[House Report 114-250]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress} { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-250
======================================================================
TO ALLOW THE MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA TO LEASE OR TRANSFER CERTAIN LANDS
_______
September 8, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 487]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 487) to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to
lease or transfer certain lands, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 487 is to allow the Miami Tribe of
Oklahoma to lease or transfer certain lands.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (``Tribe'') is a federally
recognized tribe and organized under the Oklahoma Indian
Welfare Act of 1936.\1\ The Tribe voted to adopt the Oklahoma
Indian Welfare Act Constitution and Bylaws on October 10, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\49 Stat. 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Non-Intercourse Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 177) reserves to
the United States the exclusive right to acquire Indian lands.
The Act was intended to protect Indian tribes by preventing the
loss of their lands, except by treaty. It does so by preventing
the transfer, sale, lease, or other conveyance of land owned by
an Indian tribe to third parties without federal approval. This
prohibition applies to both trust and fee lands, regardless of
the source of money used to obtain the lands. Over the
centuries, a number of laws providing for the acquisition,
conveyance, and leasing of land in trust for Indians have had
the effect of superseding the Non-Intercourse Act even though
this Act has never been repealed.
In recent years, the Non-Intercourse Act has generally not
interfered with a tribe's ability to buy, sell, or lease land
that it owns in fee simple. However, there is precedent for
tribes to seek legislation in Congress to waive the Non-
Intercourse Act, as H.R. 487 does, for transactions of non-
trust land over an abundance of caution by both the tribal and
non-tribal parties. In the 113th Congress, a bill nearly
identical to H.R. 487 was enacted into law, allowing the Fond
du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa to lease or transfer fee
land the tribe owned.\2\ In the 106th Congress, a bill was
enacted into law with a similar purpose for the Lower Sioux
Indian Community in Minnesota.\3\ Congress has also enacted
several other pieces of legislation authorizing several tribes
to sell or mortgage specific lands.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Public Law 102-497, 106 Stat. 3255.
\3\Public Law 107-331, 116 Stat. 2834.
\4\Public Law 103-435, 108 Stat. 4566; Public Law 105-256, 112
Stat. 1896.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 487 would allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to have
more control over land that the tribe owns in fee without
further Congressional approval. The bill simply ensures that
the Non-intercourse Act does not interfere with the ability to
convey fee land owned by the Tribe, which is viewed by the
tribe as an interference with economic development and the
creation of jobs. The tribe has stated that title insurance
companies may not issue title commitments to either lenders or
prospective purchasers due to uncertainties raised by an old
act of Congress.
As noted previously, the Non-Intercourse Act has not
generally interfered with a tribe's fee land dealings. However,
the Act has generated a great deal of litigation throughout
history which has resulted in several court decisions on the
issue. Although the purpose of the Non-Intercourse Act is
viewed by some as quite outdated, the U.S. Supreme Court in
2005 said it ``remain[s] substantially in force today . . .
[and] bars sales of tribal land without the acquiescence of the
Federal Government.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\City of Sherill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S.
197, 204 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 487 was introduced on January 22, 2015, by Congressman
Markwayne Mullin (R-OK). The bill was referred to the Committee
on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs. On
June 10, 2015, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On
July 8, 2015, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider
the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent.
No amendments were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent
on July 9, 2015.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 487--A bill to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease or
transfer certain lands
H.R. 487 would authorize the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to
lease, sell, warrant, or otherwise transfer any tribal property
that is not held in trust by the federal government for the
benefit of the tribe. Based on information provided by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, CBO estimates that implementing the
legislation would have no effect on the federal budget.
Enacting H.R. 487 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. Any
receipts from the transfer of the land under the legislation
would be paid directly to the tribe.
H.R. 487 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would benefit the tribe.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Martin von
Gnechten. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget
authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase
or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that implementation of this bill
``would have no effect on the federal budget.''
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma
to lease or transfer certain lands.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
[all]