[Senate Report 117-18]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 52
117th Congress      }                                    {      Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                    {      117-18

======================================================================



 
    TO AMEND THE GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                 April 28, 2021.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Schatz, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 559]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 559) to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The purpose of this bill is to reinstitute the ability of 
the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde (Tribe) to pursue land 
claims in the State of Oregon following the termination of that 
right pursuant to the 1994 amendment to the Grand Ronde 
Reservation Act.

                               BACKGROUND

    The Tribe's reservation was originally established by 
treaties entered into and ratified between 1853 and 1855, and 
by the Executive Order of June 30, 1857. In 1954, Congress 
terminated the Tribe through Public Law 83-588. Congress later 
reversed the termination by enactment of the Grand Ronde 
Restoration Act (Public Law 98-165) in 1983. The Grand Ronde 
Restoration Act restored the Tribe's federal recognition by 
reinstating its Indian Reorganization Act charter and requiring 
Congressional legislation to reestablish a reservation.
    Following the development of a reservation plan, Congress 
passed the Grand Ronde Reservation Act in 1988 for the Tribe to 
establish 9,811 acres as reservation land. After the Grand 
Ronde Reservation Act was enacted, the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) detected a land survey error dating back to 
1871 when David Thompson, U.S. Deputy Surveyor, incorrectly 
surveyed the eastern boundary of the Tribe's original 
reservation by not accounting for an additional 84 acres.
    Since the 1871 surveying, the BLM treated the 84 acres as 
Oregon & California Railroad Grant Lands and permitted the 
harvesting of timber from the land. Once informed of the land 
survey error, the Tribe found that the harvested land, also 
known as the Thompson Strip, was unmanageable due to its narrow 
boundaries and its divided ownership interests between several 
parties. The Tribe determined a land exchange with BLM was the 
best course of compensation for the land survey error. In 1994, 
Congress passed Public Law 103-435 that allowed the Tribe to 
exchange an additional 240 acres of BLM land for relinquishing 
claims to any land that was part of their original reservation 
prior to termination. This agreement was included in a 1994 
amendment to the Grand Ronde Reservation Act that was passed in 
an Indian technical corrections bill and later signed into law 
on November 2, 1994.

                          NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The language used in the 1994 amendment to the Grand Ronde 
Reservation Act relinquished any land claims by the Tribe 
within the State of Oregon. The Tribe seeks enactment of S. 559 
to preserve their pre-1994 right to compensation and alleviate 
any potential issues should another land survey error arise.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    Senators Merkley and Wyden introduced S. 559, a bill to 
amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act and for other purposes, 
on March 3, 2021. The Senate referred the bill to the Committee 
on the same day. The bill, S. 559, is identical to the version 
favorably reported by the Committee, as amended, in the 116th 
Congress. On March 10, 2021, at a duly called business meeting, 
the Committee considered and reported S. 559 favorably without 
amendment.
    116th Congress. S. 2716, a bill to amend the Grand Ronde 
Reservation Act and for other purposes was introduced by 
Senators Merkley and Wyden on October 28, 2019. The Committee 
held a legislative hearing on June 24, 2020. Mr. Darryl 
LaCounte, Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, testified 
on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior on the bill 
stating that they were willing to work with the Committee on 
technical corrections.
    On July 29, 2020, the Committee held a duly called business 
meeting to consider eleven bills, including S. 2716. One timely 
filed amendment made technical corrections to S. 2716, 
clarifying that any lands obtained from a land claim settlement 
were not eligible, or to be used, for Class II or Class III 
gaming as these terms are defined under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act. The Committee ordered reported S. 2716 as 
amended favorably to the full Senate. On December 15, 2020, the 
Committee reported S. 2716 with an amendment and the bill as 
amended passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 20, 
2020.
    The House companion bill, H.R. 4888, to amend the Grand 
Ronde Reservation Act and for other purposes, was introduced by 
Representatives Kurt Schrader, Suzanne Bonamici, Peter DeFazio, 
and Earl Blumenauer on October 28, 2019, and referred to the 
House Committee on Natural Resources. On November 12, 2019, the 
bill was further referred to the House Committee on Natural 
Resources Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples (Subcommittee). 
The Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill on February 5, 
2020. No further action was taken on H.R. 4888.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    This section amends section 1(d) of the Grand Ronde 
Reservation Act by striking ``lands within the State of 
Oregon'' and inserting ``the 84 acres known as the Thompson 
Strip''. The section also redesignates paragraphs and inserts a 
paragraph 2 which provides for a prohibition of Class II or 
Class III gaming (as these terms are defined by section 4 of 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) on any lands obtained as part 
of a land claim settlement for the Tribe.

Section 2. Indian reservation drinking water program

    This section provides that nothing in this Act, or an 
amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to enlarge, 
confirm, adjudicate, affect, or modify any treaty right of an 
Indian tribe (as defined by section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act).

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The following cost estimate, as provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office, dated March 19, 2021, was prepared 
for S. 314:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                                Congressional Budget Office
                                    Washington, DC, March 23, 2021.
Hon. Brian Schatz,
Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 559, a bill to amend 
the Grand Ronde Reservation Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jon Sperl.
            Sincerely,
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    The Grand Ronde Reservation Act, enacted in 1994, 
authorized the Department of the Interior (DOI) to provide 240 
acres of land to the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 
Community in Oregon. That land was added to the tribes' 
reservation. In exchange, the tribes relinquished their right 
to pursue claims to all other land within the state. S. 559 
would lower the amount of relinquished land to an 84-acre 
parcel, which in the future would allow the tribes to acquire 
additional land in Oregon to which they have a valid claim.
    Using information from DOI, CBO estimates that the agency 
would incur administrative costs to update documents concerning 
the affected parcels of land; however, those costs would not be 
significant. Any such spending would be subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds.
    S. 559 also would impose an intergovernmental mandate--as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)--on the 
tribes by prohibiting some forms of gaming on tribal land in 
Oregon. The land was obtained by the confederated tribes as 
part of a land claim settlement, and because gaming on such 
land is currently allowed under federal law, the proposed ban 
would be a mandate. However, because gaming does not occur now 
on the tribal land and the tribes have no plans to begin gaming 
activities, the cost of the mandate would be small and below 
the threshold established in UMRA ($85 million in 2021, 
adjusted annually for inflation).
    The bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jon Sperl (for 
federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The estimate 
was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget 
Analysis.

               REGULATORY AND PAPERWORK IMPACT STATEMENT

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the 
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 559 will 
have minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    Except as otherwise noted, the Committee has received no 
communications from the Executive Branch regarding S. 559.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In accordance with Committee Rules, subsection 12 of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate is waived. In the 
opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with 
subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
to expedite the business of the Senate.

                                  [all]