49–006 

1 49 Stat. 1967. 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–250 

TO ALLOW THE MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA TO LEASE 

OR TRANSFER CERTAIN LANDS 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 487] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 487) to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease or 

transfer certain lands, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do 

pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 487 is to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma 

to lease or transfer certain lands. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (‘‘Tribe’’) is a federally recognized 

tribe and organized under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 

1936.1 The Tribe voted to adopt the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act 

Constitution and Bylaws on October 10, 1939. 

The Non-Intercourse Act (25 U.S.C. § 177) reserves to the United 

States the exclusive right to acquire Indian lands. The Act was intended to protect Indian tribes by preventing the loss of their 

lands, except by treaty. It does so by preventing the transfer, sale, 

lease, or other conveyance of land owned by an Indian tribe to 

third parties without federal approval. This prohibition applies to 

both trust and fee lands, regardless of the source of money used to 

obtain the lands. Over the centuries, a number of laws providing 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

2Public Law 102–497, 106 Stat. 3255. 

3Public Law 107–331, 116 Stat. 2834. 

4Public Law 103–435, 108 Stat. 4566; Public Law 105–256, 112 Stat. 1896. 

5 City of Sherill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197, 204 (2005). 

for the acquisition, conveyance, and leasing of land in trust for Indians have had the effect of superseding the Non-Intercourse Act 

even though this Act has never been repealed. 

In recent years, the Non-Intercourse Act has generally not interfered with a tribe’s ability to buy, sell, or lease land that it owns 

in fee simple. However, there is precedent for tribes to seek legislation in Congress to waive the Non-Intercourse Act, as H.R. 487 

does, for transactions of non-trust land over an abundance of caution by both the tribal and non-tribal parties. In the 113th Congress, a bill nearly identical to H.R. 487 was enacted into law, allowing the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa to lease 

or transfer fee land the tribe owned.2 In the 106th Congress, a bill 

was enacted into law with a similar purpose for the Lower Sioux 

Indian Community in Minnesota.3 Congress has also enacted several other pieces of legislation authorizing several tribes to sell or 

mortgage specific lands.4

H.R. 487 would allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to have more 

control over land that the tribe owns in fee without further Congressional approval. The bill simply ensures that the Non-intercourse Act does not interfere with the ability to convey fee land 

owned by the Tribe, which is viewed by the tribe as an interference 

with economic development and the creation of jobs. The tribe has 

stated that title insurance companies may not issue title commitments to either lenders or prospective purchasers due to uncertainties raised by an old act of Congress. 

As noted previously, the Non-Intercourse Act has not generally 

interfered with a tribe’s fee land dealings. However, the Act has 

generated a great deal of litigation throughout history which has 

resulted in several court decisions on the issue. Although the purpose of the Non-Intercourse Act is viewed by some as quite outdated, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 said it ‘‘remain[s] substantially in force today . . . [and] bars sales of tribal land without the 

acquiescence of the Federal Government.’’ 5

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 487 was introduced on January 22, 2015, by Congressman 

Markwayne Mullin (R–OK). The bill was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs. On June 

10, 2015, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 8, 

2015, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 

The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No 

amendments were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent on 

July 9, 2015. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 487—A bill to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease or 

transfer certain lands 

H.R. 487 would authorize the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease, 

sell, warrant, or otherwise transfer any tribal property that is not 

held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of the tribe. 

Based on information provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would have no effect on the federal budget. 

Enacting H.R. 487 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. Any receipts from 

the transfer of the land under the legislation would be paid directly 

to the tribe. 

H.R. 487 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

benefit the tribe. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Martin von Gnechten. 

The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 

implementation of this bill ‘‘would have no effect on the federal 

budget.’’ 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease or 

transfer certain lands. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS