[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 203 (Monday, December 16, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H10298-H10300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF THE SPOKANE RESERVATION EQUITABLE
COMPENSATION ACT
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 216) to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane
Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of tribal land
for the production of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 216
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Spokane Tribe of Indians of
the Spokane Reservation Equitable Compensation Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) from 1927 to 1931, at the direction of Congress, the
Corps of Engineers investigated the Columbia River and its
tributaries to determine sites at which power could be
produced at low cost;
(2) under section 10(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
803(e)), when licenses are issued involving tribal land
within an Indian reservation, a reasonable annual charge
shall be fixed for the use of the land, subject to the
approval of the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the
land;
(3) in August 1933, the Columbia Basin Commission, an
agency of the State of Washington, received a preliminary
permit from the Federal Power Commission for water power
development at the Grand Coulee site;
(4) had the Columbia Basin Commission or a private entity
developed the site, the Spokane Tribe would have been
entitled to a reasonable annual charge for the use of the
land of the Spokane Tribe;
(5) in the mid-1930s, the Federal Government, which is not
subject to licensing under the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.
792 et seq.)--
(A) federalized the Grand Coulee Dam project; and
(B) began construction of the Grand Coulee Dam;
(6) when the Grand Coulee Dam project was federalized, the
Federal Government recognized that--
(A) development of the project affected the interests of
the Spokane Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation; and
(B) it would be appropriate for the Spokane and Colville
Tribes to receive a share of revenue from the disposition of
power produced at Grand Coulee Dam;
(7) in the Act of June 29, 1940 (16 U.S.C. 835d et seq.),
Congress--
(A) granted to the United States--
(i) in aid of the construction, operation, and maintenance
of the Columbia Basin Project, all the right, title, and
interest of the Spokane Tribe and Colville Tribes in and to
the tribal and allotted land within the Spokane and Colville
Reservations, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior
from time to time; and
(ii) other interests in that land as required and as
designated by the Secretary for certain construction
activities undertaken in connection with the project; and
(B) provided that compensation for the land and other
interests was to be determined by the Secretary in such
amounts as the Secretary determined to be just and equitable;
(8) pursuant to that Act, the Secretary paid--
(A) to the Spokane Tribe, $4,700; and
(B) to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
$63,000;
(9) in 1994, following litigation under the Act of August
13, 1946 (commonly known as the ``Indian Claims Commission
Act'' (60 Stat. 1049, chapter 959; former 25 U.S.C. 70 et
seq.)), Congress ratified the Colville Settlement Agreement,
which required--
(A) for past use of the land of the Colville Tribes, a
payment of $53,000,000; and
(B) for continued use of the land of the Colville Tribes,
annual payments of $15,250,000, adjusted annually based on
revenues from the sale of electric power from the Grand
Coulee Dam project and transmission of that power by the
Bonneville Power Administration;
(10) the Spokane Tribe, having suffered harm similar to
that suffered by the Colville Tribes, did not file a claim
within the 5-year statute of limitations under the Indian
Claims Commission Act;
(11) neither the Colville Tribes nor the Spokane Tribe
filed claims for compensation for use of the land of the
respective tribes with the Commission prior to August 13,
1951, but both tribes filed unrelated land claims prior to
August 13, 1951;
(12) in 1976, over objections by the United States, the
Colville Tribes were successful in amending the 1951 Claims
Commission land claims to add the Grand Coulee claim of the
Colville Tribes;
(13) the Spokane Tribe had no such claim to amend, having
settled the Claims Commission land claims of the Spokane
Tribe with the United States in 1967;
(14) the Spokane Tribe has suffered significant harm from
the construction and operation of Grand Coulee Dam;
(15) Spokane tribal acreage taken by the United States for
the construction of Grand Coulee Dam equaled approximately 39
percent of Colville tribal acreage taken for construction of
the dam;
(16) the payments and delegation made pursuant to this Act
constitute fair and equitable compensation for the past and
continued use of Spokane tribal land for the production of
hydropower at Grand Coulee Dam; and
(17) by vote of the Spokane tribal membership, the Spokane
Tribe has resolved that the payments and delegation made
pursuant to this Act constitute fair and equitable
compensation for the past and continued use of Spokane tribal
land for the production of hydropower at Grand Coulee Dam.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to provide fair and equitable
compensation to the Spokane Tribe for the use of the land of
the Spokane Tribe for the generation of hydropower by the
Grand Coulee Dam.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration or the
head of any successor agency, corporation, or entity that
markets power produced at Grand Coulee Dam.
(2) Colville settlement agreement.--The term ``Colville
Settlement Agreement'' means the Settlement Agreement entered
into between the United States and the Colville Tribes,
signed by the United States on April 21, 1994, and by the
Colville Tribes on April 16, 1994, to settle the claims of
the Colville Tribes in Docket 181-D of the Indian Claims
Commission, which docket was transferred to the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
(3) Colville tribes.--The term ``Colville Tribes'' means
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
(4) Computed annual payment.--The term ``Computed Annual
Payment'' means the payment calculated under paragraph 2.b.
of the Colville Settlement Agreement, without regard to any
increase or decrease in the payment under section 2.d. of the
agreement.
