Carcieri. My support for the bill's advancement is 
     contingent upon the inclusion of reasonable safeguards on 
     BIA's powers.
       During markup on H.R. 375, Messrs. Huffman and Gosar 
     discussed a mutual, bipartisan desire to respond to long-
     standing state and local concerns. The California State 
     Association of Counties (CSAC), in a letter submitted for the 
     markup record, reiterated the counties' ``longstanding, valid 
     concerns'' they have with a fee-to-trust process conducted 
     under a ``fundamentally flawed regulatory framework'' and 
     they also submitted proposals to resolve these problems. I 
     can attest that many counties in Utah share these same 
     concerns.
       Mr. Huffman explained that he found himself in partial 
     agreement with CSAC's position, and that there should be 
     ``meaningful good faith consultation'' with local 
     governments. While saying the Gosar amendment went too far, 
     Mr. Huffman expressed a willingness to ``continue 
     collaborating on this issue'' to ``come up with something 
     that would at least codify that good faith consultation part 
     of a better process.''
       Bringing the bill to the Floor this Wednesday is not a sign 
     that such collaboration is being taken seriously by Democrat 
     Leadership nor is it a pragmatic approach to resolving 
     Carcieri for the benefit of Indian Country.
       The fee-to-trust system is broken because of a provision of 
     a 1934 law that has not been updated since that law's 
     enactment. Realistically, H.R. 375 offers an opportunity 
     through which to fix it. Moving forward without reasonable 
     consultation safeguards on BIA's authority will undermine 
     successful resolution of Carcieri.
       It was our hope that after debate on the bill during markup 
     you'd allow Messrs. Huffman and Gosar, and other interested 
     Members (on and off the Committee), an opportunity to explore 
     solutions with H.R. 375's sponsor, Mr. Tom Cole. We need to 
     work on a compromise bill that solves the underlying issues 
     and can become law.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rob Bishop,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Carcieri decision has 
caused anxiety and confusion in Indian Country, creating dangerous 
legal ambiguities related to Indian trust lands.
  Today, we can finally end all that. We can remove the ambiguity and 
uncertainty, and finally offer Tribal nations peace of mind that their 
lands are protected.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge swift passage of H.R. 375, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ruiz). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 375.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________