[House Report 110-541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress Rept. 110-541
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF THE
BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY
_______
March 6, 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rahall, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2176]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2176) to provide for and approve the settlement of
certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Alternative lands.--The term ``alternative lands'' means
those lands identified as alternative lands in the Settlement
of Land Claim.
(2) Charlotte beach lands.--The term ``Charlotte Beach
lands'' means those lands in the Charlotte Beach area of
Michigan and described as follows: Government Lots 1, 2, 3, and
4 of Section 7, T45N, R2E, and Lot 1 of Section 18, T45N, R2E,
Chippewa County, State of Michigan.
(3) Community.--The term ``Community'' means the Bay Mills
Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe.
(4) Settlement of land claim.--The term ``Settlement of Land
Claim'' means the agreement between the Community and the
Governor of the State of Michigan executed on August 23, 2002,
and filed with the Office of Secretary of State of the State of
Michigan, including the document titled ``Addendum to
Settlement of Land Claim'', executed by the parties on November
13, 2007.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE LANDS AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS.
(a) Land Into Trust; Part of Reservation.--
(1) Land into trust.--The Secretary shall take the
alternative lands into trust for the benefit of the Community
not later than 30 days after both of the following have
occurred:
(A) The Secretary has received a title insurance
policy for the alternative lands that shows that the
alternative lands are not subject to mortgages, liens,
deeds of trust, options to purchase, or other security
interests.
(B) The Secretary has confirmed that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been complied with
regarding the trust acquisition of the property.
(2) Part of reservation.--The alternative lands shall become
part of the Community's reservation immediately upon attaining
trust status.
(b) Gaming.--The alternative lands shall be taken into trust as
provided in this section as part of the settlement and extinguishment
of the Community's Charlotte Beach land claims, and so shall be deemed
lands obtained in settlement of a land claim within the meaning of
section 20(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.
2719; Public Law 100-497).
(c) Extinguishment of Claims.--Concurrent with the Secretary taking
the alternative lands into trust under subsection (a), any and all
claims by the Community to the Charlotte Beach lands or against the
United States, the State of Michigan or any subdivision thereof, the
Governor of the State of Michigan, or any other person or entity by the
Community based on or relating to claims to the Charlotte Beach lands
(including without limitation, claims for trespass damages, use, or
occupancy), whether based on aboriginal or recognized title, are hereby
extinguished. The extinguishment of these claims is in consideration
for the benefits to the Community under this Act.
SEC. 3. EFFECTUATION AND RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.
(a) Ratification.--The United States approves and ratifies the
Settlement of Land Claim, except that the last sentence in section 10
of the Settlement of Land Claim is hereby deleted.
(b) Not Precedent.--The provisions contained in the Settlement of
Land Claim are unique and shall not be considered precedent for any
future agreement between any tribe and State.
(c) Enforcement.--The Settlement of Land Claim shall be enforceable
by either the Community or the Governor according to its terms.
Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement action is vested in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 2176 is to provide for and approve the
settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian
Community.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
The Bay Mills Indian Community is a federally recognized
Indian tribe, which has adopted a constitution, its name, and
form of government pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act.
The Community currently has approximately 1,500 tribal members.
The present-day Community's ancestors lived in semi-
autonomous bands of Chippewa Indians on the shores of the Upper
Great Lakes in what is now Michigan and Ontario. Beginning in
the mid-1600's the French and British established trading sites
in these areas to trade with the local Indians. The Community's
ancestors signed a peace treaty with the United States in 1795
to end fighting on the U.S. western frontier.
By 1836, the Chippewa bands had formed personal
relationships with many European settlers resulting in
intermarriage and economic interdependence. Around this time a
treaty was signed which identified the bands as ``the six bands
residing at or near Sault Ste. Marie''. Historians further
identified the bands by location as: (1) St. Mary's River
Rapids; (2) Waiskey Bay; (3) Tahquamenon River mouth; (4)
Whitefish Bay; (5) Garden River and Sugar Island; and (6) Hay
Lake area of St. Mary's River, which is now known as Charlotte
Beach.
The settlement agreement ratified by this legislation would
settle the longstanding land claim the Community has to 110
acres in Charlotte Beach. These lands were designated for
withdrawal from the public domain for use by the Ottawa and
Chippewa Indians pursuant to the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. In
1857, the lands were deeded to the Governor to be held in trust
for the ancestral bands of the Community. Eventually, these
lands were illegally sold for unpaid taxes without the consent
of the United States nor the knowledge of the bands. Currently,
some 100 non-Indian landowners live on the Charlotte Beach land
under a clouded title, unable to acquire insurance and with
depressed land values.
The Bay Mills Indian Community filed suit in 1996 in
federal court against the current titleholders of the land in
Charlotte Beach and also filed suit against the State of
Michigan in the state court of claims. The federal case was
dismissed on procedural grounds because the suit did not
include other parties holding a similar claim, meaning the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. This decision was
affirmed on appeal; however, the court did find that the Bay
Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians both trace their ancestry to the bands named
in the deed when the lands in question were held by the state.
The state case was dismissed for failure to bring the claim
within the state's statute of limitations.
Congress has the sole authority and responsibility to
extinguish a land claim brought by an Indian tribe.
Settlement agreement
Two Governors of the State of Michigan have signed a
settlement agreement with the Bay Mills Indian Community.
Governor John Engler signed a settlement agreement on behalf of
the state in August, 2002. Governor Jennifer Granholm signed an
addendum to that settlement agreement on November 13, 2007. In
a letter to the Committee on Resources on June 23, 2004,
Governor Engler wrote, ``As Governor of Michigan, it was my
duty to negotiate the land settlement agreements between the
State of Michigan and Bay Mills and the Sault Tribe in 2002.''
The settlement agreement would:
--Relinquish the Bay Mills Indian Community's claim
to the lands in Charlotte Beach, Michigan, in return
for land to be taken into trust in Port Huron,
Michigan;
--Allow for gaming to be conducted on the Port Huron
lands;
--Provide a formula through which a percentage of net
win revenue of electronic games would go to the State
and local governments including the City of Port Huron,
the county, and the county school district;
--Ratify a restriction limiting to three, the total
number of casinos the Community could operate in
Michigan.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 2176 was introduced on May 3, 2007 by Rep. Bart Stupak
(D-MI) for himself and Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), and the bill
was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
The Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on the
bill on February 6, 2008. A markup session was held by the
Committee on February 13, 2008. Chairman Rahall (D-WV) offered
an en bloc amendment to ensure compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to add to the bill the
date of the addendum to the settlement of land agreement signed
by the Bay Mills Indian Community and Governor Jennifer
Granholm. Further, the en bloc amendment clarifies that all
claims against the United States, State of Michigan, or any
other person be extinguished concurrent with the Secretary
taking land into trust for the Community. Chairman Rahall's en
bloc amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
Rep. Heller (R-NV) offered an amendment to the bill that
would delete Sec. 2(b) from the bill. Sec. 2(b) designates that
lands taken into trust pursuant to this legislation would be
deemed obtained in the settlement of a land claim under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Rep. Heller's amendment
failed by a rollcall vote of 3 yeas and 16 nays, as follows:
Rep. Heller (R-NV) also offered an amendment to the bill to
authorize, rather than direct, the Secretary of Interior to
take lands into trust for the Community. Further, the amendment
would delete the provision of the bill which deems the lands
taken into trust as part of a land settlement under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act. In addition, the amendment would, prior
to gaming activities commencing, require the Secretary to
consult with nearby state, local and tribal officials to
determine if the land acquisition is in the best interest of
the Bay Mills Indian Community and the surrounding communities.
It would further require the Governor concur with the
determination as required in IGRA Sec. 20(b)(1)(A). Finally,
the amendment would require the Secretary of the Interior to
give greater scrutiny in reviewing the Secretary's findings
then currently required by regulation. Rep. Heller's amendment
failed by a rollcall vote of 5 yeas and 19 nays, as follows:
The Committee on Natural Resources then ordered H.R. 2176
favorably reported to the House of Representatives, as amended,
by a rollcall vote of 21 yeas and 5 nays, as follows:
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Definitions
Section 1 provides the definitions of terms used in the
bill including ``Alternative Lands,'' ``Charlotte Beach
Lands,'' ``Community,'' ``Settlement of Land Claim,'' and
``Secretary.''
Section 2. Acceptance of alternative lands and extinguishment of claims
Section 2(a) provides direction to the Secretary of the
Interior to take lands into trust for the Community within 30
days of receiving a title insurance policy proving the lands to
be free of mortgages, liens, or other security interests. The
specific lands to be placed in trust are identified in the
Settlement of Land Claim Agreement between the Governor of
Michigan and the Community. Further, this section provides for
the lands to be considered part of the reservation of the Bay
Mills Indian Community.
Section 2(b) provides the lands taken in trust be deemed as
obtained as part of a land settlement within the meaning of
section 20(b)(1)(B)(I) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
U.S.C. 2719).
Section 2(c) provides that all claims against the United
States, the State of Michigan, or any other person by the Bay
Mills Indian Community relating to the Charlotte Beach lands,
be extinguished concurrent with the Secretary taking land into
trust for the Community.
Section 3. Effectuation and ratification of agreement
Section 3(a) provides for the ratification of the
Settlement of Land Claim signed between the State of Michigan
and the Bay Mills Indian Community on August 23, 2002 as well
as the Addendum signed between the parties on November 13,
2007, except for the last sentence in section 10 of the 2002
agreement. Section 10 of the 2002 agreement contains support
for a severability clause whereby if any portion of the
agreement is found to be unconstitutional, the parties intend
for the remaining part of the agreement to remain in place.
Section 10 also holds that no changes made to the settlement
agreement would be binding without concurrence by the Governor
and approval of a resolution by the Community.
Section 3(b) provides that this settlement agreement is not
intended to set a precedent.
Section 3(c) provides the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan with jurisdiction over enforcement
of the settlement agreement.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(e)(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.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article 1, section 8, clause 3, of the Constitution of the
United States grants Congress the authority to enact this
legislation.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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)(3)(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.
2. 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 provision that would increase direct
spending.
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 provide for the settlement of
certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. 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. 2176--A bill to provide for and approve the settlement of certain
land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community
H.R. 2176 would ratify an agreement between the state of
Michigan and the Bay Mills Indian Community regarding the
tribe's claim to land in northern Michigan, known as Charlotte
Beach. CBO estimates that this bill would have no significant
effect on the federal budget.
H.R. 2176 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The agreement that would be ratified by the bill stipulates
that the tribe relinquish all claims to the Charlotte Beach
property and that Michigan give the tribe an alternative parcel
of land in Port Huron, Michigan. The legislation would require
the Secretary of the Interior to take that land into trust for
the tribe and proclaim it to be part of the tribe's
reservation, provided that certain conditions are met.
According to information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the tribe, the lands would primarily be used for gaming
purposes.
The staff contact for this estimate is Leigh Angres. The
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
EARMARK STATEMENT
H.R. 2176 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill does not preempt state, local or tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.