89–006 

116TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 116–54 

MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBE RESERVATION 

REAFFIRMATION ACT 

MAY 10, 2019.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GRIJALVA, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 312] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 312) to reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation, and for other purposes, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act’’. 

SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF INDIAN TRUST LAND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The taking of land into trust by the United States for the benefit of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts as described in the final 

Notice of Reservation Proclamation (81 Fed. Reg. 948; January 8, 2016) is reaffirmed as trust land and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking that 

land into trust are ratified and confirmed. 

(b) APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action (including an action pending in a Federal court as of the date of enactment of this Act) 

relating to the land described in subsection (a) shall not be filed or maintained in 

a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed. 

(c) APPLICABILITY OF LAWS.—All laws (including regulations) of the United States 

of general applicability to Indians or nations, Indian Tribes, or bands of Indians (including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.)), shall be applicable to 

the Tribe and Tribal members, except that to the extent such laws and regulations 

are inconsistent with the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement, dated April 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Federal Acknowledgment, Petitioner #015: Mashpee Wampanoag, MA, https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/ofa/015-mashpe-ma. 

22, 2008, by and between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts, the terms of that Intergovernmental Agreement shall control. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 312 is to reaffirm the trust status of certain 

lands of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and other purposes. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Prior to 2009, the Department of the Interior had long construed 

the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to authorize the Secretary of 

Interior to place land into trust for any tribe, so long as the tribe 

is federally recognized at the time of the trust application. However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar, 

555 U.S. 379 (2009), that the Secretary’s authority to place land 

into trust for tribes under the IRA had to be informed by whether 

the tribe meets one of the IRA’s three definitions of ‘‘Indian,’’ and 

it then considered whether the Narragansett Tribe met the first 

definition which applies only to tribes ‘‘now under federal jurisdiction.’’ Reversing 75 years of agency practice and federal court case 

law, the Court determined that ‘‘now’’ meant in 1934 rather than 

at the time the Secretary exercises the authority. Subsequent related events have resulted in a very real danger the Mashpee 

Wampanoag Tribe will be the first tribe this century to be stripped 

of its sovereign rights to land. 

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is one of two federally recognized tribes of Wampanoag people in Massachusetts. Their people 

have inhabited present-day Massachusetts and eastern Rhode Island for more than 12,000 years. The Tribe has existed as a distinct community since at least the 1620s. As such, the Mashpee’s 

relationship with the federal government is one of the oldest in the 

United States. Their history includes contact with the Pilgrims 

and, according to their tradition, participation in the first Thanksgiving in 1621. 

Like many tribes, the federal government failed to protect 

Mashpee’s historical lands such that eventually all of their lands 

were taken from them over time. In 1977, the Mashpee took legal 

action by filing suit in federal court claiming that their land had 

been taken from them illegally. However, the judge declared that 

the Mashpee were not federally recognized and so did not meet the 

legal definition of a tribe. On that basis, the court dismissed the 

case—not on the merits, but on procedural standing grounds. The 

Tribe subsequently petitioned the federal government for recognition in 1978, and in 2007 the Bush Administration extended formal 

recognition to the Tribe.1 However, they remained landless. 

In 2012, the Tribe filed a land-into-trust application with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for approximately 170 acres in the 

Town of Mashpee, MA, and an additional approximately 150 acres 

in the City of Taunton, MA, both within the Tribe’s historical 

homelands. The Tribe’s applications were bolstered by the full support of both local jurisdictions and by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 2015, the application was approved, and the land was 

taken into trust; the two parcels together were proclaimed the 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

2 U.S. Dep’t of Interior, Solicitor’s Opinion M–37029, The Meaning of ‘‘Under Federal Jurisdiction’’ for Purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act (Mar. 12, 2014), https://www.doi.gov/solicitor/ 

opinions. 3Littlefield et al. v. Department of the Interior, D. Mass., No. 16–10184–WGY. 

Tribe’s reservation land by the Department of the Interior in 2016. 

The Department relied on the second definition of Indian in the 

IRA to take these actions. The Tribe constructed a government center on the land, which includes its school, courtrooms and multipurpose rooms, and a medical-clinic facility. The Tribe even broke 

ground to construct and operate a 400,000-square foot casino and 

resort in Taunton under a Class III gaming compact between the 

Tribe and the State of Massachusetts that had been reviewed and 

approved by the Department of the Interior. Any resulting gaming 

would be the product of the robust and longstanding consideration 

process established in the widely applicable Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

In 2016, a group of Taunton residents, backed by an out-of-state 

commercial gaming company, filed a Carcieri suit in federal court 

to challenge Interior’s action. 

