59–010 

1 Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. § 465 (1934). 

Calendar No. 514 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–275 

INTERIOR IMPROVEMENT ACT 

JUNE 9, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BARRASSO, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1879] 

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

(S. 1879) to improve processes in the Department of the Interior, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as 

amended, do pass. 

PURPOSE

S. 1879 would restore the authority of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Secretary) to take land into trust for all 

federally recognized tribes, reaffirm the status of Indian trust lands 

already held in trust, and improve existing land into trust processes and procedures. 

BACKGROUND

On February 24, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Carcieri 

v. Salazar that the Secretary of the Interior did not have the authority to take land into trust for the Narragansett Tribe under the 

Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 1 (IRA) because the Tribe was 

not ‘‘under Federal jurisdiction’’ when the IRA was enacted in 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

2 Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). 3M. Maureen Murphy, Congressional Research Service, Carcieri v. Salazar: The Secretary of 

the Interior May Not Acquire Trust Land for the Narragansett Indian Tribe Under 25 U.S.C. 

Section 465 Because That Statute Applies to Tribes ‘‘Under Federal Jurisdiction’’ in 1934, Apr. 

22, 2015 (RL34521). 4See e.g., Id.; Jane M. Smith, Congressional Research Service, Ninth Circuit Opinion Suggests 

Carcieri v. Salazar May Provide a Basis for Challenging Indian Trust Land Status, Feb. 12, 

2014 (Legal Sidebar). 5Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S.ll(2012); 

132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012). 6 Id. 

7Land Acquisitions: Appeals of Land Acquisition Decisions, 78 Fed. Reg. 67,928 (Nov. 13, 

2013) (codified at 25 C.F.R. pt. 151). 8 Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). 

1934.2 While the Court’s holding applied specifically to the 

Narraganset Tribe, the Carcieri decision has had a far greater impact on tribes, states and local jurisdictions across the country. The 

Court’s decision in Carcieri has given rise to many concerns, litigation and uncertainty. 

The reach of Carcieri has extended far beyond the Narragansett 

Tribe, as it rests on a limiting interpretation of the primary statute 

under which the Secretary derives authority to take land into trust 

for the benefit of Indian tribes. In particular, ‘‘[t]he decision appears to call into question the ability of the [Secretary] to take land 

into trust for any recently recognized tribe unless the trust acquisition has been authorized by legislation other than the 1934 Indian 

Reorganization Act (IRA) or the tribe can show that it was ‘‘under 

Federal jurisdiction’’ in 1934.’’ 3

The Carcieri decision opened the door to significant litigation, 

creating further uncertainty around the status of Indian trust 

lands.4 One such case is Match-E-Be-Nash-She Wish Band of 

Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, which involved a challenge to the 

Secretary’s authority to acquire trust land for tribes that were not 

federally recognized in 1934.5 Ultimately, the Supreme Court relied 

on the merits of a six-year statute of limitations in the Federal Administrative Procedure Act for challenges to final agency actions to 

rule that the Federal government’s sovereign immunity under the 

Quiet Title Act did not bar challenges to any decision of the Secretary to take land into trust once title passed to the United 

States, and that challenges to such final agency action may be 

brought within six years.6

In response to Patchak, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) revised its Indian trust land acquisition regulations with language 

that is often referred to as the ‘‘Patchak Patch’’.7 This language 

would limit a party’s administrative appeal period to provide greater certainty to Indian tribes when developing on their lands. 

Other action by the Department of the Interior (Department), including taking land into trust pursuant to a Department Solicitor’s 

Opinion, has exacerbated legal issues associated with Carcieri and 

caused related litigation. The Carcieri Court construed the IRA in 

a manner that would limit the means by which the Secretary may 

exercise the authority to take land into trust. The Solicitor’s Opinion arguably conflicts with this limiting principle by applying a far 

more expansive interpretation. 

It is clear the Supreme Court did not define the meaning of the 

phrase ‘‘under federal jurisdiction’’ in its Carcieri decision.8 Instead, the Court left this question to Congress to address through 

the creation of law, pursuant to Congress’ plenary authority over 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

9 U.S. v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 200–02 (2004); U.S. v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162, 

175 (2011). 10Memorandum from Hilary C. Tompkins, Solicitor, U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, on the Meaning 

of ‘‘Under Federal Jurisdiction’’ for Purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act (Mar. 12, 2014) 

(M–37029) available at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M37029.pdf. 11 Id. 12 Addressing the Costly Administrative Burdens and Negative Impacts of the Carcieri and 

Patchak Decisions: Oversight Hearing before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 

(2012). 13 25 C.F.R. pt. 151. 14 U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Services, Acquisition of 

Title to Land Held in Fee or Restricted Fee Status (Fee-to-Trust Handbook) at 15 (2014). 15 A Path Forward: Trust Modernization & Reform for Indian Lands: Oversight Hearing before 

the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 114th Cong. (2015) (written testimony of Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs). 

Indian tribes.9 Nonetheless, on March 12, 2014, the Department of 

the Interior Office of the Solicitor issued a Solicitor’s Opinion (M– 

37029) describing how the Secretary would be able to determine 

whether an Indian tribe was ‘‘under federal jurisdiction’’ in 1934.10

This document, which includes a two-part Secretarial determination for determining whether a tribe was ‘‘under federal jurisdiction’’ in 1934 and is therefore eligible to have land taken into trust 

by the Secretary on their behalf, has been used by the Department 

as the legal justification or basis to take land into trust for Indian 

tribes recognized after 1934.11 This two-part test created by the 

Department of Interior has only provided a temporary fix and has 

been subject to significant litigation. 

The existing administrative process for taking land into trust is 

arduous and can take many years to complete.12 The Department 

currently uses a sixteen-step process to evaluate discretionary land 

into trust applications for Indian tribes under the IRA.13 Some Indian tribes have been waiting years for a decision because the Interior must conduct a Carcieri analysis and determine if the Indian 

tribe is eligible to request that the land be taken into trust.14 According to the Department, the two-step analysis established by the 

Solicitor’s Opinion in 2014 has added yet another layer of bureaucracy, resulting in further delays and costs for all parties involved 

in the acquisition process.15

The Department’s current trust acquisition process also lacks 

transparency and lacks meaningful opportunities for stakeholders 

to voice their concerns, share ideas or even collaborate prior to the 

Department taking final action on an application. This has left 

many stakeholders with few alternatives to filing suit in court to 

voice their concerns or protect their interests. 

The Court’s Carcieri decision has been devastating to all parties 

involved, from both a financial and a community perspective. This 

situation has strained local relationships among tribes and between 

tribes and counties, and has significantly increased uncertainty 

and litigation. Among the many other costs associated with the status quo are innumerable lost opportunities for economic development, job creation and prosperity. 

Another critical concern is that the Carcieri decision and the Department’s subsequent actions have had the practical effect of undermining tribal sovereignty and, in essence, creating two classes 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

16 Addressing the Costly Administrative Burdens and Negative Impacts of the Carcieri and 

Patchak Decisions: Oversight Hearing before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 

(2012). 17The Carcieri Crisis: The Ripple Effect on Jobs, Economic Development and Public Safety in 

Indian Country: Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. (2011); 

Addressing the Costly Administrative Burdens and Negative Impacts of the Carcieri and Patchak 

Decisions: Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. (2012); 

Carcieri: Bringing Certainty to Trust Land Acquisitions: Oversight Hearing Before the S. Comm. 

on Indian Affairs, 113th Cong. (2013); The Carcieri v. Salazar Supreme Court Decision and Exploring a Way Forward: Roundtable Discussion Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 114th 

Cong. (2015). 18See LEGISLATIVE HISTORY section below. 19For instance, S. 1879 does not amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 or include 

carve outs for any state, tribal or special interest. It also does not include a ‘‘county veto’’ that 

would enable counties or other stakeholders to indefinitely block an Indian tribe’s application 

to take land into trust. S. 1879 also does not mandate contracting or reciprocal notice-and-comment procedures between local jurisdictions and tribes, but does encourage local cooperation. 20For instance, S. 1879 promotes local cooperation by requiring consultation with Indian 

tribes; recommending the use of cooperative agreements and reciprocal notice and comment procedures; offering a fast-track application process for tribes with cooperative agreements; proof tribes—tribes that are eligible for discretionary acquisitions 

under the IRA and tribes that are not.16

Only Congress can finally bring the clarity needed to stop and reverse the fallout of Carcieri. S. 1879 would directly resolve the 

legal questions at issue and incentivize local cooperation between 

tribes and contiguous jurisdictions, which is greatly needed. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Since the Court’s Carcieri decision in 2009, Indian tribes have 

been working with Congress to pass a ‘‘legislative fix’’ to restore the 

ability of the Secretary to take land into trust for all federally recognized Indian tribes. This Committee has held various hearings 

and meetings on the decision, impacts of the decision on tribes, and 

proposals to address the decision.17 Although numerous legislative 

proposals have been introduced to ‘‘fix’’ the Carcieri decision, no bill 

has successfully passed through both Chambers of Congress.18

With the goal of finding a viable solution to finally resolve the 

Carcieri problem, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee took a fresh 

and inclusive approach to evaluating pertinent issues and forming 

a legislative solution. Through this process, the Committee learned 

that a ‘‘clean fix’’ in isolation is not viable for many reasons. Instead, a workable solution would include both ‘‘clean fix’’ language 

and language to improve the Department’s underlying land into 

trust process. The Committee also identified language that could 

not be included in legislation without losing support from key 

stakeholders.19

S. 1879 is the product of the collaborative, solutions-based approach described above, which involved substantial discussion, deliberation, public feedback and negotiation by diverse stakeholders. 

S. 1879 is unique in that it addresses the longstanding problems 

associated with Carcieri and the Department’s Part 151 land acquisition process, and at the same time avoids language that would 

frustrate cooperation. 

Specifically, S. 1879 would solve problems flowing from the 

Court’s Carcieri decision by restoring the Secretary’s authority to 

take land into trust for all federally recognized tribes and reaffirming the status of lands already held in trust for Indian tribes. S. 

1879 would also improve existing Part 151 regulations by encouraging local cooperation for off-reservation acquisitions 20 and codiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR275.XXX SR275

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

viding a good faith protection for tribes without cooperative agreements; allowing stakeholders 

to voice and address concerns without first resorting to the courts. 21See e.g., meaning of the words ‘‘contiguous’’ (see 25 C.F.R. pt. 151); application components 

(see 25 C.F.R. pt. 151.09–.11); notice and comment associated with applications and Notice of 

Decision (see 25 C.F.R. pt. 151.11(d) and 25 C.F.R. pt. 151.12); review of final agency actions 

(see 25 C.F.R. pt. 151.12); exhausting administrative remedies (see 25 C.F.R. pt. 151.12); encouraging mitigation and use of cooperative agreements (see Fee-to-Trust Handbook at 23). 22 Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). 23There is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘‘clean fix’’ or ‘‘Carcieri fix’’ bill, nor is 

there exact language that must be included or excluded from a bill in order for it to fall into 

this category. 

fying key portions of the Department’s off-reservation land into 

trust regulations and guidance.21 The bill does not include special 

carve-outs, gaming prohibitions, county or state vetoes, or other 

poisonous language that would undermine tribal sovereignty or 

otherwise weaken the broad coalition of support for this bill. 

Failure to pass S. 1879 will result in continued and additional 

litigation and uncertainty, with substantial financial and societal 

costs to tribes, counties and other governments. While S. 1879 will 

not resolve all litigation and uncertainty relating to Indian trust 

land acquisitions, it will reduce it significantly. It will also lay the 

foundation for improved local relations between tribes, and among 

tribes, counties and other governmental entities. All parties involved can benefit from the economic and other opportunities rooted in such cooperation. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Sixteen bills have been introduced to address the Supreme 

Court’s Carcieri decision.22 Most of these bills can be characterized 

as ‘‘clean fix’’ or ‘‘Carcieri fix’’ bills. These terms are typically used 

to describe a stand-alone bill that reaffirms (1) the Secretary’s authority to take land into trust for tribes that are federally recognized after 1934, and (2) the trust status of land already taken into 

trust by the Secretary on behalf of tribes recognized after 1934.23

No such bill has successfully passed both Chambers of Congress. 

For various reasons, other bills relating to the land into trust acquisitions have also failed to garner support. 

Interior Improvement Act 

Chairman Barrasso introduced the Interior Improvement Act, S. 

1879, on July 28, 2015. Unlike other bills, S. 1879 takes a fresh 

and practical approach to addressing the Carcieri decision. It maintains the core elements of a ‘‘Carcieri fix’’ and also improves the existing trust land acquisition process. S. 1879 also takes pieces and 

policy from past efforts to reform the land into trust process. 

S. 1879 was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

and a committee business meeting was duly held on December 2, 

2015. The bill was ordered to be reported favorably, as amended by 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Chairman 

Barrasso. 

Other legislative activity 

111th Congress. On September 24, 2009, Senator Byron Dorgan 

[D–ND] introduced S. 1703, A bill to amend the Act of June 18, 

1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to 

take land into trust for Indian tribes. Senator Daniel Akaka [D– 

HI], Senator Max Baucus [D–MT], Senator Jeff Bingaman [D–NM], 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Senator Al Franken [D–MN], Senator Daniel Inouye [D–HI], Senator Jon Tester [D–MT], and Senator Tom Udall [D–NM] were the 

original co-sponsors. 5 additional Senators co-sponsored S. 1703 at 

a later date. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and a business meeting was duly held on December 

17, 2009. The bill was ordered to be reported favorably, as amended. On August 5, 2010, S. 1703 was reported, as amended, by Senator Dorgan and placed on the Senate Calendar. No further action 

was taken on S. 1703. 

On October 1, 2009, Representative Tom Cole [R–OK–4] introduced H.R. 3697, To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm 

the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust 

for Indian tribes. There were 12 co-sponsors to H.R. 3697. The bill 

was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and a 

legislative hearing was held on November 4, 2009. H.R. 3697 is an 

identical companion bill to S. 1703. No further action was taken on 

H.R. 3697. 

On October 7, 2009, Representative Dale E. Kildee [D–MI–5] introduced H.R. 3742, To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm 

the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust 

for Indian tribes. 44 Representatives co-sponsored H.R. 3742. The 

bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources 

and a legislative hearing was held on November 4, 2009. H.R. 3742 

is identical to H.R. 3697 and S. 1703 except for the addition to include ‘‘tribe’’ with ‘‘Indian tribe’’ as a term to define who the Secretary can acknowledge as an Indian tribe. No further action was 

taken on H.R 3742. 

112th Congress. On March 29, 2011, Representative Dale E. Kildee [D–MI–5] introduced H.R. 1234, To amend the Act of June 18, 

1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to 

take land into trust for Indian tribes. 30 Representatives co-sponsored H.R. 1234. The bill was referred to the House Subcommittee 

on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs and a hearing on the bill was 

a hearing held on July 12, 2011. No further action was taken on 

H.R. 1234. 

On March 30, 2011, Senator Daniel K. Akaka [D–HI] introduced 

a companion bill S. 676, A bill to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, 

to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land 

into trust for Indian tribes. The bill was originally co-sponsored by 

Senator Kent Conrad [D–ND], Senator Al Franken [D–MN], Senator Daniel K. Inouye [D–HI], Senator Tim Johnson [D–SD], Senator John Kerry [D–MA], Senator Jon Tester [D–MT] and Senator 

Tom Udall [D–NM]. Senator Max Baucus [D–MT] and Senator 

Debbie Stabenow [D–MI] were later added as co-sponsors. The bill 

was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and a business meeting was duly held on April 7, 2011. The bill was ordered 

to be reported with amendments favorably. On May 17, 2012, S. 

676 was reported by Senator Akaka with an amendment and 

placed on the Senate Calendar. No further action was taken on S. 

676. 

On March 31, 2011, Representative Tom Cole [R–OK–4] introduced H.R. 1291, To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm 

the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust 

for Indian tribes, and for other purposes. 10 Representatives cosponsored H.R. 1291. The bill was referred to the House SubVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR275.XXX SR275

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

committee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs and a hearing was 

held on July 12, 2011. H.R. 1291 and H.R. 279 (113th Cong.) are 

similar, H.R. 279 differs in that it removes subsection ‘‘(a)’’ of Section 1 of the bill. No further action was taken on H.R. 1291. 

113th Congress. On January 15, 2013, Representative Tom Cole 

[R–OK–4] introduced H.R. 279, To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, 

to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land 

into trust for Indian tribes, and for other purposes. There were 37 

co-sponsors to H.R. 279. The bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs on January 31, 

2013. H.R. 279 is identical to H.R. 249 (114th Cong.) and differs 

from H.R. 1291 (112th Cong.) in that subsection ‘‘(a)’’ of Section 1 

(as found in H.R. 1291) is omitted. No further action was taken on 

H.R. 279. 

On February 13, 2013, Representative Edward J. Markey [D– 

MA–5] introduced H.R. 666, To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to 

reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land 

into trust for Indian tribes. The bill had 10 original co-sponsors: 

Rep. Xavier Becerra [D–CA–34], Rep. Eni Faleomavaega [D–AS], 

Rep. Raul Grijalva [D–AZ–3], Rep. Colleen Hanabusa [D–HI–1], 

Rep. Daniel Kildee [D–MI–5], Rep. Ben Luja ́n [D–NM–3], Rep. 

Betty McCollum [D–MN–4], Rep. Gwen Moore [D–WI–4] Rep. 

Frank Pallone [D–NJ–6], and Rep. Niki Tsongas [D–MA–3]. 23 

Representatives were later added as co-sponsors to H.R. 666. The 

bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska 

Native Affairs on February 22, 2013. H.R. 666, H.R. 1234 (112th 

Cong.) and H.R. 407 (114th Cong.) are identical bills, and only 

minor differences exist between these bills and S. 676 (112th 

Cong.). No further action was taken on H.R. 666. 

On March 31, 2014, Senator Jon Tester [D–MT] introduced S. 

2188, A bill to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes. The 7 original co-sponsors included: Senator Mark 

Begich [D–AK], Senator Martin Heinrich [D–NM], Senator Heidi 

Heitkamp [D–ND], Senator Jerry Moran [R–KS], Senator Patty 

Murray [D–WA], Senator Tom Udall [D–NM], and Senator John 

Walsh [D–MT]. 6 Senators were later added as co-sponsors to S. 

2188. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. On May 7, 2014, the Committee held a legislative hearing on 

S. 2188. On June 11, 2014, a business meeting was duly held and 

the bill was ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably. 

Senator Tester reported the bill on August 26, 2014 and was placed 

on the Senate Calendar. No further action was taken on S. 2188. 

114th Congress. On January 9, 2015, Representative Tom Cole 

[R–OK–4] introduced H.R. 249, To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, 

to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land 

into trust for Indian tribes, and for other purposes. 37 Representatives were later added as co-sponsors to H.R. 249. The bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska 

Native Affairs on March 2, 2015. This bill is Identical to H.R. 279 

(113th Cong.) but differs from H.R. 1291 (112th Cong.) in that subsection ‘‘(a)’’ of Section 1 (as found in H.R. 1291) is omitted. 

On January 20, 2015, Representative Betty McCollum [D–MN– 

4] introduced H.R. 407, To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

trust for Indian tribes. The bill was originally co-sponsored by Representative Tom Cole [R–OK–4] and 8 Representatives being added 

as co-sponsors at a later date. The bill was referred to the House 

Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs on 

March 2, 2015. This bill is identical to H.R. 1234 (112th Cong.) and 

H.R. 666 (113th Cong.), and similar to S. 676 (112th Cong.). 

On March 12, 2015, Senator Jon Tester [D–MT] with 7 co-sponsors introduced S. 732, A bill to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, 

to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land 

into trust for Indian tribes. The bill was referred to the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs on March 12, 2015. This bill is similar 

to other legislation that has previously been introduced. 

On March 24, 2015, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held 

a round table discussion on The Carcieri v. Salazar Supreme Court 

Decision and Exploring a Way Forward with key stakeholders. The 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs also held an oversight hearing 

on A Path Forward: Trust Modernization & Reform for Indian 

lands on July 8, 2015, where S. 1879 was discussed in concept by 

the witnesses and Committee members. 

On July 21, 2015, Representative Tom Cole [R–OK–4] and 41 cosponsors introduced H.R. 3137, To reaffirm the trust status of land 

taken into trust by the United States pursuant to the Act of June 

18, 1934, for the benefit of an Indian tribe that was federally recognized on the date that the land was taken into trust, and for other 

purposes. There were 17 original co-sponsors: Rep. Dan Benishek 

[R–MI–1], Rep. Bradley Byrne [R–AL–1], Rep. Tony Ca ́ rdenas [D– 

CA–29], Rep. Ruben Gallego [D–AZ–7], Rep. Raul Grijalva [D–AZ– 

3], Rep. Derek Kilmer [D–WA–6], Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham 

[D–NM–1], Rep. Ben Luja ́n [D–NM–3], Rep. Betty McCollum [D– 

MN–4], Rep. Gwen Moore [D–WI–4], Rep. Markwayne Mullin [R– 

OK–2], Rep. Patrick Murphy [D–FL–18], Rep. Raul Ruiz [D–CA– 

36], Rep. Pete Sessions [R–TX–32], Rep. Michael Simpson [R–ID– 

2], Rep. Mark Takai [D–HI–1], and Rep. Debbie Wasserman 

Schultz [D–FL–23]. The bill was subsequently sponsored by 29 others. The bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Indian, 

Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs on August 4, 2015. 

On August 4, 2015, Senator Jerry Moran [R–KS] introduced S. 

1931, A bill to reaffirm that certain land has been taken into trust 

for the benefit of certain Indian tribes. Senator Jon Tester [D–MN] 

originally co-sponsored the bill and Senator Al Franken [D–MN] cosponsored it at a later date. The bill was referred to the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs on August 4, 2015. This bill is unique 

in that it would omit part one of the ‘‘Carcieri fix,’’ and reaffirm 

the trust status of land taken into trust on behalf of certain tribes. 

While this approach might benefit some tribes, it would not resolve 

the fundamental questions, concerns, and litigation surrounding 

the authority of the Secretary to take land into trust for tribes recognized after 1934. 

On March 3, 2016, Senator Jon Tester [D–MT] introduced S. 

2636, the Reservation Land Consolidation Act of 2016. There are no 

co-sponsors to the bill. There is no House companion bill. S. 2636 

was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on March 

3, 2016 where no further action has taken place on the bill. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1—Short title 

Section 1 cites this Act as the ‘‘Interior Improvement Act.’’ 

Section 2—Definitions 

Subsection 2(a) clarifies that the Secretary of the Interior may 

take land into trust for all federally recognized tribes by amending 

section 19 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the Indian Reorganization Act or the IRA) (25 U.S.C. 479). 

Subsection 2(b) ratifies and confirms existing trust acquisitions 

made pursuant to the IRA, thereby eliminating the potential for 

legal challenges based on whether an Indian tribe was federally 

recognized or under Federal jurisdiction on June 18, 1934. 

Section 3—Land acquisition applications 

Section 3 amends the IRA by inserting section 5A after section 

5 of the IRA. The title of section 5A is ‘‘Land Acquisition Applications.’’ 

Section 5A improves the application process for discretionary offreservation acquisitions. 

Subsection 5(a) defines the following terms for the purposes of 

this section: (1) applicant; (2) application; (3) contiguous; (4) contiguous jurisdiction; (5) cooperative agreement; (6) county and county 

equivalent; (7) Department; (8) determination of mitigation; (9) explanation of final decision; (10) final decision; (11) impacts; (12) Indian tribe; (13) mitigate; (14) notice of final decision; and (15) Secretary. 

Subsection 5(b) addresses the submission of applications for discretionary off-reservation acquisitions. 

Subsection 5(b)(1) limits the scope of this section to applications 

for discretionary acquisitions of off-reservation fee land or restricted land. It also allows Indian tribes and individual Indians 

with a pending application to opt into the expedited process established under this section, provided that the pending application is 

supplemented as necessary to comply with the application requirements of this section. 

Subsection 5(b)(2) codifies application submission and content requirements for discretionary off-reservation acquisitions. Listed requirements track current regulations and guidance of the Department of the Interior (Department). 

Subsection 5(c) specifies statutory notice and comment requirements. 

Subsection 5(c)(1) requires the Secretary to make all initial applications available to the public on the Department’s website within 

30 days of receipt of an initial application, subject to Federal privacy laws. The Secretary must also provide notice by certified mail 

to contiguous jurisdictions that an initial application has been received within 30 days of the Secretary’s receipt of an initial application. Contiguous jurisdictions have no less than 60 days from the 

date they receive such notice to comment on an initial application. 

Applicants have no less than 60 days from the date comments are 

submitted by a contiguous jurisdiction to respond to the comments. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

Subsection 5(c)(2) requires the Secretary to make any application 

updates, modifications, or withdrawals available to the public on 

the Department’s website, subject to Federal privacy laws. 

Subsection 5(c)(3) requires the Secretary to make all completed 

applications available to the public on the Department’s website 

within 30 days of receipt of a completed application, subject to Federal privacy laws. The Secretary must also provide notice by certified mail to contiguous jurisdictions that a final application has 

been received within 30 days of receipt of a completed application. 

Contiguous jurisdictions have no less than 60 days from the date 

they receive such notice to comment on a completed application. 

Applicants have no less than 60 days from the date comments are 

submitted by a contiguous jurisdiction to respond to the comments. 

Completed applications must be published in the Federal Register 

within 10 days of receipt by the Secretary, subject to Federal privacy laws. 

Subsection 5(d) encourages local cooperation by incentivizing the 

use of cooperative agreements between the applicant and contiguous jurisdictions. 

Subsection 5(d)(1) directs the Secretary to encourage, but not require, applicants to enter into cooperative agreements with contiguous jurisdictions. 

Subsection 5(d)(2) directs the Secretary to evaluate applications 

accompanied by cooperative agreements with contiguous jurisdictions on an expedited basis. This subsection also identifies terms 

that may, at the discretion of the parties, be included in a cooperative agreement. 

Subsection 5(d)(2)(C) provides for applications accompanied by 

cooperative agreements with contiguous jurisdictions. Under the 

expedited process established by this subsection, the Secretary 

must issue a final decision within 120 days of receiving a completed application. If the Secretary fails to act within this timeframe, the application is deemed approved and treated as a final 

decision of the Department, provided that (1) free and clear title to 

the land under consideration is verified; and (2) all applicable requirements under Federal law and regulation are satisfied. 

Subsection 5(d)(2)(D) provides for applications that are not accompanied by cooperative agreements with contiguous jurisdictions. 

In this case, the Secretary is required to make a determination of 

mitigation within 180 days of receiving a completed application. In 

making a determination of mitigation, the Secretary must consider 

(1) anticipated impacts of approving or not approving an application; (2) relevant comments and responses to comments; and (3) 

whether the absence of a cooperative agreement is attributable to 

the failure of any contiguous jurisdiction to work in good faith to 

reach an agreement. The Secretary must provide notice of a determination of mitigation to an applicant and contiguous jurisdictions 

within 10 days of making a determination. 

Subsection 5(d)(2)(D) also provides specific protections for applicants that do not have cooperative agreements with contiguous jurisdictions. This subsection specifically prohibits the Secretary from 

prejudicing such applicants when the absence of a cooperative 

agreement is attributable to a contiguous jurisdiction’s failure to 

work in good faith towards an agreement. The Secretary is also 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

prohibited from unduly delaying the regular processing of an application. 

Subsection 5(d)(3) directs the Secretary to enhance local cooperation by encouraging the use of reciprocal notice and comment procedures. 

Subsection 5(e) lists conditions, considerations and notice requirements associated with the Secretary’s final decision to approve or deny an application. 

Subsection 5(e)(1) directs the Secretary to issue a final decision 

on an application after (1) free and clear title to the land under 

consideration is verified; (2) all applicable requirements under Federal law and regulation are satisfied; and (3) consideration of application materials; comments and responses to comments; the determination of mitigation, if applicable; cooperative agreements with 

contiguous and non-contiguous jurisdictions; and any other information the Secretary identifies as relevant and material. 

Subsection 5(e)(2) directs the Secretary to provide several types 

of notice within 10 days of issuing a final decision on an application. Specifically, the Secretary must (1) send the applicant and 

contiguous jurisdictions a notice of final decision by certified mail; 

(2) publish a notice of final decision and an explanation of final decision on the Department’s website and in the Federal Register; 

and (3) publish a notice of final decision in a newspaper of general 

circulation serving the affected area of the decision. 

Subsection 5(f) states that nothing in this Act requires the publication or release of proprietary information submitted by an applicant. 

Subsection 5(g) requires the Secretary to implement this Act 

within one year, after consultation with tribes and through notice 

and comment rulemaking. 

Subsection 5(g)(1) requires the Secretary to initiate consultation 

with Indian tribes within 90 days of enactment. 

Subsection 5(g)(2) requires the Secretary to publish a summary 

of the consultation in the Federal Register within 180 days of initiating consultation. 

Subsection 5(g)(3) requires the Secretary to modify existing regulations, guidance, rules and policy statements, as necessary to 

carry out this section, within 90 days of publishing a summary 

under subsection (g)(2). 

Subsection 5(h) states that interested parties may seek review of 

a final decision in a United States district court after exhausting 

all administrative remedies available under chapters 5 and 7 of the 

Administrative Procedures Act. 

Section 4—Effect 

Subsection 4(a) states that nothing in this Act impacts any other 

Federal Indian land determination. 

Subsection 4(b) states that nothing in this Act impacts (1) the application or effect of any Federal law other than the IRA; or (2) any 

limitation on the authority of the Secretary under any Federal law 

or regulation other than the IRA. 

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following cost estimate, as provided by the Congressional 

Budget Office, dated May 31, 2016, was prepared for S. 1879: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

MAY 31, 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. 1879, the Interior Improvement Act. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1879—The Interior Improvement Act 

Summary: S. 1879 would modify the Secretary of the Interior’s 

authority to take certain land into trust on behalf of Indian tribes 

under the Indian Reorganization Act. Under current law, as established by the Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri v. Salazar 

(2009), the Secretary’s authority to take land into trust is limited 

to tribes that were federally recognized prior to the enactment of 

that act in 1934. S. 1879 would amend that act to allow the Secretary to take land into trust for all federally recognized Indian 

tribes. The bill also would specify a process—including new requirements and deadlines—for the Secretary to follow in considering applications from tribes or individual Indians to have certain 

types of land taken into trust on their behalf. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 1879 would increase administrative costs for the Department of the Interior (DOI) by $30 million over the next five years, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation because enacting it would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 1879 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

S. 1879 would impose both intergovernmental and private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). CBO estimates that the aggregate costs of mandates in 

the bill on public and private entities would fall below the annual 

thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($77 million and $154 million in 2016, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 1879 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 450 (community and 

regional development). 

By Fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2017– 

2021 

INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................................................. 2 5 6 8 9 30 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................................... 2 5 6 8 9 30 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

Basis of estimate: CBO assumes S. 1879 will be enacted near the 

end of fiscal year 2016 and that the necessary amounts will be appropriated each year. The bill would specify a process for taking 

certain ‘‘off-reservation’’ lands that lie outside of the boundaries of 

existing Indian reservations into trust for Indian tribes or individual Indians. That process would establish new requirements for 

both applicants and DOI, expand opportunities for entities that 

own contiguous lands or other community stakeholders to comment 

on proposed transactions, and specify timeframes within which 

DOI must complete certain administrative actions or render decisions on applications. Under certain circumstances, if DOI failed to 

approve an application within the specified timeframe, it would be 

deemed approved. 

Information from DOI and the Congressional Research Service 

indicates that the length of time required to process applications to 

take off-reservation lands into trust under current law varies, but 

can often take several years. S. 1879 would specify rigorous deadlines that would require the department to complete its review of 

such applications—including additional materials required under 

the bill—on an expedited basis. CBO expects those deadlines would 

require DOI to complete necessary reviews much sooner than 

under current law. In addition, the bill would impose new administrative requirements related to posting applications and related 

materials online and expanding efforts to communicate with local 

communities that could be affected by proposed trust acquisitions. 

As a result, CBO expects that implementing that new process 

would increase DOI’s administrative costs. 

According to DOI, funding for administrative costs related to ac- quisitions of trust lands in 2016 totals about $13 million and covers 

the costs of roughly 70 full-time equivalent staff with expertise in 

realty and environmental issues. CBO expects that meeting the 

bill’s expedited timeframes would require DOI to increase the number of staff devoted to reviewing trust applications and that the department would gradually hire those additional personnel over four 

years starting in 2018. In total, based on information from DOI 

about existing costs for personnel and related expenses, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1879 would cost $30 million over the 

2012–2021 period. That amount includes $2 million in upfront administrative costs to complete necessary rulemakings; remaining 

amounts reflect increased costs to hire additional realty and environmental specialists to review trust applications within the accelerated timeframes specified by the bill. 

CBO also expects that amending current law to allow DOI to 

take land into trust for all Indian tribes would simplify the analysis that DOI must currently perform, pursuant to Carcieri v. Salazar, and could reduce the workload of DOI staff. Although CBO expects that any reductions on workload would be small those savings are incorporated in the estimated net costs of the bill. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None. 

Increase in long term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting S. 1879 would not increase net direct spending 

or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods 

beginning in 2027. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1879 would impose both intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as deVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:46 Jun 14, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR275.XXX SR275

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

fined in UMRA, but CBO estimates that the aggregate compliance 

costs on public and private entities would fall below the annual 

thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($77 million and $154 million in 2016, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). 

S. 1879 could expand an existing intergovernmental mandate 

that exempts land taken into trust from state and local taxes. State 

and local governments may have the ability to collect taxes on 

some lands as a result of the Carcieri v. Salazar decision because 

those lands might no longer be considered Indian lands under current law. Subsequent application of that ruling by DOI appears to 

limit its scope, however, making fewer lands potentially subject to 

such taxation. Also, very few state or local governments have asserted taxing authority on those lands. Because any attempt to assert such taxing authority would likely result in litigation, it is unlikely that such governments would collect taxes on those lands in 

the next five years. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting S. 1879 

would not result in a significant loss of revenue for state or local 

governments. 

S. 1879 also would limit the ability of public and private entities 

or individuals to file certain claims in court related to land ownership and actions of the Secretary of Interior. Those limits would 

impose both intergovernmental and private-sector mandates by restricting the rights of plaintiffs. The costs of the mandates would 

be the forgone value of compensation and settlements associated 

with such claims if they would have been successful under current 

law. Information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs indicates that 

fewer than 20 such court claims are currently pending. The possibility of a monetary award or settlement under current law would 

depend on the type of claim. In many cases, particularly those related to administrative procedures and decisions by the federal government, no monetary award is available; in others the amount of 

such an award or settlement is limited to the value of the land in 

question. Because of the small number of existing claims and the 

limited scope of potential awards, CBO expects that the annual 

number of claims involving such land and the value of the awards 

and settlements in those claims (and consequently the mandates 

costs) would be small. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Megan Carroll; 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. 1879 would have a 

minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements. 

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

The Committee has received no communications from the Executive Branch regarding S. 1879. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(15) 

24 Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). 25 Id. at 396. 26 Pub. L. No. 103–263, 108 Stat. 707 (1994). 

MINORITY VIEW 

I share these views only in response to the majority’s characterization of actions taken by the Department of the Interior since the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri v. Salazar. With respect to 

the bill, I will continue to hear from Tribes to ensure that in correcting the problem created by the Carcieri decision, we do not create additional obstacles or delays in restoring tribal homelands. 

Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA or Act) to 

revitalize tribal governments throughout the United States. In 

doing so, Congress charged the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 

with implementing the Act. Although time has passed since passage of the IRA, the Secretary remains responsible for upholding 

the Federal Government’s trust responsibility and carrying out 

Congress’s intent under the Act. 

Congress gave the Secretary the tools necessary to fulfill the mission of the IRA and a key aspect of that mission is to restore the 

land bases of tribal governments. Section 5, which authorizes the 

Secretary to take land into trust, was included to achieve this objective. In 2009, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case 

Carcieri v. Salazar.24 The Supreme Court narrowly construed the 

language ‘‘now under federal jurisdiction’’ to mean that the Secretary could only take land into trust for tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934.25 However, no decision for what constitutes ‘‘under 

federal jurisdiction’’ was reached by the Supreme Court. 

The Carcieri case effectively created two classes of tribes—those 

that can have land taken into trust and those that cannot. The 

case did not, however, affect the Secretary’s duty to revitalize tribal 

governments or restore tribal land bases provided for under the 

IRA. Additionally, it did not affect the Secretary’s responsibility to 

ensure that, regardless of when or how a Tribe received formal recognition by the Federal government, all federally recognized tribes 

are treated equally, as directed by Congress in the 1994 Amendments to the IRA.26 Therefore, the Secretary remains responsible 

for implementing the IRA in a manner that avoids—to the extent 

possible—creating different classes of tribes. 

Despite the Majority’s characterizations, the Department of the 

Interior’s handling of land into trust after the Carcieri case was an 

exercise of its authority under the IRA and intended to uphold the 

will of Congress. In issuing the Solicitor’s Opinion examining the 

meaning of ‘‘now under federal jurisdiction’’, the Department 

sought to fill the gap created by the absence of clarity in the 

Carcieri decision and exercise its authority under the IRA to reVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:46 Jun 14, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR275.XXX SR275

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

store tribal land bases in a manner that minimizes inequitable 

treatment of tribes. 

JON TESTER. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In accordance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 1879, as 

ordered reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 

omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 

italic): 

25 U.S.C. 465 (INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT (48 STAT. 

985)) 

§ 465. Acquisition of lands, water rights or surface rights; appropriations; title to lands; tax exemption 

SEC. 5. 

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, to 

acquire, through purchase, relinquishment, gift, exchange, or assignment, any interest in lands, water rights, or surface rights to 

lands, within or without existing reservations, including trust or 

otherwise restricted allotments, whether the allottee be living or 

deceased, for the purpose of providing land for Indians. 

For the acquisition of such lands, interests in lands, water rights, 

and surface rights, and for expenses incident to such acquisition, 

there is authorized to be appropriated, out of any funds in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, a sum not to exceed 

$2,000,000 in any one fiscal year: Provided, That no part of such 

funds shall be used to acquire additional land outside of the exterior boundaries of Navajo Indian Reservation for the Navajo Indians in Arizona, nor in New Mexico, in the event that legislation to 

define the exterior boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation in 

New Mexico, and for other purposes, or similar legislation, becomes 

law. 

The unexpended balances of any appropriations made pursuant 

to this section shall remain available until expended. 

Title to any lands or rights acquired pursuant to this Act or the 

Act of July 28, 1955 (69 Stat. 392), as amended (25 U.S.C. 608 et 

seq.) shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for 

the Indian tribe or individual Indian for which the land is acquired, 

and such lands or rights shall be exempt from State and local taxation. 

SEC. 5A. LAND ACQUISITION APPLICATIONS. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In section: 

(1) APPLICANT.—The term ‘applicant’ means an Indian tribe 

or individual Indian (as defined in section 4 of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)) 

who submits an application under subsection (b). 

(2) APPLICATION.—The term ‘application’ means an application submitted to the Department by an Indian tribe or individual Indian under subsection (b). 

(3) CONTIGUOUS.—The term contiguous— 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

(A) means 2 parcels of land having a common boundary, 

notwithstanding the existence of non-navigable waters or a 

public road or right-of-way; and 

(B) includes parcels that touch at a point. 

(4) CONTIGUOUS JURISDICTION.—The term ‘contiguous jurisdiction’ means any county, county equivalent, or Indian tribe 

with authority and control over the land contiguous to the land 

under consideration in an application. 

(5) COUNTY AND COUNTY EQUIVALENT.—The terms ‘county’ 

and ‘county equivalent’ mean the largest territorial division for 

local government within a State with the authority to enter into 

enforceable cooperative agreements with Indian tribes or individual Indians, as appropriate. 

(6) DEPARTMENT.—The term ‘Department’ means the Department of the Interior. 

(7) ECONOMIC IMPACT.—The term ‘economic impact’ means 

any anticipated costs associated with the development of or activity on the land under consideration in an application, including associated costs to a contiguous jurisdiction for utilities, public works, public safety, roads, maintenance, and other 

public service costs. 

(8) FINAL DECISION.—The term ‘final decision’ means a decision that is final for the Department, as determined or defined 

by the Secretary. 

(9) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘Indian tribe’ has the meaning 

given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b). 

(10) SECRETARY.—The term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of 

the Interior. 

(b) APPLICATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—An Indian tribe or individual Indian seeking to have off-reservation fee or restricted land taken into trust 

for the benefit of that Indian tribe or individual Indian shall 

submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 

manner, and containing such information as this section and 

the Secretary require. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary may approve complete applications described in paragraph (1) on a discretionary basis, 

subject to the condition that the application includes— 

(A) a written request for approval of a trust acquisition 

by the United States for the benefit of the applicant; 

(B) the legal name of the applicant, including, in the case 

of an applicant that is an Indian tribe, the tribal name of 

the applicant as the name appears in the list of recognized 

Indian tribes published by the Secretary in the Federal 

Register pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.I. 479a–1); 

(C) a legal description of the land to be acquired; 

(D) a description of the need for the proposed acquisition 

of the property; 

(E) a description of the purpose for which the property is 

to be used; 

(F) a legal instrument to verify current ownership, such 

as a deed; 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

(G) statutory authority for the proposed acquisition of the 

property; 

(H) a business plan for management of the land to be acquired, if the application is for buss purposes; 

(I) the location of the land to be acquired relative to State 

and reservation boundaries; and 

(J) a copy of any cooperative agreement between the applicant and a contiguous jurisdiction. 

(3) FINAL DECISION.—After considering an application described in this subsection and in accordance with subsection (c) 

and any other applicable Federal law or regulation, a final decision to approve or deny the completed application shall be 

issued. 

(c) STATUTORY NOTICE AND COMMENT REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) NOTICE AND COMMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIAL APPLICATIONS.— 

(A) NOTICE.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

date on which the Secretary receives an initial application, the Secretary shall make that application, whether complete or incomplete, available to the public on 

the website of the Department, subject to applicable 

Federal privacy laws. 

(ii) ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT.—Not later 

than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary receives an initial application, the Secretary shall provide by certified mail notice of the application to contiguous jurisdictions. 

(B) COMMENT.—Each contiguous jurisdiction notified 

under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall have not fewer than 30 

days, beginning on the date that the contiguous jurisdiction 

receives the notice, to comment on that initial application. 

(2) NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR ANY APPLICATION UPDATE, 

MODIFICATION, OR WITHDRAWAL.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—If at any time an application is updated, modified, or withdrawn, not later than 5 days after 

the date on which the Secretary receives notice of that update, modification, or withdrawal, the Secretary shall make 

that information available to the public on the website of 

the Department, subject to any applicable Federal privacy 

laws. 

(B) INCLUSION.—If an application has been updated or 

modified in any way, the notice described in subparagraph 

(A) shall include a description of the changes made and the 

updated or modified application, whether complete or incomplete, available on the website of the Department, subject to any applicable Federal privacy laws. 

(3) NOTICE AND COMMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETED

APPLICATIONS.— 

(A) NOTICE.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

date on which the Secretary receives a completed application, the Secretary shall make that application availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:46 Jun 14, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR275.XXX SR275

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

able to the public on the website of the Department, 

subject to any applicable Federal privacy laws. 

(ii) ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.—Not later 

than 30 days after the date on which the Secretary receives a completed application, the Secretary shall provide by certified mail notice of the application to contiguous jurisdictions. 

(iii) PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER.—Not later 

than 5 days after the date on which the Secretary receives a completed application, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the completed application. 

(B) COMMENT.—Contiguous jurisdictions shall have not 

fewer than 30 days, beginning on the date on which the 

contiguous jurisdiction receives notice under subparagraph 

(A)(ii), to comment on that completed application. 

(4) NOTICE OF DECISION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 days after a final decision to approve or deny an application is issued, the Secretary shall issue a notice of decision and make the notice 

of decision available to the public on the website of the Department. 

(B) PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER.—Not later than 

5 days after a final decision to approve or deny an application is issued, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal 

Register the notice of decision described in subparagraph 

(A). 

(d) ENCOURAGING LOCAL COOPERATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall encourage, but may not 

require, applicants to enter into cooperative agreements with 

contiguous jurisdictions. 

(2) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall give weight and 

preference to an application with a cooperative agreement 

described in paragraph (1). 

(B) TERMS OF AGREEMENT.—A cooperative agreement described in paragraph (1) may include terms relating to 

mitigation, changes in land use, dispute resolution, fees, 

and other terms determined by the parties to be appropriate. 

(C) SUBMISSION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—If an applicant submits to the Secretary a cooperative agreement or multiple cooperative 

agreements executed between the applicant and contiguous jurisdictions, the Secretary shall issue a final decision to approve or deny a complete application not 

later than— 

(I) 60 days after the date of completion of the review process under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) described in clause (ii); or 

(II) if that review process is not applicable, 30 

days after the date on which a complete application is received by the Secretary. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

(ii) TIMELINE.—Completion of the review process 

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) described in clause (i) may 

refer to— 

(I) the issuance of a categorical exclusion determination in accordance with section 6.204 of title 

40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations); 

(II) an environmental assessment finding of no 

significant impact in accordance with section 6.206 

of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations); or 

(III) the issuance of a record of decision in accordance with section 6.208 of title 40, Code of 

Federal Regulations (or successor regulations). 

(iii) EFFECT OF FAILURE TO ISSUE TIMELY FINAL DECISION.—If the Secretary fails to issue a final decision 

by the date described in clause (i) the application shall 

be— 

(I) deemed approved on an automatic basis; and 

(II) treated as a final decision. 

(D) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NOT SUBMITTED.— (i) IN GENERAL.—If an applicant does not submit to 

the Secretary a cooperative agreement executed between 

the applicant and contiguous jurisdictions, the Secretary shall issue a written determination of mitigation 

by the date that is not later than 30 days after a complete application is received by the Secretary, which 

shall— 

(I) describe whether any economic impacts on 

contiguous jurisdictions have been mitigated to the 

extent practicable; and 

(II) explain the basis of that determination. 

(ii) DETERMINATION OF MITIGATION.—The Secretary 

shall consider a determination of mitigation in making 

a final decision to approve or deny an application, but 

that determination shall not halt or unduly delay the 

regular processing of an application. 

(iii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making a determination 

of mitigation described in clause (i), the Secretary shall 

take into consideration— 

(I) the anticipated economic impact of approving 

an application on contiguous jurisdictions; and 

(II) whether the absence of a cooperative agreement is attributable to the failure of any contiguous jurisdiction to work in good faith to reach an 

agreement with the applicant. 

(iv) NOTICE.—The Secretary shall provide by certified mail a copy of the determination of mitigation 

described in clause (i) to the applicant and contiguous 

jurisdictions not less than 5 days after a determination 

of mitigation is issued. 

(v) GOOD FAITH PROTECTION.—Failure to submit a 

cooperative agreement shall not prejudice an applicaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:40 Jun 13, 2016 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR275.XXX SR275

asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

tion if the Secretary determines that the failure to submit is attributable to the failure of any contiguous jurisdiction to work in good faith to reach an agreement. 

(3) RECIPROCAL NOTICE AND COMMENT.—The Secretary shall 

also encourage contiguous jurisdictions to engage in local cooperation through reciprocal notice and comment procedures, 

particularly with regard to changes in land. 

(e) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

(1) CONSULTATION.—Not later than 60 days after the date of 

enactment of this section, the Secretary shall initiate consultation with Indian tribes regarding the implementation of this 

section. 

(2) SUMMARY.—Not later than 180 days after the date on 

which the consultation described in paragraph (1) is initiated, 

the Secretary shall issue a summary of the consultation and the 

summary shall be published in the Federal Register. 

(3) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 60 days after the date on 

which the summary described in paragraph (2) is published in 

the Federal Register, the Secretary shall, through a rulemaking 

under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, modify existing 

regulations, guidance, rules, and policy statements, as necessary 

to carry out this section. 

(f) JUDICIAL REVIEW.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—An applicant or contiguous jurisdiction 

may seek review of a final decision. 

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.—An applicant or contiguous jurisdiction may seek review in a United States district court only 

after exhausting all available administrative remedies. 

25 U.S.C. 479 (INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1934 (48 

Stat. 988)) 

§ 479. Definitions 

SEC. 19. 

øThe term¿Effective beginning on June 18, 1934, the term ‘‘Indian’’ as used in this Act shall include all persons of Indian descent 

who are members of øany recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction¿any federally recognized Indian tribe, and all persons who are descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 

1934, residing within the present boundaries of any Indian reservation, and shall further include all other persons of one-half or more 

Indian blood. For the purposes of this Act, Eskimos and other aboriginal peoples of Alaska shall be considered Indians. The term 

‘‘tribe’’ wherever used in this Act shall be construed to refer to any 

Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or the Indians residing on one 

reservation. The words ‘‘adult Indians’’ wherever used in this Act 

shall be construed to refer to Indians who have attained the age 

of twenty-one years. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS