[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 H.R. 2130, H.R. 2388, H.R. 2815, 
                            AND H.R. 3073
=======================================================================

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Wednesday, May 21, 2025

                               __________

                           Serial No. 119-29

                               __________

       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                    
60-609 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2026                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                  ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
                   JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

Robert J. Wittman, VA,			 		  
Tom McClintock, CA			Joe Neguse, CO
Paul A. Gosar, AZ			Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Melanie Stansbury, NM					 
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Val Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL			Seth Magaziner, RI
Russ Fulcher, ID			Jared Golden, ME
Pete Stauber, MN			Dave Min, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI				Maxine Dexter, OR			
Lauren Boebert, CO			Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Cliff Bentz, OR				Emily Randall, WA
Jen Kiggans, VA				Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Sarah Elfreth, MD
Mike Collins, GA			Adam Gray, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY			Luz Rivas, CA
Mark Amodei, NV				Nydia Velazquez, NY
Tim Walberg, MI				Debbie Dingell, MI
Mike Ezell, MS				Darren Soto, FL
Celest Maloy, Utah			Julia Brownley, CA
Addison McDowell, NC			Vacancy
Jeff Crank, CO		
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT               
                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      William David, Chief Counsel
               Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                          JEFF HURD, CO, Chair

                AUMUA AMATA C. RADEWAGEN, AS, Vice Chair

               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, NM, Ranking Member

Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Tim Walberg, MI                      Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Addison McDowell, NC                 Emily Randall, WA
Mike Kennedy, UT                     Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              ----------                                

                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
Hearing held on Wednesday, May 21, 2025..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Hurd, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     1

    Panel I:

    Randall, Hon. Emily, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington........................................     3
    Maloy, Hon. Celeste, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Utah..............................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     5
    Johnson, Hon. Dusty, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of South Dakota......................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
    Begich, Hon. Nicholas, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Alaska............................................    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    18

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Gonzales, Hon. Tina, Chairwoman, Shivwits Band of Paiutes, 
      Ivins, Utah................................................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    15
    Harris, Hon. Thomas, Vice President, Cape Fox Corporation, 
      Ketchikan, Alaska..........................................    19
        Prepared statement of....................................    20
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    21
    Charles, Hon. Frances, Chairwoman, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, 
      Port Angeles, Washington...................................    22
        Prepared statement of....................................    24
    Shepherd, Eric, Vice Chairman, South Dakota Native 
      Homeownership Coalition, Sisseton, South Dakota............    31
        Prepared statement of....................................    33
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    35

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Hurd

        U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement...............    47
        U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service, 
          Statement..............................................    49

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Randall

        National Parks Conservation Association, Letter of 
          Support................................................    39

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Begich

        Cape Fox ANSCA, Letters of Support.......................    50

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


To:        House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members

From:     Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee staff: Ken 
        Degenfelder (Ken.Degenfelder@mail.house.gov), and Kirstin 
        Liddell (Kirstin.Liddell@mail.house.gov) x6-9725

Date:     Monday, May 19, 2025

Subject:   Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2130, H.R. 2388, H.R. 2815, and 
        H.R. 3073
________________________________________________________________________
        _______

    The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs will hold a 
legislative hearing on four bills: H.R. 2130 (Rep. Johnson of SD), 
``Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025''; H.R. 2388 (Rep. 
Randall), ``Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Project Lands Restoration Act''; 
H.R. 2815 (Rep. Begich), ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act 
of 2025''; and H.R. 3073 (Rep. Maloy), ``Shivwits Band of Paiutes 
Jurisdictional Clarity Act'' on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, at 10 a.m. in 
1324 Longworth House Office Building.
    Member offices are requested to notify Haig Kadian 
(Haig.Kadian@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, if 
their member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES

     House Republicans are holding a hearing on four bills that 
            will support tribal sovereignty and the restoration of 
            tribal homelands, cut bureaucratic red tape, and boost 
            economic development.

     H.R. 2130 would require the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 
            to process and complete all residential and business 
            mortgage packages on Indian land within 20 or 30 days, 
            depending on the type of application.

     H.R. 2388 would take approximately 1,083 acres of National 
            Park Service (NPS) land into trust for the Lower Elwha 
            Klallam Tribe.

     H.R. 2815 would finalize the Cape Fox Corporation's Alaska 
            Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) land conveyance while 
            alleviating any future land management concerns associated 
            with the development of the Mahoney Lake power project.

     H.R. 3703 would ensure that the Utah state court has 
            jurisdiction over civil cases involving the Shivwits Band 
            that occur on the tribe's land, while ensuring that Federal 
            court is an option when resolving disputes arising from 
            contracts in which the Shivwits Band is a party. 
            Additionally, H.R. 3703 follows congressional precedent by 
            amending the Long-Term Leasing Act (LTLA) to allow the 
            Shivwits Band to lease their land for a term of up to 99 
            years.

II. WITNESSES
Panel I:
     Members of Congress TBD

Panel II:

     The Hon. Tina Gonzales, Chairwoman, Shivwits Band of 
            Paiutes, Ivins, UT [H.R. 3073]

     The Hon. Thomas Harris, Vice President, Cape Fox 
            Corporation, 
            Ketchikan, AK [H.R. 2815]

     Mr. Eric Shepherd, Vice Chairman, South Dakota Native 
            Homeownership Coalition, Sisseton, SD [H.R. 2130]

     The Hon. Frances Charles, Chairwoman, Lower Elwha Klallam 
            Tribe, Port Angeles, WA (Minority Witness) [H.R. 2388]

III. BACKGROUND
H.R. 2130 (Rep. Johnson of SD), ``Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act 
        of 2025''
    H.R. 2130 would require the BIA to process and complete all 
residential and business mortgage packages on Indian land within 20 or 
30 days, depending on the type of application. This would more closely 
align the BIA's processing of mortgage packages with current industry 
practices. H.R. 2130 would also require an annual report on mortgages 
reviewed by the BIA to be submitted to Congress, require the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to review the need for digitization of 
mortgage records to streamline the mortgage process at BIA, establish a 
Realty Ombudsman position, and provide read-only access to the BIA's 
Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS) to relevant 
agencies and tribes.
    Indian lands primarily fall into one of three categories: trust, 
fee, and restricted fee. H.R. 2130 would only impact land held in 
trust, which is land owned and managed by the United States through the 
Department of the Interior (DOI) for the benefit of an Indian tribe or 
individual Indians. Trust land preempts State tax and regulatory 
authority and is also inalienable.
    When an individual seeks to purchase a property or house, they will 
take out a loan with a lending institution, usually a bank, to pay for 
the purchase. That resulting mortgage gives the lending institution the 
right to repossess the property if the borrower does not repay the 
loan. However, for mortgages taken out by individual Indians for a 
tract of trust land, there are additional BIA processes for approval, 
primarily because the federal government ultimately holds title to 
trust lands.
    Mortgage applications related to trust lands must be submitted 
through the regional BIA agency. The applications tend to fall into two 
categories: leasehold or trust land mortgages. Leasehold mortgages 
refer to mortgages on trust land owned by another tribal landowner, 
while trust land mortgages refer to mortgages obtained for trust land 
that an Indian owns themselves.1
    Current law outlines regulatory time frames for reviewing and 
approving leasehold and rights-of-way (ROW) mortgages.2 
There are no outlined time frames for trust land mortgages.3 
The BIA has published its Mortgage Handbook, outlining its mortgage 
review process.4 Upon receiving a proposed leasehold 
mortgage package, the BIA is to input the data into the Realty Tracking 
System (RTS) and the Mortgage Tracker. The BIA then has 10 days to 
complete a preliminary review to ensure that the package is complete. 
The package must contain all required documents, the lease must be 
encoded, approved, and recorded in the TAAMS, and the required 
checklist must be included in the case file.5 Before the 10 
days expire, the BIA must send an acknowledgement letter either 
verifying the preliminary review was completed, or that the package was 
incomplete with the missing documents specified. The RTS and Mortgage 
Tracker is then to be updated with the relevant outcome. The BIA then 
has 20 days from the time it sends the acknowledgment letter to either 
approve or deny the leasehold mortgage and send a subsequent Decision 
Letter. For a ROW leasehold mortgage, the BIA has 30 days. Two business 
days after receiving the approved leasehold mortgage, the BIA must 
complete all necessary s to request recordation by the Land Titles 
and Records Office (LTRO) and request a certified Title Status Report 
(TSR) using the TAAMS TSR request module. Upon completion, the BIA must 
update the Mortgage Tracker.6
    Proponents of H.R. 2130 advocate that, despite the timeline 
provided in the BIA Mortgage Handbook, there are still extensive delays 
in reviewing and approving or denying mortgages. One report from the 
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis highlighted issues mentioned at a 
U.S. Senate hearing about prospective borrowers from the Fort Belknap 
tribe waiting over a year for a certified TSR, and that TSR timelines 
have been cited in multiple reports as a barrier to trust land 
development.7
    In the 118th Congress, a legislative hearing was held on a similar 
bill.8 Tribal testimony supported the bill for ``designing 
new BIA systems'' 9 and ``streamlining existing processes'' 
10 to align tribal mortgage practices with private industry 
mortgage practices.
    H.R. 2130 sets clear timelines by which the BIA must process and 
approve mortgages that relate to property located on tribal trust land. 
The BIA would need to notify lenders that they have received 
application documentation and perform an initial review no later than 
10 days after receipt. Depending on the application in question, the 
BIA would have 20 or 30 days to provide approval or denial of the 
documents. Additionally, this bill would establish a specialized 
position within the BIA to facilitate communication between the BIA, 
tribes, tribal members, lenders, and federal agencies that operate 
tribal housing programs.
H.R. 2388 (Rep. Randall), ``Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Project Lands 
        Restoration Act''
    The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is located within the Olympic 
Peninsula in Northwest Washington and has approximately 984 enrolled 
members.11 The tribe's land today is around 1,000 acres near 
the Elwha River.12 The tribe signed the Treaty of Point No 
Point in 1855, which entitled them to share a small reservation with 
their rival tribe that was not on their traditional lands of the Strait 
of Juan de Fuca and Discovery Bay.13 After signing the 
treaty, most tribal members opted not to live on their reservation, but 
rather by the rivers, shorelines, and sites of their ancestral burial 
grounds.14 Through the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 
the Federal Government acquired 372 acres of land and assigned it to 14 
families in the Tribe. In 1968, the Tribe received federal recognition, 
which included the acres given to the families.15 As a 
result of federal recognition, the Lower Elwha Reservation was formally 
established for the tribe.16
    H.R. 2388 would take approximately 1,083 acres of National Park 
Service (NPS) land into trust for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. The 
NPS acquired most of the land in the 1990s through the Elwha River 
Ecosystems and Fisheries Restoration Act (Elwha Act).17 
Under the Elwha Act, the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams were to be 
removed in an effort to restore the Elwha River and the native 
Anadromous fisheries (i.e. species of salmon and trout). The Elwha Dam 
removal began in 2011 and ended in 2014. The Elwha Act also required 
the NPS to identify lands to transfer to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe 
for housing, cultural, or economic development purposes and place them 
into trust.18 The remaining land was acquired by DOI to 
construct a surface water pipeline for the tribe's fish 
hatchery.19
    A map of the proposed parcels to be placed into trust can be found 
here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/map_for_hr_2388.pdf
H.R. 2815 (Rep. Begich), ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act 
        of 2025''
    The Cape Fox Corporation (CFC) serves as the Alaska Native Village 
Corporation for the communities of Saxman, Alaska, located on the South 
Tongass Highway, three miles south of Ketchikan.20 Saxman is 
a Tlingit community that centers on subsistence 
activities.21
    In 1971, ANCSA was enacted to settle the aboriginal land claims of 
Alaska Natives.22 Through ANCSA, Alaska Native Corporations 
(ANCs) were established to receive land under the settlement and 
disperse the payments to Alaska Natives. Alaska Natives received a 
$962.5 million settlement payment and roughly 44 million acres of land, 
which were divided between almost 200 village corporations and 12 
regional corporations established by the legislation.23
    Under section 16(b) of ANCSA, Alaska Native Villages that fell 
under the Tlingit-Haida Settlement provision were able to select 23,040 
acres of land within the core township of the Native 
village.24 For the CFC, this meant lands near the Alaskan 
towns of Saxman and Ketchikan. Currently, the CFC has received a 
conveyance of 22,860 acres, with roughly 180 acres 
remaining.25 To fulfill the remaining ANSCA entitlements, 
these 180 remaining acres must be conveyed.
    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the body responsible for 
conveying the remaining acres to CFC, has stated that ANCSA and 
Departmental regulations require the acres to be in the core township. 
BLM has been in the process of conveying specific parcels of land to 
the CFC since 2022.26 These parcels make up 184.57 acres of 
land. However, the CFC has formally rejected the proposal.27 
The CFC claims that the lands proposed by BLM are not only outside of 
the ``core township'' regulations that BLM holds itself to, but are 
also noncontiguous to the land previously conveyed.28 
Additionally, the CFC is concerned about these acres' lack of economic 
value.29
    The CFC has identified 180 acres of alternative land between 
parcels previously conveyed to the CFC. These 180 acres would allow for 
the development of the Mahoney Lake Power Project 30 which 
has been an ongoing project aiming to address the growing power demand 
in the Ketchikan, Saxman, and Metlakatla area.31 This past 
winter, all available power, approximately 38 MW, was online. Yet, the 
power demand exceeded the supply, and scheduled brownouts were 
required.32 Additional power is needed to sustain the 
current demand and provide for economic growth.
    The CFC holds the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
license needed to develop a power facility at Mahoney Lake in 
Ketchikan, which would exist on the CFC-owned land. This license 
includes an easement for a powerline/road corridor from the Mahoney 
Lake site to the Beaver Falls Substation on the Ketchikan Power Grid. 
The CFC currently owns the land adjacent to the Beaver Falls substation 
as well.33 The 180 acres described in this legislation would 
connect the properties already owned by CFC and alleviate any access 
and management issues as the Mahoney Lake power corridor is developed 
and the power infrastructure is brought online.34
    H.R. 2815 would finalize the CFC's ANCSA land conveyance while 
alleviating any future land management concerns associated with the 
development of the Mahoney Lake power project. This legislation has the 
support of various Alaska organizations,35 Government 
representatives, and impacted groups.36
    A map of the proposed land conveyance can be found here:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
capefox_finalselection_parcel_map_ 03162023.pdf
H.R. 3073 (Rep. Maloy), ``Shivwits Band of Paiutes Jurisdictional 
        Clarity Act''
    The Shivwits Band of Paiutes (Shivwits Band) is a federally 
recognized tribe residing on a 28,000-acre ancestral reservation just 
outside of St. George, Utah,37 and currently has 311 
enrolled members.38 The tribe traditionally inhabited 
southern Utah, southern Nevada, and southern California, adjacent to 
the Colorado River.39 In 1935, the Shivwits Band was 
officially recognized as a federal tribe under the Indian 
Reorganization Act.40 However, the federal government 
terminated the Shivwits Band and every other Paiute Band in 
1954.41 Nevertheless, the Shivwits performed self-governing 
functions and leased their land to ranchers in the area.42 
In 1980, Congress passed the ``Paiute Restoration Act'',43 
which was signed into law and reestablished the trust relations between 
the federal government and the Paiute Indians of Utah, which included 
restoring trust relations with the Shivwits Band.44 The 
Shivwits Band established its constitution in 1981 and has been fully 
recognized and functioning since then.45
    While the Shivwits Band intends to further its economic 
development, a 2022 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case stunted that 
development.46 In Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 
Reservation v. Lawrence (Lawrence), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 
ruled that Utah state courts lack the jurisdiction to hear cases 
involving on-reservation conduct.47 Additionally, the 
Appellate Court found that even in instances where a tribe has provided 
a clear and valid waiver of its sovereign immunity, Utah state courts 
still lack the jurisdiction unless the requirements of 25 U.S.C 
Sec. 1322 48 and 25 U.S.C Sec. 1326 49 are 
met.50 Furthermore, Lawrence ruled that for Sec. 1322 to 
hold, a special election under Sec. 1326 must have been held. This 
decision dismissed the previous arguments that Sec. 1326 was only 
required when a tribe wished to permanently authorize the state to 
assume all jurisdiction over the tribe.51
    For the Shivwits Band, this ruling under Lawrence has led to 
economic uncertainty for the tribe and potential investors. Under 
Lawrence, the Shivwits Band can no longer consent to state court 
jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis, which means if an issue arises 
between the Shivwits Band and an outside investor, there is no 
guarantee that the state court would be able to intervene. This lack of 
clarity has caused hesitancy for outside groups to partner with the 
Shivwits Band.52
    H.R. 3703 addresses these concerns by assuring that Utah state 
courts hold jurisdiction over civil cases involving the Shivwits Band 
that occur on their tribal lands, while ensuring that the tribe's 
sovereign immunity remains intact unless the tribe waives it. This 
protects the Shivwits Band from any unconsented suit but allows the 
tribe to consent to Utah state court jurisdiction in contracts and 
agreements with outside groups. Additionally, H.R. 3703 ensures that 
the Federal court is an option when resolving disputes arising from 
contracts in which the Shivwits Band is a party.
    H.R. 3703 also amends the Long-Term Leasing Act (LTLA) 
53 to authorize the Shivwits Band to lease land held in 
trust for their benefit for up to 99 years. In 1955, Congress passed 
the LTLA, which generally authorizes any Indian lands 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, 
for 25 years, except for grazing purposes.54 The original 
1955 Act also specified that non-grazing leases may be renewed up to 
one additional term of 25 years, for a total of 50 years.55
    Lease authority up to 99 years is often needed for long-term 
commercial leases and some financing contracts. Ensuring tribes can 
negotiate effectively, and on the same playing field as other 
landholders, can clear the way for further economic development, 
especially in rural or extra-rural areas. There is congressional 
precedent for this amendment, most recently, the LTLA was amended to 
provide additional leasing authority for the Confederated Tribes of the 
Chehalis Reservation,56 the Navajo Nation,57 and 
the Pueblo of Santa Clara 58 for terms up to 99 years.
    H.R. 3703 would make technical changes to the law to ensure that 
the Utah state court has jurisdiction over civil cases involving the 
Shivwits Band that occur on the tribe's land. Also, H.R. 3703 ensures 
that the Federal court is an option when resolving disputes arising 
from contracts in which the Shivwits Band is a party. Additionally, 
H.R. 3703 follows congressional precedent by amending the LTLA to allow 
the Shivwits Band to lease their land for a term of up to 99 years. The 
Washington County Commissioners are supportive of H.R. 
3703.59
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION
H.R. 2130 (Rep. Johnson of SD), ``Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act 
        of 2025''
    Section 3. Mortgage Review and Processing. This section creates 
statutory timelines for the processing and review of mortgage 
applications, including notifying the lender as soon as possible that 
the application was received, a ten-day turnaround for the preliminary 
review of the documents to ensure completion of the application, and a 
two-day turnaround for acknowledgment of missing documents. The BIA 
would have up to 20 or 30 days (dependent on the type of mortgage) to 
approve or deny the application, and 10 days post-approval to provide a 
Title Status Report (TSR). Additionally, if requested, the BIA would 
have 14 days from the time of the request to provide a first certified 
TSR.
    If the BIA fails to adhere to these timelines, they must provide 
notice of delays to the party that submitted the mortgage package, and 
the lender. If requested, the BIA would have to respond to inquiries 
about the status of the application, as well as any requests related to 
certified status reports.
    Additionally, relevant Federal agencies and Tribal Nations will 
have read-only access to portals containing relevant land documents 
from TAAMS.
    The BIA would be required to provide a report to the Senate Indian 
Affairs Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources that 
details all requests received, those approved and denied, any situation 
in which the timelines were not met, and the length of time it took 
each BIA office to provide notice of delays.
    One year after enactment, a GAO report detailing the need for 
digitizing mortgage packages and the estimated costs must be submitted 
to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and the House Committee on 
Natural Resources.
    Section 4. Establishment of Realty Ombudsman Position. This section 
directs the BIA Director to create a Realty Ombudsman in the Bureau's 
Division of Real Estate Services to facilitate all necessary changes 
and serve as the point of contact for all associated BIA realty 
services.
H.R. 2388 (Rep. Randall), ``Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Project Lands 
        Restoration Act''
    Section 2. Land Taken into Trust for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. 
This section would place 1,082.63 acres of Federal land into trust for 
the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
H.R. 2815 (Rep. Begich), ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act 
        of 2025''
    Section 3. Waiver of Core Township Requirement for Certain Land. 
This section waives the requirement of CFC to select and receive the 
185 acres of land proposed by the BLM for conveyance.
    Section 4. Selection Outside Exterior Selection Boundary. This 
section directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to CFC the land 
they choose upon the submission of written notice. Additionally, it 
establishes that while CFC will hold the surface estate, Sealaska 
Corporation will hold the subsurface estate.
    Section 5. Public Access Easement. This section allows for 
continued public access to the National Forest System land near 
Revillagigedo Island.
H.R. 3073 (Rep. Maloy), ``Shivwits Band of Paiutes Jurisdictional 
        Clarity Act''
    Section 3. State Civil Jurisdiction. This section establishes that 
the State of Utah has jurisdiction over any civil case that involves 
the Shivwits Band on tribal land.
    Section 4. Federal Court Jurisdiction. This section establishes 
that any contract or agreement, including a lease, shall fall under 
``commerce'' as defined in section 1 of title 9, U.S. Code, and fall 
under the jurisdiction of a district court as noted in section 1331 of 
title 28, U.S. Code.
    Section 5. Sovereign Immunity Not Abrogated. This section maintains 
the Shivwits Band's sovereign immunity unless explicitly waived by the 
tribe.
    Section 6. Shivwits Band of Paiutes Leasing Authority. This section 
amends the LTLA to allow the Shivwits Band to lease their land for a 
term of up to 99 years.
V. CBO COST ESTIMATE
    Unknown.
VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION
    Unknown.
VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)

    H.R. 3073 (Rep. Maloy), ``Shivwits Band of Paiutes Jurisdictional 
Clarity Act''

https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._3073_ramseyer.pdf
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 2130, TRIBAL TRUST LAND HOMEOWNERSHIP ACT 
OF 2025; H.R. 2388, LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE PROJECT LANDS RESTORATION 
ACT; H.R. 2815, CAPE FOX LAND ENTITLEMENT FINALIZATION ACT OF 2025; AND 
     H.R. 3073, SHIVWITS BAND OF PAIUTES JURISDICTIONAL CLARITY ACT

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 21, 2025

                        House of Representatives

               Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                            Washington, D.C.

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in 
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Hurd 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Hurd, Kennedy; Hoyle, Hernandez, 
and Randall.
    Also present: Representatives Begich, Johnson, and Maloy.
    Mr. Hurd. 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.
    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 rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. 
Maloy; the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich; and the gentleman 
from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, be allowed to sit and 
participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize myself 
for an opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF HURD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. Hurd. Today our Subcommittee is meeting to discuss four 
bills.
    The first is H.R. 2130, the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership 
Act of 2025, sponsored by Congressman Dusty Johnson. This bill 
would require the Bureau of Indian Affairs to process and 
complete all residential and business mortgage packages on 
Indian Trust land in a timely manner. This bill would only 
impact land held in trust, because generally additional 
approvals are needed from the BIA when a mortgage on trust land 
is sought. Unlike right-of-way and lease-hold mortgages, 
currently there are no statutory time frames for the review and 
approval of trust land mortgages.
    H.R. 2130 would establish private, industry-aligned 
standards for the review and approval of trust land mortgages. 
The current private industry standard for processing a mortgage 
package is within 1 month, and it is critical that the BIA 
moves to replicate that time frame. In the current BIA mortgage 
handbook there are no outlined binding timelines for each step 
in the mortgage process. We have heard story after story from 
tribal advocates that these timelines are arbitrary and often 
ignored. H.R. 2130 will ensure time frames are established and 
followed to help promote homeownership opportunities on trust 
lands and in tribal communities.
    Our second bill is H.R. 2388, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe 
Project Lands Restoration Act, sponsored by Congresswoman 
Randall. This bill would place approximately 1,100 acres of 
National Park Service land into trust for the Lower Elwha 
Klallam Tribe. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe is located within 
the Olympic Peninsula in northwest Washington.
    The third bill is H.R. 2815, the Cape Fox Land Entitlement 
Finalization Act of 2025, sponsored by Congressman Begich. This 
bill would finalize the Cape Fox Village Corporation, or CFC's 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or ANCSA, land conveyance. 
ANCSA was enacted to settle the aboriginal land claims of 
Alaska Natives. Through ANCSA, Alaska Native Village 
corporations were established to receive land under settlement. 
Under ANCSA, CFC could select 23,040 acres of land in the 
vicinity of Saxman and Ketchikan. The Bureau of Land Management 
has identified 184.57 acres of land within the core township of 
CFC in an effort to finalize CFC's ANCSA entitlement. CFC has 
identified 180 acres of alternative land that lie between land 
parcels previously conveyed to them. These acres hold economic 
value, as they will play a role in developing the Mahoney Lake 
Power Project.
    And the final bill in today's hearing is H.R. 3073, the 
Shivwits Band of Paiutes Jurisdictional Clarity Act, sponsored 
by Congresswoman Maloy. This bill would ensure that the Utah 
State Court has jurisdiction over civil cases involving the 
Shivwits Band that occur on the Tribe's trust land. 
Additionally, this bill would allow congressional precedent by 
amending the Long-Term Leasing Act to allow the Shivwits Band 
to lease their land for a term of up to 99 years.
    Since the Tribe's recognition was restored, the Shivwits 
Band has worked to promote economic development on their lands. 
However, a 2022 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case, known as 
the Lawrence case, has stunted that growth. In Lawrence the 
10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Utah State courts 
lacked the jurisdiction to hear cases involving on-reservation 
conduct. This means that if an issue were to arise between the 
Tribe and an outside investor, there is no guarantee that a 
State court could intervene. For the Shivwits Band this ruling 
has led to economic uncertainty for the Tribe, as well as to 
any potential investors. This bill would address that 
uncertainty by assuring that the Utah State courts do hold 
jurisdiction over civil cases involving the Tribe.
    I thank our witnesses for being with us today, and I look 
forward to today's conversation.
    Mr. Hurd. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority 
Member for any statement.
    Ms. Randall.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. EMILY RANDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Chairman Hurd, and thank 
you to our witnesses for being here today, and a special thank 
you to Chairwoman Charles for making the trek all the way from 
the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe on the Olympic Peninsula.
    Chairwoman Charles has been a champion when it comes to 
preserving the Tribe's language, culture, and exercise of the 
Tribe's treaty reserved hunting and fishing rights. I look 
forward to hearing more from you about H.R. 2388, which I was 
proud to reintroduce this year. That legislation, as Chairman 
Hurd mentioned, would take approximately 1,082 acres of land 
managed by the National Park Service into trust for the benefit 
of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe in Washington. Doing so will 
protect sacred and cultural lands, continue restoration efforts 
for the ecosystem, and help address a decade-long battle that 
the Tribe has seen regarding damage done by the two dams on the 
Elwha River that have been removed, thanks in large part to the 
Tribe's work.
    The next bill on the agenda, H.R. 2130, Representative 
Johnson's Tribal Trust Land Home Ownership Act, is a bill that 
codifies deadlines for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to process 
and complete all mortgage packages associated with residential 
and business mortgages on Indian land. To ensure compliance 
with the established time frames and communication between BIA, 
other agencies, and Tribes, the bill establishes a Realty 
Ombudsman to report directly to the Secretary. Housing 
availability and accessibility have been serious issues in 
Indian Country, and it is critical that BIA is working to 
ensure mortgages are reviewed and processed in a timely manner.
    The next bill is H.R. 2815, introduced by Representative 
Begich. This bill would waive certain requirements under the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for the Cape Fox 
Corporation, and authorize the conveyance of approximately 180 
acres of Federal land within the Tongass National Forest. The 
conveyance of this area would allow Cape Fox to consolidate its 
land holdings in the area and provide critical access to a 
proposed hydropower project.
    The last bill on the agenda today is H.R. 3073 from 
Representative Maloy to address the lack of a clear legal 
framework in Utah to address any civil disputes between non-
tribal entities and the Shivwits Band of Paiutes for Economic 
Development, which has created issues for the Tribe pursuing 
current and future economic opportunities.
    I would be remiss if I didn't mention that this hearing 
comes at a time when President Trump recently released his 
skinny budget proposal for the upcoming Fiscal Year, which 
would gut funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, all while 
thousands of Federal employees are being fired and agency field 
offices are set to close down. These decisions all impact 
Indian Country and the effectiveness of legislation this 
Subcommittee considers. We need to make sure that Tribes have 
the resources that they need and the Federal partners in place 
to carry out some of the work being proposed today.
    I look forward to hearing more from all the witnesses 
today.
    Ms. Randall. And with that I yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentlewoman yields back, and now I will 
recognize Ms. Maloy from Utah for 5 minutes to speak on her 
legislation.
    Ms. Maloy.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. CELESTE MALOY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seem to have some 
allergies this morning, so I apologize if I interrupt with 
coughing, but I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in 
support of H.R. 3073, the Shivwits Band of Paiutes 
Jurisdictional Clarity Act, which seeks to restore fairness and 
provide much-needed certainty to tribal economic development.
    Sorry, I am going to take a second.
    The legislation addresses an urgent issue created by a 
recent decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which 
restricts a Tribe's ability to consent to State court 
jurisdiction in contract disputes. The court ruled that when a 
Tribe provides a waiver of sovereign immunity that is clear and 
valid, Utah State courts lack jurisdiction over cases arising 
from that agreement within Indian Country unless a series of 
requirements are met. And in some cases those requirements are 
impractical, and sometimes unobtainable. These requirements 
include congressional authorization, a waiver of sovereign 
immunity, tribal court resolution, and other bureaucratic 
obstacles that make it nearly impossible for a Tribe to engage 
in business agreements that require State court oversight.
    The rulings had real-world consequences for the Shivwits 
Band of Paiutes in my district, preventing them from moving 
forward with valid, vital economic development opportunities 
that would allow them to better utilize their land, attract 
investment, and create jobs for their community. The Shivwits 
Band, I am sorry, I do know how to say it, I am just struggling 
today, the Shivwits Band is located in a thriving part of the 
State, where economic growth is happening all around them, and 
they should be able to participate in that booming economy.
    Tribes have the right to consent to State court 
jurisdiction. Tribes should have the right to consent to State 
court jurisdiction when it benefits their business interests. 
The Shivwits Band and other affected Tribes currently face 
uncertainty, which has discouraged investment and stalled 
progress on long-term development plans. We need to do better 
for our Tribes than that.
    Tribal leaders in my district have voiced concerns about 
this ruling, and emphasized the urgent need for a clear legal 
framework that will allow them to move forward with confidence 
in their business agreements. Without this critical reform 
provided in the bill, the Shivwits Band will continue to face 
barriers in leveraging their land for economic growth. H.R. 
3073 provides the jurisdictional clarity necessary for the Band 
to engage in commercial transactions, attract investors, and 
fully participate in the broader economy.
    The legislation affirms the authority of the Utah State 
courts to resolve civil cases involving the Shivwits Band when 
disputes arise on the Band's Indian lands, ensuring that 
business agreements can proceed without unnecessary Federal 
interference or legal ambiguity. At the same time, the bill 
protects the Band's sovereign immunity, ensuring that they are 
never subjected to unconsented lawsuits, while still allowing 
them to waive immunity selectively in contracts that require 
State court jurisdiction.
    Importantly, this legislation puts the Shivwits Band on 
equal footing with numerous other Tribes who already have the 
ability to negotiate leases for extended terms, an essential 
component of economic stability and long-term business 
partnerships for Tribes. By eliminating the restrictions 
imposed by the Lawrence decision, my bill restores the ability 
of the Band to utilize their land assets effectively, ensuring 
that their Indian lands can be put to the highest and best 
benefit of tribal members and their larger community.
    I am proud to have the strong support of the Shivwits Band. 
They recognize the importance of establishing a clear, 
functional legal framework that will provide them with greater 
flexibility and certainty as they pursue economic opportunities 
on their lands. This bill removes the unnecessary obstacles 
standing in their way, providing a fair and practical solution 
to a problem that has disrupted their efforts to build a more 
prosperous future. And I thank the Band for being here to voice 
their support today, and for coming to us seeking a solution to 
a problem.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Maloy follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Celeste Maloy, a Representative in 
                    Congress from the State of Utah
                              on H.R. 3073

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
today in support of my bill, H.R. 3073, the Shivwits Band of Paiutes 
Jurisdictional Clarity Act, which seeks to restore fairness and provide 
much-needed certainty to tribal economic development.
    This legislation addresses an urgent issue created by a recent 
decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which severely 
restricts a tribe's ability to consent to state court jurisdiction in 
contract disputes.
    The court ruled that when an Indian tribe provides a waiver of 
sovereign immunity that is ``clear and valid,'' Utah state courts lack 
jurisdiction over cases arising from that agreement within Indian 
Country unless a series of impractical and often unobtainable 
requirements are met.
    These requirements include congressional authorization, a waiver of 
sovereign immunity, tribal court resolutions, and other bureaucratic 
obstacles that make it nearly impossible for a tribe to engage in 
business agreements requiring state court oversight.
    This ruling has had significant, real-world consequences for the 
Shivwits Band of Paiutes, preventing them from moving forward with 
vital economic development opportunities that would allow them to 
better utilize their land, attract investment, and create jobs for 
their community.
    Tribes should have the right to selectively consent to state court 
jurisdiction when it benefits their business interests, but the 
Lawrence Decision stripped them of that ability. As a result, the 
Shivwits Band and other affected tribes now face uncertainty, which has 
discouraged investment and stalled progress on long-term development 
plans.
    Tribal leaders in my district have voiced deep concerns about this 
ruling and emphasized the urgent need for a clear legal framework that 
will allow them to move forward with confidence in their business 
agreements.
    Without this critical reform, the Shivwits Band will continue to 
face barriers in leveraging their land for economic growth.
    My bill, H.R. 3073, provides the jurisdictional clarity necessary 
for the Band to engage in commercial transactions, attract investors, 
and fully participate in the broader economy. This legislation affirms 
the authority of Utah State courts to resolve civil cases involving the 
Shivwits Band when disputes arise on the Band's Indian lands, ensuring 
that business agreements can proceed without unnecessary federal 
interference or legal ambiguity.
    At the same time, the bill protects the Band's sovereign immunity, 
ensuring that they are never subjected to unconsented lawsuits while 
still allowing them to waive immunity selectively in contracts that 
require state court jurisdiction.
    Importantly, this legislation puts the Shivwits Band on equal 
footing with numerous other tribes who already have the ability to 
negotiate leases for extended terms, an essential component of economic 
stability and long-term business partnerships.
    By eliminating the restrictions imposed by the Lawrence Decision, 
my bill restores the ability of the Band to utilize their land assets 
effectively, ensuring that their Indian lands can be put to their 
highest and best use to benefit tribal members and their community.
    I am proud to have the strong support of the Shivwits Band of 
Paiutes for this legislation. They recognize the importance of 
establishing a clear, functional legal framework that will provide them 
with greater flexibility and certainty as they pursue economic 
opportunities on their lands.
    My bill removes the unnecessary obstacles standing in their way, 
providing a fair and practical solution to a problem that has disrupted 
their efforts to build a more prosperous future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and consideration. I yield 
back.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and 
consideration, and I yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentlewoman yields back. At this time I will 
recognize Mr. Johnson from South Dakota for 5 minutes to speak 
on his legislation.
    Mr. Johnson.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUSTY JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

    Mr. Johnson. I will begin with gratitude. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, Ranking Member, Committee staff for allowing a 
hearing of my bill, the Tribal Trust Homeownership Act.
    I get it: home ownership, accessibility, affordability, 
these are problems across the country. But I have got to tell 
you, it is worse in Indian Country. It is much worse in many 
parts of Indian Country. And in Eric Shepherd's pre-filed 
testimony he makes it clear that that is certainly true in 
South Dakota. He knows it all too well, as someone who has been 
in the field working in these issues. There cannot unusually be 
three families in a single three-bedroom home, and that creates 
overcrowding, and that creates wear and tear, and that creates 
yet more problems for home ownership long-term and, of course, 
as well as unsafe living conditions.
    And this is not just a problem for the Dakota people of the 
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate. It is a problem for the Dakota and 
Lakota people throughout the nine reservations, the nine Tribes 
of South Dakota. And of course, Congress, we are not making 
good on our trust and treaty obligations related to housing, 
and that is one reason that I joined with Senator Thune to 
introduce our Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act.
    Any of us who have taken the time to get a mortgage realize 
that it is kind of a bureaucratic and administrative pain. But 
I have got to tell you, the pain is much more difficult for 
Indian people on trust land. On top of the bureaucracy of a 
traditional mortgage, you also need sign-off by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. That pertains to residential, commercial, and 
right-of-way mortgages, to name a few. And the BIA handbook 
suggests some timelines for that work to be completed, but the 
timelines are not always adhered to. That causes a lot of 
delays, it causes a lot of confusion for the borrowers, and 
also for the lenders, right? For the banks and other financial 
institutions that lend the money, they kind of know this is a 
pain. And that is not also good to make sure that tribal 
members get connected to the capital they need.
    I am not suggesting that buying a house has to be a part of 
everyone's American dream, but we know that, still, 
homeownership is a special part of the American dream for so 
many. And the cold, hard reality is that bureaucracy is making 
it harder for native peoples to realize that American dream. 
And so this bill tries to reduce some of those problems.
    It establishes, and I should tell you, with regard to the 
problem, the South Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition has 
experienced delays not just of 30 days, but in some instances 
as many as 365 days, and I think that is worth calling out. 
This is not a small problem. This is indeed a major problem. 
And so this is an important bill that puts some important rules 
of the road in place to make sure that we do better.
    I do want to thank Majority Leader Thune for leading this 
effort in the Senate. I want to thank Eric Shepherd, who is 
here in his capacity as the Vice Chair of the Board of 
Directors of the South Dakota Native Home Ownership Coalition. 
And I want to thank everybody for this hearing. This is a real 
issue, and this bill would make a significant step forward in 
addressing it.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in 
                Congress from the State of South Dakota
                              on H.R. 2130

    Chair Hurd, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee:

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee 
today. I am here to speak on my bill, the Tribal Trust Land 
Homeownership Act.
    It is no secret there is a housing availability and affordability 
crisis across the country. However, this is especially true in Indian 
country where poverty rates and lacking housing infrastructure have 
presented unique challenges.
    South Dakota, home to nine tribes, knows this all too well. As Eric 
Shepherd noted in his testimony, a lack of housing leads to 
overcrowding in the available units. It is not uncommon for three or 
more families to share a single three-bedroom house--sometimes as many 
as 15 individuals share one unit. Overcrowding then leads to higher 
wear-and-tear, which can then result in unsafe living conditions.
    This challenge is echoed through reservations across South Dakota, 
and it is unacceptable. Congress should be working to address housing 
insecurity on reservations and uphold our commitment to Indian country. 
That is why I joined my colleague Senator Thune to introduce the Tribal 
Trust Land Homeownership Act.
    Currently, mortgages involving property on tribal trust land must 
be reviewed and approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in order 
for the mortgage to be finalized. This pertains to residential, 
commercial, and right-of-way mortgages, to name a few. The BIA Mortgage 
Handbook establishes timelines for BIA offices to process and approve 
these mortgages. However, these timelines are not always adhered to, 
causing significant delays, and leaving lenders in the dark.
    Native people should not face reduced access to homeownership 
opportunities if they live on tribal trust land. Off reservation, 
county assessors' records allow title records to be seen within minutes 
and for title policies issued by title companies that timeline is 
usually within two to four weeks. The South Dakota Native Homeownership 
Coalition has experienced delays anywhere from 30 to 365 days to 
receive comparable documents from the BIA.
    This is an important bill, and I want to thank my partners in this 
effort. I want to thank my friend Senator John Thune for leading this 
effort in the Senate. Further, Eric Shepherd is here today in his 
capacity as the Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of the South 
Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition. I am thankful for his advocacy 
for the Coalition, for the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate and for native 
homeownership generally.
    Thank you again for holding this hearing. I look forward to working 
with the committee on passing my bill to improve homeownership outcomes 
for natives.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Johnson. With that I would yield.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentleman yields back.
    I would now ask for unanimous consent that statements for 
the record from the Department of the Interior and U.S. 
Department of Agriculture be added to the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Hurd. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Maloy for 2 minutes 
to introduce the witness from her district.
    Ms. Maloy.
    Ms. Maloy. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit I didn't know I 
was going to introduce her today, so I am going to make this 
very brief.
    We have Chairwoman Gonzales here from the Shivwits Band of 
Paiute Indians in southern Utah, in my district. We have spent 
some time together and got to know each other, and I know that 
she is a passionate advocate for her people. And she is here 
because she cares about the Shivwits people who are currently 
living in Washington County, and their children and their 
grandchildren, and making sure that the Tribe, the Band are 
economically viable and culturally viable far into the future.
    With that I yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. Great. Thank you, Ms. Maloy.
    The next witness that we have on our panel is The Honorable 
Thomas Harris, who is Vice President of Cape Fox Corporation in 
Ketchikan, Alaska.
    Mr. Harris, welcome.
    The Chair will now recognize Ms. Randall from Washington 
for 2 minutes to introduce the witness from her district.
    Ms. Randall.
    Ms. Randall. Thank you.
    And thank you again, Chairwoman Charles, for making the 
time to be here and traveling all the way across the country. I 
make that flight twice a week. I know what you have undertaken 
to be here.
    Chairwoman Charles has served on the Lower Elwha Klallam 
Tribal Council since 1993, and has served as Chairwoman for a 
total of 21 years. As Chairwoman, she is actively involved in 
the preservation of the Tribe's culture, language, and exercise 
of treaty rights.
    This year the Tribe is proud to host the annual Intertribal 
Canoe Journeys, celebrating the removal of the two 
hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River and the Tribe's effort to 
restore the river and salmon fisheries. Chairwoman Charles has 
championed these efforts throughout her time in office, and for 
this leadership she was honored in 2012 as a conservationist of 
the year by the Northwest Chapter of the Society for Ecological 
Restoration.
    Prior to her service in Elwha tribal government, Chairwoman 
Charles was a fire crew leader for the Olympic National Forest. 
In this role she was recognized as one of the top woman crew 
leaders on the Olympic Peninsula.
    Thank you, Chairwoman, for your leadership, for hosting us 
and inviting us to join you for Canoe Journey, and I look 
forward to your testimony.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentlewoman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Johnson from South Dakota for 2 minutes to introduce the 
witness from his district.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. [Speaking native language], Mr. Chairman, my 
Dakota is really abysmal, so I hope Mr. Shepherd will forgive 
me. But there is a word in Dakota, it is [speaking native 
language], which some translate as ``leader,'' but it doesn't 
mean the chief or the president or the chairman of a Tribe. It 
really, I think, means a spokesman, somebody who brings the 
truth of their people and provides that to others. I have got 
to tell you; Eric Shepherd is that kind of a spokesman.
    His knowledge of housing is not theoretical, it is not 
academic. In his work with the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate he has 
helped to construct almost 100 homes. That is more than 100 
families who have had an opportunity to live a better, safer, 
more fulfilling life because of that roof over their head. 
There are lots of people who can talk, but we have with us 
today someone who not only talks as a spokesman, but is also a 
doer in helping people realize their dreams.
    Sir, your presence is an honor to all of us. Thank you for 
being here.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentleman yields back. Let's now move into 
the testimony portion of our hearing.
    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 just press the talk button on the 
microphone.
    We do use timing lights. When you begin the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute left the light turns yellow, and 
at the end of 5 minutes the light will turn red and I 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 The Honorable Tina Gonzales for 5 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TINA GONZALES, CHAIRWOMAN, SHIVWITS BAND 
                    OF PAIUTES, IVINS, UTAH

    Ms. Gonzales. Thank you. I do appreciate your time and 
being able to hear me out. Good morning, Mr. Chair and 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tina 
Gonzales, and I have the honor to serve as Chairwoman for the 
Shivwits Band of Paiutes. I have submitted written testimony 
that includes my Tribe's history, our perseverance, and a more 
detailed background explanation of the circumstances giving 
rise to our need for this legislation, rather than repeat that 
written testimony before you today.
    I plan to focus my remarks this morning on the Shivwits 
Band's vital needs for economic development through long-term 
investment with developer partners which can only occur where 
private developers have certainty regarding their ability to 
access a State court forum to resolve civil disputes arising 
under contracts or agreements with the Shivwits Band.
    In short, the Shivwits band needs Congress's help to remove 
legal and bureaucratic barriers to our economic progress.
    My ancestors were part of the Shivwits Band, the several 
bands of Paiute Indians that have lived since time immemorial 
in an area that once covered more time than 30 million acres 
across the present day southern Utah, northern Arizona, and 
southern Nevada in the mid-1800s. Settlers arriving in Utah 
territory displaced many ancestors from their traditional 
lands, which also resulted in limited access to water for my 
ancestors to continue their historical farming practices. Loss 
of access to food and water sources and being exposed to 
unfamiliar diseases resulted in dissemination of this Shivwits 
population.
    The Shivwits Band was first recognized by the Federal 
Government in 1891. When the first reservation was established 
in 1916, the Shivwits reservation was expanded to nearly 27,000 
acres, with over 1,000 acres being added to the reservation in 
1937. Today the Shivwits Band's reservation covers over 28,000 
acres in southwestern Utah, near the town of St. George.
    The journey to the Shivwits Band's present-day situation 
has been difficult. The Shivwits Band's trust relationship with 
the United States was terminated in 1954 during the Federal 
Government's termination era during which Congress adopted 
various laws aimed at terminating Federal obligations to Indian 
Tribes. Following termination and before our federally 
recognized status was restored, the Shivwits Band continued to 
forge ongoing, holding steadfast to our lands and our culture. 
Eventually, the Federal Government walked back many of its 
termination era policies, and in 1980 Congress passed 
legislation restoring federally recognized status to the 
Shivwits Band.
    Since restoration in 1980, we have continued efforts to 
strengthen our Tribe's sovereignty. While restoration has 
yielded notable improvements in the quality of life for members 
of the Shivwits band, restoration did not bring substantive 
economic development to Shivwits band lands. As a result, the 
Shivwits Band has remained dedicated to confronting economic 
challenges, continuously searching for economic development 
opportunities that will allow the Shivwits Band to supply 
governmental services and employment options to Shivwits Band 
members, and to become independent from reliance on Federal 
funding.
    The Shivwits Band now seeks to pursue new economic 
development opportunities created by rapid growth in 
southwestern Utah, but our ability to put the Tribe's lands to 
their highest and best use is hindered by the lack of a clear 
legal framework that allows for resolution of civil disputes on 
our tribal lands and the ability to offer longer lease terms 
comparable to the standard lease terms for non-Indian lands. 
Without changes, the Shivwits Band will be unable to take 
advantage of current and future development opportunities.
    H.R. 3073 provides the technical corrections necessary to 
affirm Utah State court jurisdiction over civil cases involving 
Shivwits Band that occur on our lands. Civil disputes will have 
a clear legal structure to be resolved in a Utah State court 
forum, where the Tribe has agreed to the State court as a 
forum. This removes a huge obstacle to economic development 
partnerships between the Shivwits Band and private-sector 
investors.
    The legislation also ensures that the Shivwits Band's 
sovereign immunity remains intact, unless explicitly waived by 
the Tribe. This means that the Shivwits Band remains immune 
from unconsented lawsuits, while having the option to consent 
to State court jurisdiction in individual contracts with 
private developers.
    The legislation also confirms that Federal court is a forum 
option for civil suits involving the Shivwits Band, affirming 
the Shivwits Band's ability to consent to State court 
jurisdiction. And an individual's contracts and agreements are 
essential to ensuring that the Shivwits Band can engage outside 
businesses for long-term economic development, benefiting not 
only the Shivwits Band community, but local Utah communities as 
well.
    Passage of H.R. 3073 would be championing legislation to 
assist the Shivwits Band in resolving barriers to economic 
development so that the Shivwits Band and the surrounding 
community can enjoy the benefits of long-term stability and 
financial security.
    Thank you again to the Subcommittee for holding this 
hearing and for your consideration of H.R. 3073, and to 
Congresswoman Maloy for her tireless work on behalf of the 
Shivwits Band.
    I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Gonzales follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Tina Gonzales, Shivwits Band of 
                                Paiutes
                              on H.R. 3073

    Chairman Hurd and distinguished Members of the House Subcommittee 
on Indian and Insular Affairs, my name is Tina Gonzales, and I have the 
honor to serve as Chairwoman of the Shivwits Band of Paiutes 
(``Shivwits Band'' or ``Shivwits''). Thank you for the opportunity to 
provide testimony on H.R. 3073, the Shivwits Band of Paiutes 
Jurisdictional Clarity Act, and thank you to Congresswoman Maloy for 
her dedication to representing the interests of Native American tribes, 
and in particular for her notable efforts on H.R. 3073.
1. History of the Shivwits Band of Paiutes
    The Shivwits Band is one of several groups of Paiute Indians that 
have lived since time immemorial in an area once encompassing more than 
30 million acres across present-day southern Utah, northern Arizona, 
and southern Nevada. The Shivwits were closely tied to their awe--
inspiring homelands, living close to water and farming the lands along 
waterways to cultivate numerous varieties of crops for sustenance and 
medicinal purposes by implementing irrigation practices.
    During the mid-19th century, settlers arrived in the Utah territory 
and settled on lands traditionally inhabited by Shivwits. Loss of 
access to food and water sources and being exposed to unfamiliar 
diseases resulted in decimation of the Shivwits population. As their 
lands were taken and their traditional sources of food were depleted, 
Paiute bands like the Shivwits became progressively more dependent on 
the federal government for survival.
    By the late 1880s, settlers petitioned the federal government to 
relocate Shivwits to a new home on the Santa Clara River, to free up 
more lands for ranching. The Shivwits Band was first recognized by the 
federal government in 1891, when the first reservation was established 
for the ``Shebit tribe of Indians in Washington County, Utah.'' 
Unfortunately, however, the reservation did not include water rights, 
so the Shivwits Band was forced to abandon its historical farming 
practices and were left destitute with little resources to survive.
    In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson ordered expansion of the Shivwits 
reservation to 26,880 acres. Congress added an additional 1,280 acres 
to the reservation in 1937. In 1935, the Shivwits Band voted to accept 
the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, and in 1940, the Shivwits Band 
established its federally approved Constitution and Bylaws. However, 
changes in federal policies toward Indian tribes proved devastating to 
the Shivwits Band's efforts to reestablish itself.
2. Federal Termination Era (1953-1968)
    Post-World War II, the federal government's policy toward Indian 
tribes shifted to one of termination, as Congress adopted various laws 
aimed at terminating federal obligations to Indian tribes. Well over 
100 tribes, bands, and rancherias were terminated through Congressional 
enactments during the Termination Era.
    The Paiute bands of southern Utah, including Shivwits, soon fell 
within the crosshairs of Termination Era policies. In January 1954, 
Paiute leaders received copies of S. 2670, the termination bill 
targeting Shivwits and other Paiute bands. By letters dated February 2, 
1954, Paiute leaders were informed that Congressional hearings on S. 
2670 would be held on February 15, 1954, in Washington D.C., and that 
Paiute leaders could travel to attend these hearings, ``provided that 
the particular groups concerned have ample available tribal funds to 
cover the expenses of such a trip. There are no federal funds available 
for such travel expenses nor for advances to delegates who run out of 
funds while in Washington.'' Unsurprisingly, the Shivwits Band lacked 
funds for travel to Washington, D.C. to advocate against its 
termination. The legislation sped through Congress, and on September 1, 
1954, President Eisenhower signed Public Law 762, thereby terminating 
the federal government's trust relationship with the Paiute bands, 
including Shivwits.
    Despite termination, the Shivwits Band forged onward with its 
trademark resilience, continuing to perform self-governing functions by 
electing Shivwits Band representatives and holding meetings of its 
general membership. Although termination had devastating effects on the 
Shivwits economy, the Shivwits Band held steadfast to their lands and 
culture. Remarkably, unlike other Paiute bands, the Shivwits Band 
managed to retain ownership of its lands, leasing those lands to local 
ranchers.
    In short, the termination policy did not have the effect that its 
proponents predicted in regards to integrating Native Americans into 
``mainstream'' America. Huge swaths of Indian lands were lost. 
Socioeconomic data from that time indicates that terminated Indians 
continued to have higher unemployment rates, lower incomes, and lower 
levels of educational attainment than surrounding non-Indian 
communities, but without federal programs and services to aid in 
responding to these needs. Congress eventually acknowledged that the 
policies of the Termination Era were a mistake, and ultimately restored 
terminated tribes, including Shivwits, to federal status, by passage of 
individualized ``restoration'' legislation.
3. Restoration of the Shivwits Band's Federally Recognized Status
    In 1979, S. 1273 was introduced in the Senate, with aims to restore 
federal status and services to Shivwits and the other Paiute bands. On 
November 8, 1979, before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 
Utah Congressman Dan Marriott explained his support of restoration of 
Shivwits and the other Paiute bands:

        As I see it, for Congress to terminate the Paiute Bands was the 
        equivalent of giving a lame, jobless man and his family a new 
        house, then looking the other way when the mortgage came due. 
        It simply wasn't fair. It wasn't right. This Committee and this 
        Congress has the power and the opportunity to restore to the 
        Paiute people of Utah benefits and a measure of dignity which 
        were wrongfully taken from them 25 years ago. I urge that we do 
        so by swiftly enacting the legislation now before you.

    On April 3, 1980, the Shivwits Band was restored to federally 
recognized status when Congress passed the Paiute Restoration Act, 
Public Law No. 96-227, reestablishing the trust relationship between 
the federal government and the Paiute bands, including Shivwits. As of 
that date, and since that time, Shivwits has been a federally 
recognized Tribe. Shivwits was restored to its status as a federally 
recognized Tribe that existed before termination. Today, Shivwits 
cooperates with four other restored Bands of Paiutes on some common 
governance issues through an inter-Tribal constitution. Notably, the 
joint governance cooperation that Shivwit chose after being restored by 
Congress does not diminish the Band's status as a federally recognized, 
restored Tribe. The use of the term Band or Pueblo or Rancheria, etc. 
does not denote a lesser status. The Shivwits Band of Paiutes is a 
federally recognized Tribe based on Congress' Restoration Act in 1980.
4. Roadblocks to Shivwits Economic Development
    Since its restoration in 1980, the Shivwits Band has continued its 
dedicated efforts to strengthen its sovereignty. While restoration has 
yielded notable improvements in the quality of life for members of the 
Shivwits Band, restoration did not bring substantive economic 
development to Shivwits Band lands, without which true self-
determination and self-sufficiency remain unattainable. As a result, 
the Shivwits Band has remained dedicated to confronting economic 
challenges, continuously searching for economic development 
opportunities that will allow the Shivwits Band to supply governmental 
services and employment options to Shivwits members, and to become 
independent from reliance on federal funding, which is very limited and 
is generally tied to implementation of federally conceived programming.
    The story of the Shivwits Band is one of determined resilience in 
the face of relentless challenges and broken promises. After years of 
searching for suitable business investments, recent development 
opportunities on the Shivwits Reservation has opened the door for 
sustainable economic expansion for the Shivwits Band. Unfortunately, 
however, as discussed below, a 2022 decision by the Tenth Circuit Court 
of Appeals has presented a roadblock to these opportunities, and has 
stunted the Shivwits Band's ability to engage in economic development 
and self-determination.
    The decision in question, Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 
Reservation v. Lawrence, 22 F.4th 892 (10th Cir. 2022) (hereinafter, 
``Lawrence''), holds that, even where an Indian tribe has provided a 
clear and valid waiver of its sovereign immunity in an agreement, Utah 
state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear cases arising 
under that agreement and within Indian country, unless the requirements 
of 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1322 and 1326 are met. As discussed below, 25 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1322 and 1326 derive from Public Law 280, an enactment 
that was part of the suite of harmful Termination Era legislation aimed 
at ending federal obligations to Indian tribes. The Lawrence case's 
holding, based upon a flawed interpretation and application of 25 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1322 and 1326, along with language in the Paiute 
Restoration Act, has resulted in outside developers being unwilling to 
engage the Shivwits Band for long-term economic development activities, 
because non-Indian businesses and entities are not guaranteed a state 
court forum for resolving disputes arising under contracts with the 
Shivwits Band.
A. Public Law 280
    Public Law 280, or ``PL 280,'' is the common reference to the Act 
of Aug. 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 588, which is codified in part at 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1321-1326. As mentioned above, Congress passed PL 280 during 
the Termination Era. PL 280 controversially transferred legal 
jurisdiction from the federal government to state governments in 
certain states, which altered previous longstanding dynamics of legal 
authority between federal, state, and tribal governments. Before PL 
280, the federal government and tribes shared jurisdiction over almost 
all civil and criminal matters involving Indians in Indian country, and 
states had no jurisdiction in Indian country. By PL 280, Congress 
mandated that six (6) states (CA, MN, NE, OR, WI, and AK)--referred to 
as the ``mandatory'' PL 280 states--had extensive criminal and civil 
jurisdiction over Indian country within those states.
    Separately, PL 280 also permitted some other states to acquire 
jurisdiction over Indian country at their option--called the 
``optional'' PL 280 states. Utah is one of those ``optional'' PL 280 
states. When passed in 1953, PL 280 was written to provide that 
``optional'' states could legislate to accept some degree of 
jurisdiction over Indian country, without the consent of the Indian 
tribes within that state. However, that consent requirement (or lack 
thereof) changed in 1968 when Congress amended PL 280 to require tribal 
consent to state jurisdiction (manifested by a special election) before 
a state could opt-in to assume jurisdiction over a tribe's Indian 
country under PL 280. The PL 280 provisions that permit states to 
acquire criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian country at the 
state's option are codified at 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1321, 1322. The 
provision requiring a tribe's consent to state jurisdiction by special 
election is codified at 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1326.
    As a result of the 1968 amendments, any ``optional'' PL 280 state's 
passage of legislation after 1968, in which the state purports to 
acquire jurisdiction over Indian country within that state under 25 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1321, 1322, is only effective where a tribe holds a 
special election consenting to the state's jurisdiction over that 
tribe's Indian country under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1326. The State of Utah 
passed its legislation in 1971, making Utah the only ``optional'' PL 
280 state that passed legislation under 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1321 and 
1322, acquiring jurisdiction over Indian country after the 1968 
amendments to PL 280. As a result, the State of Utah can only exercise 
global civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian country under PL 280 
where Utah tribes hold a special election under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1326 and 
vote to consent to Utah state jurisdiction over the tribe's Indian 
country.
B. Paiute Restoration Act and PL 280
    Several post-1968 federal statutes affording restoration or federal 
recognition to individual tribes specified that the state must only 
exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction as if that state had assumed 
such jurisdiction with the consent of the tribe under PL 280 as amended 
in 1968. As discussed below, the Paiute Restoration Act is one such 
federal statute.
    Relevant here, Section 7(b) of the Paiute Restoration Act provides 
that the ``State of Utah shall exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction 
with respect to the reservation and persons on the reservation as if it 
had assumed jurisdiction pursuant to [P.L. 280 and its 1968 
amendments], and pursuant to sections 63-36-9 through 63-36-21 of the 
Utah State Code.'' (emphasis added.) Section 7(b) is written to provide 
that the State of Utah shall only exercise civil and criminal 
jurisdiction over the Paiute bands pursuant to PL 280's tribal consent 
requirements and Utah law passed in 1971, which accepts jurisdiction 
over Indian country in Utah only where the tribe in question has held a 
special election to confer such jurisdiction as required by PL 280. The 
Paiute Restoration Act's provision on jurisdiction places the Shivwits 
Band at risk of a fate similar to that in Lawrence. Under Lawrence, 
Section 7(b)'s language acts as a jurisdictional limitation, given the 
provision requiring compliance with PL 280 and its 1968 amendments.
C. Lawrence Case
    In Lawrence, a Utah tribe waived its sovereign immunity for suits 
arising from a contract with a non-Indian consultant (``consultant''), 
which contract was the subject of the underlying lawsuit. The tribe 
also expressly waived any arguments regarding exhaustion of tribal 
court remedies and agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of any court of 
competent jurisdiction. Despite these waivers, once disputes arose 
under the contract in question, the tribe fought the consultant's 
efforts to have the disputes heard in Utah state court. Notwithstanding 
the tribe's immunity waiver and contractual consent to state court 
jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Utah state 
courts could not exercise civil jurisdiction over this specific 
contractual dispute absent tribal consent to general, global civil 
jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1322(a), which general consent must 
be provided through a special election conducted under 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1326.
    Lawrence rejected valid and reasoned arguments that special 
elections under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1326 are only required where a tribe 
wishes to permanently authorize the state to assume global jurisdiction 
over the tribe's Indian country.
    Contrary to the ruling in Lawrence, the procedures at 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 1322, 1326 for assuming permanent general civil jurisdiction 
should not foreclose a tribe's ability to selectively consent to state 
court jurisdiction for disputes arising under individual contracts and 
agreements. Tribes like the Shivwits Band should be able to selectively 
consent to state court jurisdiction in contracts, by agreeing to waive 
their sovereign immunity for suits arising under that contract and 
consenting to state court as a court of competent jurisdiction as to 
specific legal actions. The Lawrence decision has robbed tribes, 
including the Shivwits Band, of their ability to so selectively consent 
to state court jurisdiction, resulting in uncertainty for outside 
investors looking to engage the Shivwits Band in economic development 
and other business opportunities.
5. Need for H.R. 3073
    As a result of Lawrence, because non-Indian businesses and entities 
are not guaranteed a state court forum for resolving disputes arising 
under contracts with the Shivwits Band, those outside businesses and 
entities are hesitant to engage the Shivwits Band in business 
relationships. Recently, the Shivwits Band was presented with a 
promising business opportunity to develop its lands; however, without 
assurances that there will be a forum available in which to resolve 
disputes, the Shivwits Band is concerned that this opportunity, and any 
future opportunities, will not be realized. The Shivwits Band's self-
determination and independence depends on a federal legislative fix 
that allows the Shivwits Band to selectively consent to state court 
jurisdiction in individual agreements, rather than holding a special 
election to adopt a global and permanent consent to state court 
jurisdiction over the Shivwits Band's affairs.
    H.R. 3073 is the federal legislation that the Shivwits Band needs 
to address the problem created by Lawrence. Affirming the Shivwits 
Band's ability to consent to state court jurisdiction in individual 
contracts and agreements is essential to ensuring that the Shivwits 
Band can engage outside businesses for long-term economic development 
benefiting not only the Shivwits Band's community, but local Utah 
communities as well. By passage of H.R. 3073, you would be championing 
legislation to assist the Shivwits Band in resolving the issue created 
by Lawrence, so that the Shivwits Band and surrounding community can 
enjoy the benefits of economic development, stability, and financial 
security.
    Thank you again to this Subcommittee for holding this hearing and 
for your consideration of H.R. 3073, and to Congresswoman Maloy for her 
tireless work on behalf of the Shivwits Band. I am happy to answer any 
questions that you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Tina Gonzales, Chairwoman, 
                        Shivwits Band of Paiutes

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. As discussed in the hearing, the Shivwits Band was 
impacted by the Lawrence Case ruling. Prior to the ruling in Lawrence 
how did the Shivwits Band operate with outside investors?

