69–010 

Calendar No. 672 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–377 

A BILL 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 

NOVEMBER 16, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BARRASSO, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2739] 

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 2739) 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, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

PURPOSE

The bill, S. 2739, would provide fair and equitable compensation 

to the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation (Spokane Tribe) for the past and continued use of their tribal lands by 

the Federal government for the production of hydroelectric power 

generation by the Grand Coulee Dam in the state of Washington. 

Specifically, S. 2739 would provide the Spokane Tribe with a 

lump-sum payment for the past use of tribal lands, which are now 

submerged under the reservoir created by the Grand Coulee Dam. 

Additionally, the bill would provide the Spokane Tribe with annual 

payments for the continued use of tribal lands, based on the sale 

of hydroelectric power generated by the Grand Coulee Dam. 

BACKGROUND

From 1927 to 1931, the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps), at the direction of Congress, investigated the Columbia 

River and its tributaries to identify sites where dams could be conVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:11 Nov 24, 2016 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR377.XXX SR377

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

1Federal Power Act of 1920 § 4, 16 U.S.C. § 797 (1920). 

2 Id. 

3Federal Power Act of 1920 § 10, 16 U.S.C. § 803(e) (1920). 

4 Id. 

5 Act of June 29, 1940 § 2, 16 U.S.C. § 835d (1940). 

structed to produce hydroelectric power at low cost.1 During this 

time, the Corps recommended a number of sites where dams could 

be constructed, including the site where the Grand Coulee Dam is 

now located. The site chosen for the Grand Coulee Dam consisted, 

in part, of lands held in trust by the Federal government for the 

benefit of the Spokane Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Colville Reservation (Colville Tribes). 

The Federal Power Act and its Effect on Indian tribes. The Corps 

recommended the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam be undertaken by local governments or private utilities, as a licensee, under 

the authority of the Federal Power Act.2 When tribal lands are involved, licensing procedures require the licensee to pay an annual 

payment to Indian tribes who have jurisdiction over the tribal 

lands.3 In 1933, the Federal Power Commission issued a preliminary permit to the Columbia Basin Commission to construct a dam 

at the recommended Grand Coulee site. During the mid-1930s, the 

Federal government federalized the Grand Coulee Dam project and 

began construction of the dam. The Federal government is not subject to the Federal Power Act and is not obligated to make annual 

payments to Indian tribes when tribal lands are used for projects 

such as the Grand Coulee Dam project.4

Compensation to the Tribes. The Spokane Tribe and Colville 

Tribes’ interests were affected when the Federal government federalized the Grand Coulee Dam project. The Federal government 

acknowledged the effects and determined that both tribes should 

receive a share of revenue from the disposition of power produced 

by the Grand Coulee Dam. The Act of June 29, 1940 directed the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to provide compensation to the 

Spokane Tribe and Colville Tribes for the use of tribal lands in an 

amount determined by the Secretary to be just and equitable.5 The 

Secretary paid to the Spokane Tribe, $4,700, and to the Colville 

Tribes, $63,000. 

The Indian Claims Commission. Prior to Congress enacting the 

Indian Claims Commission Act in 1946, Indian tribes needed Congressional action to pursue claims against the Federal government. 

The purpose of the 1946 Act was to establish a forum, the Indian 

Claims Commission (ICC), for Indian tribes to pursue historic 

claims, dating before August 13, 1946, against the Federal government. The ICC did not have authority to grant or restore lands to 

Indian tribes and was only able to award monetary compensation. 

Under the 1946 Act, Indian tribes had a five year statute of limitations to file claims with the ICC. 

Both the Spokane Tribe and the Colville Tribes filed separate, 

unrelated land claims prior to the August 13, 1951 deadline. During the five year period to file claims with the ICC, neither the 

Spokane nor the Colville Tribes filed claims for compensation for 

the use of tribal lands to construct the Grand Coulee Dam. 

The Spokane Tribes’ land claims before the ICC had all been 

fully adjudicated by 1967. By settling the land claims against the 

Federal government, the Spokane Tribe had no further mechanism 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

6 Act of August 13, 1946, omitted 25 U.S.C. § 70 et seq. in that the Indian Claims Commissions 

was terminated on September 30, 1978 by Pub. L. No. 94–465 (1976). 7 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Settlement Act, Pub. L. 

No. 103–436, 108 Stat. 4577 (1994). 

to litigate claims over the Grand Coulee Dam project in Federal 

court due, in part, to the 5-year statute of limitations set in the Indian Claims Commission Act. 

The Colville Settlement Agreement. In 1976, against objection by 

the United States because of the cessation of the ICC, the Colville 

Tribes were successful in amending their ICC land claim to add the 

Grand Coulee Dam project, creating an opportunity for the tribe to 

seek compensation in the 1994 Colville Settlement Agreement. 

In 1994, to halt this litigation pending under the Indian Claims 

Commission Act, Congress ratified the Colville Settlement Agree- ment (Agreement) requiring a payment of $53 million to the 

Colville Tribes for the past use of tribal lands.6 Additionally under 

the Agreement, the Colville Tribes are provided annual payments 

of $15,250,000, adjusted annually based on revenues from the sale 

of electric power from the Grand Coulee Dam project and the transmission of that power by the Bonneville Power Administration, for 

the continued use of Colville tribal lands.7 Unlike the Colville 

Tribes, the Spokane Tribes were not likewise compensated under 

the Agreement for the continued use of their tribal lands. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Spokane Tribe has been affected by the construction and operation of the Grand Coulee Dam. The bill, S. 2739, would provide 

fair and equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe by requiring 

payments from the Federal government to the Spokane Tribe for 

past and continued use of tribal lands in generating hydropower 

from the Grand Coulee Dam in the state of Washington. With no 

further opportunity to litigate lands claims of the Spokane Tribe in 

federal court, legislation is necessary to provide fair and equitable 

compensation that the Spokane Tribe is seeking for the use of their 

lands. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On March 17, 2016, Senator Cantwell with Senator Murray introduced S. 2739, to provide for equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation for the use of 

tribal land, and for the production of hydropower by the Grand 

Coulee Dam, and for other purposes (also known as the Spokane 

Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Equitable Compensation Act). At this time, there is no House companion bill. A legislative hearing was not held on this bill in the 114th Congress, although one has been held on predecessor bills in prior Congresses. 

On May 11, 2016, the Committee held a duly called business meeting to consider S. 2739. The Committee ordered the bill to be reported favorably without amendment. 

Prior Congresses 

113th Congress. On August 1, 2013, Senators Cantwell and Murray introduced S. 1448, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Equitable Compensation Act. Senator Begich was 

added as a cosponsor on February 4, 2014. The Committee held a 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

8S. Rep. No. 113–202 (2014). 

9S. Rep. No. 110–450 (2008). 

legislative hearing on September 10, 2013. The Committee held a 

duly called business meeting on January 29, 2014 to consider S. 

1448. The Committee ordered the bill to be reported favorably with 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute. No further action was 

taken on the bill.8 There was no House companion bill. 

112th Congress. On July 11, 2011, Senators Cantwell and Murray introduced S. 1345, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act. A legislative hearing was held on October 20, 2011. 

The Committee held a duly called business meeting on September 

13, 2012 to consider S. 1345. The Committee ordered the bill to be 

reported favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. No further action was taken on the bill, S. 1345. There was 

no House companion bill. 

111th Congress. On June 25, 2009, Senators Cantwell and Murray introduced S. 1388, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act. Senator Inouye was added as a cosponsor on July 28, 

2009. The Committee held a duly called business meeting on September 10, 2009 to consider S. 1388. The bill, S. 1388, was ordered 

to be reported favorably without amendment. No further action 

was taken on the bill, S. 1388. 

The House companion bill, H.R. 3097, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act, was introduced by Representatives Inslee 

and Dicks on June 26, 2009. Representative Kildee was added as 

a cosponsor on October 7, 2009. Representative Richardson was 

added as a cosponsor on February 3, 2010. The bill, H.R. 3097, was 

referred to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 

Representatives where no further action was taken on the bill. 

110th Congress. On December 17, 2007, Senators Cantwell and 

Murray introduced S. 2494, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the 

Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation 

Settlement Act. Senator Inouye was added as a cosponsor on January 24, 2008. The Committee held a legislative hearing on May 15, 

2008. The Committee held a duly called business meeting on June 

19, 2008 to consider S. 2494. The bill, S. 2494, was ordered to be 

reported favorably without amendment.9 No further action was 

taken on the bill. 

The House companion bill, H.R. 6547, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act, was introduced by Representatives Inslee 

and Dicks on July 17, 2008. Representative Kildee was added as 

a cosponsor on July 29, 2008. The bill, H.R. 6547, was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives where no further action was taken on the bill. 

109th Congress. On April 21, 2005, Senator Cantwell with Senators Murray, Inouye, and McCain introduced S. 881, the Spokane 

Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act. Senator Dorgan was added as 

a cosponsor on May 18, 2005. Senator McCain withdrew as a cosponsor on April 26, 2005. The bill, S. 881, was referred to the 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

10S. Rep. No. 108–397 (2004). 

Committee. No legislative hearing was held on the bill. On June 

29, 2005, the Committee ordered S. 881 to be reported favorably 

without amendment. On December 8, 2005, the bill was placed on 

the Senate Legislative Calendar under general orders. No further 

action was taken on the bill, S. 881. 

The House companion bill, H.R. 1797, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act, was introduced by Representatives 

McMorris Rodgers, Dicks and Kildee on April 21, 2005. Representative Inslee was added as a cosponsor on May 11, 2005. The bill, 

H.R. 1797, was referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power 

of the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives. On 

May 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Water and Power discharged 

H.R. 1797 and by unanimous consent ordered the bill to be reported. On June 23, 2005, the Committee on Resources reported 

H.R. 1797 where the bill was placed on the Union Calendar. On 

July 25, 2005, Representative McMorris Rodgers moved to suspend 

the rules and pass the bill, when the House proceeded with forty 

minutes of debate with the motion to suspend the rules and pass 

the bill was agreed to by voice vote. On July 26, 2005, H.R. 1797 

was received in the Senate. On July 27, 2005, the bill was read a 

second time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 

general orders. No further action was taken on the bill, H.R. 1797. 

108th Congress. On July 22, 2003, Senators Cantwell, Murray 

and Inouye introduced S. 1438, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the 

Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation 

Settlement Act. The Committee held a legislative hearing on October 2, 2003. On September 22, 2004, the Committee held a duly 

called business meeting to consider S. 1438 and ordered the bill to 

be reported favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. On October 8, 2004, Senator Campbell reported the bill 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title, where the bill was placed on Senate Legislative 

Calendar under general orders.10 On November 19, 2004, the Senate passed S. 1438 with an amendment and an amendment to the 

title by unanimous consent. The House received the bill, S. 1438, 

on November 20, 2004. The bill, S. 1438, was referred to Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives. On December 

1, 2004, the bill, S. 1438, was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Water and Power of the Committee on Resources of the House of 

Representatives. No further action was taken on the bill, S. 1438. 

The House companion bill, H.R. 1753, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act, was introduced by Representatives 

Nethercutt and Dicks on April 10, 2003. Representative Kildee was 

added as a cosponsor on July 17, 2003. The bill, H.R. 1753, was referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee 

on Resources of the House of Representatives. On October 2, 2003, 

the Subcommittee on Water and Power held a legislative hearing 

on the bill. No further action was taken the bill. 

107th Congress. On May 23, 2002, Senators Murray, Cantwell 

and Inouye introduced S. 2567, Spokane Tribe of Indians of the 

Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
6 

Settlement Act. The bill, S. 2567, was referred to the Committee. 

