S-3383-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 459.
Sponsored by Brian Schatz (D-HI)
What it does
This bill would amend two existing federal laws governing Indian trust lands. First, it would expand the list of tribes eligible for long-term leasing authority under the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 to include all federally recognized tribes. Second, it would allow tribes to grant rights-of-way (legal access corridors for roads, pipelines, utilities, etc.) across their own trust lands without case-by-case approval from the Secretary of the Interior, provided the tribe has an Interior-approved tribal regulation governing the process. The Secretary would retain oversight authority, including the ability to enforce or cancel rights-of-way and to rescind a tribe's self-governance authority if violations occur.
Who benefits
Federally recognized tribes — particularly those not previously named in the Long-Term Leasing Act — who would gain expanded authority to lease their lands and negotiate rights-of-way on their own terms. Tribal governments seeking greater economic self-determination and faster deal-making with energy, utility, telecommunications, and infrastructure companies. Businesses and developers seeking access to tribal lands, who would benefit from a more streamlined approval process. Rural tribal communities that may attract more economic development. Tribes with existing energy or infrastructure projects that face bureaucratic delays under the current federal approval system.
Who is hurt
Individual tribal members who may prefer federal oversight as a check on tribal government decisions regarding their lands. Third parties — such as neighboring landowners or environmental groups — who currently rely on federal environmental review (NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and historic preservation law) when rights-of-way are granted across tribal lands, as the bill exempts the Secretary's approval decision from those reviews. Federal employees at the Bureau of Indian Affairs whose workload and authority over rights-of-way approvals would be reduced. Tribes that lack administrative capacity to develop and implement their own regulatory frameworks may face implementation burdens.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current system — requiring federal approval for each individual right-of-way — is paternalistic, slow, and economically harmful to tribes. They contend that tribal sovereignty means tribes should have the same authority over their lands that any other landowner enjoys, and that the bill preserves meaningful federal oversight through the tribal regulation approval process and the Secretary's retained enforcement powers. They point to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act as evidence that Congress has long recognized that tribal self-governance produces better outcomes for Native communities than top-down federal administration.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that exempting the Secretary's approval decision from NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and historic preservation review removes important environmental and cultural safeguards that protect both tribal and non-tribal interests. They contend that individual tribal members — not just tribal governments — may be harmed by rights-of-way decisions made without full federal environmental scrutiny, and that the trust responsibility of the United States to tribal members is weakened when federal oversight is reduced. They also argue that tribes with limited administrative capacity may be pressured by well-resourced corporations into approving rights-of-way on unfavorable terms without the backstop of federal review.