39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–590 

GUN LAKE TRUST LAND REAFFIRMATION ACT 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1603] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom 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 

Pottawatami Indians, and for other purposes, having considered 

the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

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 Pottawatami Indians. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

S. 1603 ratifies and confirms the trust status of a 147-acre parcel 

of land known as the Bradley Property for the Gun Lake Tribe of 

Michigan (also called the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of 

Pottawatomi Indians). The Secretary of the Interior acquired the 

land in 2001 in trust for benefit of the Gun Lake Tribe using the 

authority of Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 

(IRA, 25 U.S.C. 465). The Bradley Property, located in Wayland, 

Michigan, 24 miles south of Grand Rapids, is the location for a casino operated by the tribe pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). IGRA requires 

an Indian casino to operate on a reservation or trust land. If S. 

1603 fails to be enacted, the continued operation of the Gun Lake 

Tribe casino will be placed in jeopardy. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

The need for S. 1603 stems from what is now understood to be 

a likely unlawful acquisition of land by the Secretary for the Gun 

Lake Tribe in 2001. In 2009, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 5 of IRA does not authorize the acquisition of land in trust for 

a tribe, such as Gun Lake, whose members were not recognized 

and under federal jurisdiction on the date of enactment of IRA, or 

June 18, 1934. Carcieri v. Salazar (555 U.S. 379 (2009)). 

The legislative history surrounding the development of IRA demonstrates the intent of Congress in Section 5 was to rebuild the 

decimated land base of Indian reservations subjected to the operation of the General Allotment Act (Dawes Act) of February 8, 

1887, and related allotment laws enacted in that era of federal Indian policy. The allotment-era reservations are well-known and 

long-established; they are typically west of the Mississippi River in 

large reservations established under Act, treaty, or Executive 

Order, and characterized by checker-boarded land ownership stemming from the allotment process (distributing 80 or 160-acre allotments to individual Indians on the reservation) and the opening of 

surplus reservation lands to non-Indian homesteading. 

Information provided to the Committee by the Department of the 

Interior does not conclusively show that Gun Lake is a tribe that 

was recognized and under federal jurisdiction when the IRA was 

enacted in 1934. Rather, the Department has provided scant information to the Committee regarding the status of any tribe in 1934 

except for legal memoranda and various other records of questionable relevancy and accuracy. 

Accordingly, S. 1603 is necessary for the Secretary to lawfully 

hold the Bradley Property in trust. Fortunately, the Secretary, 

agreeing with the need for the bill, supports S. 1603. 

In addition to declaring the Bradley Property to be held in trust, 

S. 1603 would void a pending lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of 

the Secretary’s original action to acquire the Bradley Property. The 

lawsuit, filed by a neighboring private landowner named David 

Patchak, has been dormant for most of the last two years since the 

U.S. Supreme Court upheld Patchak’s standing to pursue the action. The legislation also forecloses, notwithstanding any other provision of law, ‘‘any action . . . relating to the land . . .’’ (Sec. 2(b)). 

While this is an unusually broad grant of immunity from lawsuits 

pertaining to the Bradley Property, no one has brought any concerns with the language to the attention of the Committee. 

Approval of S. 1603 is not intended to validate, or set a precedent 

for validating or ratifying, unauthorized actions undertaken by the 

Secretary, including continuing actions by the Secretary which are 

inconsistent with Carcieri v. Salazar (555 U.S. 379 (2009)). The bill 

does not change general Indian law or policy. Rather, it ratifies the 

trust status of a discrete parcel of land. Section 2(c) of S. 1603 expressly provides that nothing alters the effect of Carcieri for any 

other action undertaken by the Secretary in the past, present, or 

future. 

S. 1603 is necessary because there is no consensus in Congress 

on how to address Carcieri. Moreover, the Department of the Interior’s views regarding the need for addressing Carcieri are inconsistent. On the one hand, the Department has submitted testimony 

to the committees of jurisdiction declaring strongly support for a 

full reversal of the Supreme Court ruling. On the other hand, in 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

2013 ‘‘the Bureau of Indian Affairs [announced that it] approved 

the 1,200th individual application since 2009 for taking land into 

trust for tribal governments, bringing the total to more than 

208,000 acres.’’ (Interior press release, June 27, 2013). This 

amounts to more land taken into trust than by the previous Administration during the same time period. The Department cannot 

say it needs a reversal of Carcieri at the same time it is acquiring 

hundreds of thousands of acres of land in trust for tribes using the 

authority of the IRA. Until the conflict between the Department’s 

words and actions are reconciled, consideration of bills to take specific lands in trust, as long as they have the support of the elected 

representatives for the affected lands, tribes, and communities, is 

the appropriate means of resolving trust land matters. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

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

Stabenow (D–MI). On June 19, 2014, the bill passed the Senate by 

unanimous consent without amendment. The bill was then referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee 

to the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. On July 

15, 2014, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On July 30, 

2014, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider S. 1603. 

The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Paul A. Gosar (R– 

AZ) offered an amendment designated .184 to the bill; the amendment was withdrawn. No further amendments were offered and the 

bill was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the House of 

Representatives by voice vote. 

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

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

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 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

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 act 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 enactment of S. 

1603, 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 S. 1603 

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 determine 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). 

On June 17, 2014, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 1603 

as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on 

May 21, 2014. The versions of the legislation are similar, and the 

CBO cost estimates are the same. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Martin von 

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

impact), and Mann Burnett (for the private-sector impact). The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

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, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. Based on information provided by the Department of the Interior, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would have no significant effect on the federal budget. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
5 

3. 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 reaffirm that certain land has been taken into trust 

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

Pottawatami Indians. 

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 intergovernmental unfunded mandates. The 

Congressional Budget Office was unable to determine if the legislation contained a private-sector mandate as defined under Public 

Law 104–4. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

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. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

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 in existing law. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE