I think the concern stems from Section 3 of the bill. It amends 25 U.S.C. § 3104 Management of Indian forest land, expanding the land covered from:
“’Indian forest land’ means Indian lands, including commercial and non-commercial timberland and woodland, that are considered chiefly valuable for the production of forest products or to maintain watershed or other land values enhanced by a forest cover”
“’Indian land’ means land title to which is held by— (A) the United States in trust for an Indian, an individual of Indian or Alaska Native ancestry who is not a member of a federally-recognized Indian tribe, or an Indian tribe, or (B) an Indian, an individual of Indian or Alaska Native ancestry who is not a member of a federally recognized tribe, or an Indian tribe subject to a restriction by the United States against alienation;
to also include:
“public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 2 U.S.C. 1702))”
43 2 U.S.C. 1702 reads: “The term ‘public lands’ means any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except— (1) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf; and (2) lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.”
“public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 2 U.S.C. 1702))”Should read:43 2 U.S.C. 1702 reads: “The term
“public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702))”43 U.S.C. 1702 reads: “The term