[House Report 118-440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress    }                                     {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                     {     118-440

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



 
                 JAMUL INDIAN VILLAGE LAND TRANSFER ACT

                                _______
                                

 April 5, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 6443]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 6443) to take certain land in the State of 
California into trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian 
Village of California Tribe, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                       PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

    The purpose of H.R. 6443 is to take certain land in the 
State of California into trust for the benefit of the Jamul 
Indian Village of California Tribe, and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Jamul Indian Village of California is part of the 
Kumeyaay people of southern California, also known as the 
Mission Indians. The tribe traces its history back 12,000 
years. However, it achieved federal recognition in 1981.\1\ The 
tribe currently has approximately 75 members.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs Office 
of Government Services. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-
091559/178651/20210511093611330_Jamul%20
Appx2.pdf.
    \2\Meeting between Jamul Indian Village and HNR Staff 11.28.2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 1981, the tribe has slowly acquired a land base for 
itself. The San Diego Diocesan Office of Apostolic Ministry 
deeded approximately 2.34 acres of land to the tribe in 1912. 
The Daley Corporation deeded approximately 4 acres to the tribe 
in 1978, creating the approximately 6.04 acres of the tribe's 
reservation.\3\ The tribe has submitted fee-to-trust 
applications for the parcels identified in this legislation, 
including one submitted in August 2015, that the DOI has not 
finalized.\4\ This bill would place the 172.1 acres of land 
into trust legislatively rather than continuing through the BIA 
administrative process.\5\ This bill would also prohibit any 
class II or class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act (IGRA)\6\ on the parcels taken into trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\``Jamul,'' Tiller's Guide to Indian Country, Veronica E. Velarde 
Tiller (2015).
    \4\Meeting between Jamul Indian Village and HNR Staff, 11.28.2023.
    \5\25 CFR 151. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-25/chapter-I/
subchapter-H/part-151.
    \6\25 USC 2701 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the tribe, they intend to build housing for 
tribal members to bring members living outside the area back to 
the community, develop non-gaming economic development 
projects, and create tribal community spaces for the 
continuation of the tribe's cultural traditions.\7\ Parcel 
three contains the only road leading to the current 
reservation, the tribal cemetery, and the tribe's currently 
operating casino. Ensuring continued access by placing the land 
into trust is very important, according to the tribe.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Meeting between Jamul Indian Village and HNR Staff, 11.28.2023.
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 6442 was introduced on November 17, 2023, by Rep. 
Darrell Issa (R-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 
on Indian and Insular Affairs. On December 5, 2023, the 
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs held a hearing on 
the bill. On January 17, 2024, the Committee on Natural 
Resources met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Indian 
and Insular Affairs was discharged from further consideration 
of H.R. 6443 by unanimous consent. The bill was ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous 
consent.

                                HEARINGS

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the 
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure: 
hearing by the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs held 
on December 5, 2023.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    This Act may be cited as the ``Jamul Indian Village Land 
Transfer Act.''

Section 2. Land to be taken into trust for the Jamul Indian Village of 
        California tribe

    Approximately 172.1 acres of land owned by the Jamul Indian 
Village of California is taken into trust by the U.S. for the 
benefit of the tribe. The land will be part of the Jamul Indian 
Village of California reservation and will be administered 
under the laws and regulations applicable to Indian trust land. 
No class II or class III gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act may occur on the land being taken into trust.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(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.

                  COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND 
                        CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

    1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. 
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the 
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    H.R. 6443 would direct the Department of the Interior (DOI) 
to take into trust 172 acres of land in San Diego County, 
California, owned by the Jamul Indian Village. Under the bill, 
DOI would hold title to that land for the benefit of the tribe. 
The bill also would prohibit certain types of gaming on that 
land. Using information from DOI, CBO estimates that the 
administrative costs to implement H.R. 6443 would not be 
significant; any spending would be subject to the availability 
of appropriated funds.
    The bill would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that 
the cost of the mandates would not exceed the annual threshold 
established in that act ($100 million in 2023, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    The bill would prohibit gambling on tribal land obtained by 
the Jamul Indian Village of California that is contiguous with 
current land held in trust for the benefit of the tribe. 
Because gaming on such land is currently allowed under federal 
law, the proposed ban would impose a mandate. However, because 
the tribe has no plan to conduct gaming on the land being 
placed into trust, the cost of the mandate would be small.
    H.R. 6443 also would prohibit state and local governments 
from taxing land taken into trust for the Jamul Indian Village. 
Information from the County of San Diego about taxes and other 
receipts associated with the land indicates that those foregone 
revenues would total less than $250,000 annually.
    The bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Julia Aman 
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The 
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director 
of Budget Analysis.
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                             Director, Congressional Budget Office.

    2. 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 take certain land in the State of 
California into trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian 
Village of California Tribe, and for other purposes.

                           EARMARK STATEMENT

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clauses 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 6443 
would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). However, CBO estimates 
that the cost of the mandates would not exceed the annual 
threshold established in UMRA.

                           EXISTING PROGRAMS

    Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any 
directed rule makings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or 
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's 
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the 
U.S. Constitution.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    As ordered reported by the Committee on Natural Resources, 
H.R. 6443 makes no changes in existing law.

                                  [all]