(5) Confederated tribes act.--The term ``Confederated
Tribes Act'' means the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Settlement Act (Public Law 103-
436; 108 Stat. 4577).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(7) Spokane business council.--The term ``Spokane Business
Council'' means the governing body of the Spokane Tribe under
the constitution of the Spokane Tribe.
(8) Spokane tribe.--The term ``Spokane Tribe'' means the
Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation,
Washington.
SEC. 5. PAYMENTS BY ADMINISTRATOR.
(a) Initial Payment.--On March 1, 2022, the Administrator
shall pay to the Spokane Tribe an amount equal to 25 percent
of the Computed Annual Payment for fiscal year 2021.
(b) Subsequent Payments.--
(1) In general.--Not later than March 1, 2023, and March 1
of each year thereafter through March 1, 2029, the
Administrator shall pay the Spokane Tribe an amount equal to
25 percent of the Computed Annual Payment for the preceding
fiscal year.
(2) March 1, 2030, and subsequent years.--Not later than
March 1, 2030, and March 1 of each year thereafter, the
Administrator shall pay the Spokane Tribe an amount equal to
32 percent of the Computed Annual Payment for the preceding
fiscal year.
SEC. 6. TREATMENT AFTER AMOUNTS ARE PAID.
(a) Use of Payments.--Payments made to the Spokane Business
Council or Spokane Tribe under section 5 may be used or
invested by the Spokane Business Council in the same manner
and for the same purposes as other Spokane Tribe governmental
amounts.
(b) No Trust Responsibility of the Secretary.--Neither the
Secretary nor the Administrator shall have any trust
responsibility for the investment, supervision,
administration, or expenditure of any amounts after the date
on which the funds are paid to the Spokane Business Council
or Spokane Tribe under section 5.
(c) Treatment of Funds for Certain Purposes.--The payments
of all amounts to the Spokane Business Council and Spokane
Tribe under section 5, and the interest and income generated
by those amounts, shall be treated in the same manner as
payments under section 6 of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
of Michigan Distribution of Judgment Funds Act (100 Stat.
677).
(d) Tribal Audit.--After the date on which amounts are paid
to the Spokane Business Council or Spokane Tribe under
section 5, the amounts shall--
[[Page H10299]]
(1) constitute Spokane Tribe governmental amounts; and
(2) be subject to an annual tribal government audit.
SEC. 7. REPAYMENT CREDIT.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall deduct from the
interest payable to the Secretary of the Treasury from net
proceeds (as defined in section 13 of the Federal Columbia
River Transmission System Act (16 U.S.C. 838k))--
(1) in fiscal year 2030, $2,700,000; and
(2) in each subsequent fiscal year in which the
Administrator makes a payment under section 5, $2,700,000.
(b) Crediting.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3), each deduction made under this section for the fiscal
year shall be--
(A) a credit to the interest payments otherwise payable by
the Administrator to the Secretary of the Treasury during the
fiscal year in which the deduction is made; and
(B) allocated pro rata to all interest payments on debt
associated with the generation function of the Federal
Columbia River Power System that are due during the fiscal
year.
(2) Deduction greater than amount of interest.--If, in an
applicable fiscal year under paragraph (1), the deduction is
greater than the amount of interest due on debt associated
with the generation function for the fiscal year, the amount
of the deduction that exceeds the interest due on debt
associated with the generation function shall be allocated
pro rata to all other interest payments due during the fiscal
year.
(3) Credit.--To the extent that a deduction exceeds the
total amount of interest described in paragraphs (1) and (2),
the deduction shall be applied as a credit against any other
payments that the Administrator makes to the Secretary of the
Treasury.
SEC. 8. EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS.
On the date that payment under section 5(a) is made to the
Spokane Tribe, all monetary claims that the Spokane Tribe has
or may have against the United States to a fair share of the
annual hydropower revenues generated by the Grand Coulee Dam
project for the past and continued use of land of the Spokane
Tribe for the production of hydropower at Grand Coulee Dam
shall be extinguished.
SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATION.
Nothing in this Act establishes any precedent or is binding
on the Southwestern Power Administration, Western Area Power
Administration, or Southeastern Power Administration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Haaland) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
General Leave
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 216, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane
Reservation Equitable Compensation Act, will finally compensate the
Spokane Tribe of Indians for the flooding of their Tribal lands that
occurred with the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam more than 75
years ago.
Located in Washington State, the Grand Coulee Dam was built in the
1930s and 1940s. The reservoir it created flooded approximately 2,500
acres of the Spokane Indian Reservation. These lands held great
economic, cultural, and spiritual significance for the Spokane Tribal
people and included the Tribe's historic salmon fishing sites.
Around the time of the dam's completion, the Indian Claims Commission
Act of 1946 was enacted, which gave Tribal nations 5 years to file all
relevant land claims against the Federal Government. Although the
Spokane Tribe filed a claim before this deadline, which was settled in
1967, for around $4,700, lands related to the dam were not included.
The end result is that, more than 75 years later, the Spokane Tribe
has still not received just compensation for the seizure and
destruction of their lands. This has severely impacted the ability of
the Tribal government to provide for their people.
This is also an issue of fairness and equity. The only other Tribe
impacted by the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam, the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation, successfully secured a settlement
with the United States in 1994 and have been receiving compensation
ever since.
S. 216 will require the Bonneville Power Administration to make
annual payments to the Tribe starting in 2022 to match the company's
electricity sales, much in the same way the Colville Tribes are
compensated.
The legislation has the support of the surrounding counties and local
entities.
Additionally, BPA stated, at a recent subcommittee hearing on the
bill, that the annual payments to the Tribe ``will not result in
perceptible rate impacts to its utility customers.''
The Grand Coulee Dam and the energy it produces has been a financial
boon to the United States and the citizens of the Northwest. It is now
time to make whole the Spokane Tribe for their sacrifice.
I thank Senator Cantwell for her tireless work on this issue on
behalf of the Spokane Tribal people, and I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
During debate on this legislation in committee, a number of our
Members expressed concerns on the merits of the settlement achieved
under S. 216. Ultimately, this bill authorizes a settlement to the
Spokane Tribe for damages as a result of the construction of the Grand
Coulee Dam.
As stated in the findings section of the legislation, after
construction of the dam, the Federal Government recognized that the
Colville and Spokane Tribes should be compensated for their losses.
Negotiations commenced, and settlements were reached between the
Federal Government and both Tribes independently. No further claims
were brought forward by the Spokane Tribe, and, as a result, the
Tribe's claims were deemed fully settled.
Now, nearly 50 years later, Congress is granting a settlement to the
Tribe that will entitle them to a share of revenues from hydropower
sales by the Bonneville Power Administration in perpetuity.
The main concern raised by our Members was the potential of this bill
as precedence to resettle claims between an entity and the Federal
Government that have already been deemed settled.
In addition, concerns have been raised that this legislation leaves
the door open to off-reservation gambling.
{time} 1715
During the last 18 years, most House-passed bills addressing Tribal
land use issues have contained express restrictions on off-reservation
gambling. S. 216 seems to be one of the few that does not.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and
would inquire whether my colleague has any remaining speakers on his
side.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do have one more.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill, but there is something even
much more important this week in Congress.
In 2012, President Obama was caught on camera giving Russia's then-
President Medvedev a secret message to be given to his soon-to-be
successor, Vladimir Putin. President Obama said: ``On all these issues,
but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it is
important for him to give me space. This is my last election. After my
election, I have more flexibility.''
In other words, President Obama's secret promise to reward Russia
with flexibility on missile defense and other issues, to the detriment
of U.S. national security, was if the Russians did not stir up trouble
during his Presidential campaign.
This exchange between President Obama and Russian President Medvedev
is an actual quid pro quo. President Obama's offer was accepted and was
acted upon by the Russians. Both sides exchanged something of value.
President Obama's quid pro quo led to specific actions by his
administration. He was weak against Russia in
[[Page H10300]]
many respects, he broke missile defense agreements with our beleaguered
Eastern European allies, he tried to stop or delay nuclear parity with
Russia, and he repeatedly blocked attempts by Republicans to provide
lethal aid to Ukraine.
By the way, under President Trump, we are finally strong against
Russia. We are now building a more robust NATO, enhancing our missile
defense agreements and troop presence in Eastern Europe, and finally
sending the lethal aid to Ukraine that President Obama had refused to
send.
But President Obama engaged in an actual quid pro quo with Russia to
give him political advantage. It came at the expense of Ukraine, an
ally. It sounds a lot like what the Democrats are accusing President
Trump of. Why were the Democrats silent back then?
These two scenarios, that and the present-day impeachment
proceedings, sound similar, but there is at least one big difference:
the alleged quid pro quo between Presidents Trump and Zelensky never
translated into even an understanding by the Ukrainians that they had
to do something. In fact, they never did anything, such as announce a
corruption investigation of the Bidens, which I believe was a situation
crying out for an investigation.
When you come right down to it, the real abuse of power was by
President Obama. Was it a horrible judgment call to trade favors with
the Russians? Yes. Was it impeachable? Republicans who were in control
of the House then did not think so.
That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans
may not always like what a President of the other party does, but we
don't elevate policy differences into a nuclear war involving
impeachment, a constitutional remedy that should be reserved for things
like criminal acts and treason.
This week's impeachment proceedings are nothing more than a political
vendetta by the Democrats masquerading as a constitutional remedy.
Let's stop this charade now and kill this impeachment.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the House that
this is an important bill that would bring equity to the Spokane Tribe
of Indians, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Haaland) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, S. 216.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________