39–010 

Calendar No. 432 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–194 

TO REAFFIRM THAT CERTAIN LAND HAS BEEN TAKEN 

INTO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MATCH-E-BENASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JUNE 17, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. TESTER, from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1603] 

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

(S. 1603) to reaffirm that certain land has been taken into trust for 

the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi 

Indians, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that 

the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 1603 is to reaffirm that certain land has been 

taken into trust for the benefit of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish 

Band of Pottawatomi Indians, and for other purposes. 

BACKGROUND

The Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians 

(Gun Lake Tribe) is a federally recognized tribe residing in rural 

Michigan. In 1998, the Department of the Interior recognized the 

Tribe through the administrative federal acknowledgement process. 

Two years later, the Tribe filed an application with the Department 

of the Interior to place a tract of land, known as the Bradley Property, into trust pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act. 

The trust acquisition by the Secretary was quickly challenged by 

an anti-gaming organization and a neighboring landowner. These 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVNPROD with REPORTS-SEN
2 

challenges resulted in numerous court decisions, culminating in the 

United States Supreme Court’s decision in Patchak v. Salazar. The 

Patchak decision ultimately provided the neighboring landowner 

legal standing to challenge the Secretary’s trust acquisition for the 

Tribe. That challenge is currently pending before a federal district 

court, and places in jeopardy the Tribe’s only tract of land held in 

trust and the economic development project that the Tribe is currently operating on the land. 

S. 1603 would ratify and confirm the Secretary’s acquisition of 

the tract of land in trust for the Tribe. The bill would provide certainty to the legal status of the land, on which the Tribe has begun 

gaming operations as a means of economic development for its community. 

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on the 

bill on May 7, 2014, where the Tribe and the Department of the 

Interior testified in support of the bill. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1—Short Title 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act.’’ 

Section 2—Reaffirmation of Indian Trust Land 

The land taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of 

the Tribe and described in the final Notice of Determination of the 

Department of the Interior (70 Fed. Reg. 25596 (May 13, 2005)) is 

reaffirmed as trust land, and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking that land into trust are ratified and confirmed. 

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 shall not be filed or maintained in 

a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed. 

Nothing in this Act alters or diminishes the right of the Tribe 

from seeking to have any additional land taken into trust. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1603 was introduced on October 29, 2013, by Senator Debbie 

Stabenow (D–MI) and Senator Carl Levin (D–MI). The bill was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On May 7, 2014, the 

committee held a hearing on the bill. On May 21, 2014, the committee met to consider the bill. No amendments were offered, and 

the bill was adopted and ordered reported favorably to the Senate 

by voice vote. On June 12, 2014, the bill was reported and placed 

on the Senate Legislative Calendar. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following cost estimate, as provided by the Congressional 

Budget Office, dated June 17, 2014, was prepared for S. 1603: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVNPROD with REPORTS-SEN
3 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, June 17, 2014. 

Hon. JON TESTER, 

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. 1603, the Gun Lake Trust 

Land Reaffirmation Act. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von Gnechten. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1603—Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act 

S. 1603 would reaffirm the status of lands taken into trust by the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) for the benefit of the Match-E-BeNash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians in the state of Michigan. The legislation also would prohibit any lawsuits related to the 

trust land. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that DOI lacked the 

authority to take nearly 150 acres into trust. 

Based on information provided by DOI, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would have no significant effect on the 

federal budget. The legislation would not significantly increase the 

cost of managing tribal trust lands. Enacting S. 1603 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

S. 1603 contains an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

because it would end rights of action for public and private entities 

that are currently able to pursue legal actions related to the land 

held in trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians. The bill would prohibit any action relating to 

the trust land from being brought or maintained in a federal court. 

The cost of the mandate would be any forgone compensation that 

would have been awarded through legal actions. 

The state of Michigan and several local governments have entered into an agreement with the tribe related to the use of the 

land, and CBO believes it is unlikely that, absent the bill, any 

other public entity would bring an action that would result in significant compensation. Therefore, CBO estimates the cost of the 

intergovernmental mandate would not exceed the annual threshold 

established in UMRA for such mandates ($76 million, in 2014, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Private entities, however, have no such agreement, and the bill 

would extinguish all rights to legal actions relating to the trust 

lands. Awards in such claims are in many cases limited to the 

value of the land. Because of the commercial properties located on 

the trust land, the value of awards related to those lands could be 

significant. However, because both the number of claims that could 

be barred or terminated and the value of forgone compensation 

stemming from those claims are uncertain, CBO has no basis for 

estimating the cost of the mandate. Therefore, CBO cannot deterVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:08 Jun 19, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR194.XXX SR194

smartinez on DSK4TPTVNPROD with REPORTS-SEN
4 

mine whether the cost of the private-sector mandate would exceed 

the annual threshold established in UMRA for such mandates 

($152 million, in 2014, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Martin von 

Gnechten (for federal costs), Melissa Merrell (for the state and local 

impact), and Marin Burnett (for the private-sector impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, 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. 1603 will have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee has received no communications from the Executive Branch regarding S. 1603. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW (CORDON RULE) 

In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that the enactment of S. 

1603 will not make any changes in existing law. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVNPROD with REPORTS-SEN