North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2026

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2252 and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following bill: Calendar No. 106, H.R. 1829; further, that the committee-reported substitute to H.R. 1829 be agreed to; the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I would like to ask the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who--we have worked together on many different issues and I appreciate that and I hope we can work on this one.

But there are some questions that I have to ask because I sincerely would like to get to a solution on a bill that, first off, does not affect other States. It solely affects land within my State of North Dakota, and it is supported by all of the reservations.

We have five reservations in my State, and the Native Americans on all of the reservations across the board have asked us to do this for them. There is no net loss of lands. This is simply exchanging State land within the boundaries of reservations for Federal land, which is outside the reservations, which then would be Federal lands within the reservations, which would be to the benefit of the Native American Tribes.

The only objection that I have heard from anybody at any time is in regard to hunting and public access. I am a hunter. I truly enjoy hunting, but I must admit I am probably not a hunter on the scale of my colleague from New Mexico. He is an accomplished hunter. We talk about it all the time.

He knows how important that is, obviously, to him and his citizens in New Mexico. It is very important to me and to my citizens in North Dakota. But here is a situation where there is no net loss of land, and, in fact, if anything, there will be more land open and available to hunters.

I was Governor of North Dakota for 10 years, and those State lands we opened up to public hunting and tourism. So there will be a gain for hunters and fishermen. And on the reservation, there is no net loss of public land whatsoever. It is a simple exchange of State land for Federal land.

These Federal lands will go from outside the borders of the reservation to within the borders of the reservation, and be managed for the benefit of those respective Tribes within the reservations.

And it is something that every single Tribe within my State has been asking for and we have been waiting for a long time to get done.

And here is how it worked out in the House: It passed unanimously. So, yes, I am willing to work on it, but I have been working on it for a long time. And I am simply asking that the House bill be passed and, along with it, a Democrat bill from the House also that would be of real benefit in the State of Arizona, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is paired with this bill.

So by objecting, my good colleague from New Mexico is also holding up the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is important to

Native Americans in the State of Arizona.

And so, again, I would ask for consent on this bill or at least some commitment as to how this is going to get done.

Mr. President, there is no net loss of public lands. It is simply a straight exchange in terms of location. There is no net loss, none whatsoever.

I still fail to understand why the good Senator from New Mexico continues to make the case when there is no net lands. It is just a simple exchange.

The second thing I would, again, reiterate is: Okay. I know--I know that my colleague is sympathetic to this issue. I truly believe it. What I would like to hear is how we are going to resolve this. I would really appreciate some commitment for how this is going to be resolved.

I understand. But I, again, emphasize that the Federal Government will have the same amount of Federal land before and after. It is simply an exchange where it will be located within the boundaries of the reservation and will benefit the Tribes. By not doing this, we are denying it, to the Tribe's detriment.

And as far as the lands that the State would retain, then they would be outside the reservation.

So there is no net loss there. I will emphasize that again.

And the second thing is, by opposing this measure, my colleague is also holding up the Apache County and Navaho County Conveyance Act, which is paired with it to pass the House--well, both bills passed the House without objection, so I just find it interesting.

Here is two bills that went through the House on a voice vote, without objection, and they are being held up. I don't understand.

So again, I ask for either consent or some commitment beyond ``we will work together.''

I mean, I would like something--and I am sure the folks at the Tribes in Arizona would like the same thing--of some commitment as to how we are going to get to resolution within some reasonable period of time. What is it going to take?

With that, I ask for consent.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act. I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland and our chairman for his leadership, especially for getting it through the House Natural Resources Committee with unanimous support. I can't thank him enough for that.

As both have stated, this bill provides some important new changes for my State and addresses a unique land management challenge that dates back to North Dakota's statehood. They have both expressed it well, but let me reinforce what has already been said.

When North Dakota became a State, the Federal Government granted 2.6 million acres of Federal land to support schools and other public needs. Specifically, the State received sections 16 and 36 of every township. As a result, North Dakota holds more than 31,000 surface acres and 130,000 acres of mineral rights inside Tribal reservation boundaries.

This created a checkerboard pattern of ownership that makes land management and development difficult for everyone. The chart beside me shows the patchwork of State trust land on the Standing Rock Reservation. All the green land, green checks, squares, in this are land owned within the Tribal reservation by the State of North Dakota. This is just one of five reservations in our State.

The Tribes struggle to efficiently develop land within their own reservation boundaries because of this fragmented ownership, and there is currently no pathway for the State and Federal government to exchange these lands.

My legislation solves this problem. H.R. 2252 authorizes equal-value land exchanges between the State of North Dakota and the Department of the Interior. This allows the State to exchange scattered trust lands within reservation boundaries like this for Federal lands of equivalent values elsewhere in the State.

Importantly, this bill does not automatically exchange a single acre of land. It simply creates a process that can be used if all parties choose to move forward.

The legislation includes multiple safeguards and transparency requirements; specifically, consultation with affected Tribal Governments prior to any conveyance, environmental review authority for the Secretary of the Interior, independent appraisals using Federal appraisal standards to ensure substantially equal value, public inspection of final appraisals at least 30 days before any exchange, and public notice online and in North Dakota newspapers before exchanges occur.

Upon exchange, State land located within reservation boundaries is immediately transferred to the BIA to be held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe. The State will manage the exchanged Federal acres for North Dakotans and public schools. The result is less fragmentation, clear ownership boundaries, and a greater ability for both Tribal and State governments to manage the land for the benefit of their people.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to be clear about what this bill does not do. This bill does not reduce public access. It does not close hunting land. It does not impact recreation. Existing grazing permits and leases are protected throughout the exchange process, and

every exchange must meet rigorous Federal appraisal standards to ensure equal value.

The bill also includes significant protections for wildlife habitat, conservation lands, public access, and existing land uses. Federal lands specifically excluded include: areas of critical environmental concern, National Landscape Conservation System lands, research natural areas, military reservations, and lands designated for conservation purposes by Congress or the President.

Protected conservation areas and specially managed wildlife landscapes are not eligible for exchange under this legislation.

To be absolutely clear, the bill explicitly preserves all Indian treaty rights. In fact, this bill was shaped in consultation with Tribal leaders. It has strong support from Tribal nations in North Dakota.

Steve Sitting Bear is chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. He has plans to grow beef and bison production for Standing Rock, and what a great opportunity that is. They reside on the rolling prairies along the Missouri River in southwestern North Dakota, perfect for grazing cattle and bison.

This legislation would help correct this scattered ownership pattern that challenges Chairman Sitting Bear's vision. In his words, the current situation has made effective land management difficult for all parties.

Mark Fox, who is chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes, says his nation was glad to help shape the legislation and supports restoring reservation land while preserving treaty rights.

Due to this collaboration and broad support, this legislation passed the United States Senate unanimously in the last Congress. It passed unanimously out of the House Committee on Natural Resources earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, this is a practical, commonsense solution that benefits Tribes, benefits North Dakota, and improves land management for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2252) to authorize the relinquishment and in lieu selection of land and minerals in the State of North Dakota, to restore land and minerals to Indian Tribes within the State of North Dakota, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2252, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2252, the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2026, introduced by the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).

This bill addresses a land management issue that dates back to North Dakota's admission to the Union. At statehood, Congress granted lands to North Dakota to help support public institutions, including schools and universities, through responsible land and resource management. For more than a century, the State has used those lands to generate revenue for education and for other public purposes.

Today, North Dakota continues to manage hundreds of thousands of acres of surface estate and millions of acres of mineral estate known as State trust lands. However, approximately 31,000 of these surface acres and roughly 130,000 acres of the State trust minerals are located within the boundaries of Tribal reservations. This has created overlapping jurisdictional challenges and fragmented, checkerboard ownership patterns that are burdensome to all parties. Furthermore, these stranded State trust lands are unable to generate revenue for the benefit of North Dakota's citizens and public schoolchildren.

H.R. 2252 provides a better path forward that is a win-win for everyone involved. The bill allows North Dakota to relinquish certain trust lands located within reservation boundaries and select equal- value Bureau of Land Management lands elsewhere in the State that they can utilize to generate millions of dollars in new revenue.

In return, the relinquished lands from the State within reservation boundaries will be taken into trust for the benefit of North Dakota's Tribes. Importantly, this legislation protects taxpayers by requiring independent appraisals, equal-value exchanges, and protection for valid existing rights.

This logical fix helps North Dakotans better manage their trust land, provides long-term funding for education, supports Tribes, and consolidates fragmented land ownership to reduce the burden on Federal land management agencies. This is truly a win-win across the board.

I commend the leadership of Representative Fedorchak in advancing this bill. I also commend Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, who has supported this legislation since his time as North Dakota's Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2252, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak), the lead sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I again commend the gentlewoman for this legislation and thank my colleagues in the minority for helping us work on something that we could bring to the floor that is a commonsense bill that benefits all those involved. I think this is a good example of Congress doing what we should do, bringing forth commonsense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, H.R. 2252 is a practical and balanced approach to resolving a longstanding land management challenge in North Dakota. This legislation helps the State better manage trust lands that support schools and public institutions while also creating a pathway for greater Tribal land consolidation within reservation boundaries.

I thank Representative Fedorchak for her leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I wonder if you have heard the story of Jason Rezaian. Jason was a Washington Post reporter--an Iranian American--who was stationed in Tehran and reporting for the Washington Post on the goings-on of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In 2014, he was arrested by the secret police and disappeared. Months later, it was revealed that he was a political prisoner being held at a notorious prison inside Iran. Jason was ultimately detained for 544 days before he was released, which he has recounted in his harrowing tale, ``Prisoner: My 544 Days in an Iranian Prison.''

When Jason returned to the United States at last, having been freed, returned to his family, what was the first thing he got from the U.S. Government? A tax bill, a tax bill for $20,000 for late filing and late payment.

Mr. Rezaian is a resourceful guy. He went to the IRS, and he said: Hey, how can you charge me for late payment, penalties, and fees? I was in prison in Iran.

They said: Well, how are we supposed to know that?

It was on the front page of the Washington Post.

They said: Well, we can't just forgive fees and fines for anybody who comes and talks to us.

They went through months and months of arguing back and forth, and he managed to get most of the fines and fees reduced but not all. And so after I met with him, now years ago, I drafted and introduced the Stop Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.

I bet you can guess what this bill does. There is a corollary--a companion--in the House, the End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, and I am grateful to Congresswomen Titus and Tenney of Nevada and New York for their cosponsorship. It has passed the House unanimously.

Tonight, Senator Rounds and I have an opportunity to ask for unanimous consent that we pass this legislation in the Senate and send it to President Trump's desk.

Incredibly, when we asked for the score on this bill, it is positive because the IRS insists on litigating these cases, and they almost always lose them. They waste staff time and money suing people who were hostages or prisoners overseas.

This is simple; it is common sense; it is bipartisan; and it is compassionate. I want to thank Senators Crapo and Wyden for allowing Senator Rounds and me to pull this bill out of their larger tax package and pass it by unanimous consent tonight.

And I want to thank Senator Mike Rounds for being an early adopter. When I explained what happened to Jason Rezaian, he said: We should pass that and pass it right away.

Well, for better or worse, it has taken years, but here we are tonight on the verge of sending it to the President's desk. I cannot say how grateful I am for the chance to get this simple, clear, commonsense bill passed to help Americans who might tragically be held hostage or imprisoned wrongfully overseas.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9496 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, with that, I understand this bill has been adopted by unanimous consent, and I am delighted to say that the End Tax Penalties on American Hostages bill will at long last go to our President's desk for his signature.

Mr. President, I rise today to pass my bill which would ensure the Federal Housing Finance Agency's inspector general can do its job to protect the integrity of our housing market.

The inspector general is an independent official who investigates fraud, waste, and abuse in government Agencies. We can all agree that is a critical position.

Within the FHFA, the inspector general goes after legitimate fraud and abuse. The IG makes sure government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank meet the housing needs of our communities.

And the IG ensures American consumers who need mortgages and loans for their homes aren't being taken advantage of.

For example, during President Trump's first term, the FHFA's Office of the Inspector General caught the president and the chief information officer at the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There is another example from just this month when the OIG worked with Florida law enforcement to investigate and prosecute a former attorney for real estate fraud.

There are so many more instances out there of this office going after fraudsters.

I, also, personally know how critical this work is, as a former attorney general of Nevada. It was the responsibility of my office to go after fraud and win restitution for Nevadans who had been exploited.

So trust me when I say: The work the OIG does is essential to making sure Americans are getting a fair deal.

Unfortunately, President Trump's pick to head the FHFA, Bill Pulte, has weaponized the Agency. Director Pulte has used his position to go after the President's perceived political enemies. He has pushed out staff who are doing their job, including economists who refused to inflate market outlooks. He has also forced out ethics and civil rights staff who help hold the Agency and its leadership accountable.

President Trump himself fired the acting inspector general last month.

Clearly, there is cause for concern here, and that is why we need to pass this bill.

The law already requires FHFA to provide its Office of Inspector General with the resources it needs to do its job. My bill would add safeguards to ensure that the FHFA must provide the funding that the OIG requests. This would protect the OIG from being shortchanged by any FHFA Director playing politics, and it would ensure the FHFA inspector general--and not Bill Pulte--determines the amount of funding it needs to do its job.

This bill would protect the American people from waste, fraud, and abuse, and to deter bad actors from taking advantage of their power. I encourage my colleagues to join me in passing this bill.

So, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 5681 submitted earlier today; further, that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.