No further action was taken on the bill, S. 2567. 

The House companion bill, H.R. 4859, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act, was introduced by Representative 

Nethercutt on June 4, 2002. The bill, H.R. 4859, was referred to 

the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives. No 

further action was taken on the bill. 

106th Congress. On August 5, 1999, Senators Murray and Inouye 

introduced S. 1525, Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement 

Act. The bill, S. 1525, was referred to the Committee and no further action was taken on the bill. 

The House companion bill, H.R. 2664, the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Settlement Act, was introduced by Representative 

Nethercutt on July 30, 1999. Representative Dicks was added as a 

cosponsor on August 5, 1999. The bill, H.R. 2664, was referred to 

the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives. No 

further action was taken on the bill, H.R. 2664. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

The Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spokane Tribe of Indians of the 

Spokane Reservation Equitable Compensation Act’’. 

Section 2. Findings 

Section 2 states the findings of Congress that support the need 

for the Act. 

Section 3. Purpose 

Section 3 states the purpose of the Act is to provide fair and equitable compensation to the Spokane Tribe for use of its lands for 

the generation of hydropower by the Grand Coulee Dam. 

Section 4. Definitions 

Section 4 defines the key terms used throughout the Act. 

Section 5. Spokane Tribe of Indians Recovery Trust Fund 

Section 5 establishes a trust fund of $53 million for the Spokane 

Tribe to be maintained and invested by the Secretary of the Interior until the fund is disbursed to the Tribe upon their request. 

Section 5 provides that the Tribe must prepare a plan on how it 

intends to use funds prior to the Tribe’s request for disbursement 

of the trust fund. 

Section 6. Payments by Administrator 

Section 6 provides for annual payments to the Spokane Tribe for 

continued use of tribal lands, based on the revenue from the generation of hydroelectric power by the Grand Coulee Dam. 

Section 7. Treatment after amounts are paid 

Section 7 describes how the Tribe may use funds provided under 

sections 5 or 6 of the Act, and states that there is no trust responsiVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:11 Nov 24, 2016 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR377.XXX SR377

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
7 

bility of the Secretary of the Interior or the Bonneville Power Administrator for the funds once they are paid to the Tribe. 

Section 8. Repayment credit 

Section 8 allows the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration a credit against future interest payments owed to the 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

Section 9. Extinguishment of claims 

Section 9 states that upon the deposit of amounts in the Fund 

described in Section 5, all monetary claims the Spokane Tribe has 

or may have regarding the Grand Coulee Dam against the United 

States will be extinguished. 

Section 10. Administration 

Section 10 states that the Act is not binding or establishing 

precedent for other power administrations. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following cost estimate, as provided by the Congressional 

Budget Office, dated September 16, 2016, was prepared for S. 2739: 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016. 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO, 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. 2739, the Spokane Tribe of 

Indians of the Spokane Reservation Equitable Compensation Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 2739—Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Equitable Compensation Act 

Summary: S. 2739 would provide compensation to the Spokane 

Tribe of Indians for tribal lands used in the construction of the 

Grand Coulee Dam in Washington. The bill would establish the 

Spokane Tribe of Indians Recovery Trust Fund and would require 

the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to make annual payments to the tribe from receipts generated from the sale of electricity. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase net direct spending by $56 million over the 2017–2026 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not 

affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion 

in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

S. 2739 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by extinguishing 

the monetary claims of the Spokane Tribe of Indians against the 

United States for hydropower revenues and for past and continued 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
8 

use of their land. CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate 

would not exceed the annual threshold established in that act ($77 

million in 2016, adjusted annually for inflation). 

S. 2739 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 2739 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 450 (community and 

regional development) and 270 (energy). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2017– 

2021 

2017– 

2026 

INCREASES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Spokane Tribe of Indians Recovery Trust 

Fund: 

Budget Authority ............................... 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 53 

Estimated Outlays ............................ 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 53 

Budgetary Effects on the Bonneville 

Power Administration: 

Estimated Budget Authority ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 

Estimated Outlays ............................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Budget Authority .... 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 53 56 

Estimated Outlays ................... 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 53 56 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2739 

will be enacted before the end of calendar year 2016. 