    Answer. Between the passage of the Paiute Restoration Act in 1980 
up until issuance of the Lawrence decision in January 2022, the 
Shivwits Band has remained dedicated to the pursuit of economic 
development opportunities that meet several criteria, including (a) 
involvement of established investors or third-party developers that 
view the relationship with the Shivwits Band as one between long-term 
development partners with a strategic alliance, rather than as a 
marriage of necessity or a means to a development end; (b) proposed 
uses that are likely to remain viable over a prolonged period of time; 
(c) ideas that would put the Shivwits Band's 28,000-acre Reservation to 
its highest and best use; and (d) projects that coincide with the 
Shivwits Band's values and long-term goals for success. The Shivwits 
Band was often approached by disreputable or inexperienced devisers of 
short-term projects, with terms that failed to deliver real, 
sustainable economic opportunity to the Shivwits Band and its 
membership. In the lead-up to the Lawrence decision, there were 
admittedly few opportunities that fulfilled the Shivwits Band's 
standards, given the remote location of the Shivwits Band Reservation 
and the historically limited surrounding development opportunities in 
the area.
    However, in a remarkable turnaround over the last few years, 
southern Utah has experienced growth at unprecedented rates, which has 
brought inventive and exciting commercial development opportunities to 
the area, led by reputable and established developers. Unfortunately, 
while this development boom has resulted in an economic upswing in the 
surrounding area, the Lawrence decision has made outside investors and 
developers reticent to engage the Shivwits Band for similar projects on 
Shivwits Band lands.
    The Shivwits Band wishes to engage legitimate third-party 
developer-investors with a proven track record of successful projects 
and relationships, so that the Shivwits Band may participate in the 
ongoing economic expansion of the surrounding area, while those 
opportunities remain available. Understandably, developer-investors of 
this caliber require certainty that a judicial forum is available to 
resolve any disputes that may arise out of a transactional relationship 
with the Shivwits Band. Without that certainty, developer-investors are 
unable to obtain project financing and cannot enter into enforceable 
agreements with the Shivwits Band, and therefore cannot engage the 
Shivwits Band as a long-term development partner. H.R. 3073 is intended 
to level the playing field, and place the Shivwits Band on equal 
footing with surrounding landowners, so that the Shivwits Band may also 
engage in meaningful development and capitalize on the area's economic 
growth.

    Question 2. As the law currently stands, the only way for the 
Shivwits Band to consent to state court jurisdiction is if the tribe 
holds a special election and adopts a universal consent to that end.

    2a) How does this process harm the tribe's sovereign immunity?

    Answer. A special election to adopt universal consent to state 
court jurisdiction would not impact the Shivwits Band's sovereign 
immunity from unconsented suit. A waiver of the Shivwits Band's 
sovereign immunity would still be required in order to effectuate a 
lawsuit against the Shivwits Band, as tribal sovereign immunity waivers 
must be expressly given. See Three Affiliated Tribes of the Ft. 
Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 892 
(1986).
    However, although the Lawrence decision does suggest that a 
Secretarial election under 25 U.S.C.Sec. 1326 would ensure that state 
courts can exercise jurisdiction over civil causes of action to which 
the Shivwits Band is a party, in reality, it remains an open question 
whether a Secretarial election could actually secure this result. One 
of the more perplexing aspects of the Lawrence decision is the lack of 
acknowledgement that the civil jurisdiction provision of P.L. 280 
allows states to hear ``civil causes of action between Indians or to 
which Indians are parties.'' 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1360(a) (emphasis added); 
see also 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1322. This language refers to suits involving 
individual Indians only, and does not mention suits against tribes. See 
Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 389 (1976) (observing that 
``there is notably absent'' from P.L. 280 ``any conferral of state 
jurisdiction over tribes themselves''); Parker Drilling Co. v. 
Metlakatla Indian Comm., 451 F. Supp. 1127, 1139 (quoting Bryan); Meier 
v. Sac & Fox Indian Tribe of Mississippi, 476 N.W.2d 61, 63 (Iowa 1991) 
(providing that ``the language of Public Law 280 . . . clearly confers 
narrow civil jurisdiction over individual Native Americans, and not the 
Tribe per se''); Long v. Chemehuevi Indian Reservation, 115 Cal.App.3d 
853 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 1981) (``No case has been cited to us, and we 
have found none, which concludes or even suggests, that [28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1360] conferred on California jurisdiction over the Indian tribes, 
as contrasted with individual Indian members of the tribes.'').
    Because the provisions of P.L. 280 are intended to confer state 
court jurisdiction over civil causes of action involving individual 
Indians, that is the type of jurisdiction that could be invoked 
following a Secretarial election under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1326. As a 
result, even if the Shivwits Band did hold a Secretarial election 
consenting to state court jurisdiction under P.L. 280, it remains a 
question whether a state court could permissibly exercise jurisdiction 
over civil causes of action involving the Shivwits Band as a tribe. As 
any third-party developer or investor would be engaging with the 
Shivwits Band in regards to any development project, those developers 
require certainty as to the availability of a forum in which to resolve 
disputes that arise during the course of the development project. 
Although the Lawrence decision suggests that a Secretarial election is 
the method to secure such certainty, it remains doubtful whether a 
Secretarial election under P.L. 280 would actually deliver this result, 
given that P.L. 280 confers jurisdiction on states in ``civil causes of 
action between Indians or to which Indians are parties,'' 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1360(a) (emphasis added), and does not relate to state court 
subject matter jurisdiction over cases to which the tribe itself is a 
party.
    However, despite the above, one clear takeaway from the Lawrence 
decision is that some form of Congressional authorization is required 
before state courts may permissibly exercise jurisdiction over civil 
causes of action involving the Shivwits Band. Lawrence suggests that 
P.L. 280's Secretarial election provisions could be the source of that 
Congressional authorization. But, given the limitations on P.L. 280's 
applicability (i.e., its application only to suits involving individual 
Indians), the Secretarial election provisions of P.L. 280 actually do 
not definitively supply the needed Congressional authorization for 
state court exercise of jurisdiction over suits involving the Shivwits 
Band as required under Lawrence. H.R. 3073 is intended to supply that 
certain and clear Congressional authorization, as required under 
Lawrence, for state courts' exercise of jurisdiction over civil causes 
of action involving the Shivwits Band, where the Shivwits Band consents 
to such jurisdiction by contract or agreement and provides a valid 
waiver of its sovereign immunity from unconsented suit.

    2b) How does H.R. 3073 circumvent that?

    Answer. As mentioned above, the Lawrence decision's key takeaway is 
that some form of Congressional authorization is required before a 
state court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over civil causes 
of action involving an Indian tribe. The Lawrence court held that P.L. 
280 could be the source of such Congressional authorization, where the 
tribe has held a Secretarial election under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1326 and 
voted to approve global consent to state court jurisdiction. However, 
as mentioned above, Lawrence does not address the fact that P.L. 280 
applies only to ``civil causes of action between Indians or to which 
Indians are parties,'' 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1360(a), rather than to tribal 
governments.
    H.R. 3073 therefore does not circumvent the Lawrence decision, but 
instead carries out Lawrence's holding that some form of Congressional 
authorization is required before a state court can exercise subject 
matter jurisdiction over civil causes of action involving the Shivwits 
Band, where the Shivwits Band has agreed by contract to subject itself 
to state court jurisdiction. H.R. 3073 supplies the Congressional 
authorization of state court subject matter jurisdiction over civil 
causes of action involving the Shivwits Band, as required by Lawrence.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Chairwoman Gonzales, for your 
testimony.
    Now I will recognize Mr. Begich from Alaska for 5 minutes 
to speak on his legislation, and also to introduce the witness 
from his district.
    Mr. Begich.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am especially 
pleased to welcome our next witness, The Honorable Mr. Thomas 
Harris, Vice President of the Cape Fox Corporation and a proud 
Alaskan from Saxman.
    As a constituent and a community leader, Mr. Harris brings 
invaluable insight into the long-standing land entitlement 
challenges faced by Cape Fox. I appreciate his commitment to 
ensuring southeast Alaska's native corporations receive fair 
and final treatment under ANCSA, and I thank him for being here 
today to testify in support of this important legislation.
    Welcome, Mr. Harris.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK BEGICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

    Mr. Begich. And just in speaking about my bill, the Cape 
Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act of 2025, or H.R. 2815, I 
wanted to put some things in the record.
    Land is at the heart of Alaska's future. Our ability to 
develop resources, build infrastructure, grow communities, and 
generate local opportunity all starts with access to land. 
Unfortunately, land exchanges, selections, and conveyances in 
Alaska have historically been fraught with red tape, delays, 
and Federal constraints. Many Alaska Native corporations were 
saddled with unusable or economically stranded parcels due to 
topography, regulatory overlays, or proximity restrictions. 
That is why legislation like H.R. 2815 is so important. It cuts 
through bureaucratic barriers to correct long-standing 
inequities and unlock real potential for economic development 
in our communities in Alaska.
    Cape Fox Corporation, representing the Alaska native 
village of Saxman, is a Southeast Alaska village corporation 
still awaiting full satisfaction of its ANCSA entitlement. This 
bill authorizes a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service 
for approximately 180 acres that will connect two existing Cape 
Fox parcels, land that is contiguous, strategic, and 
economically useful. Cape Fox was uniquely burdened by a 
restriction prohibiting selections within six miles of 
Ketchikan, limiting its options to steep, rocky, or isolated 
lands. This exchange finally remedies that disparity and gives 
Cape Fox the opportunity other southeast village corporations 
have already received.
    The land will facilitate development of a transportation 
and power corridor, improving access between Mahoney Lake and 
the Beaver Falls power grid. That connection is crucial to Cape 
Fox's plans for a renewable hydropower project, and will 
support winter access to tourism facilities and subsistence 
areas. Beyond energy, this access corridor opens the door to 
expanded tourism, marine services, and local job creation, 
sectors vital to Ketchikan and southeast Alaska as a whole. 
Letters of support from local governments, utilities, and 
businesses reflect a strong consensus that this land exchange 
is in the public interest.
    This bill honors the original promise of ANCSA: land in 
exchange for extinguished claims. By ensuring Cape Fox can 
actually use and benefit from its settlement lands, it advances 
self-determination and economic opportunity in a way that is 
consistent with both the law and the conservative principle of 
empowering local communities. H.R. 2815 is not about expanding 
government. It is about finishing what Congress started over 50 
years ago under ANCSA, and finally delivering on a promise made 
to the people of Saxman. It is a common-sense, locally-
supported solution that promotes development, respects Alaska's 
unique geography, and empowers Alaska native corporations to 
thrive on their own terms.
    I urge my colleagues to support this long-overdue 
legislation and support self-determination for the native 
people of southeast Alaska.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Begich follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. Nick Begich, a Representative in 
                   Congress from the State of Alaska
                              on H.R. 2815

Talking Points for Congressman Begich--Cape Fox Land Entitlement 
        Finalization Act of 2025 (H.R. 2815)

Setting the Stage: Why Land Matters in Alaska

     Land is at the heart of Alaska's future--our ability to 
develop resources, build infrastructure, grow communities, and generate 
local opportunity all starts with access to land.

     Unfortunately, land exchanges, selections, and conveyances 
in Alaska have historically been fraught with red tape, delays, and 
federal constraints. Many Alaska Native Corporations were saddled with 
unusable or economically stranded parcels due to topography, regulatory 
overlays, or proximity restrictions.

     That's why legislation like H.R. 2815 is so important: it 
cuts through bureaucratic barriers to correct longstanding inequities 
and unlock real potential for economic development in our communities.
Key Points on H.R. 2815

1. Finalizing a Long-Delayed Entitlement:

     Cape Fox Corporation, representing the Alaska Native 
village of Saxman, is the last Southeast Alaska village corporation 
still awaiting full satisfaction of its ANCSA entitlement.

     This bill authorizes a land exchange with the U.S. Forest 
Service for approximately 180 acres that will connect two existing Cape 
Fox parcels--land that is contiguous, strategic, and economically 
useful.
2. Fixing a Unique Inequity:

     Cape Fox was uniquely burdened by a restriction 
prohibiting selections within six miles of Ketchikan--limiting its 
options to steep, rocky, or isolated lands.

     This exchange finally remedies that disparity and gives 
Cape Fox the opportunity other Southeast village corporations have 
already received.
3. Infrastructure and Energy Benefits:

     The land will facilitate development of a transportation 
and power corridor, improving access between Mahoney Lake and the 
Beaver Falls Power Grid.

     That connection is crucial to Cape Fox's plans for a 
renewable hydropower project and will support winter access to tourism 
facilities and subsistence areas.
4. Supporting Local Economic Growth:

     Beyond energy, this access corridor opens the door to 
expanded tourism, marine services, and local job creation--sectors 
vital to Ketchikan and Southeast Alaska.

     Letters of support from local governments, utilities, and 
businesses reflect a strong consensus that this land exchange is in the 
public interest.
5. Respecting Tribal Sovereignty and ANCSA Intent:

     This bill honors the original promise of ANCSA--land in 
exchange for extinguished claims--by ensuring Cape Fox can actually use 
and benefit from its settlement lands.

     It advances self-determination and economic opportunity in 
a way that's consistent with both the law and the conservative 
principle of empowering local communities.
6. Closing Points

     H.R. 2815 is not about expanding government--it's about 
finishing what Congress started over 50 years ago under ANCSA, and 
finally delivering on a promise made to the people of Saxman.

     It's a commonsense, locally supported solution that 
promotes development, respects Alaska's unique geography, and empowers 
an Alaska Native Corporation to thrive on its own terms.

     I urge my colleagues to support this long-overdue 
legislation and help unlock new opportunity for Southeast Alaska.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Begich. And with that I yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
The Honorable Thomas Harris for 5 minutes.
    Vice President Harris.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT, CAPE FOX 
                 CORPORATION, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA

    Mr. Harris. [Speaking Native language.] Thank you so much, 
Chairman and Ranking Member Leger Fernandez. My name is Tom 
Harris, and I have the honor to serve as the Vice President of 
Cape Fox Corporation. Thank you for scheduling this important 
legislative hearing to consider H.R. 2815, the Cape Fox Land 
Entitlement Finalization Act of 2025.
    First I would like to thank our representative, Nick 
Begich, from my home State of Alaska and his support for 
introducing the bill.
    This bill has received strong support at home, and is 
identical to the bill the Senate passed last Congress with 
bipartisan support and unanimous consent. I am encouraged and 
optimistic that this Congress can get this much-needed bill 
passed.
    I also want to thank Committee staff, Mr. Ken Degenfelder 
and his team, for working with us to get this bill ready.
    This bill provides a fair and equitable treatment for the 
Cape Fox Corporation's land entitlement under the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act, commonly called ANCSA, under section 14 
of that, conveyances to villages and regional corporations. 
Cape Fox is the only village corporation in the 13 southeast 
Alaska villages that has not completed its ANCSA settlement 
after 51 years. We are the last ones since the passage of ANCSA 
in December 18, 1971.
    One of the main reasons this settlement has taken so long 
is that the Bureau of Land Management required the Corporation 
to include as its selection acreage on a rocky mountain top 
with zero economic value, zero access, zero safe environmental 
access, and it is not adjacent to any other corporation lands. 
It would be landlocked, effectively. BLM requires legislation 
to deviate from its interpretation of ANCSA's conveyance 
requirements.
    For those who have not traveled to the village of Saxman, 
home of the Cape Fox Corporation, we are nestled between the 
remote, mountainous expanse of Revillagigedo Island and the 
Tongass Narrows, with a handful of islands scattered beyond. 
The city of Ketchikan hems us in to the north and to the south 
the Annette Island Indian Reservation, belonging to the 
Metlakatla Indian Community. To further complicate matters, 
ANCSA restricted us from making any selections within six miles 
of the boundary of the City of Ketchikan, therefore severely 
limiting our choices both internally and externally. All other 
Cape Fox selected lands are outside that six-mile designation.
    However, this bill will rectify the situation and allow for 
the conveyance of 180 acres of tract in the Tongass National 
Forest under ANCSA. It will provide an access corridor between 
two existing Cape Fox tracks, effectively meeting the 
congressional requirement that our selections be compact and 
contiguous.
    In addition to this, the conveyance will allow for access 
to land critical to sustaining the grid in the community. This 
grid, as many know, is aged and it is over-stressed with the 
advent of 1.7 million tourists a year visiting the area. So we 
are anxious to have that grid available and sustained for the 
benefit of the entire community not as a competing interest, 
but as a completing interest.
    We also wish to have access to lands for subsistence 
hunting, fishing, gathering, and management, among other 
economic development opportunities.
    [Speaking Native language.] Thank you again for allowing 
us, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas Harris, Vice President, 
                          Cape Fox Corporation
                              on H.R. 2815

    Dear Chairman Hurd and Ranking Member Fernandez:

    Thank you for scheduling this very important legislative hearing to 
consider H.R. 2815, the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act of 
2025. First, I would like to thank Representative Nick Begich from our 
home state of Alaska for his support in introducing this bill and 
moving it forward through the process. This bill has also received 
strong local support. By background, this identical bill passed the 
U.S. Senate last Congress with bipartisan support and by unanimous 
consent. Last Congress, we simply ran out of time to get this bill to 
the President's desk, but I am optimistic that we can finally get this 
much-needed bill passed in this Congress. I also want to thank 
Committee staff, Mr. Ken Degenfelder and his team, for working with us 
to get this bill ready.
    This bill provides fair and equitable treatment for Cape Fox 
Corporation's land entitlement under the Alaskan Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA) Section 14, ``Conveyances to Village and 
Regional Corporations.'' Cape Fox Corporation is the only village 
corporation of the 13 SE Alaska Villages that has not completed its 
ANCSA settlement. We are the last ones after 50 years since the passage 
in 1971. One of the main reasons this settlement has taken so long is 
that the Bureau of Land Management required the Village to include 
acreage on a rocky mountaintop with zero economic value and not 
adjacent to any other Cape Fox ANCSA lands. The BLM requires 
legislation to deviate from its interpretation of ANCSA conveyance 
requirements.
    For those who have not traveled to the Village of Saxman, home of 
Cape Fox Corporation, we are nestled between the remote, mountainous 
expanse of Revillagigedo Island and the Tongass Narrows, with a handful 
of islands scattered beyond. Ketchikan hems us to the north and is 
further hemmed in by the Annette Island Indian Reservation, belonging 
to the Metlakatla Indian Community, to the south. To further complicate 
matters, the ANCSA restricted us from making selections within six 
miles of the boundary of the city of Ketchikan, thus, our choices were 
significantly limited. All other Cape Fox selected lands are outside of 
the 
6-mile designation.
    However, this bill will rectify the situation and allow for the 
conveyance of a 
180-acre tract in the Tongass National Forest under ANCSA, which will 
provide an access corridor between two existing Cape Fox tracts. 
Conveyance of this tract would allow Cape Fox to consolidate its land 
holdings in the area, providing access to a proposed hydro power 
project. Conveyance of the corridor will allow access to land currently 
unavailable for subsistence hunting, fishing, subsistence gathering, 
and other economic development.
    Thank you again for scheduling today's hearing, and I look forward 
to answering your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Tom Harris, Vice President, 
                          Cape Fox Corporation

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. What would finalizing this final land conveyance under 
ANCSA mean to Cape Fox?

    Answer. The passage of ANCSA on December 18, 1971 represented the 
largest single land settlement promise in Congressional history. This 
promise has been held up 53 years, for Cape Fox Corporation, based on 
the BLM'S strict bureaucratic interpretation of the letter of the law 
rather than the spirit of the law.
    The spirit of the law intended that ANCSA corporations receive 
these lands as a community development endowment in support of and in 
service to the socioeconomic survival of each Congressionally 
identified community.
    The agency's interpretation of the letter of the law, set aside 
that Congressional intent, in favor of forcing Cape Fox to select an 
isolated mountain top, with zero legal or ecological viable access and 
zero socioeconomic value to its community.
    The passage of H.R. 2815 would for the first time in history, 
provide Cape Fox Corporation the last critical land selection that 
would finalize the land settlement and open up the potential to:

    1. Complete a compact and contiguous utility corridor to a 
potential 9 MW hydroelectric site.

    2. Develop that site into a completing interest hydroelectric power 
plant in support of the growing renewable energy demands the local 
community.

    3. Complete a comprehensive analysis of this site as what may be 
the largest hydroelectric energy storage facility in Alaska, capable of 
stabilizing the Southeast Alaska Grid, while simultaneously functioning 
as a power charging station for Electric Vessels and Cruise Ships, that 
are currently forced to run onboard generators while in port.

    Question 2. It is my understanding that the Cape Fox Corporation 
has the necessary licenses to develop the proposed Mahoney Lake Project 
power facility.

    2a) What obstacles currently stand in the way of this development?

    Answer. At the present time no Power Sales Agreement (PSA) exists 
between CFC and Ketchikan Public Utility or any other entity. This is 
due in part to the lack of a secured utility corridor which H.R. 2815 
addresses. As such, pursuit of a comprehensive hydropower/storage 
development plan, complete with a PSA and financing package can proceed 
upon the passage of H.R. 2815.

    Question 3. From Cape Fox's perspective, how would H.R. 2815 ensure 
the Mahoney Lake Project is developed and enacted effectively?

    Answer. The passage of HR 2815 and the conveyance of these lands 
will allow CFC to move forward with design and construction of an 
access corridor between its existing land holdings. The construction of 
the access road will not only significantly increase the feasibility of 
the Mahoney Power Project, but it will also provide a significant 
source of Cultural Wood required to maintain traditional customs and 
skills of the Saxman People. There will also be additional economic 
activity due to increased access to its traditional lands. The increase 
to the existing tourism venues will be substantial.

    Question 4. Committee research has shown that Cape Fox and 
surrounding areas deal with power brownouts due to the lack of ample 
energy supplied.

    4a) Share with us what the Cape Fox brownout experience has been?

    Answer. In 2019 the Saxman / Ketchikan Area experienced a severe 
drought situation which impacted the hydropower sources. The area 
usually generates 98% of its power from Hydro, the drought required 
full use of the Utilities' existing diesel generation backup and 
additional generators to be added. The village of Metlakatla has 
experienced several ``power crisis'' events over the years due to aging 
power grids.

    4b) How would the Mahoney Lake Power Project reduce brownouts?

    Answer. The Mahoney Power Project would increase electrical power 
production allowing for additional long-term power security.

    Question 5. What positive impacts would the Mahoney Lake Power 
Project provide for surrounding communities?

    Answer. Coupled with an intertie to Metlakatla, many economic 
projects including changing current diesel heat to electric, providing 
power to Cruise Ships, and expanding the Ketchikan Shipyard can be 
realized. The additional power will allow expansion for potential 
milling or mining activities such as the Niblack and Bokan-Dotson Mines 
which would require additional electrical generation. The largest 
potential power requirement is for the Cruise Lines which are 
interested in ``plugging in'' to the Ketchikan power grid. A large 
cruise ship requires 12 MGW of power to partially shut down its 
systems.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Vice President Harris, for your 
testimony. The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Frances 
Charles for 5 minutes.
    Chairwoman Charles.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANCES CHARLES, CHAIRWOMAN, LOWER ELWHA 
            KLALLAM TRIBE, PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON

    Ms. Charles. Thank you. Chairman Hurd, Ranking Members 
Leger Fernandez, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee 
for the Indian and Insular Affairs, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on H.R. 2388 to transfer certain Federal 
lands on the Elwha River to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe in 
trust and reservation status. I want to thank Representative 
Randall from the State of Washington for introducing this bill. 
My name is Frances Charles. I am the Chairwoman of the Lower 
Elwha Tribe and the Tribal Council. I have been on tribal 
council since 1993 and Chairwoman for the past 21 years.
    Our reservation is located on the Elwha River. It flows 
into the San Juan de Fuca on the beautiful Olympic Peninsula. 
The Elwha River is our life blood. It is our life blood that 
flows in our veins, and our Elwha people have lived there for 
thousands and thousands of years, in balance with the abundant 
salmon runs which always provided food for our families, 
tables, and ceremonials that we feed our guests with.
    In 1913 the Elwha Dam was built just a few miles upstream 
from our homes. No one told us, and no one had asked us. I 
remember the elders that talked about it in our earlier years. 
The dam blocked 95 percent of the river. Almost overnight the 
salmon runs were destroyed, reduced to a small fraction of what 
that had been. Since then we have been working to get the dams 
removed.
    The Elwha Dam also inundated the Indian Valley under the 
reservoir of the dam form known to us today as Lake Aldwell. 
The valley is a significant cultural and ceremonial values to 
the Tribe, as it is located on our ancestral village in the 
sacred land known as the creation site. After working for 
decades to remove the dam and restore the ecosystem in the 
salmon fisheries, Congress passed the Elwha River Ecosystem and 
Elwha Fisheries Restoration Act in 1992, which led to the 
removal of the dam and restoration of the Elwha ecosystem and 
the fisheries by 2014.
    The Department of the Interior had to acquire the dam and 
the reservoir lands in order to remove the dam and to have it 
transferred to these lands that we are talking and discussing 
about today. The Elwha River Act identifies the Tribe as one of 
the four entities eligible for the transfer of these lands. The 
other eligible entities are Federal and State agencies that do 
not want the land.
    The largest piece of the land that has been transferred by 
the bill is the former Aldwell Reservoir, which I previously 
mentioned is the site of the great importance to our Tribe. I 
cannot express how difficult it has been to have that site 
submerged for the past 100 years. Several of us had hiked to 
our spiritual sacred site to enjoy the site, the visuals of our 
ancestors. We were willing and eager to take on the stewardship 
management of our ancestors' lands, and will conduct all of the 
activities in accordance with the need to restore and protect 
the salmon resources on the Elwha River, as we always have 
done.
    We have received letters of unconditional support from 
Makah Tribe, City of Port Angeles, and the Washington 
Department of Transportation is supporting this transfer as 
well.
    We have included disclaimer language in section three of 
the bill to ensure that all of our treaty rights and the treaty 
rights of our sister Tribes will be protected, and we will 
continue to work with our sister Tribes as a part of the river 
restoration efforts.
    We have waited for years, years for this land to be 
transferred to us, and to achieve that, we need the bill to 
move along to be passed in Congress. We have been the sole 
workers, the sole Tribe working on the dam removal and the 
fisheries restoration for so many years, so many generations. 
And we have put all of our resources and energy into the river 
restoration. We will continue to work with Representative 
Randall, this Committee, and the National Park Service to bring 
the last piece of the dam removal project to closure.
    I thank our ancestors, the previous tribal council, our 
elders, the veterans, and the future generations to follow to 
be here before you all today. I thank you for your time and the 
work that you have put into this just as well.
    [Speaking Native language.] Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Charles follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Frances G. Charles, Chairwoman, Tribal Council, 
                       Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
                              on H.R. 2388

    Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and distinguished 
members of the Subcommittee for Indian and Insular Affairs, thank you 
for this opportunity to submit written testimony on H.R. 2388, which 
would take certain federal land in the State of Washington into trust 
for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
    I also wish to express my gratitude to Representative Randall for 
introducing this bill. And we appreciate the work of our partner at the 
National Park Service in contributing to the development of this bill.
    My name is Frances Charles. I serve as the Chairwoman of the Tribal 
Council for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. I have been elected to serve 
on the Tribal Council from 1993 to the present, and for the past 20 
years my people have elected me as the Chairwoman of the Tribal 
Council. During all of this time, the removal of the dams on the Elwha 
River and the restoration of the ecosystem and salmon fisheries has 
been a critical goal of the Tribe, to which we have devoted an 
extraordinary amount of our time, expertise, and resources. Together, 
with our partner the National Park Service, we have accomplished many 
monumental objectives but much work remains to fulfill the promise of 
restoring the ecosystem and the salmon fisheries as made possible by 
the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992. This 
is one of the greatest ecosystem restoration projects ever undertaken 
in the United States, and the Lower Elwha Tribe is proudly committed to 
seeing this effort through to the end, when restored runs of our salmon 
relatives will, after over 100 years, again fill the Elwha River with 
life.
1. H.R. 2388, to take certain Federal land into trust for the Lower 
        Elwha Klallam Tribe
    This bill will transfer certain federal land on the Elwha River on 
the Olympic Peninsula in the State of Washington into trust and 
reservation status for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (Lower Elwha or 
Tribe). Section 3 of the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries 
Restoration Act,
    P.L. 102-495, 10 Stat. 3173, October 24, 1992 (EREFRA), authorized 
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to acquire the property 
necessary to carry out the dam removal and the restoration of the 
ecosystem and fisheries on the Elwha River. Subsection 3(c)(3) of 
EREFRA directed the Secretary to address the suitability of, among 
other things, the transfer to Lower Elwha of lands acquired for the 
project outside of the boundaries of Olympic National Park.
    Most of the parcels subject to this bill (approximately 1,061 
acres) are those that the Secretary acquired for the demolition of the 
Elwha Dam and ecological restoration of the former Lake Aldwell 
reservoir that had been impounded by that dam.\1\ These lands (often 
referred to as Project Lands or Aldwell Lands) are located beginning at 
4.9 miles upriver from the mouth of the Elwha River. The Lower Elwha 
Tribe has performed the largest share of the restoration work on these 
parcels, including revegetation of the former reservoir site and 
operation of on-reservation hatchery programs that have preserved the 
native Elwha genetics of four species of anadromous fish.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Lake Aldwell Parcels are identified on the map entitled 
Olympic National Park Proposed Transfer of Elwha Lands, Map Number 149/
178020, December 2021.
    \2\ The Tribe's original hatchery was rendered unusable by the 
elevated water table resulting from dam removal. The new Lower Elwha 
fish hatchery maintains programs for Steelhead trout, Coho, Chum and 
Pink salmon. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 
maintains the Elwha River Chinook salmon hatchery program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The remaining lands transferred by this bill are the three Hill 
parcels (approximately 16.83 acres) and the Halberg parcel 
(approximately 4.8 acres), which the Secretary acquired to construct 
the pipeline conveying surface water to the Tribe's new fish hatchery--
the House of Salmon--which was built with EREFRA funds as mitigation 
for the dam removal project.\3\ Water for the new hatchery is supplied 
from the City of Port Angeles's new surface water intake and water 
treatment plant, which were constructed as mitigation to protect the 
City's municipal and industrial water supply. The Hill and Halberg 
parcels are contiguous to the Tribe's current reservation boundary and 
adjacent to the Tribe's fish hatchery pipeline and rights-of-way for 
the operation and maintenance of that pipeline. These small parcels 
will be managed in accordance with existing conservation requirements 
applied to the contiguous reservation lands along the Elwha River 
corridor, which do not allow hunting given their proximity to tribal 
buildings, residential areas, and public roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The Hill and Halberg parcels are also identified on Map Number 
149/178020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill is an important final action to the dam removal project 
and the restoration of the fisheries. The bill will uphold the federal 
government's trust and treaty obligations to the Tribe by protecting 
the federal investment in restoration and conservation of the Elwha 
River and allowing for the continued restoration of the river ecosystem 
and fisheries under the Tribe's management. This bill will also protect 
sacred and cultural homelands by restoring them to the stewardship of 
the Tribe. Lower Elwha is the only tribe that has been involved in this 
project and has done more in-water and on-ground work than any agency, 
including on the very lands transferred by this bill.
2. The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe
    The Tribe is located on the North Olympic Peninsula in the 
northwestern corner of Washington State. Our Reservation is at the 
mouth of the Elwha River where it meets the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a 
body of marine water that also serves as the international boundary 
with Canada. Our people have inhabited the territory along the Elwha 
River from the mouth to the upper basin in the Olympic Mountains since 
time immemorial.
    In 1855, the Tribe, expressly represented by the village of Elwha, 
entered into the Treaty of Point No Point with the United States. While 
ceding all of our homeland territory to the United States, the Tribe 
reserved its pre-existing aboriginal rights to fish, hunt and gather in 
those lands and waters, and agreed to other promises made by the United 
States.
    After the Treaty, the Lower Elwha were essentially a landless 
people--living as best we could in the Elwha watershed and along Port 
Angeles Harbor--until the Secretary of the Interior acquired several 
hundred acres of land at the mouth of the Elwha River in trust for us 
in 1936-37, under authority of the newly enacted Indian Reorganization 
Act of 1934. This land was formally proclaimed as the Lower Elwha 
Reservation in 1968. It was not until 1974 that the State of 
Washington's suppression of our treaty rights began to come to an end 
with the successful fishing rights litigation United States v. 
Washington, which resulted in the well-known Boldt Decision of 1974 
that the Treaty Tribes have a right to harvest half of the salmon runs. 
U.S. v Washington is still going on today and the 20 Treaty Tribes have 
become co-managers, with the State of Washington, of the fishery 
resources, with sophisticated management and regulatory capabilities.
    In 1978, the federal court in U.S. v Washington began, in a series 
of decisions, to delineate Lower Elwha's Usual and Accustomed treaty 
fishing area (commonly referred to as ``U&A''). The first decision is 
most relevant for purposes of this bill, that Lower Elwha's adjudicated 
U&A includes, but is not limited to, the waters of the Strait of Juan 
de Fuca and all the streams draining into it from the Hoko River 
eastward to the mouth of Hood Canal. U.S. v Washington, 459 F.Supp. 
1020, 1049 (W.D.Wash. 1978). This Lower Elwha treaty fishing area thus 
includes the Elwha River and other rivers to the east and west.
3. The Elwha River Dams
    During the period between the 1855 Treaty and the 1937 relocation 
of Elwha Indians to the Elwha River trust lands, one of the major 
hardships to visit the Tribe began to unfold. In the early 1900s, two 
dams were built on the Elwha River to provide hydroelectric power to 
the City of Port Angeles and the booming timber industry. Up until 
then, the Elwha River had been the most productive salmon river on the 
North Olympic Peninsula, and was one of few rivers with all six species 
of anadromous fish--Chinook, Sockeye, Coho, Chum and Pink salmon, and 
Steelhead trout. The dams were constructed without fish passage, a 
clear violation of State law at the time, and immediately blocked 
access to 95% of the river's pristine salmon habitat, seventy-five 
miles of river and stream. This is illustrated in two maps attached at 
the end of this testimony. Predictably, this resulted in the immediate 
decimation of the anadromous salmon and trout populations. The loss of 
those fisheries, which have significant cultural and economic meaning 
to the Tribe, was an obvious infringement of the Tribe's treaty fishing 
rights and proved devastating.
    The Elwha Dam built in 1913 inundated Indian Valley under the 
reservoir that became known as Lake Aldwell. This valley, which 
comprises the lands to be transferred by this bill, is an important 
cultural and ceremonial location to the Tribe that includes our 
ancestral village of Tee-tee-ulth, a once prolific fishing site for 
Elwha Chinook and Sockeye salmon located on the Elwha River at the 
mouth of Indian Creek. In addition to Tee-tee-ulth, the valley is the 
location for other seasonal fishing and hunting camps, lithic 
processing sites, and sacred lands, including land known as the 
Creation Site--the location where the Creator bathed and blessed the 
Elwha people.\4\ Uncountable generations of our people traveled to this 
site to purify themselves and receive spiritual guidance, a practice 
that has been restored by the removal of the Elwha Dam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Indian Valley is the subject of a Traditional Cultural Property 
(``TCP'') study being conducted on behalf of the Lower Elwha as 
mitigation for the Federal Highway Administration and Washington State 
Department of Transportation Highway 101 Elwha River Bridge Replacement 
Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Lower Elwha's Fight Against the Dams
    In the 1970s and 80s, the Tribe challenged the relicensing of the 
dams on the Elwha River by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC).\5\ We officially intervened in the FERC relicensing proceedings 
for the Elwha Dam in 1976. After we did so, the National Park Service 
(NPS), and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) also intervened. Other federal 
and state agencies intervened as the challenged proceedings continued. 
In 1978, the Elwha Dam failed a safety inspection, which prevented the 
expenditure of funds on the Lower Elwha Reservation for important 
programs related to flood control, housing, and economic development. 
In response, the Tribe hired its own consulting and engineering firms 
and pushed FERC into issuing an emergency dam safety order requiring 
the repair of the dam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Appendix B ``Federal Licensing Chronology'' to the Elwha Report 
provides a summary of the challenges to the dams on the Elwha River. 
The Elwha Report: Restoration of the Elwha River Ecosystem & Native 
Anadromous Fisheries, U.S. Department of the Interior (January 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 1980s, the Tribe turned its attention to the issue of fish 
passage, and the fight expanded. It was clear to the Tribe, the federal 
agencies, and the conservation groups involved that continued operation 
of the dams, even with mitigation for fish passage, could never meet 
the resource goals of the federal agencies, the state, or the Tribe. In 
1986, the Tribe intervened in the FERC relicensing of the Glines Canyon 
Dam, and shortly thereafter the NPS intervened on the basis that the 
initial construction and continued operation within the boundaries of 
Olympic National Park was a violation of numerous federal laws.
    Lower Elwha was one of the most assertive parties seeking removal 
of the dams. We led the charge, prompting federal and state agencies to 
intervene. It is important to note that Lower Elwha stood alone as the 
only Tribe in the fight against the dams. Other tribes may claim some 
rights or interests in the Elwha River fisheries, but none of them has 
actively engaged or devoted resources, time, and the hard work that was 
necessary to achieve dam removal and the ongoing process of ecosystem 
restoration.
    The focus on dam removal as the only viable solution, as advocated 
by the parties intervening in the FERC proceedings, also posed the 
potential loss of jobs in the City of Port Angeles, Washington, and 
surrounding community. Congress recognized that this conflict between 
the environment, treaty rights, and jobs required a negotiated 
resolution that could not be achieved through settlement of the 
litigation. Only compromise achieved through congressional action was 
capable of restoring the fisheries, protecting the treaty rights of 
tribes, and minimizing economic impact on the local community. Congress 
stepped in to bring closure to this long-standing issue.
5. The Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992
    In 1992, Congress passed EREFRA to remove the dams and restore the 
river ecosystem and fisheries. In order to remove the dams, the 
hydroelectric project lands--dam and reservoir sites--were acquired by 
the Department of Interior.\6\ The project lands located outside of 
Olympic National Park that were acquired for this purpose (the Aldwell 
Reservoir lands comprising 1061 acres) are the subject of this bill 
(along with the smaller, miscellaneous Hill and Halberg parcels). 
EREFRA section 3(c)(3) specifically included provisions for Interior to 
protect the federal investment in restoration of the river and its 
fisheries by transferring lands to Lower Elwha in trust for housing, 
cultural, or economic purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ The Secretary of Interior's authority under EREFRA was 
transferred to the National Park Service by Secretarial Order No. 3212 
(February 29, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EREFRA section 3(c)(4) also required Interior to protect the water 
supply from the Elwha River for the City of Port Angeles and its 
industrial user. As mitigation for dam removal, the City's water intake 
had to be relocated and a treatment plant constructed to protect water 
quality from the heavy sediment loads that would be released from 
behind the former dams.
    Also as mitigation, the Tribe's fish hatchery was replaced and 
relocated with a new facility designed to prevent the extirpation of 
the Elwha River anadromous fish stocks. As a result, the water intake 
for the fish hatchery was moved and co-located with City's new surface 
water intake. NPS thus acquired the Hill and Halberg parcels 
(approximately 21 acres) for construction of the pipeline that supplies 
the new fish hatchery with surface water supply from the City's new 
intake. The transfer of these parcels in the bill to the Tribe is a 
necessary prerequisite so the NPS can transfer the pipeline 
infrastructure and rights-of-way for its operation and maintenance.
6. Status of Dam Removal and Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration; 
        Endangered Species Act Considerations
    The two dams were removed from 2011-14 and the work of restoring 
the ecosystem and fisheries is ongoing. Even prior to demolition, the 
Tribe's stream and habitat restoration crew had built numerous 
Engineered Log Jams (ELJs) in the river to direct the energy of the 
newly liberated river and create various micro-habitats and refugia for 
fish restoration. With the dams gone, an enormous volume (21 million 
cubic yards) of accumulated sediment was released, with much of the 
sand ending up initially as a new 90 acre beach. Most of the material 
has since been transported eastward via longshore drift and has been 
deposited as far east as Ediz Hook, the spit that encloses Port Angeles 
Harbor. The Tribe's Revegetation Crew has planted over 450,000 native 
trees and shrubs and 8,000 pounds of seeds, and eradicated noxious 
weeds, throughout the newly dewatered former reservoir sites, not only 
on the Aldwell lands transferred by this bill but also the upper site 
behind the former Glines Canyon Dam site within Olympic National Park.
    Fish are beginning to recolonize the upper watershed above the 
Glines site. But the total moratorium on commercial and recreational 
fishing that began in 2011 remains in effect. It will take additional 
salmon life cycles, greater distribution, and increased productivity 
before significant fishing can resume, particularly for the listed 
species, Chinook salmon and Steelhead. Inter-agency fisheries 
scientists, including the Tribe's, have identified four phases for 
fisheries recovery: Preservation, Recolonization, Local Adaptation, and 
Sustained Natural Production. Adaptive management of fish recovery is 
governed by Biological Opinions issued by the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries). Triggers for moving from one recovery 
phase to the next are based on surveys of returning adult fish, 
including fish numbers and natural spawning locations, as well as 
enumeration of out-migrating smolts. At this point, recovery by coho 
salmon, Chinook salmon, and Steelhead are in the early to middle stages 
of the Recolonization phase. One notable exception to the ongoing 
fishing moratorium on the Elwha River is with coho salmon, which have 
responded rapidly thanks to early translocation efforts and hatchery 
supplementation. The Co-managers (WDFW and the Tribe) initiated a 
Ceremonial and Subsistence coho salmon fishery in fall 2023 due to 
projected modest surpluses of returning fish, and the fact that this is 
not a listed species under recovery NOAA guidance.
    Compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 16 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1531-1544 (ESA), has been a critical long-term 
consideration in Elwha River dam removal and fisheries restoration, 
particularly with respect to the use of fish hatchery and rearing 
facilities. In order to remove the very dams responsible for decimation 
of the salmon runs, the Tribe and the United States had to ensure that 
doing so would not result in ``jeopardy''--in the language of the ESA--
to listed fish or undue harm to the remnants of the native Elwha 
anadromous fish stocks.\7\ Release of the accumulated sediment posed a 
serious risk of extirpating the remaining native fish, because it could 
wipe out a whole year-class or generation of juveniles during the time 
they spend in the river maturing to a point when they are ready to out-
migrate to salt water. Accordingly, as a key element of its ESA ``no 
jeopardy'' determination for dam removal in July 2012, NOAA Fisheries 
required the Tribe and the State of Washington to operate their 
existing hatchery and rearing programs as a ``gene bank,'' to preserve 
the unique native genetics of Elwha River anadromous fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Anadromous fish are those that begin their life cycle in fresh-
water streams, migrate to the ocean for several years, and return to 
their natal streams to reproduce. The Elwha River historically produced 
all five species of Pacific Salmon as well as Steelhead. Currently, 
Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead are listed as 
threatened under the ESA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, the Tribe has been long at work to ensure the survival of 
these sacred species. Since the 1970s, the Tribe has operated an on-
reservation hatchery with programs for several anadromous species, 
including stocks still carrying native Elwha River genetics. The 
Tribe's old hatchery was rendered unusable due to an elevated water 
table after dam removal, and EREFRA provided funding for construction 
of a new state-of-the-art hatchery at river mile 1.2. The WDFW also 
operates its rearing facility on the Elwha River, 2.5 miles upstream of 
the Elwha hatchery, where it raises Chinook salmon hatched from Elwha 
River eggs at an out-of-watershed facility. The goal of Elwha 
restoration is of course to ensure that all native species be preserved 
and eventually reproducing naturally in the seventy-five miles of 
pristine habitat made accessible by dam removal, such that hatchery 
production may eventually become unnecessary.
    The Tribe's four hatchery programs and the State's single program 
are operated in accordance with Hatchery and Genetics Management Plans 
(HGMPs) that have been reviewed and approved by NMFS in a December 2012 
Biological Opinions under the ESA. From 2012-2015, the Tribe, Interior, 
and NMFS partnered to successfully defend a major ESA lawsuit 
challenging the adequacy of these HGMPs and NMFS's Biological Opinions.
    Clearly, Lower Elwha has made a major commitment of time, 
resources, and its own expertise to work closely with our agency 
partners to make Elwha River dam removal and ecosystem and fisheries 
restoration a major success story.
7. Disposition of Project Lands to Protect Federal Investment in 
        Restoration
    Section 2(c) of H.R. 2388 expressly preserves the requirement of 
EREFRA subsection 3(c)(3), that following dam removal--and ``for 
purposes of protecting the federal investment in restoration'' of the 
Elwha River and its fisheries--the Aldwell Lands are to be managed in 
accordance with the policy of Section 1(b) of Public Law 90-542, the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271, ``except that 
modifications necessary to restore, protect, and enhance fish resources 
. . . are hereby authorized.'' That subsection of EREFRA also 
identified the Tribe as one of four entities eligible for transfer of 
these lands, in trust and reservation status. The other three eligible 
entities were: NPS, for inclusion in the National Park System; the 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), for addition to the 
National Wildlife Refuge System; and the State of Washington, for 
development and use by the State. Neither NPS nor the State desired the 
lands. The USFWS conducted a feasibility study and concluded that these 
lands are of insufficient size and lacking the wildlife and fish values 
necessary for a National Wildlife Refuge. Accordingly, NPS has 
identified Lower Elwha as the only authorized entity willing and able 
to take on the management of these lands to protect the federal 
investment in Elwha River restoration.
    Indeed, Lower Elwha stands willing and eager to take on the 
stewardship and management of these ancestral lands, to fully realize 
the promise of a restored ecosystem and fisheries. Any use of these 
lands for tribal housing or economic development purposes, as provided 
for in EREFRA, will be conducted in accordance with the need to 
restore, protect, and enhance the fish resources and the Elwha River as 
the first priority.
8. Support from State Agencies and Local and Tribal Governments
    In 2020, the Tribe received letters of unconditional support from 
the Makah Tribe, City of Port Angeles, and Washington Department of 
Transportation, all recognizing the years of hard work put in by the 
Tribe and the cultural importance of these lands to the Lower Elwha.
    A joint letter of conditional support was submitted by the 
Jamestown and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribes (S'Klallam Tribes). This 
letter supported the transfer of the project lands to Lower Elwha--
while acknowledging the presence of the Elwha Creation Site and Elwha 
village of Tee-tee-ulth--and sought protection of the S'Klallams' 
interpretation of their treaty rights. Lower Elwha and the S'Klallams 
resolved the treaty rights concerns by the addition of the savings 
clause (or disclaimer) in Section 3 of H.R. 2388, discussed below. It 
must be noted that the hard work of dam removal by Lower Elwha and NPS 
as its primary partner has already advanced the protection of treaty 
rights of all Tribes, including the S'Klallam. Ultimately, the ongoing 
efforts to restore the ecosystem and fisheries will result in the 
increased natural production of anadromous fish and harvest 
opportunities in those fisheries.
9. Protection of Treaty Rights Through Continued Adaptive Management 
        and Legislative Savings Provisions in EREFRA and H.R. 2388
    The protection the S'Klallam Tribes seek is already accounted for 
in EREFRA. The savings clause in subsection 8(b) of EREFRA provides: 
``Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any Indian Tribe 
secured by Treaty or other law of the United States.'' Thus, the 
provision in EREFRA that allows for the transfer in trust of lands to 
the Elwha Klallam for tribal housing, cultural and economic development 
purposes, as well as the provision recognizing the transfer of the 
Aldwell lands, cannot be said to affect the S'Klallam Tribes' treaty 
rights.
    In addition, the savings clause (or disclaimer) in Section 3 ``No 
Impact on Treaty Rights,'' provides: ``Nothing in this Act affects 
treaty rights under the Treaty between the United States of America and 
the S'Klallams Indians, concluded at Treaty of Point No Point.'' The 
inclusion of this language in the bill protects the treaty rights of 
the parties to the Treaty of Point No Point, including protecting the 
S'Klallam Tribes from any effect that the transfer of the project lands 
in trust and reservation status for the Elwha Klallam may otherwise 
have on any such rights. These lands proposed for transfer to the Tribe 
in the bill were previously under federal ownership, which likewise, 
would not have extinguished tribal treaty rights. Change in title and 
vesting of reservation status to the Tribe similarly is not an act of 
abrogation of treaty rights and the disclaimer language makes that 
clear.
    Moreover, EREFRA subsection 3(c)(3) requires that the transfer to 
Elwha Klallam of lands in trust be done in accordance with a management 
plan to be prepared by the Tribe in consultation with the Secretary of 
Interior. The management plan will be consistent with both the purposes 
of the transfer of the lands in trust for the Elwha Klallam enumerated 
in subsection 3(c)(3), including tribal housing, cultural and economic 
development, and the protection of the federal investment in 
restoration. The ongoing restoration requirements will be governed in 
large part by the Biological Opinions and adaptive management practices 
explained in Section 6 above.
    For purposes of providing the S'Klallam Tribes with the protection 
they are seeking for the exercise of their treaty rights, the 
consultation with Secretary of Interior on the management plan will 
provide an opportunity for the S'Klallam Tribes to engage on those 
aspects of the plan that involve fishing, hunting and gathering in a 
manner consistent with: (1) the respective treaty rights of the Elwha 
Klallam and the S'Klallam Tribes; (2) the restoration of the lands, 
ecosystem, river and fisheries; (3) the purposes for the transfer of 
land in trust affected by this bill; and (4) the trust responsibility 
of the United States toward the three Tribes.
    Nothing further needs to be added to this bill. The protections 
sought by the S'Klallam Tribes for the exercise of their treaty rights 
under the Treaty of Point No Point are accounted for. No new 
legislative language is needed beyond the inclusion of the savings 
clause in Section 3, which is the standard disclaimer language used by 
Congress on a consistent basis.
10. In Closing
    The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe has invested heavily in the fight for 
dam removal and has worked tirelessly toward the goal of a restored 
Elwha River. We have been involved in every aspect of this historic 
process, from hands-in-the-earth and waders-in-the-river to peer-
reviewed scientific papers and federal appeals court legal briefs and 
everything in between. We have almost certainly spent more time than 
any other party working on the Aldwell Lands to restore the native 
vegetation and the habitat in the river. An appendix listing examples 
of these actions is included with this testimony. This Congress has the 
opportunity to take one of the final legislative actions necessary to 
complete this historic dam removal and ecosystem restoration project: 
the transfer of these ancestral lands, in trust and reservation status, 
to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
    Once again, the Tribe is most grateful for the opportunity to 
present this testimony about a matter of profound importance to the 
Tribe's history and its future.

Appendix of Actions taken by the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

To Accomplish Dam Removal and Restoration of the Elwha River and Its 
        Fisheries

    --Worked to oppose the relicensing of dams without adequate 
mitigation for salmon fisheries and to obtain the support of NPS and 
NMFS for these efforts.

    --Successfully achieved the enactment of EREFRA in 1992 (which set 
up this land transfer), along with allies in Congress and in the 
federal agencies.

    --Worked to prepare for the impacts of dam removal.

     Constructed numerous ELJ's for habitat.

     Built new state of art hatchery to preserve native fish 
genetics, which enabled NMFS to approve dam removal under ESA.

     Upgraded flood control levee.

     Dedicated a couple hundred acres of Reservation land west 
of the levee to habitat.

    --Worked to achieve restoration and adaptive management after dam 
removal.

     Defended anti-hatchery lawsuit with U.S.

     Operated fish hatchery to prevent extirpation of Elwha 
River fish stocks.

     Revegetated the Aldwell lands.

     Built more ELJs.

     Monitored the fish returns.

     Published peer-reviewed scientific papers with agency 
partners.

     Worked with agencies both to ensure adherence to terms of 
applicable BiOps and also to develop potential updates to ESA criteria.

     Worked with City of Port Angeles and NPS to design soft 
armoring and ELJ solution to erosion at surface water intake and City's 
Rainey Well intake.

     Opposed NPS Hot Springs Road Realignment Project for 
failure to adequately protect fisheries; that project planning is 
starting over with a new EIS.

     Worked with FHWA and WSDOT on fisheries mitigation package 
for replacement of Highway 101 Elwha River Bridge.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                 

    Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Chairwoman Charles, for your 
testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Eric Shepherd for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Shepherd.

STATEMENT OF ERIC SHEPHERD, VICE CHAIRMAN, SOUTH DAKOTA NATIVE 
        HOMEOWNERSHIP COALITION, SISSETON, SOUTH DAKOTA

    Mr. Shepherd. [Speaking Native language.] Chairman Hurd, 
Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee 
on Indian and Insular Affairs, my name is Eric Shepherd.
    [Speaking Native language.] I am the Executive Director of 
the Sisseton-Wahpeton Housing Authority in Sisseton, South 
Dakota, on the beautiful Lake Traverse reservation. I am here 
today in my capacity as the Vice Chair of the Board of 
Directors of the South Dakota Homeownership Coalition.
    I would like to begin by thanking Representative Dusty 
Johnson and Senator John Thune from my great State of South 
Dakota for their leadership on H.R. 2130 and S. 723 to 
streamline the Bureau of Indian Affairs' mortgage-related 
processes to promote homeownership opportunities for native 
people living on tribal land.
    Representative Johnson and Senator Thune recognized for 
homeownership on trust land to be successful, the BIA must 
modernize its system to facilitate mortgages and financing to 
meet the need of Indians wanting to build, buy, renovate homes 
on reservations. Collectively, on behalf of the South Dakota 
Native Homeownership Coalition and the 75 TDHEs, CDFI, non-
profits, lenders, developers, all of these entities we work 
with in South Dakota, we express our strong support for H.R. 
2130, the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025.
    The Subcommittee and other House committees have been made 
aware of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives' housing needs in 
this country. You all have seen the statistics of high poverty 
rates, low incomes, housing shortages, lack of plumbing and 
heating, and unique development issues, just a few of those 
scenarios. Compounding the housing shortage is overcrowding. 
Overcrowding of our Indian homes is one of the many reasons why 
offering opportunities for families who qualify for mortgage 
financing is so important. Our communities must leverage our 
housing resources, and the BIA should not stand in the way of 
our people achieving self-sufficiency through home ownership.
    Now I would like to talk more specifically about H.R. 2130. 
We like the bill language that designs new BIA systems and 
streamlines existing processes compatible with private mortgage 
industry practices. H.R. 2130 seeks to pave the way to increase 
the homeownership rates of native families. Overall, the 
legislation prioritizes the mortgage processes within the BIA 
and while seeking to hold staff accountable.
    The status title's reports are the equivalent to non-Indian 
land titles and house titles. The BIA is responsible for 
producing these TSRs, and mortgage lenders need the TSR's to 
document clear title and to provide approve financing. 
Unfortunately, it can take anywhere from 3 months to up to 5 
years to receive the TSR from the BIA. H.R. 2130 establishes 
timelines for review and processing guidelines for leasehold 
mortgages, right of away documents, land mortgages, and TSRs.
    H.R. 2130 includes congressional oversight, which means the 
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, the BIA Director, and 
any of the BIA superintendents or regional directors can be 
held accountable if they are not processing TSRs or other 
mortgage documents according to the timelines in this bill.
    TAAMS terminals are like the database for all tribal land 
status on every Indian reservation. We strongly support the 
provision that requires BIA to give Tribes, and the Federal 
agencies read-only access to TAAMS. We strongly support the 
bill's mandate for a government to assess the needs and costs 
for digitization of mortgage-related documents.
    The BIA must modernize and enter today's world of 
technology so that it can provide the appropriate level of 
service necessary to provide home ownership transactions for 
our native families. Often home buyers on tribal trust land 
feel like their mortgages packages fall into a black hole 
somewhere within the depths of the BIA. That is why we also 
strongly support the establishment of a realty ombudsman to 
ensure compliance with time frames and to receive inquiries 
from tribal citizens, Tribe lenders, and tribal and Federal 
agencies. It will be important, however, for this position to 
have the authority to act where appropriate.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. We 
look forward to continuing to work with our South Dakota 
delegation and the Subcommittee and all of Congress to improve 
homeownership opportunities for native people, wherever they 
may reside.
    I would like to answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shepherd follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Eric Shepherd Vice Chair, Board of Directors, 
              South Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition
                              on H.R. 2130

Introduction
    Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the 
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, my name is Eric Shepherd. I 
am the executive director of the Sisseton Wahpeton Housing Authority in 
Sisseton, SD on the Lake Traverse Reservation. I am here today in my 
capacity as the Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of the South 
Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition.
    Started in 2013, the South Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition is 
a membership organization with a mission to increase homeownership 
opportunities for South Dakota's Native people to build strong and 
healthy communities. We're a diverse group of public agencies and 
private institutions. Our stakeholders include approximately 75 
representatives of South Dakota's tribes, federal and state agencies, 
Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs), nonprofit organizations, 
housing developers, residential construction professionals, lenders, 
and community development financial institutions (CDFIs).
    We appreciate the opportunity to express our strong support for 
H.R. 2130, the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025. Before I 
begin, I would like to thank Representative Dusty Johnson and Senator 
John Thune from my home state of South Dakota for their leadership on 
H.R. 2130 and the Senate companion bill 
S. 723 to streamline the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA's) mortgage-
related processes to promote homeownership opportunities for Native 
people living on tribal land. We appreciate that they both recognize 
that a strong housing development strategy in Indian Country must 
include homeownership as a component, and, for the homeownership 
process to work on trust land, the BIA must modernize its systems to 
accommodate the pace of the mortgage financing industry.
Background
    Native Americans living in tribal areas and remote Alaskan villages 
experience some of the greatest housing needs in the country, with high 
poverty rates, low incomes, overcrowding, lack of plumbing and heat, 
and unique development issues. Overcrowding of available housing 
stresses both the occupants and the structures themselves. Homes on the 
reservations in South Dakota require much more maintenance than the 
average wear-and-tear to remain safe and livable. This is not for lack 
of property management; it is because there are not enough homes to go 
around.
    A three-bedroom house is designed for a family of five or six, but 
often because of overcrowding these units are occupied by three or more 
families--sometimes as many as 15 individuals sharing the house. This 
is one of the many reasons why offering opportunities for families who 
qualify for mortgage financing to build or purchase their own home is 
so important in Native communities.
Feedback on H.R. 2130
    Now, I'd like to talk more specifically about H.R. 2130. We commend 
the emphasis this bill places on designing new BIA systems and 
streamlining existing processes in a way that is compatible with 
private mortgage industry practices. Native people should be able to 
enter mortgage transactions just like any other citizen in this 
country. Unfortunately, that is not always the case due to extreme and 
unjustifiable delays and inconsistencies within BIA's processes. As our 
trustee, the BIA has a fiduciary duty to protect tribal land and 
prevent it from leaving its trust status. However, this trust 
responsibility should not impede a tribal member's ability to utilize 
their property rights to achieve their dream of homeownership.
    H.R. 2130 will go a long way to build on the momentum we are seeing 
across Indian Country to increase the homeownership rates of Native 
families. Overall, we applaud the legislation for prioritizing the 
mortgage processes within the BIA and setting a tone of accountability. 
We do have concerns about the ``reduction in force'' efforts we are 
hearing about across the federal government and the impact they will 
have on implementing this legislation, once enacted. Even so, the 
following provisions have the potential to offer some great solutions:
    Review and Processing Timeframes. The bill establishes timelines 
for review and processing guidelines for leasehold mortgages, right-of-
way documents, land mortgages, and Title Status Reports (TSRs). It also 
mandates an annual report to Congress about the volume of mortgage 
package documents and whether the applicable timeframes were met. We 
appreciate the inclusion of this congressional oversight and hope that 
it is adequate to ensure compliance with these statutory requirements. 
We recommend that the Congressional oversight committees monitor 
compliance closely and consider more stringent enforcement mechanisms 
as appropriate.
    To date, the BIA's administrative Mortgage Handbook (52 IAM 4-H) 
issued in 2019 sets out similar timeframes. However, we have seen 
delays occur during every step of the process including residential 
lease approvals, mortgage encumbrance approvals, and the issuance of 
initial and certified Title Status Reports (TSRs). The BIA generally 
does not follow the timelines published in the Mortgage Handbook. 
Historically, BIA has not been transparent or accountable with these 
review processes, and there are often unexplained gaps in timing. One 
national lender partner shared that lease approvals can take anywhere 
from three months to five years. One tribe requested a meeting with its 
BIA Agency Office to see what the tribe could do to expedite the s 
in the process. They found 25 mortgage-related documents stalled on the 
desk of the BIA Agency Superintendent.

    Reasons for delays in these s of the process include:

     Most BIA offices do not accept electronic copies so there 
are delays as packages are mailed within BIA offices from the Agency 
Office to the Regional Office and back to the Agency office and 
eventually back to the requester.

     Most BIA offices have inadequate staffing levels and 
capacity to support mortgage-related transactions.

     BIA does not provide adequate training for staff involved 
with mortgage-related transactions. They don't understand the time 
sensitivity involved with mortgage-related transactions. Borrowers 
could be impacted by rising interest rates due to delays or may have to 
resubmit their loan application materials if the loans take too long to 
process.

     Many leases are rejected by the BIA because the legal 
descriptions are not accurate. Increased read-only access to the TAAMS 
for tribes and lenders may help to mitigate this problem.

    Delayed timeframes for the issuance of certified TSRs can have 
significant implications for the lenders doing business on trust land. 
To perfect a mortgage loan, the lender must receive a certified TSR 
from the BIA. If the loan is not perfected within 12 months of closing, 
secondary market investors require the lenders to indemnify the loans. 
If the delay exceeds 36 months, the lender will have to repurchase the 
loans. This delayed process has a chilling effect on future lending 
opportunities on tribal land. As I mentioned, we expect these delays to 
be exacerbated by the RIFs some BIA offices may be experiencing.
    TAAMs Terminals. We strongly support the provision that requires 
BIA to give tribes and the federal agencies ``read only'' access to 
Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS) terminals. It is 
critical for the BIA to take the s necessary to provide access to 
TAAMs terminals as expeditiously as possible to ensure that mortgage 
processes are not unnecessarily stalled, including tribes who have 
adopted their own leasing processes under the Helping Expedite and 
Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act).
    1st Certified Title Status Report. Another key element we are 
pleased to see is the requirement for the 1st certified TSR to be 
issued within 14 days. Off reservation, county assessors' records allow 
one to see title records within minutes, and title policies are issued 
by title companies for underwriting purposes usually within two to four 
weeks. Receiving comparable documents from the BIA has varied widely by 
BIA Region from 30 days to 365 days or more in many cases. Lenders 
require certified Title Status Reports to document title for 
underwriting purposes. These reports are submitted to loan underwriters 
along with the loan application and traditional underwriting 
information. Requiring a 14-day timeline for obtaining the 1st 
certified TSR moves the process one step closer to the timing of the 
industry experiences on fee simple land for home loan transactions.
    Shift Towards Digitization. We strongly support the bill's mandate 
for a GAO study about the need and cost for digitization of mortgage-
related documents. The BIA must modernize and enter today's world of 
technology so that it can provide the appropriate level of service 
necessary to support homeownership transactions for Native families. We 
urge Congress to appropriate the funds necessary to implement the 
findings of the GAO study as quickly as possible. We also encourage BIA 
to expand their practice of allowing documents to be submitted 
electronically through a secure portal, including for uploading and 
transmitting any mortgage-related documents, residential leases, and 
TSR requests.
    Realty Ombudsman. Often, homebuyers on trust land feel like their 
mortgage packages fall into a ``black hole'' somewhere within the 
depths of the BIA. Therefore, we strongly support the establishment of 
a Realty Ombudsman to ensure compliance with timeframes and to receive 
inquiries from tribal citizens, tribes, lenders, and tribal and federal 
agencies. It will be important, however, for this position to have the 
authority to act where appropriate. For example, we would like to see 
the Ombudsman have the authority to utilize automatic waivers and 
assumed approval if timelines for reviewing mortgage packages are not 
being met.
Recommendations
    The South Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition once again commends 
Representative Johnson for introducing H.R. 2130.
    We would like to offer some additional suggestions for the BIA to 
consider on an administrative level as they implement the legislation 
once it is enacted.
    Create BIA Mortgage Advisory Committee. We recommend that the BIA 
create a Mortgage Advisory Committee which includes private lenders, 
Native CDFIs, tribes, TDHEs, federal agencies, and the Government 
Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and 
Ginnie Mae to work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to identify 
additional innovative solutions to streamline the mortgage processes in 
Indian Country.
    This Advisory Committee could also make recommendations about 
potential improvements to bring BIA systems into the 21st century with 
the technology needed to support residential mortgage transactions. 
This could include an expeditious review at the Central Office level of 
lease and security instrument rider templates required for conventional 
lending to eliminate lengthy document reviews at the individual 
transaction level.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. We look 
forward to continuing to work with our South Dakota delegation, this 
Subcommittee, and all of Congress to improve homeownership 
opportunities for Native people wherever they may reside.
    I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Bruce Westerman to Eric 
  Shepherd, Vice Chairman, South Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition

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

    Question 1. The BIA published their Mortgage Handbook on their 
website, detailing a step-by-step timeframe for processing mortgages. 
However, tribal members have stated often that these guidelines are not 
met. Has the BIA been transparent during the mortgage application 
review processes? Please elaborate.

    Question 2. H.R. 2130 would create a specialized position at the 
BIA to facilitate communication between the BIA, tribes, tribal 
members, lenders, and federal agencies who operate tribal housing 
programs. Please elaborate on the necessity of this proposed position.

    2a) Please provide examples of past situations in which this 
position would have facilitated the mortgage process in a timelier 
manner?

    Question 3. This Subcommittee has previously heard that it can take 
anywhere from six to 18 months for a Title Status Report (TSR) to be 
issued. Is that time frame, correct?

    3a) How could the BIA improve upon their efforts in issuing these 
TSRs?

    3b) How do you see H.R. 2130 helping to alleviate this problem?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Hurd. Thank you so much, Mr. Shepherd, for that 
testimony. The Chair will now recognize members for 5 minutes 
for questions, and I will start by recognizing myself for 5 
minutes.
    One of the things, when I was speaking with the Chairman of 
the entire House Natural Resources Committee, Chairman 
Westerman, about what this Committee's priorities would be in 
this Congress, he mentioned economic development in Indian 
Country. And I think a number of these bills that we are 
talking about today are driving toward that goal.
    I want to start, Chairwoman Gonzales, with the issue that 
you have, and I want to commend my colleague from Utah, 
Congresswoman Maloy, for helping to push this legislation 
through and bring it forward to this Committee.
    I was concerned to hear some of the background that you 
mentioned in your testimony. And my understanding is that the 
Shivwits Band has seen collateral damage from the Lawrence 
case, this 10th Circuit case. Can you talk a little bit about 
how that has affected the Tribe, and what the fallout from that 
case was, and what it meant for you from an economic 
development standpoint, and what it meant for how your Tribe 
would deal with outside investors, and how you work with 
outside investors?
    Oh, if you could hit the talk button there.
    Ms. Gonzales. I can speak to a little bit of what I do 
know, but as for all the legal aspects I would have to refer 
that to my legal so that he would be able to answer you 
correctly so that you get all the information.
    But on the other hand, you know, as we watched the growth 
of outside of our reservation with St. George and other areas, 
having your hands tied and not being able to have outside 
investors come in to be able to want to start a business on our 
lands or with our people to help them grow economically which 
would mean jobs and so much more for our people, but a lot of 
it we have had to turn down. And it is not what we are able to 
gain right now, but what we have had to turn down with whether 
it be solar projects, a cancer medical center, a golf course, 
different opportunities that have come to our reservation that 
we have had to turn down and turn away because we are just not 
set up that way, you know?
    And we want to be able to put ourselves in a position not 
just for this council, but for the councils after me. We always 
talk about how our kids are going to be sitting in our places 1 
day because they are our future, and they are the ones that are 
going to be making these decisions for us. So in order to do 
that, we feel like when we set goals, we don't just set them 
for today, but we set them for tomorrow, a week from now, 5 
years, 10 years, 20 years down the road, and this is what is 
going to help them get there, to make that decision for 
themselves, for their people, in making those important 
decisions.
    Mr. Hurd. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Chairwoman 
Gonzales.
    Mr. Shepherd, a question for you. In your testimony you 
mentioned the long delays and inconsistencies with the BIA 
mortgage process. I think you talked about it as being like a 
black hole, and how frustrating that is for tribal members. Can 
you talk about what those experiences have been like for tribal 
members?
    And can you tell us, do you know what is the average time 
frame for a tribal member to obtain a mortgage? And practically 
speaking, what does that mean for members of your Tribe?
    Mr. Shepherd. Thank you, Chairman Hurd, that is a great 
question.
    Here is an example. Here is one scenario of many, right? 
Some Tribes have stronger relationships with the BIA because 
maybe a former person in their internal house was from the BIA. 
But that shouldn't be a reason why there are delays. There 
should be some consistency. And that is all we are striving 
for, is to find exactly that right there, is that consistency.
    Since I have been part of the coalition for the past 6 
years now, it is hard, especially for our smaller sister 
Tribes,to hear these delays of up to 5 years, which is 
ridiculous. We are fortunate here in Sisseton that we have a 
BIA superintendent in our tribal administration building that 
we can stomp on the ground there and get his ear, and get 
someone over to Aberdeen, which is the regional office for us. 
But that is, you know, 80 miles. But some people are hours 
away, right? They don't have that opportunity.
    It is time to just find that consistency, common ground for 
every Tribe, not just certain Tribes.
    Mr. Hurd. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Shepherd, for 
that.
    And I want to commend my colleague from South Dakota, Mr. 
Johnson, on this important piece of legislation. This is 
addressing a problem that should not be there, and that 
disparity between Indian Country and outside of Indian Country 
is something that is seriously problematic, I know for your 
constituents and others, as well, across the country. So I 
think this is a good piece of legislation.
    My time is about to expire so I am going to yield back. And 
at this time I will recognize the Ranking Member from 
Washington, Ms. Randall, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Randall.
    Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    As I mentioned earlier, I am proud to be leading the Lower 
Elwha Klallam Tribe Project Lands Restoration Act along with 
Senator Cantwell, and I am also very grateful for the work from 
Representative Kilmer did on this policy while he served.
    This bill would transfer those three parcels of land 
totaling more than 1,000 acres to BIA to be held in trust for 
the Tribe, and additionally, two dams along the Elwha River 
will be demolished allowing the Tribe to continue the work to 
restore the river and recover Pacific salmon and Chinook, among 
a number of other native fish that are essential to our way of 
life, and certainly to the Lower Elwha.
    Chairwoman Charles, you have served your Tribe as 
Chairwoman for more than two decades. And detailing your 
testimony, the work that went into dam removal and the Tribe's 
effort to restore the Elwha River and its salmon fisheries, I 
wanted to give you a little bit more time just to expand on the 
importance of this legislation and what it means to the Tribe 
and the ecosystem restoration that you plan to do.
    Ms. Charles. Thank you for that.
    I go back to thinking about what our elders have told us as 
I was growing up. This is something that we all inherited 
within our community, and the challenges that we are faced 
with, the time immemorial that takes place with us.
    The challenges that our elders had just to fish in the 
river in their earlier years, the stories that we were told of 
how they were able to see the Chinook runs so plentifully, that 
they were able to walk on the backs of the Chinook runs in the 
earlier years. The challenges that we have had with our 
ancestors that were buried in certain locations along the river 
itself, and having the opportunities to go up and, like I 
mentioned earlier, that we hiked up into the creation site. 
That is very spiritual and cultural for our generations to 
come, and not only for us but just to go up there and have that 
feeling in the visual of what that village looked like that was 
under real water for 100 years, to be able to come back to our 
creation site and spiritually be back involved in it.
    The endurance that we have taken to our youth and being 
able to publicly teach our youth, our kids in the public 
schools, to be able to develop curriculums to teach not only 
our own kids and others and non-natives to have the opportunity 
to hear the history of who we are and where we come from.
    It is really important because of the salmon runs that we 
had lost, but having the ability to see the work that our crews 
and our staff are doing to ensure that the salmon runs are 
coming back. And they are, they are. And being able to provide 
salmon for our families, but also to put them back into the old 
smokehouses, to be able to bring the traditional cultural 
values back to our communities and the surrounding communities.
    It does not only benefit the Tribe, but it also benefits 
the surrounding communities just as well on those parts of it. 
So it is an opportunity for the growth, it is an opportunity 
that we are looking for the ecosystem. It is an opportunity for 
us to restore and rebuild what was damaged by the dams itself, 
and having the growth and seeing what has been acknowledged to 
this day is there are so many words that could be said that so 
many times we are speechless because of what we have witnessed.
    Seeing the wildlife come back, seeing the fish come in, 
seeing the opportunities for that growth for our future 
generations, and your future generations, and that is something 
that we really cherish and have those abilities to witness in 
my lifetime. The elders that came back here to testify in their 
lifetime were not there to witness on that groundbreaking day 
in 2011, and those are some things that we will cherish, and I 
will cherish for the rest of my life.
    [Speaking Native language.] Thank you.
    Ms. Randall. Thank you so much.
    And Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to enter into 
the record a letter of support for this work from the National 
Parks Conservation Association.
    Mr. Hurd. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                National Parks Conservation Association

                                                   May 20, 2025    

Re: NPCA Position on Legislation Before the Subcommittee on Indian and 
Insular Affairs

    Dear Representative:

    Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been 
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing 
our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and 
supporters nationwide, we write to share our thoughts on select 
legislation ahead of a hearing in the Committee on Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs scheduled for May 21, 2025.

    H.R. 2388--Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Project Lands Restoration Act: 
NPCA supports this legislation to transfer lands at Olympic National 
Park from the National Park Service to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe in 
Washington state. The United States government committed to 
transferring these lands, which include important cultural and natural 
sites, in the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 
1992. This Act will fulfill that longstanding commitment and empower 
the Tribe to continue its successful work to restore natural areas and 
invest in salmon recovery in the Elwha River watershed.

    Thank you for considering our views.

            Sincerely,

                                          Christina Hazard,
                                               Legislative Director

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Randall. Thank you.
    Mr. Hurd. Without objection.
    Ms. Randall. Thank you so much. And the letter expresses 
support from the association's 1.6 million members in 
fulfilling this long-standing commitment and empowering the 
Lower Elwha.
    With just a few seconds left, I will yield my time so that 
we can continue this work. Thank you.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentlewoman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. Maloy, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Maloy.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My colleague from South Dakota with his strong voice 
apologized earlier for his abysmal grasp of the Dakota 
language. I feel like I have to apologize for my abysmal 
ability to spit out words in English this morning, but I 
appreciate you being here.
    Chairwoman Gonzales, do you feel like this legislation 
sufficiently helps ensure the Shivwits Band of Paiutes retains 
its sovereign immunity?
    Ms. Gonzales. I definitely do with all my heart. I believe 
that our sovereignty is very important to the government, as 
well as to our people. And people like yourself understand how 
important that means to our people to be sovereign as a Tribe, 
when many other Tribes out there have not had that, or are 
trying to get it, and yet our Shivwits Band of people feel 
very, very proud that we do have that. And that is one thing 
that I will always be thankful for, that you guys have 
recognized and always respected our sovereign immunity for our 
people. So yes, thank you.
    Ms. Maloy. And thank you. You have already explained it a 
little bit to Mr. Hurd, but can you just elaborate on why it is 
so important for the band to have the ability to lease the land 
that is being held in trust?
    Ms. Gonzales. Yes. I know I constantly always talk about 
our future, but what it definitely means is that those who come 
to our table, that we are able to actually sit down and have a 
really good conversation. When we get to that point of when 
they say, you know, how long are we able to lease this land, 
and how far can this project go, and, what does it entail, we 
are able to continue those talks instead of saying: ``you know 
what? that is about the best that we could do.'' and they think 
about it, and they are gone.
    Well, this time it will mean that economic development 
could come to our people and last longer than just 5 or 10 
years, that it will mean that this will be something special 
for them that, not only mean jobs for our people, but it also 
means housing. It also means being able to pour into our 
scholarship fund for those who want a higher education. It also 
means that they will be able to have someplace to come back to 
with a community center that will have, everything up and going 
for them, whether it be emergency management or whatever else 
that we are able to put in place for them.
    But we are always talking about our children and our 
future, and our scholarship program is one thing that I am 
really proud of that I feel that we would really, really be 
able to have it go even further for those who would like to 
reach those goals. And that is where we would like to be able 
to put some money in, is into our children.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you. And you said that you are always 
talking about the future. I think that is what makes you a good 
and effective leader for your people.
    I have got almost 2 minutes left. Do you just want to 
outline for the Committee what you see as the future of the 
Shivwits Band?
    Ms. Gonzales. Yes. What I see for our future is that we 
have homes for everybody. We have homes for our elders. We have 
homes for our younger youth that are growing up that are going 
to school, that they have some place to come back to. What it 
means is that we are able to maybe have a rehabilitation center 
for those who are on drugs or alcohol. It is very strong on our 
reservation, and they have no place to go. What it means is 
that people on our reservation that are looking for jobs, that 
they have those. What it means is that we are able to stand 
strong and independent and be proud of who we are, that we have 
things on our reservation that are going to help us get to 
where we need to be as regular people, just like everybody 
else. That is what it means to me.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you for being willing to share that. I 
know that is really personal, and I can see that you are 
emotional about it, but I think it is helpful for us as a 
Committee to hear that from you.
    Ms. Gonzales. Thank you.
    Ms. Maloy. And it is an honor to be part of helping clear 
some of the obstacles to get you to that future.
    Thank you for traveling here. Thank you for testifying.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentlewoman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentleman from Utah, Dr. Kennedy, for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Kennedy.
    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an honor to be 
here, and I applaud my colleagues for these outstanding bills, 
and I will particularly point to Congresswoman Maloy.
    Thank you for working with these outstanding people in our 
State to try to move the agenda forward, which for generations 
has been impeding their capacity to progress.
    So Madam Chair Gonzales, I had a few questions for you to 
highlight some of the compelling testimony that you have given 
to us today. Thank you for being here, and thanks to all of our 
witnesses. These are really important issues that we are 
working on.
    But we had a good conversation yesterday, and I am 
interested in further description from you about the 
jurisdictional issues your Tribe faces that stunt the economic 
development in your area, particularly the long-term leases. 
Could you clarify that? Because all of this is going on the 
record as to why we should pass this bill ultimately through 
the House and the Senate.
    So can you tell me more about the long-term leases and how 
this bill that Congresswoman Maloy is proposing, that I am 
happy to co-sponsor, how would that help in long-term leases 
and other economic development opportunities?
    Ms. Gonzales. Yes. How that would definitely be able to 
help is that when we have those potential offers that come to 
our table, those long-term leases, for an extended period of 
time are kind of what we are looking for, and that is definite 
income that is coming into our people. That it is not something 
that is going to end in the short term.
    Along with that comes jobs, but that definitely will mean 
that we are able to sit down at the table and be able to talk 
about the leases that we do have, where they are at, and the 
people that come into business with us feel like maybe they 
need to be heard maybe in a court. We want to make sure that we 
are able to give them that opportunity because when you talk to 
people, and see where they are coming from, and being open 
minded, that they want to be able to know that they are being 
heard fairly. That is very important to anybody. But anybody 
who is going to come on our land and want to do business with 
us, we want to make sure that we treat them just like people 
like we would want to be treated.
    Dr. Kennedy. Absolutely.
    Ms. Gonzales. To me, that is giving our word, and our 
native people's word means a lot.
    Dr. Kennedy. I am excited about that leveling of the 
playing field, giving equal access to justice, which is a big 
part of what this is attempting to do. So I am grateful for 
that.
    Ms. Gonzales. Yes.
    Dr. Kennedy. The economic development, as well, the long-
term leasing, the capacity for an investor to say, I haven't 
got a long period of time for me to recoup my investment. That 
is a vital aspect of this, as well. So I am actually pleased to 
be party to this important policy.
    But can you tell me more, Madam Chair Gonzales, about 
missed economic opportunities in your period of time and 
service and leadership to your Tribe? What sort of lost 
economic opportunities can you relate to us that you have 
experienced?
    Ms. Gonzales. Well, in my last term I was privileged to 
work on a solar project for our band. And we looked at the 
potential areas of where we would like to have it and, all the 
great benefits and things that were going to come out of it, 
and what we were going to have to come in the middle for and 
work on.
    But when it came time to how long, and the term, and 
because a solar project isn't small, it is pretty huge. And we 
can't say: ``well, we could only do this for 25 years.'' That 
is kind of not what they are looking for and not what we are 
looking for, and, they want to be able to have a commitment. 
And we cannot give them that commitment. And unfortunately they 
pulled out.
    Dr. Kennedy. Right.
    Ms. Gonzales. They found someplace else to go that was 
willing to work with them, and they left.
    Dr. Kennedy. And potentially, millions of dollars were 
taken from the economic opportunities of your Tribe and your 
people.
    Ms. Gonzales. Correct.
    Dr. Kennedy. Yes.
    Ms. Gonzales. Yes.
    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you for relaying that, and I do believe 
this bill actually is going to help address some of those 
concerns so when opportunities knock in the future on the door 
of your people, then those opportunities can be potentially 
realized instead of let go. So I am excited about that.
    Ms. Gonzales. Thank you.
    Dr. Kennedy. Vice Chair Shepherd, thank you also for your 
testimony. You talked about the lengthy and troublesome process 
at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Can you tell me more about 
what the BIA has said about their reasons for their delays as 
you have worked with them?
    Mr. Shepherd. A lot of times we refer to the BIA as the 
clock watchers, because time is not of the essence to them.
    Another scenario I want to provide to this, speaking on 
this lens here, and thank you for acknowledging that, Mr. 
Kennedy, is say Grandma passes away, and the home goes down to 
the grandson or whoever. And now the grandson or whoever is 
going to take over the successor of that home, the lease and 
the mortgage have to match. Where is the delay at the BIA? And 
sometimes that can take up to 5 years, like I provided in my 
testimony.
    Dr. Kennedy. Yes, entirely inappropriate.
    Mr. Shepherd. So then, if those timelines aren't met, 
additional costs start to add up.
    Dr. Kennedy. I am grateful that we can work on that, as 
well. It is unacceptable for that sort of performance.
    Mr. Chair, thank you for the time. I yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Begich.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question to 
Vice President Harris.
    Vice President Harris, one of the things that stands out 
about this legislation is how it supports better connectivity 
between Cape Fox parcels. From an Alaskan perspective, 
improving access is a lifeline for economic development and 
cultural continuity. Can you describe how the access corridor 
created by this conveyance will help Cape Fox develop 
infrastructure, such as roadways or utility corridors, and what 
kind of economic or community uses you envision emerging from 
the improved connectivity?
    Mr. Harris. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    Our community has 14,000 years of documented history on the 
site. We are very proud of the matriarchs in our community. One 
of those is known as the chief of all women, whose pole stands 
in Pioneer Square, from our village. And they taught us to look 
for completing interests, not competing interests. And these 
completing interests are all around us if we are willing to 
open our eyes, ears, and hearts, and minds to each other. We 
don't want to compete with the City of Ketchikan; we want to 
complete with them by stabilizing that grid. This parcel of 
land allows us to do that.
    Too often, we have seen dams and hydro projects built where 
they are competing with the salmon. Fog Woman, who taught 
completing interests, she was a matriarch of the woman in 
Pioneer Square in Seattle, taught that if we were to take a 
salmon out of the mouth of the river, we had a moral, ethical 
obligation to finish the journey for that salmon and, in doing 
so, keep that cycle alive not just for that generation, but for 
generations to come. That process included taking the eggs, 
putting them up above the barrier, taking the carcasses that we 
weren't going to eat to feed the next generation of microbes 
that fed those salmon. It was critical so that those salmon 
would have the strontium signature from those rivers to know 
where to come back to. That is what has been missing.
    And we look at this small hydro project at 9 megawatts to 
be an opportunity for us to re-seed those rivers, so that we 
can go after the 600 megawatts on the Susitna River, and not be 
afraid of losing the salmon. If we don't get food right, what 
do we do to make up for not getting food right? What we do is 
we build more prisons. We build more homeless shelters. We 
build more orphanages because we didn't get food right.
    Matriarchs are important for teaching us completing 
interests, so we know how to care for each other.
    Mr. Begich. Thank you. And I think you raised such an 
important point. We talk across all these bills that we are 
talking about today about obstacles, and Representative Maloy 
mentioned we are trying to remove obstacles.
    We are trying to remove the barriers that allow us to 
contribute to completing interests, as you highlight. And we 
want to make sure that we are a singular people, that we have 
the ability to work together, as we are talking about 
Chairwoman Gonzales's priorities for making sure that her 
people are able to interact with and make commitments with the 
broader community, and I think that is what we are all trying 
to do across these bills is making sure that we are ironing out 
the wrinkles, eliminating the barriers, that we are making sure 
we are removing the obstacles, that prevent communities like 
our community in Saxman, Alaska from being a part of the 
broader community.
    And we certainly recognize that you are part of the broader 
community. You are an integral part. You are the original 
community of our lands, and I am proud to have you here. Thank 
you for making the long journey from Alaska, Vice President 
Harris. It is not an easy one. We make it all the time. But it 
is important that you are here, it is important that your 
interests are represented. And I feel very good about being 
able to move this important legislation and these other 
important pieces of legislation through to completion in the 
119th Congress.
    And with that I yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Shepherd, I want to pick up where Chair Hurd left off 
about some of these delays within BIA. Now, there is this BIA 
mortgage manual that provides some guidelines for how quickly 
these processes should be completed. In your experience, does 
BIA adhere to those guidelines?
    Mr. Shepherd. Thank you, Dusty, from our home State, 
Representative.
    I think they hear them, but the action behind them doesn't 
match the deaf ears. So the solution to that, is to put time 
frames on them in their manual. Let's revise that. Let's make 
some amendments to that, so that the actions meet the time 
frames that are necessary to for growth, for prosperity, and 
our people to live in dignity, then.
    Mr. Johnson. You have an understanding of where the delays 
happen? Like, where does something get high centered? Is there 
good transparency in the process? Can you understand where the 
piece of paper got lost?
    Mr. Shepherd. Again, thank you, Representative Johnson, for 
that question.
    I don't think, on our side we can locate that, exactly from 
this desk to this desk to this desk, where that delay is. We 
always hear that they are short-staffed. That is about all we 
hear.
    Mr. Johnson. I would imagine you have had conversations 
with families that get frustrated with not only the delay, but 
also not understanding the cause of the delay, and also not 
having any sense of when the delay might be resolved.
    Mr. Shepherd. Again, great question, Representative 
Johnson. And to be able to say that to our people it is very 
frustrating. And the end result sometimes is that the family 
gives up, and that is not the solution.
    Mr. Johnson. So do you know of instances where families 
have given up?
    Mr. Shepherd. Oh, yes. Definitely. And that is just one 
scenario. You know, we have multiple resources, from the 
government to make home ownership possible through competitive 
grants and the HIP program and things like that. We have been 
through that scenario before in the past 5 years with some of 
our tribal members, not just on our reservation, but within our 
own home State, of all nine reservations. We have seen too 
often.
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear I 
understand the broad responsibilities that we place on BIA with 
regard to our trust and treaty obligations. I get it. They have 
got a lot to do. And yet, clearly, this is an area that is 
getting done particularly poorly.
    And one of the things that H.R. 2130 would do is create a 
specialized position of someone within the Bureau to bird dog 
these issues, and to improve the kind of communication so that 
Mr. Shepherd and the families that he is working with, and the 
Home Ownership Coalition is working with, have a better sense 
of where the delay is and how do we eliminate the delay. 
Sometimes just having somebody who is an expert can help things 
move along.
    I will just close by noting this. It is just tragic that 
there are families, as Mr. Shepherd has said, who are in the 
position of giving up. They can't get an answer about when BIA 
can process that mortgage paperwork. And after months and 
months and months of delay, they just have to move on, not 
purchasing their home. What a terrible outcome. We can do 
better. H.R. 2130 would make sure that we do.
    With that I would yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentleman yields. At this time the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Hernandez, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hernandez.
    Mr. Hernandez. Thank you. I would like to focus on 
Representative Randall's bill, and if anyone here could speak 
to how that would build on the success of restoring our 
ecosystem and fisheries in the Elwha River.
    Ms. Charles. How are we restoring the Elwha River?
    Mr. Hernandez. Yes.
    Ms. Charles. So right now we have a good crew that have 
been working on the Elwha River, even before the dams were 
removed. We started that process of restoration and 
transferring salmon to locations above the dams, as well as 
along tributaries for the enhancements for the protection of 
the river, but also identifying to the factors of what the 
needs were with working with the other agencies that were 
involved, whether it was NOAA fisheries, the National Park 
Service, and other areas to help with the tributaries of the 
river itself. It is still going on today, and it has been for 
many years through that process.
    Mr. Hernandez. And can you speak to the relationship 
between stewardship of the lands under this bill and tribal 
sovereignty in regard to your Tribe?
    Ms. Charles. So with the tribal sovereignty itself, it is 
something that we believe that we have the rights on with the 
usual custom ground areas, territories within our range, our 
regions that we have within ourselves through that process. It 
is something that we have governed ourselves and worked with 
other government agencies to collaborate, to partner, to deal 
with contracts, to deal with roles and responsibilities that 
not only do we play, but also other agencies that are involved 
with the areas within our territories.
    Mr. Hernandez. Oh, great. Thank you.
    Do you want additional time?
    No? OK. Well, with that I yield back.
    Mr. Hurd. The gentleman yields. I want to thank each of our 
witnesses for their valuable testimony, and thank all of our 
members, as well, for their questions.
    Members of the Committee may have some additional questions 
for the witnesses, and we would ask that you respond to those 
in writing. Under Committee rule 3, members of the Committee 
must submit questions to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. on 
Tuesday, May 27, 2025. The hearing record will be open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Hurd

                        Statement for the Record
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
             H.R. 2388, H.R. 3073, H.R. 2130, and H.R. 2815

    Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, the Department of the Interior (Department) is pleased to 
provide this statement for the record on the following legislation: 
H.R. 2388, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Project Lands Restoration Act; 
H.R. 3073, Shivwits Band of Paiutes Jurisdictional Clarity Act; H.R. 
2130, Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025; and H.R. 2815, Cape 
Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act.

H.R. 2388, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Project Lands Restoration Act

    H.R. 2388 would place approximately 1,082.63 acres of Federal lands 
managed by the National Park Service into trust for the benefit of the 
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and become part of the Tribe's existing 
reservation. The bill prohibits gaming on the land under the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act.

    The parcels to be placed into trust were part of the Elwha 
Hydroelectric Project. The Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries 
Restoration Act granted the National Park Service jurisdiction of the 
lands and management of the excess lands is costly in administration, 
liability, resource management, and law enforcement. Sections of the 
lands that include the Elwha River must be managed in accordance with 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act with certain exceptions subject to the 
Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act.

    The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 
conduct a survey to define the boundaries of the land taken into trust 
and gives the Secretary authority to correct minor errors and make 
minor boundary adjustments consistent with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) defined procedures for transferring lands into trust status per 
25 CFR Part 151. H.R. 2388 also ensures that the land transfer does not 
affect the treaty rights of the S'Klallams Indians under the Treaty of 
Point No Point.

    Through its plenary authority, Congress can direct the Secretary to 
accept and administer lands to be held in trust for the benefit of a 
Tribe through legislation. Acquisition of land in trust for the benefit 
of Indian Tribes is essential to Tribal sovereignty and empowers Tribal 
self-determination in the use of Tribal lands to best serve their 
communities and create economic growth. The Department supports 
conveying these lands into trust for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
H.R. 3073, Shivwits Band of Paiutes Jurisdictional Clarity Act

    H.R. 3073 confers jurisdiction on the State of Utah over certain 
civil cases involving the Shivwits Band of Paiutes (Band). This 
legislation will ensure the Shivwits Band and third-party businesses 
will have access to state and Federal court forums to resolve contract 
disputes.

    The legislation maintains the Band's sovereign immunity unless the 
Band explicitly waives it. This protects the Band from unconsented 
lawsuits while allowing them to agree to Utah State court jurisdiction 
for contracts and agreements they participate in. This legislation also 
expands existing law so the Band can agree to leases of their lands for 
extended terms to provide the Band with more opportunities for economic 
development.

    The Department takes no position on the grant of jurisdiction to 
the State of Utah. However, the Department supports the authority for 
the Band to enter into leases for 99 years. Tribal governments are in 
the best position to determine the duration of such leases in pursuit 
of economic development.
H.R. 2130, Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025

    H.R. 2130 would impose a series of statutory requirements on the 
BIA related to the processing and review of mortgage packages. This 
legislation would codify current processing deadlines for mortgages; 
require an annual report to be submitted to Congress regarding the 
mortgages reviewed by the BIA; establish a Realty Ombudsman position 
reporting directly to the Secretary; and provide access to the 
Department's Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS) for 
relevant agencies and Tribes.

    The Department shares Congress' interest in ensuring that mortgage 
packages are reviewed and processed in a timely manner. We look forward 
to working with the sponsor and Subcommittee to ensure that the bill 
aligns with the Administration's priorities to enhance government 
efficiency. Another concern the Department has with H.R. 2130 is the 
mandate for read-only access to TAAMS for the Department of 
Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as Tribes. The BIA currently 
provides limited TAAMS access to Tribes who have contracted or 
compacted certain trust programs and relevant Department agencies after 
the clearance of a background check to protect personally identifiable 
information. The Tribes with TAAMS access may only access information 
related to their Tribal members and the Tribe's ownership and for those 
programs that are contracted or compacted. Access to TAAMS should 
continue to be limited to the information related to the Tribal members 
and the Tribe's own ownership for those Tribes who have contracted or 
compacted a trust program and certain Federal agencies. Accordingly, 
access to TAAMS by the Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, and the Department of Veterans Affairs must also 
be limited to the mortgage information relevant to their particular 
agency. Access to TAAMS is limited and the BIA needs to ensure that 
access to information subject to the Privacy Act will remain limited.

    The Department supports the intent of H.R. 2130 and looks forward 
to working with the sponsor and the Subcommittee to provide technical 
assistance.
H.R. 2815, Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act

    H.R. 2815 would waive the core township requirement for land 
selection under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) for the 
Cape Fox Corporation, the ANCSA Corporation for the Native Village of 
Saxman. Under the bill, Cape Fox would not be required to receive the 
approximately 185 acres that the corporation previously selected in the 
township where Saxman is located pursuant to ANCSA. Instead, Cape Fox 
would be able to select lands outside of its ANCSA-established exterior 
selection boundary, approximately 180 acres within the Tongass National 
Forest. In addition, the bill requires that Cape Fox submit its 
selections to the Secretary via written notice within 90 days of 
enactment. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would then be required 
to convey the selected surface lands to Cape Fox and the subsurface 
estate to the Sealaska Corporation as soon as practicable. These 
conveyances would fulfill Cape Fox's entitlement under ANCSA.

    ANCSA was enacted in 1971 to settle aboriginal land title claims 
with Alaska Natives. ANCSA section 12(a)(1) requires Alaska Native 
Villages to select Federal lands in the township in which any part of 
the village is located. The selection process was completed in the 
early 1970s, and the BLM continues to work through some of the more 
complicated conveyances and patents. While the BLM is currently ready 
to convey Cape Fox's remaining entitlement, the corporation has stated 
that the selected Federal lands in the township where the village 
falls--i.e., its ``core township''--are unsuitable and that it is 
seeking this legislative solution.

    Based on an initial review of the legislative text and legal land 
descriptions, there appear to be areas identified for conveyance that 
are currently encumbered by a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
powersite classification. We recommend that the legislation clarify 
whether or not the Cape Fox conveyance is subject to this existing 
encumbrance.

    The Department supports fulfilling Cape Fox's remaining 
entitlement. The Department defers to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture regarding disposition of lands managed by Forest Service 
under the bill. The Department would like to work with the Sponsor on 
technical edits to clarify the existing land status and description of 
the lands to be conveyed to Cape Fox and Sealaska.

    Once these items are resolved, the Department stands ready to 
complete these conveyances and looks forward to fulfilling Cape Fox's 
remaining entitlement under ANCSA.
Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the 
record.

                                 ______
                                 

                        Statement for the Record
         U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service
     H.R. 2815--Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act of 2025

    Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) Forest Service, to discuss the Cape Fox Land Entitlement 
Finalization Act of 2025.

    The USDA Forest Service manages 193 million acres of national 
forests and grasslands, including lands in Alaska that are in proximity 
to Alaska Native Corporation lands. The Forest Service works closely 
with the Alaska Native Corporations and Tribes to coordinate on land 
stewardship, including forest management, wildfire mitigation, resource 
restoration, and cultural preservation efforts.
H.R. 2815, ``Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act of 2025''

    H.R. 2815 would allow the Cape Fox Corporation (Cape Fox), a 
village corporation established under the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA), to obtain its remaining land entitlement under 
ANCSA from portions of the Tongass National Forest that differ from its 
existing selection in the Tongass which is currently pending conveyance 
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

    As proposed, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to convey to 
Cape Fox the surface estate to an approximately 180-acre tract along a 
2.5-mile stretch of eastern shoreline on the west side of George Inlet 
on Revillagigedo Island within the Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan-
Misty Fjords Ranger District. The Sealaska Regional Corporation would 
be conveyed the subsurface interest of the parcel.

    The parcel proposed for conveyance (as defined section 3(b) of the 
bill) connects two parcels of private land owned by Cape Fox and 
generally follows the boundaries of a transmission line corridor 
labeled as a right of way in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) license (No. 11393) for the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project. 
The project is licensed but has not been constructed. If constructed, 
the transmission line corridor would likely be used to connect the 
Mahoney Lake site to the existing Beaver Falls Power Grid.

    The USDA Forest Service currently has the legal authorities 
necessary to permit the City of Saxman, the FERC license holder, to use 
NFS lands for the construction of a road and transmission line, and 
other uses of NFS lands associated with the possible hydroelectric 
project.

    With one minor exception, the 2.5-mile stretch of coastline of the 
proposed parcel is the only federally owned coastline on the west side 
of George Inlet, which provides unrestricted access to the National 
Forest System lands further inland. The Forest Service also welcomes a 
discussion regarding a reservation of the right-of-way identified in 
the FERC license associated with the Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project 
to effectuate the sponsor's intent.

    The Forest Service supports this bill. On issues related directly 
to the conveyance process, the Forest Service defers to the BLM as the 
Federal agency tasked with transferring to Alaska Native Corporations 
title to lands pursuant to ANCSA.
Conclusion

    That concludes my testimony. Again, I thank Chairman Hurd, Ranking 
Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee for the 
opportunity to present USDA's views on this proposed legislation. I 
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Begich

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II24/20250521/118251/HHRG-
119-II24-20250521-SD002.pdf


                                 [all]