```

[Senate Report 114-139]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                      Calendar No. 219
114th Congress     }                                    {       Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session       }                                    {      114-139

======================================================================

 
TO EXTEND THE FEDERAL RECOGNITION TO THE LITTLE SHELL TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA 
               INDIANS OF MONTANA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

               September 10, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Barrasso, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                          [To accompany S. 35]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 35) to extend the Federal recognition to the Little 
Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The purposes of S. 35 are (1) to extend Federal recognition 
to the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana 
(Little Shell), making its members eligible for all services 
and benefits provided by the United States to other federally 
recognized Indian tribes; and (2) to effect the transfer of 200 
acres of land, which the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 
shall acquire and place in trust for the benefit of Little 
Shell.

                               BACKGROUND

History of federally recognizing Indian tribes

    The act of federally recognizing an Indian tribe is highly 
significant. It is an affirmation by the United States of the 
existence of a formal government-to-government relationship 
between the United States and the tribe. Once federally 
recognized, a tribe and its members have access to Federal 
benefits and programs, and the tribal government incurs a 
formal responsibility to its members as the primary governing 
body of the community.
    Before Congress ended the practice of treaty-making with 
Indian tribes in 1871, treaties were the usual manner of 
recognizing a government-to-government relationship between the 
United States and an Indian tribe. Since the conclusion of this 
practice, the United States has recognized Indian tribes by 
legislation, executive orders, and administrative decisions. 
Additionally, Federal courts may clarify the status of an 
Indian group.
    In order to provide a uniform and consistent process by 
which an Indian tribe may be federally recognized, the 
Department of the Interior (Department) developed an 
administrative process in 1978 to allow Indian groups to 
petition for formal acknowledgment of a government-to-
government relationship with the United States. Standards and 
procedures for this process were set forth in Part 83 of Title 
25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Part 83 or the Federal 
acknowledgement process). These regulations, as amended in 
1994, required a petitioner to satisfy seven mandatory 
requirements, including:
          (1) The petitioner ``has been identified as an 
        American Indian entity on a substantially continuous 
        basis since 1900'';
          (2) A predominant portion of the petitioning ``group 
        comprises a distinct community and has existed as a 
        community from historical times until the present'';
          (3) The petitioner has ``maintained political 
        influence or authority over its members as an 
        autonomous entity from historical times to the 
        present'';
          (4) The group must ``provide a copy of its present 
        governing documents and membership criteria'';
          (5) The petitioner's ``membership consists of 
        individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe 
        or from historical Indian tribes which combined and 
        functioned as a single autonomous political entity'';
          (6) The ``membership of the petitioning group is 
        composed principally of persons who are not members of 
        any acknowledged North American Indian tribe'' and do 
        not maintain a bilateral political relationship with 
        the acknowledge tribe; and
          (7) ``Neither the petitioner nor its members are the 
        subject of congressional legislation that has expressly 
        terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship''.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See 59 Fed. Reg. 94-3934. (February 25, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department issued new Part 83 regulations on July 1, 
2015.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\80 Fed. Reg. 37861 (July 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of changes made to the department's Part 83 regulations

    The Federal acknowledgement process has been criticized as 
``broken'' for decades.\3\ Nonetheless, until the Department's 
recent effort to reform Part 83 (discussed below), there have 
been only a handful of changes made to the Federal 
acknowledgement process since its inception.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See 80 Fed. Reg. 37862.
    \4\Examples of changes made to the process prior to recent reform 
efforts include regulations clarifying the evidence needed to support a 
recognition petition, 59 Fed. Reg. 94-3934 (February 25, 1994); a 
notice regarding internal BIA processing of federal acknowledgment 
petitions, 65 Fed. Reg. 7052-53 (February 11, 2000); and a notice 
providing guidance and direction to streamline the process, 73 Fed. 
Reg. 30146 (May 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complaints about the Department's Federal acknowledgement 
process have centered primarily on the high cost of gathering 
documentary evidence to meet the seven mandatory criteria, the 
length of time it takes the Department to review a petition, 
and the Department's inconsistent application of the listed 
criteria.\5\ Of the 567 tribes that have been federally 
recognized, only 18 have been acknowledged through the Part 83 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See 80 Fed. Reg. 37861 (July 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 1970, Congress has passed legislation to federally 
recognize or reaffirm 17 Indian tribes.\6\ To date, the 
Department has issued 50 decisions under the Part 83 process, 
including one decision issued after new Part 83 regulations 
were published in July 2015.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona, Pub. L. 92-470 (1972); Modoc 
Tribe of Oklahoma, Pub. L. 95-281 (1978); Pasqua Yaqui Tribe of 
Arizona, Pub. L. 95-375 (1978); Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians of 
Maine, Pub. L. 96-420 (1980); Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of 
Oregon, Pub. L. 97-391; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, Pub. L. 
97-429 (1983); Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut, Pub. L. 98-134 
(1983); Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas, Pub. L. 100-89 (1987); Lac 
Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan, Pub. 
L. 100-420 (1988); Coquille Tribe of Oregon, Pub. L. 101-42 (1989); 
Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine, Pub. L. 102-171 (1991); 
Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of Michigan, Pub. L. 103-323 (1994); 
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan, Pub. L. 103-324 
(1994); Little Traverse Band of Odawa Indians of Michigan, Pub. L. 103-
324 (1994); Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of 
Alaska, Pub. L. 103-454 (1994); Graton Rancheria of California, Pub. L. 
106-568 (2000); and Loyal Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Pub. L. 106-568 
(2000).
    \7\The Department of the Interior issued a final determination 
recognizing the Pamunkey Indian Tribe, see 80 Fed. Reg. 39144 (July 2, 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent developments

    On June 21, 2013, the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs 
(AS-IA) released a Discussion Draft proposing changes to Part 
83. The related comment period closed on September 30, 2013. On 
May 29, 2014, the AS-IA published a Proposed Rule in the 
Federal Register. The Department received substantial input 
from tribes, state and local governments, and the public, 
during the associated comment period, which closed on September 
30, 2014.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See U.S. Department of the Interior, News Release, Department of 
the Interior Announces Final Federal Recognition Process to Acknowledge 
Indian Tribes (June 29, 2015) (stating that more than 2,800 commenters 
provided input on the Discuss Draft, and that there were over 330 
unique comments on the Proposed Rule). The Department also received 
feedback from tribes during consultations and public meetings. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, the Department published a Final Rule on July 
1, 2015, which took effect on July 31, 2015.\9\ Assistant 
Secretary Washburn also issued a policy statement indicating 
that the Department will rely on the new Part 83 process as the 
``sole administrative avenue'' for Federal acknowledgement for 
tribes.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\80 Fed. Reg. 37861 (July 1, 2015).
    \10\80 Fed. Reg. 37538-39. (July 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the Department, the Final Rule preserves the 
existing standard of proof and seven mandatory criteria to 
``maintain the substantive rigor and integrity of the Part 83 
process.''\11\ In order to promote timeliness and efficiency, 
the Final Rule provides for a two-phased review of petitions 
that establishes certain threshold criteria and may result in 
the earlier issuance of final decisions, as well as a uniform 
evaluation period (1900 to present) to satisfy the tribal 
identification, community and political authority criteria.\12\ 
The Final Rule is intended to promote efficiency by providing 
for limited reconsideration of final agency determinations.\13\ 
The Department states that the Final Rule promotes fairness and 
consistency by providing that prior decisions finding evidence 
or methodology sufficient to satisfy any particular criterion 
will also be sufficient for a petitioner under the new Part 83 
process.\14\ It also states that the Final Rule promotes 
transparency by providing for increased public access to 
petitions for Federal acknowledgement and associated public 
materials and, in the case of a negative proposed finding, 
providing petitioners the opportunity for a hearing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\80 Fed. Reg. 37861 (July 1, 2015).
    \12\Id.
    \13\Id.
    \14\Id.
    \15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indian tribes that applied for federal acknowledgment prior 
to publication of the Final Rule on July 1, 2015, are allowed 
to choose to have the Department evaluate their application 
under the previous application process or the new application 
process.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\80 Fed. Reg. 37861 (July 1, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the Final Rule was published, one Indian tribe has 
been federally recognized.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\The Department of the Interior issued a final determination 
recognizing the Pamunkey Indian Tribe on July 2, 2015. See 80 Fed. Reg. 
39144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of Little Shell

    The Little Shell has used historical ties to the Pembina 
Band of Chippewa Indians in North Dakota for the Department to 
consider to satisfy criteria five.\18\ The Pembina Band was 
included in the Chippewa-Red Lake and Pembina Bands treaty with 
the United States in an 1863 treaty that was ratified by the 
Senate.\19\ Many of the members of the Pembina Band settled on 
reservations in Minnesota, but the ancestors of the Little 
Shell moved westward, following the buffalo herds. By the late 
1800s, the Little Shell had settled in Montana and in the 
Turtle Mountains of North Dakota.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\S. 546, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act 
of 2011, 112th Cong. Sec. 2(1) (2011).
    \19\Treaty of October 2, 1863, 13 Stat. 667.
    \20\Hearing on Fixing the Federal Acknowledgement Process Before 
the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 111th Cong. 2-3 (2009) (written 
testimony of John Sinclair, President of the Little Shell Tribe of 
Chippewa Indians of Montana).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Little Shell Band has had numerous dealings with the 
United States. In 1892, a United States Commission was formed 
to negotiate cession of land from the Turtle Mountain Chippewa 
and provide for their removal. Chief Little Shell and his 
followers refused to accept the terms of the agreement and 
walked out on the negotiations. He was followed by a group of 
supporters who would become known as the ``Little Shell 
Band''.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Oversight Hearing on Fixing the Federal Acknowledgement Process 
Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 111th Cong. 2-3 (2009) (written 
testimony of John Sinclair, President of the Little Shell Tribe of 
Chippewa Indians of Montana).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chief Little Shell and the Little Shell Band's refusal to 
cede additional lands to the United States left them without a 
reservation.\22\ Congress appropriated funds in 1908, and from 
1914 through 1925, to establish a land base for the ``homeless 
Indians in the State of Montana.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Id.
    \23\Legislative Hearing on S. 724, the Little Shell Tribe of 
Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2007. Before the Senate Comm. on 
Indian Affairs. 110th Congress. 2, 1 (2008) (statement of the Hon. John 
Sinclair, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, President) 
and 41 Stat. 1225 (March 3, 1925).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1935, following the enactment of the Indian 
Reorganization Act (IRA),\24\ the BIA attempted to help the 
Little Shell Tribe form a government and reestablish a 
relationship with the United States. The Little Shell was 
ultimately unable to formally organize under the IRA because 
they lacked a land base.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\25 U.S.C. 479.
    \25\See S. 546, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration 
Act of 2011, 112th Cong. Sec. 2 (7) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Little Shell continued its effort to obtain Federal 
recognition through the Department's Federal acknowledgment 
process. In 1978, the year this process was created, Little 
Shell filed a letter of intent to petition for Federal 
acknowledgment. Little Shell spent approximately 14 years 
documenting their petition for acknowledgment, and ultimately 
submitted a petition in 1992.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1995, the BIA declared the Little Shell's petition was 
complete.\27\ In 2000, the BIA issued a positive proposed 
finding on the petition, stating that Little Shell had met all 
seven mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment.\28\ 
However, the BIA Office of Federal Acknowledgement requested 
additional information from the Tribe. In response, Little 
Shell provided nearly 1,000 pages of additional material.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Legislative Hearing on S. 1132, the Lumbee Recognition Act; S. 
161, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 
2013; and S. 1074, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia 
Federal Recognition Act of 2013, Before the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs 
(2013) (statement of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. 
Department of the Interior).
    \28\65 Fed. Reg. 45394 (July 21, 2000).
    \29\Legislative Hearing on S. 1132, the Lumbee Recognition Act; S. 
161, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 
2013; and S. 1074, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia 
Federal Recognition Act of 2013, Before the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs 
(2013) (statement of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. 
Department of the Interior).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2009, the Department issued a final determination 
against federally acknowledging Little Shell.\30\ The 
Department's final determination stated that Little Shell met 
only four of the seven mandatory criteria for Federal 
acknowledgment.\31\ Little Shell appealed the negative final 
determination to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\74 Fed Reg. 56861 (November 3, 2009). Legislative Hearing on S. 
636, A bill to provide the Quileute Indian Tribe Tsunami and Flood 
Protection, and for other purposes; S. 703, the Helping Expedite and 
Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2011; and S. 546, the 
Little Shell Band of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2011, Before 
the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs, 112th Cong. 1, 20-24 (2011) (statement 
of Hon. John Sinclair, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of 
Montana, President).
    \31\Legislative Hearing onS.1132, the Lumbee Recognition Act; S. 
161, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 
2013; and S. 1074, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia 
Federal Recognition Act of 2013, Before the S. Comm. On Indian Affairs. 
(2013) (statement of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, United 
States Department of the Interior).
    \32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2013, the Secretary referred Little Shell's petition to 
the AS IA for reconsideration. The Little Shell petition was 
placed on hold.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    Montana Senators Jon Tester [D-MT] and Max Baucus [D-MT] 
introduced legislation to federally recognize Little Shell in 
the 110th Congress (S. 724), the 111th Congress (S. 1936), the 
112th Congress (S. 546), and the 113th Congress (S. 161). 
During the 110th Congress, and again in the 112th and 113th 
Congresses, the Committee on Indian Affairs held hearings on 
the legislation. At that time, Little Shell's petition for 
recognition was on active consideration, and the Administration 
testified in support of the Part 83 process.\33\ The Committee 
favorably reported out bills to recognize Little Shell in both 
the 112th and 113th Congresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Legislative Hearing on S. 724, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa 
Indians Restoration Act of 2007; S. 514, Muskogee Nation of Florida 
Federal Recognition Act; S. 1058, Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians 
of Michigan Referral Act; and H.R. 1294, Thomasina E. Jordan Indian 
Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007. Before the S. Comm. 
On Indian Affairs. 110th Cong. 2, 1 (2008) (statement of Director, R. 
Lee Fleming, Office of Federal Acknowledgment, US Department of the 
Interior).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 114th Congress, on January 6, 2015, Senators Jon 
Tester [D-MT] and Steve Daines [R-MT] introduced S. 35 to 
federally recognize Little Shell. The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, which considered the bill at a 
March 18, 2015 business meeting. During this business meeting, 
the Committee favorably reported S. 35 to the full Senate by 
voice vote, without amendment. Chairman Barrasso recorded a 
vote opposing the measure.
    A companion bill, H.R. 286, was introduced in the House on 
January 12, 2015, by Congressman Ryan Zinke [R-MT]. H.R. 286 
was referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska 
Native Affairs on March 2, 2015.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1--Short title

    This section states that the short title of the bill is the 
``Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 
2015''.

Section 2--Findings

    This section lists Congressional findings.

Section 3--Definitions

    This section defines terms used throughout the Act.

Section 4--Federal recognition

    This section formally extends Federal recognition to Little 
Shell, making all federal laws and regulations of general 
applicability to Indians and Indian tribes, including the IRA, 
applicable to Little Shell and its members.

Section 5--Federal services and benefits

    This section states that, beginning on the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Little Shell and each member shall 
be eligible for all services and benefits provided by the 
United States to Indians and federally recognized Indian 
tribes, without regard to either the existence of a reservation 
for the tribe or the location of the residence of any member on 
or near an Indian reservation. This section also establishes 
Little Shell's service area for service delivery and benefits 
purposes as Blaine, Cascade, Glacier, and Hill Counties in the 
State of Montana.

Section 6--Reaffirmation of rights

    This section makes clear that nothing in this Act 
diminishes any right or privilege of Little Shell, or members 
of Little Shell, that existed prior to the date of enactment. 
The section further states that any legal or equitable claims 
to enforce rights or privileges reserved by or granted to 
Little Shell that were wrongfully denied or taken before 
enactment of this Act are preserved.

Section 7--Membership roll

    This section mandates, as a condition of receiving 
recognition, services, and benefits pursuant to this Act, that 
Little Shell submit to the Secretary a membership roll within 
18 months of enactment of this Act, and maintain such roll. 
This section also requires that tribal membership be determined 
in accordance with Little Shell's constitution dated September 
10, 1977.

Section 8--Transfer of land

    This section directs the Secretary to acquire trust title 
to 200 acres of land within the service area of the Tribe. This 
section also states that the Secretary may acquire additional 
land for the benefit of the Tribe, in accordance with the IRA.

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The following cost estimate, as provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office, dated March 25, 2015, was prepared 
for S. 35.

S. 35--Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2015

    Summary: S. 35 would provide federal recognition to the 
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. Federal 
recognition would make the tribe eligible to receive benefits 
from various federal programs.
    CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost 
$40 million over the 2016-2020 period, assuming appropriation 
of the necessary funds. Enacting S. 35 would not affect direct 
spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do 
not apply.
    S. 35 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by exempting some 
lands from taxation by state and local governments, but CBO 
expects the cost of that mandate would be small and well below 
the threshold established in that act ($77 million in 2015, 
adjusted annually for inflation).
    S. 35 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary effect of S. 35 is shown in the following table. The 
costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 450 
(community and regional development) and 550 (health).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
                                                                2016    2017    2018    2019    2020   2016-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Department of the Interior
    Estimated Authorization Level............................       3       3       3       3       3        15
    Estimated Outlays........................................       2       3       3       3       3        15
Indian Health Service
    Estimated Authorization Level............................       5       5       5       5       6        26
    Estimated Outlays........................................       4       5       5       5       6        25
    Total Changes
        Estimated Authorization Level........................       8       8       8       8       9        41
        Estimated Outlays....................................       7       8       8       8       9        40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 
35 will be enacted near the end of 2015 and that the amounts 
necessary to implement the bill will be appropriated for each 
year.
    The bill would provide federal recognition to the Little 
Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana. Such recognition 
would allow the tribe and about 2,400 tribal members to receive 
benefits from various programs administered by the Department 
of the Interior (DOI) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). 
Based on the average per capita expenditures by those agencies 
for other Indian tribes, CBO estimates that implementing S.35 
would cost $40 million over the 2016-2020 period, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary funds.

Department of the Interior

    DOI, primarily through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 
provides funding to federally recognized tribes for various 
purposes, including child welfare services, adult care, 
community development, and general assistance. In total, CBO 
estimates that providing those services to the tribe would cost 
$15 million over the 2016-2020 period, assuming appropriation 
of the necessary funds and adjusting for anticipated inflation. 
This estimate is based on current per capita expenditures of 
around $1,200 for other federally recognized tribes located in 
the central states.

Indian Health Service

    S. 35 also would make members of the tribe eligible to 
receive health benefits from the IHS. Based on information from 
the IHS, CBO estimates that about 55 percent of tribal 
members--or about 1,350 people--would receive benefits each 
year. CBO assumes that the cost to serve those individuals 
would be similar to funding for current IHS beneficiaries--
about $3,300 per individual in 2015. Assuming appropriation of 
the necessary funds and adjusting for anticipated inflation, 
CBO estimates that IHS benefits for tribal members would cost 
$25 million over the 2016-2020 period.

Other Federal agencies

    In addition to DOI and IHS funding, certain Indian tribes 
also receive support from other federal programs within the 
Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, 
and Agriculture. Based on their status as a tribe recognized by 
the state of Montana, the tribe is already eligible to receive 
funding from those departments. Thus, CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 35 would not increase the costs of that 
support.
    Pay-As-You Go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
S. 35 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA 
because it would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
acquire and take into trust 200 acres of land for the tribe. 
Because that land would be exempt from state and local taxes, 
the provision would impose an intergovernmental mandate. Given 
the small amount of land to be taken into trust, CBO estimates 
that the forgone tax revenue to the State of Montana and local 
governments would be small and well below the threshold 
established for intergovernmental mandates ($77 million in 
2015, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 35 contains no 
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Martin von Gnechten--
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Robert Stewart--Indian Health 
Service; Impact on State, local, and Tribal Governments: 
Melissa Merrell; Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate 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. 35 will 
have a minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee has received no communications from the 
Executive Branch regarding S. 35.

                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN BARRASSO

    The decision to federally recognize an Indian tribe is 
extremely important, with far-reaching implications for the 
group seeking recognition and its members, other Indian tribes, 
and the United States government. To maintain the import and 
integrity of this unique status, related decision-making should 
be as fair and transparent as possible. In my view, this is 
best achieved through careful and consistent analysis by 
technical experts with specialized training--historians, 
anthropologists, genealogists, and other professionals, 
applying regulations that have been developed for this very 
purpose.
    This Committee has held numerous hearings on the Federal 
acknowledgment process. Testimony from these hearings makes 
clear that, prior to recent revisions to Part 83 regulations, 
the Federal acknowledgment process was protracted, inefficient, 
costly, and unpredictable.
    To be sure, the Part 83 process has been flawed for some 
time, and some groups have suffered immensely as a result. With 
this in mind, it is easy to understand why some groups might 
try to avoid the administrative process by seeking recognition 
through the Congress. Nonetheless, in my view, the best way to 
address flaws in the Part 83 process--the solution that is most 
practical, most transparent, and would allow for thorough and 
fair analysis of every Federal acknowledgement petition--is to 
improve the Part 83 process.
    I have long supported the consistent application of an 
improved administrative process for Federal recognition 
decisions. Unfortunately, this bill represents a step in the 
opposite direction.
    The Department has acknowledged the need to improve the 
Federal acknowledgment process, and I am hopeful that recent 
changes to Part 83 regulations will address the recurring 
concerns highlighted above.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In accordance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that the 
enactment of S. 35 will not make any changes in existing law.

                                  [all]
```