Initially, the Executive Branch defended its decision to create the 

Mashpee reservation. In March 2014, the Office of the Solicitor at 

the Department of the Interior issued a legal memorandum interpreting Carcieri as well as the intent of the IRA. It concluded that, 

even with the Carcieri ruling, ‘‘[t]he Department will continue to 

take land into trust on behalf of tribes under the test set forth 

herein to advance Congress’ stated goals of the IRA to provid[e] 

land for Indians.’ ’’ 2 On July 28, 2016, the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Secretary of Interior 

lacked authority to acquire the Mashpee land in trust based on the 

second definition of ‘‘Indian.’’ In particular, the court found that the 

second definition is dependent on the first definition, and that the 

Department’s decision had not considered whether the Tribe met 

the first definition. The Tribe and the Department of Justice appealed the court’s construction to the First Circuit, but the case 

was remanded to the Department of the Interior to consider whether the Tribe meets the first definition.3

However, in May 2017, the Department of Justice under the 

Trump Administration inexplicably withdrew from the litigation 

and is no longer defending the status of the Tribe’s land. Then, on 

September 7, 2018, the Department of the Interior issued its first 

Carcieri decision in which it refused to reaffirm its own authority 

to confirm the status of the Tribe’s lands in trust. The agency decision would mark the first time since the Termination era that the 

United States acts to disestablish an Indian reservation and render 

a tribe landless. 

These attacks on the reservation and on the Tribe’s very status 

have wreaked havoc and imposed extreme hardship on the Tribe. 

The legal uncertainty that has been imposed by these events is 

forcing the Tribe to borrow thousands of dollars every day just to 

keep its government running and has resulted in devastating cuts 

to essential services and massive layoffs. Since a significant number of tribal members rely on the Tribe for employment, the tribal 

unemployment rate has skyrocketed. The Tribe has had to essentially dissolve their police force and lay off all tribal court staff. The 

Mashpee are also in the process of shutting down their elder servVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:34 May 12, 2019 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR054.XXX HR054

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

4See Pub. L. No. 113–179, Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act; Pub. L. No. 115–121, 

Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. 

ices and addiction treatment programs, they and are on the brink 

of having to shut down their Wampanoag language immersion 

school serving preschool and school-aged children. 

H.R. 312 would reaffirm the status of the Mashpee Wampanoag 

reservation and make clear that the Tribe is entitled to be treated 

the same way as other federally recognized tribes. This legislation 

is urgently needed to protect the Tribe’s reservation lands and to 

ensure the Tribe has the resources to continue functioning as a sovereign government. Congress has enacted similar ‘‘land reaffirmation’’ laws before.4 This bill in no way exempts the Tribe from the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

H.R. 312 is widely supported in Indian Country, with the Committee having received letters of support from over fifty individual 

tribes and pan-tribal organizations. Additionally, the bill has 

strong local support, including from the Town of Mashpee and the 

City of Taunton; their respective chambers of commerce; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; numerous members of both the Massachusetts House and Senate; the Mayflower Society; and many 

local businesses and business leaders. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 312 was introduced on January 8, 2019, by Representative 

William R. Keating (D–MA). The bill was referred solely to the 

Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 

Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States. The 

Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill on April 3, 2019. On May 

1, 2019, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 

The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. Chair 

Grijalva (D–AZ) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of H.R. 312, as introduced. Representative Paul Gosar (R–AZ) offered an amendment designated Gosar 

#1 to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Gosar 

amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 10 yeas and 26 

nays, as follows: 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 6 here HR54.001
6 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Chair 

Grijalva was adopted by voice vote. The bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll 

call vote of 26 yeas and 10 nays, as follows: 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 8 here HR54.002
8 

HEARINGS

For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 116th Congress, the following hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 

312: Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States legislative hearing held on April 3, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. 

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

With respect to the requirements of 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 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has requested but not received a cost estimate 

for this bill from the Director of Congressional Budget Office. 

The Committee has requested but not received from the Director 

of the Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this 

bill contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit 

authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

RULEMAKINGS AND 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 

PREEMPTION

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing law. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
(9) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, is a $500+ million bailout for a foreign corporation. The 

bill contradicts a Supreme Court decision and aims to reverse federal court decisions on this matter to build a massive 400,000 

square foot off-reservation gaming complex for the benefit of 

Genting, a foreign Malaysian gaming company. 

More specifically, H.R. 312 ratifies a discretionary action taken 

by the Obama Administration Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to 

hold land in trust for the Mashpee Tribe under a certain law even 

though a federal court has determined that such law does not authorize the Secretary to hold land in trust for such tribe. The bill 

also orders courts to dismiss any pending lawsuit concerning the 

lawfulness of the BIA action. 

The bill creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts. One reservation will be in the Town of Mashpee, the 

tribe’s historic reservation lands. No casino will be allowed ‘‘within 

the geographical boundaries of the Town of Mashpee.’’ The other 

reservation will be 50 miles away from Mashpee in the City of 

Taunton. This site is not part of the tribe’s historic reservation and 

was selected by the tribe and Genting for a billion-dollar casino 

project because of its proximity to the Providence, Rhode Island casino market (20 miles distant). 

In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

with the intent to restrict casinos to tribes’ original reservations. 

By placing land in trust for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312 creates 

an off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with Congressional 

intent. This is often called ‘‘reservation shopping’’ and it is an 

abuse of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The tribe’s lawyers 

knew that reservation shopping was a political headache, so they 

went to the previous administration to obtain the two reservations 

through administrative action. A federal judge, however, ruled 

what the previous Administration did was unlawful, so now they 

need legislation to authorize the off-reservation casino. 

The bill is opposed by the State of Rhode Island, and it’s opposed 

by local citizen groups in Taunton—the ones who successfully won 

the lawsuit that H.R. 312 would nullify. At the Committee hearing 

on the bill, the State of Rhode Island testified that H.R. 312 will 

cause the State significant harm with regard to revenues for education, infrastructure and social programs. 

The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) is also ‘‘strenuously opposed’’ to the passage of H.R. 312 and expressed ‘‘serious 

concerns about the legislation’’ in a May 17, 2019, letter to Natural 

Resources Committee Chairman Rau ́l Grijalva. 

H.R. 312 is a financial bailout for Genting. The tribe is swamped 

with a $500+ million debt to Genting, and there’s no way the tribe 

can ever pay this back and still make enough money to sustain 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS
10 

itself. Genting, therefore, will be the real owner of the project, not 

the tribe. This kind of arrangement, where the creditor practically 

controls the financial future of a debtor-tribe, is contrary to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which requires every tribal casino to 

be 100% tribally-owned. 

Moreover, the American Principles Project also reported on the 

ties between convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Mashpee 

Wampanoag Tribe stating, ‘‘The expansive Abramoff investigation 

uncovered major corruption within the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe. 

Its chief, Glenn Marshall, pled guilty in 2009 to multiple federal 

charges, including embezzling tribal funds and campaign finance 

violations committed while working with Abramoff to secure federal recognition of the tribe [in 2007].’’ 

If H.R. 312 is passed, Congress will declare that years of fighting 

and victories by local stakeholders never happened. Congress will 

also take the view that current federal law shouldn’t apply to the 

Mashpee Tribe. 

The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 voting Republicans during 

the Natural Resources Committee markup of this bill, including 

Ranking Republican Rob Bishop. These Members are joined by 

Americans for Limited Government, American Principles Project, 

Coalition for American Values, Eagle Forum, the Governor of 

Rhode Island, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gray Head (Aquinnah), 

Congressman David N. Cicilline (D–RI), Congressman James R. 

Langevin (D–RI) and President Donald Trump. 

This opposition was enough to have the bill pulled from consideration by the House of Representatives under the suspension of the 

rules procedures one week after it was considered in Committee 

with no bill report or score from the Congressional Budget Office. 

Now, the Democrat Leadership plans to use a closed rule to get 

this controversial bill out of the House of Representatives. Given 

that H.R. 312 authorizes an off-reservation casino, bails out a foreign corporation from major financial problems of its own making 

and reverses the judgment of a federal court, it is no wonder that 

the Majority had to resort to these drastic measures. 

PAUL A. GOSAR, D.D.S., 

Member of Congress. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with REPORTS