Spokane Tribe of Indians Recovery Trust Fund 

S. 2739 would create the Spokane Tribe of Indians Recovery 

Trust Fund to provide compensation for land taken from the tribe 

by the federal government to build the Grand Coulee Dam. S. 2739 

would require that $53 million be deposited into that trust fund on 

the first day of the first fiscal year after enactment. Under the bill, 

the Spokane Tribal Business Council would have 18 months to prepare a plan detailing how the trust fund would be used before the 

amounts deposited in the trust fund, as well as any accrued interest, could be spent. 

Payments to certain tribal trust funds that are held and managed in a fiduciary capacity by the federal government on behalf 

of Indian tribes are treated as payments to a nonfederal entity. As 

a result, CBO expects that the entire amount deposited to this 

trust fund would be recorded as budget authority and outlays at 

the time of the deposit in 2018. The Secretary of the Interior would 

be required to invest the funds in government securities until those 

funds are expended by the tribe. 

Budgetary effects on the Bonneville Power Administration 

The legislation also would require BPA to make an annual payment to the Spokane Tribe of Indians. Beginning in 2017 and extending through 2026, that payment would equal 25 percent of the 

annual payment that BPA makes under current law to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. Beginning in 2027, the 

annual payment to the Spokane Tribe would increase to 32 percent 

of the payment to the Confederated Tribes. CBO estimates that 

those payments would total about $5 million annually until 2026 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
9 

and then increase to about $8 million beginning in 2027. Under the 

legislation, those payments would continue as long as electricity is 

generated at the Grand Coulee Dam. 

Because BPA’s operating costs are driven primarily by market 

and environmental conditions that are difficult to control, CBO expects that the agency would not be able to offset the costs of the 

annual payments by reducing operating expenses. Instead, we anticipate that BPA would increase the rates it charges customers for 

electricity to cover those costs. Therefore, those payments would 

generally be offset by an equivalent increase in the revenue collected from customers. CBO expects that the additional annual 

payment would become part of BPA’s cost structure starting in 

2018 and would be fully offset by an increase in rates for electricity. Therefore, CBO estimates there would be no net effect on 

the budget from the annual payments and rate increases in 2018 

and subsequent years. 

In addition, starting in 2026, S. 2739 would reduce BPA’s inter- est payments to the Treasury by $2.7 million in the years that BPA 

makes payments to the tribe. Because those payments offset direct 

spending, such reductions would have the effect of increasing direct 

spending by $2.7 million a year indefinitely, starting in 2026. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR S. 2739, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS ON MAY 11, 2016 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2016– 

2021 

2016– 

2026 

NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go ................. 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 53 56 

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net direct 

spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in at least 

one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: S. 2739 

would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA 

by extinguishing the monetary claims of the Spokane Tribe of Indians against the United States for hydropower revenues and for 

past and continued use of their land. Eliminating an existing right 

of action is a mandate because the right to seek redress and recover damages beyond what is provided in the bill would be lost. 

Based on information from the tribe, CBO assumes it is unlikely 

that the tribe would, absent the provision extinguishing claims, 

pursue such claims if the bill were enacted. Therefore, CBO estimates that the cost, if any, of the mandate would not exceed the 

annual threshold established in UMRA ($77 million in 2016, adjusted annually for inflation). Overall, the tribe would benefit from 

payments authorized for the tribe from both the federal government and the Bonneville Power Administration. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
10 

Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 2739 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Robert Reese and Kathy 

Gramp; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Rachel 

Austin; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for 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. 2739 will have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee has received no communications from the Executive Branch regarding S. 2739. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In accordance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the bill, S. 2739, as ordered reported, would 

make no changes in existing law. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING