110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–541 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2 

TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF 

CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF THE BAY MILLS INDIAN 

COMMUNITY 

APRIL 4, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONYERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2176] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2176) to provide for and approve the settlement of certain 

land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, having considered 

the same, reports unfavorably thereon without amendment and 

recommends that the bill do not pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background .............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 8 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 8 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 9 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 9 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 10 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 10 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 11 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 11 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 11 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 11 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 12 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
2 

1Pub. L. 100–497, 102 Stat. 2467, 25 U.S.C. Chapter 29. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 2176 would preemptively ratify a land claim settlement concluded between the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Governor 

of Michigan. Specifically, the bill would direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to accept in trust, in settlement of a claim by the Tribe to 

lands in Charlotte Beach, Michigan, in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, close to the Tribe’s reservation—a claim the Tribe has already 

lost in court—a parcel of land in Port Huron, Michigan, as a new 

addition to its reservation, even though it is located hundreds of 

miles away. It would also make the newly acquired land automatically eligible for casino gaming, by preemptively deeming it to qualify under an exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s prohibition of gaming on newly acquired land. 

In doing so, the bill would override the established procedures of 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, promises made to the other 

Michigan Tribes, and the express wishes of the citizens of Michigan 

as reflected in a State-wide referendum passed just a few short 

years ago. It would set a dangerous precedent, a blueprint for flouting established law to build a casino in the name of an Indian tribe 

in any corner of the country. 

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (‘‘IGRA’’) 1 was enacted in 

1988 to provide a legal framework for regulating the operation of 

gaming on Indian lands. Congress enacted IGRA in response to 

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 

(1987), in which the Supreme Court had held that, in the absence 

of any governing Federal statute, the States’ interest in regulating 

gaming on Indian lands within their borders was outweighed by 

the Tribes’ interest in promoting such gaming for the Tribe’s economic benefit. In recognition of Tribal rights, IGRA incorporates 

the key holding of Cabazon, which recognizes a Tribe’s right to conduct gaming under specified conditions even when it does not conform to the law of the State in which the Indian lands are located. 

The type of gaming at issue in the two bills before the Committee 

is class III gaming, or full-scale casino gaming. 

Under IGRA, the term ‘‘Indian lands’’ includes not only lands 

within the limits of any Indian reservation, but also lands to which 

title either is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of 

an Indian Tribe or individual Native American, or is held by an Indian Tribe or individual Native American subject to restriction by 

the U.S. against alienation and with an Indian Tribe exercising 

governmental power. 

A number of statutes, including the Indian Reorganization Act of 

1934, authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land in 

trust for individual Indian Tribes. Procedures for such land acquisition are specified in 25 C.F.R., Part 151. By this process, Indian 

owners of land in fee—i.e., unencumbered by liens that impair marketability—may apply to have their fee title conveyed to the Secretary to be held in trust for their benefit. This removes the land 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
3 

2 25 U.S.C. §§ 70–70v. 

from State and local tax rolls, and precludes the land from being 

sold, and from being taken by legal process. 

One central objective of IGRA was to place limits on the potential 

proliferation of Indian gaming. Under section 20 of IGRA, 25 

U.S.C. § 2719, lands acquired in trust by a Tribe after IGRA’s enactment are generally not eligible for gaming if they are not within 

or contiguous to the boundaries of the Tribe’s reservation. There 

are several exceptions, however. 

The first exception authorizes the Secretary to permit gaming on 

newly acquired lands if (1) the governor of the State in which the 

lands are located consents and (2) the Secretary determines, after 

consulting with State and local officials, including officials of other 

Tribes, that permitting gaming on those lands ‘‘would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.’’

There are five other exceptions, under which gaming may be permitted on newly acquired lands without meeting those conditions. 

Four of those exceptions involve newly recognized Tribes, Tribes restored to recognition, or Tribes that had no reservation at the time 

IGRA was enacted, factors clearly not present here. 

The fifth exception is for lands taken into trust as a land claim 

settlement. This is the exception that the two bills purport to be 

relying on. IGRA also requires that the Tribe and the State have 

entered into a compact setting forth the terms under which class 

III gaming will be conducted on the Indian lands in question, including how State criminal and civil laws will apply. The StateTribe compact must be approved by the Secretary, but approval 

will be forthcoming as long as it complies with Federal law and the 

government’s trust obligations. The Tribe must also have adopted 

an ordinance permitting class III gaming on those lands, which the 

Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission must find 

was not unduly influenced by anyone who, in light of criminal 

record, prior activities, reputation, or associations, poses a threat 

to the public interest or effective regulation, or a risk of unsuitable, 

unfair, or illegal activities. 

INDIAN LAND CLAIM SETTLEMENT PROCESS

Prior to enactment of the Indian Claims Commission Act of 

1946, 2 each Indian land claim required prior specific congressional 

authorizing legislation. That Act created the Indian Claims Commission (‘‘ICC’’) to resolve such claims. When the ICC was dissolved in 1978, remaining unresolved claims were transferred to 

the U.S. Court of Claims, and all new claims are required to be 

filed there as well. A land claim may proceed to judgment, or may 

be resolved through negotiated settlement. The judgment or settlement agreement then becomes the basis for congressional resolution of the land claim. The entire process, from the initial assertion 

of the land claim to its eventual resolution, typically takes many 

years. 

CASINOS ON TRIBAL LANDS IN MICHIGAN

According to the National Indian Gaming Commission, there are 

currently 19 Tribal casinos operated in the State of Michigan by 10 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
4 

3This was the first Michigan compact. Other compacts were entered into in 1998 covering four 

other Tribes in Michigan who had recently been granted Federal recognition. 

Tribes. The Bay Mills Tribe, now seeking a new casino pursuant 

to the bill, operates two of them. 

The Bay Mills Tribe was among seven Michigan Tribes who in 

1993 entered into parallel compacts with the State of Michigan 

governing the operation of class III gaming, including any development of off-reservation gaming. 3 A provision in those compacts, intended to forestall a proliferation of Indian gaming across the 

State, requires that any revenue generated by off-reservation gaming be shared among the seven Tribes: 

An application to take land into trust for gaming purposes pursuant to § 20 of IGRA (25 U.S.C. § 2719) shall not be submitted 

to the Secretary of Interior in the absence of a prior written 

agreement between the Tribe and the State’s other federally 

recognized Indian Tribes that provides for each of the other 

Tribes to share in the revenue of the off-reservation gaming facility that is the subject of the § 20 application. 

This provision requires each signatory Tribe to negotiate an agreement with the others to distribute a portion of the revenues from 

a casino opened on off-reservation lands acquired after the signing 

of the compact in 1993. This provision is still in effect. 

OTHER MICHIGAN CASINO GAMING—THE DETROIT CASINOS

In 1994, Michigan voters approved a State-wide referendum that 

authorized three casinos in Detroit. Civic leaders promptly began 

discussions with interested parties, and the three casinos were 

opened within a few years. The MGM Grand opened in 1999, and 

its permanent resort facility opened in October 2007. The 

MotorCity opened in 1999 in a 1915 building that long housed the 

Wonder Bread bakery; with a permanent new casino and hotel both 

opening last year. The Greektown, of which the Sault Ste. Marie 

Tribe is majority owner, opened in 2000, and is constructing a permanent facility that is scheduled to open later this year. 

The construction of these three casinos has brought significant 

economic development to the area. The MotorCity construction 

project has been valued at $400 million, and the MGM Grand 

project at $800 million, one of the largest projects in the State. 

These projects have also been a centerpiece of broader economic revitalization efforts in Detroit. Under the terms of the referendum, 

a portion of the earnings from the casinos is provided to the City 

of Detroit for police and fire protection services, and to the State 

for public education. By one measure, Detroit has already received 

well over a billion dollars in revenues. That is in addition to the 

multi-year construction jobs, permanent casino jobs, and other jobs 

directly or indirectly attributable to the casinos. 

In 2004, concerned about attempts to expand casino gaming into 

horse-racing facilities, Michigan voters approved another Statewide referendum to restrict the expansion of gaming by requiring 

that any new private gaming expansion be approved in a general 

election by a State-wide majority as well as a majority of voters in 

the local community. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
5 

NEW INTERIOR GUIDANCE—WHETHER TO TAKE OFF-RESERVATION

LAND INTO TRUST FOR GAMING

On January 3, 2008, the Interior Department issued ‘‘Guidance 

on Taking Off-Reservation Land into Trust for Gaming Purposes.’’

It applies to all applications, pending or yet to be received, that involve requests to take land into trust that is off-reservation. 25 

C.F.R. 151.11 sets forth the factors the Department will consider 

in making the determination. As the distance between a Tribe’s 

reservation and the land to be acquired increases, the Department 

will ‘‘give greater scrutiny to the Tribe’s justification of anticipated 

benefits from the acquisition’’ and give ‘‘greater weight to concerns 

raised by State and local governments as to the acquisition’s potential impacts on regulatory jurisdiction, real property taxes, and special assessments.’’

The guidance explains that, as a general principle, the farther 

the economic enterprise is from the reservation, the greater the potential for significant negative consequences on reservation life. 

Tribes seeking off-reservation gaming desire the economic benefits 

of such activity—not only the income stream from the gaming facility, but also the related employment and job training opportunities 

for Tribe members. Because such employment programs foster a 

strong tribal government and community, they are a crucial benefit 

of tribal gaming facilities. 

While greater distance from the reservation is not likely to have 

an impact on the income stream, it can have a deleterious effect 

on reservation life. A gaming facility that is ‘‘not within a commutable distance of the reservation’’ will not improve the employment rate of Tribal members living on the reservation. Instead, an 

off-reservation gaming facility would encourage Tribal members to 

leave the reservation. 

Although the income stream from the gaming facility may help 

offset potential negative impacts, the guidance states that ‘‘no application to take land into trust beyond a commutable distance 

from the reservation should be granted unless it carefully and comprehensively analyzes the potential negative impacts on reservation life and clearly demonstrates why these are outweighed by the 

financial benefits of tribal ownership in a distant gaming facility.’’

Section 151.14 also states that the Department will give ‘‘greater 

weight to the concerns of State and local governments’’ with regard 

to the potential conflicts of land use and the removal of the land 

from the tax rolls as the distance between the Tribe’s reservation 

and the land to be acquired increases. This is because the increase 

in distance makes it more likely that the transfer of Indian jurisdiction to the proposed parcel of land will ‘‘disrupt established governmental patterns’’ in distant communities that may not be conversant with the unique regulatory practices of tribal governments. 

Furthermore, the farther from the reservation the land acquisition 

is, the more difficult it will be for the Tribal government to exercise 

its authority appropriately. According to the guidance, any application which does not satisfactorily address these issues should be 

denied. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
6 

4 Bay Mills Indian Community v. Western United Life Assurance Co., 2000 WL 282455 (6th 

Cir., March 28, 2000). 5 Bay Mills Indian Community v. State of Michigan, et al., Mich. Ct. App. Docket No. 218580. 6 Bay Mills Indian Community v. Western United Life Assurance Co., 2000 WL 282455 (6th 

Cir., March 28, 2000). 

THE BAY MILLS AND SAULT STE. MARIE LAND CLAIMS

The Bay Mills Tribe traces its ancestry, as does the Sault Ste. 

Marie Tribe, to two Chippewa bands headed by O-Shaw-Wan-O 

and Shaw-wan. Its claim to the Charlotte Beach land stems from 

an 1857 deed from a non-Indian couple, Boziel Paul and his wife, 

to the Governor of Michigan. The deed purported to convey the 

land to the Governor in trust for the benefit of the two Chippewa 

bands. The Pauls had obtained the land in 1855 by Federal land 

patent. Approximately 30 years later, the State of Michigan sold 

the land, to non-Indians, to recover delinquent property taxes. The 

Governor had apparently never acknowledged the conveyance. 

More than a hundred years after the sale by the Governor, the 

Bay Mills Tribe commenced two lawsuits concerning the Charlotte 

Beach land. In 1996, it filed a Federal action against the Charlotte 

Beach landowners seeking equitable title. 4 Around this time, the 

Tribe also filed a State suit against the State of Michigan for damages. 5 The Federal suit was dismissed for the Bay Mills Tribe’s 

failure to join the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 

which also has a claim to the Charlotte Beach lands, as an indispensable party—the Sixth Circuit ruled that because the Bay Mills 

and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes share a common ancestry, both Tribes 

have ‘‘a potential interest in the Charlotte Beach property.’’ 6 The 

Bay Mills Tribe lost the State suit on both substantive and procedural grounds. Around this time, the Bay Mills Tribe filed an application with the Department of Interior, pursuant to 25 C.F.R. Part 

151, to put the land into trust for gaming purposes. The fee trust 

application was withdrawn within months of its filing. On August 

23, 2002, the Tribe entered into a settlement agreement with the 

Governor of Michigan; an addendum to this agreement was signed 

by the current Governor, Jennifer Granholm, on November 13, 

2007. 

The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe has never filed suit to claim the 

Charlotte Beach land. 

THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

H.R. 2176 would ratify an agreement executed on August 23, 

2002, between the Bay Mills Tribe and Governor Jennifer 

Granholm of Michigan to transfer to the Tribe non-contiguous 

lands in Port Huron, Michigan—located 350 miles from its reservation and outside its historical and aboriginal territory—to settle its 

dubious claim to the Charlotte Beach lands, located in its historical 

territory in the Upper Peninsula of the State. The bill directs the 

Secretary to take the lands into trust within 30 days after receiving a title insurance policy showing that they are not subject to impairing encumbrances. 

The bill provides that immediately upon the receipt of the new 

lands in trust, they will be considered part of the Tribe’s reservation, and deemed eligible for gaming as lands ‘‘taken into trust as 

part of a settlement of a land claim’’ in compliance with 25 U.S.C. 

§ 2719(b)(1)(B)(i). The bill extinguishes the land claim, and ratifies 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
7 

the transfer in settlement. And it specifies as the court of jurisdiction for resolving any dispute regarding the land claim the United 

States District Court for the Western District Court of Michigan— where the lands subject to the claim are located, but not the lands 

to be transferred in settlement. 

The process set forth in the bill departs from the normal processes envisioned in IGRA and in Michigan law in a number of significant respects. 

First, the time it normally takes the Interior Department to take 

lands into trust for gaming purposes is normally not a matter of 

days, as the bill prescribes, but years, even decades. Each of the 

four steps deemed immediately satisfied by the bill—taking the 

lands into trust, approving the compact, designating the lands as 

eligible for gaming under an exception in IGRA, and declaring the 

lands as reservation—requires a separate administrative procedure 

in the Interior Department. One of the important administrative 

processes is the extensive environmental review required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Another is the rigorous review 

at Interior of the extent of any legal and historical connections the 

Tribe has to the requested lands, as part of the determination 

whether the lands qualify for gaming pursuant to one of IGRA’s exceptions. This review is considered particularly important when the 

lands to be taken into trust are not within or contiguous to the 

Tribe’s reservation lands, as set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 151. 

Second, the land claim settlement agreements that the bill ratifies state that the lands have been obtained in settlement of a land 

claim under section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 

U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(B)(i), when there has been no claim against the 

United States considered or processed by Interior, no agreement 

reached with any duly authorized representative of the United 

States prior to its execution. Instead, this is essentially a negotiation between the Tribes and the Governor, to transfer lands to the 

Tribe, with no involvement by an ordinarily essential party to such 

a claim and such a transfer. While the Governor and the Tribe 

have another option for bypassing the normal process set forth in 

IGRA—namely, going to the voters of Michigan—they have opted 

to bypass that established route as well. 

Third, the settlement agreement alters central provisions of the 

1993 compacts to which the Tribe is signatory. These compacts 

were negotiated between the Tribe and the Governor, executed by 

them, then ratified by the Michigan State Legislature, then submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The settlement agreement, however, provides that a core commitment in the 1993 compact, that a Tribe seeking off-reservation 

gaming locations would enter into revenue-sharing agreements 

with the other signatory Tribes, either does not apply, or is waived 

if deemed to apply. Withdrawing from this core commitment ordinarily would require going back to the legislature and the Secretary for approval, as is required under Michigan and Federal 

law. 

Fourth, the bill would, apparently for the first time, legislatively 

ratify what is essentially a Tribal-State gaming compact, which 

under IGRA the Department of Interior must review, approve, and 

publish in the Federal Register before the Tribe may conduct class 

III gaming. In its testimony before the Committee, the Department 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
8 

of Interior expressed a number of concerns about departing from 

normal IGRA procedure and eliminating Interior’s evaluation. 

Fifth, this Indian land claim is unusual in the sense that it is 

against the State of Michigan—alleging wrongful sale of the lands 

by the State for back property taxes before the lands were in the 

legal possession of the Tribe—and the land claim settlement agreement is likewise between the Tribe and the State of Michigan. The 

land claim could thus be settled without any Federal involvement, 

by agreement between the State and the Tribe. The United States 

is not, and has never been, a party to the land claim, nor has it 

been involved with the negotiation of the land claim settlement 

agreement, which is unusual for a land claim submitted for ratification by Congress. 

Sixth, the claim asserted by the Tribe has already been litigated 

and lost. It was pursued in both Michigan and Federal courts, by 

the Bay Mills Tribe. The Federal court dismissed the case without 

prejudice, on the ground that the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe was an indispensable party due to its own claim on the same land—the two 

Tribes had once been parts of the same Tribe—but had not been 

joined. But the Michigan case was dismissed with prejudice, barring re-litigation of the claim. 

Seventh, the lands identified for transfer in settlement of the 

claims are far removed from the Tribes’ ancestral lands, from the 

Tribe’s current reservation, and from the lands subject to the 

claims. They are completely outside the 12 million acre area originally ceded by the Tribe to the United States, and approximately 

350 miles from both the Tribes’ reservation and the Charlotte 

Beach lands. While it is not unusual for land claim settlements to 

involve acquisition of lands outside a Tribe’s reservation, it is highly unusual to acquire lands that are such a great distance away. 

And it may be unprecedented for a Tribe to acquire lands outside 

of its historical territory in settlement of a land claim. 

Finally, the bill would, apparently for the first time, specifically 

deem the lands acquired pursuant to a land claim settlement 

agreement to qualify for gaming. Staff is not aware of any Federal 

legislation that has previously directed specific off-reservation 

lands to be taken into trust and at the same time designated those 

lands as qualifying for gaming under an exception to IGRA. 

HEARINGS

The Committee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2176 on Friday, March 14, 2008. Witnesses at the hearing were: Rep. Carolyn 

Kilpatrick (D-MI); Rep. Shelly Berkley (D-NV); Carl Artman, Assistant Interior Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior; Fred Cantu, Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan; 

Alicia Walker, Counsel, Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe of Michigan; Kathryn Tierney, Tribal Attorney, Bay Mills Indian Community; and Dr. Guy Clark, Chairman, National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, April 2, 2008, the Committee met in open session 

and ordered the bill H.R. 2176 unfavorably reported, without 

amendment, by a rollcall vote of 29 to 0, a quorum being present. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
9 

COMMITTEE VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall vote occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

2176: 

1. Reporting the bill unfavorably. Approved 29–0. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sutton .........................................................................................................

Mr. Gutierrez .....................................................................................................

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Davis ........................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ....................................................................................

Mr. Ellison ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren .......................................................................................................

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Pence ..........................................................................................................

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 29 0 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
10 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 2176, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, April 3, 2008. 

Hon. JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2176, a bill to provide for 

and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills 

Indian Community. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Leigh Angres, who can 

be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable Lamar S. Smith. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 2176—A bill to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community. 

H.R. 2176 would ratify an agreement between the state of Michigan and the Bay Mills Indian Community regarding the tribe’s 

claim to land in northern Michigan, known as Charlotte Beach. 

CBO estimates that this bill would have no significant effect on the 

Federal budget. 

H.R. 2176 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The agreement that would be ratified by the bill stipulates that 

the tribe relinquish all claims to the Charlotte Beach property and 

that Michigan give the tribe an alternative parcel of land in Port 

Huron, Michigan. The legislation would require the Secretary of 

the Interior to take that land into trust for the tribe and proclaim 

it to be part of the tribe’s reservation, provided that certain conditions are met. According to information from the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the tribe, the lands would primarily be used for gaming 

purposes. 

On March 6, 2008, CBO trasmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2176 

as ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
11 

on February 13, 2008. The two versions of the legislation are the 

same, and our cost estimates are identical. 

The staff contact for this estimate is Leigh Angres, who can be 

reached at 226–2860. The estimate was approved by Peter H. 

Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 2176 would preemptively ratify a land claim settlement concluded between the 

Bay Mills Indian Community and Governor Jennifer Granholm of 

Michigan and preemptively deem the newly-acquired off-reservation land part of the Tribe’s reservation and eligible for class III 

casino gaming. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 2176 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Definitions. This section sets forth the definitions of terms 

used in the bill. ‘‘Alternative Lands,’’ for example, refers to noncontiguous land in Port Huron, Michigan identified in an agreement executed on August 23, 2002, between the Bay Mills Indian 

Community and Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan to be 

transferred to the Tribe in settlement of a claim to the ‘‘Charlotte 

Beach lands.’’

Sec. 2. Taking Land into Trust; Extinguishment of Claims; and 

Gaming. Section 2(a) of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to take the alternative lands into trust within 30 days of receipt 

of a title insurance policy for said lands proving they are not subject to any impairing encumbrances; upon attaining trust status, 

the lands will be deemed part of the Tribe’s reservation. This would 

bypass established practice, under which Interior conducts an extensive environmental review, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, before taking land into trust. The mandatory nature of this provision would require the alternative lands to be 

taken into trust even if NEPA liabilities are present, thereby subjecting the government to potentially extensive liability. 

Section 2(b) provides that the alternative lands taken into trust 

will be classified as part of a land settlement within the meaning 

of section 20(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 

U.S.C. 2719). The land would thereby be made automatically eligible for gaming, again bypassing established practice, the review by 

Interior taking into account the factors set forth in 25 C.F.R. Part 

151—a review that is especially important for off-reservation gamVerDate Aug 31 2005 21:25 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR541P2.XXX HR541P2

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
12 

ing where, the farther the economic enterprise is from the reservation, the greater the potential for harm to reservation life. 

Section 2(c) states that all land claims concerning the Charlotte 

Beach lands by the Tribe against the U.S., the State of Michigan, 

or any other person will be extinguished upon the bill’s enactment. 

Sec. 3. Effectuation and Ratification of Agreement. Section 3(a) 

mandates the ratification of the August 23, 2002 land claim settlement agreement, in disregard of established prerequisites and procedures, except the last sentence in Section 10 of the agreement related to severability. Section 3(b) states that this land claim proposal shall not be considered precedent for any future agreement 

between a State and an Indian Tribe because of its unique nature. 

Section 3(c) specifies as the court of jurisdiction for the resolution 

of any dispute regarding the land claim the U.S. District Court for 

the Western District of Michigan, where the lands subject to the 

claim are located but not the lands to be transferred in settlement. 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

H.R. 2176, to provide for and approve the settlement of certain 

land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community 

We oppose H.R. 2176, a bill to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community. 

We share the Majority’s concerns with this bill, but have other concerns as well. 

This bill will authorize a land transfer between the State of 

Michigan and the Bay Mills Indian Community in Michigan’s 

Upper Peninsula. The agreement between the State and the Tribe 

allows for Indian gaming casinos to be operated on land that is located near the metropolitan area of Detroit, Michigan, roughly 350 

miles away from the Bay Mills reservation. 

We share the Majority’s concern that this land transfer circumvents Michigan state laws regulating the establishment and 

expansion of Indian gaming operations. A 2004 amendment to the 

Michigan Constitution requires state-wide voter approval for expansion of gambling operations. To date, that voter approval has 

not been given. H.R. 2176 usurps the rights of the citizens of 

Michigan to vote on any proposed expansion of gaming within the 

state. 

We are also concerned that this legislation represents an expansion of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) beyond Congress’

original intent. IGRA provides that gaming may only take place on 

Indian lands, including lands held in trust. Lands acquired in trust 

after IGRA’s enactment are generally ineligible for gaming if they 

are outside of and not contiguous to the boundaries of a tribe’s reservation. H.R. 2176 takes the unprecedented step of authorizing Indian gaming as part of a land settlement on lands that are not contiguous to the Bay Mills reservation. 

We note that the Department of the Interior opposes this legislation as well. The bill preempts the Department’s procedures for 

evaluating the subject property to determine whether hazardous 

materials are present. Under a well-established review process, the 

Department recommends approval for land transfers only after determining the land meets applicable environmental standards. This 

Committee should ensure that these procedures are followed in 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING
13 

every instance. Further, we should not approve any legislation that 

intentionally undermines such a review process. 

Where we perhaps depart from the Majority in our opposition is 

our concern about the link between gambling and crime and the 

impact that these casinos will have on the local communities. A 

2004 study by the Department of Justice of arrestees indicated that 

more than 30 percent of arrestees identified as pathological gamblers committed a robbery within a year of their arrest. The study 

also stated that nearly one-third of that group admitted they committed the robbery to pay for gambling or gambling debts. In addition, the same study found that 13 percent of those studied said 

they had assaulted someone to get money. According to the study, 

25 percent of those assaults were related to gambling. 

In an earlier study undertaken in the neighboring state of Minnesota, municipalities surrounding Indian casinos responded to 

questions regarding their perception of changes since the introduction of casino gambling. Of the areas questioned, 26.5 percent of 

the precincts reported higher crime rates, 36.8 percent reported increased traffic congestion, and 37.5 percent reported an increase in 

problem gambling. 

Even proponents of Indian gaming acknowledge the limited benefits of legalized gambling. The pro-gaming National Congress of 

American Indians states ‘‘even after the advent of gaming, Indian 

reservations continue to have a 31% poverty rate and a 46% unemployment rate.’’ Similarly, Indian health and education statistics 

are among the worst in the country. 

For these reasons, we join the Majority in reporting H.R. 2176 

adversely to the House. 

LAMAR SMITH. 

STEVE KING. 

JIM JORDAN. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING