```

[Senate Report 115-344]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                      Calendar No. 625
115th Congress     }                                    {       Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session        }                                    {      115-344

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

 
 TO TAKE LANDS IN SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INTO TRUST AS PART OF THE 
   RESERVATION OF THE LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                October 5, 2018.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 597]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (H.R. 597) to take lands in Sonoma County, California, 
into trust as part of the reservation of the Lytton Rancheria 
of California, and for other purposes, having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                PURPOSE

    The bill, H.R. 597, provides congressional authorization 
for the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to take land into 
trust for the Lytton Rancheria of California (Lytton Rancheria 
or Tribe).

                               BACKGROUND

    From the late 1940s to the early 1960s, federal Indian 
policy shifted to the purported assimilation of Native 
Americans into society, coupled with the termination of the 
federal trust relationship with Indian tribes. Consistent with 
these policies of assimilation and termination, the 1958 
California Rancheria Act, authorized the Secretary to terminate 
the federal government's trust supervision of 41 California 
reservations, including the Lytton Rancheria.\1\ As a result of 
that Act and the land transactions that followed, the Lytton 
Rancheria lost all of its traditional homelands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\California Rancheria Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-671, 72 Stat. 
619, 619-21 (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the late 1960s, the federal government pivoted to a 
policy of self-determination, thereby repudiating its past 
policy of termination. As a result of this policy shift, 
Congress ``restored'' some Indian tribes, while others were 
restored through litigation.\2\ In 1987, the Lytton Rancheria 
joined three other Indian tribes in a federal lawsuit that 
challenged the termination of the trust relationship. In 1991, 
Scotts Valley, Guidiville, and Lytton Rancherias settled the 
lawsuit and were restored to federally recognized status under 
the stipulated judgment.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See Amador County, California v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373, 375 
(D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing the 1983 stipulated order in Hardwick v. 
United States, No. C-79-1710 (N.D. Cal.)).
    \3\Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria 
v. United States of America, No. C-86-3660-WWS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 
1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The settlement reached between the parties stated that the 
termination of the Lytton Rancheria was illegal and that the 
descendants were entitled to the rights and benefits of 
individual Indians.\4\ While the settlement provided that the 
Tribe could organize under the Indian Reorganization Act, the 
stipulation also assured nearby landowners, who intervened in 
the suit, that the Lytton Rancheria would not conduct gaming in 
Alexander Valley except in conformity with the County's general 
plan and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).\5\ Since the 
court entered judgment, the DOI has listed Lytton Rancheria as 
a recognized Indian tribe in the Federal Register every time 
such notices were issued between 1992 and 2018.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\According to the district court in Artichoke Joe's, the 1961 
termination was illegal because Public Law 85-671 Sec. 3(c) required 
the federal government to ``install or rehabilitate . . . irrigation or 
domestic water systems'' before the land was distributed, or within a 
reasonable time after the land was distributed. Artichoke Joe's 
California Grand Casino v. Norton, 278 F.Supp.2d 1174, 1177 (E.D. Cal. 
2003) (detailing the history of litigation and describing the 
settlement). The federal government never constructed the required 
water system improvements on the Lytton Rancheria's lands, according to 
the Tribe. Id.
    \5\See Artichoke Joe's, 278 F.Supp.2d at 1177 (detailing the 
history of litigation and describing the settlement).
    \6\The list is published each year pursuant to the Federally 
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-454, 108 
Stat. 4791, codified at 25 U.S.C. Sec. 479a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The settlement and stipulated judgment, however, did not 
include the return of any lands to the Lytton Rancheria. In 
2000, Congress passed the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act, which 
directed the Secretary of the Interior to take 9.5 acres of 
land in San Pablo, California into trust for the Tribe, 
declared those lands to be part of the Tribe's reservation, and 
deemed the land as eligible for gaming under the IGRA. Congress 
clarified the following year that the provisions of IGRA, other 
than those relating to the land's eligibility for gaming, apply 
to gaming on the San Pablo Property.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Section 128 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
Agencies Appropriation Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-63, 115 Stat. 414, 
442 (Nov. 5, 2001) (``2001 Amendment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              SUMMARY OF THE BILL AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The bill, H.R. 597, would place 511 acres of land into 
trust for the Lytton Rancheria through a mandatory trust 
acquisition by the DOI. This fee land is located adjacent to 
the Town of Windsor, near the Tribe's original homelands, and 
was purchased with tribal revenues. The land, once it is held 
in trust for the Tribe, will reestablish an area for the Lytton 
Rancheria to rebuild its homelands by constructing homes and 
government facilities, expand economic development, including 
viniculture, and provide an area to practice traditional and 
religious teachings, all for the tribal community.
    The Lytton Rancheria has spent years negotiating with the 
County of Sonoma (County), a local school district, and a local 
fire department to agree to three memoranda of agreement (MOA) 
that provide for the mitigation of any potential off-
reservation impacts from uses of the land by the Tribe. On May 
27, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown, Jr. sent a letter to 
Representative Huffman supporting the Lytton Rancheria 
Homelands Act of 2015, which was a bill similar to the current 
H.R. 597. Both the Lytton Rancheria Tribal Council and the 
County of Sonoma Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to 
support the MOA and federal legislation to take the lands into 
trust for the Tribe.
    The bill includes a permanent gaming prohibition on the 
lands described in section 4 of H.R. 597, specifically those 
lands that lie north of a line that runs in a cardinal east and 
west direction from the point where Highway Route 12 crosses 
Highway 101 as they are physically on the ground and used for 
transportation on January 1, 2016, and extending to the 
furthest extent of Sonoma County. Following the Committee 
legislative hearing on H.R. 597, the Lytton Rancheria and 
County agreed to further amend the MOA to expand the permanent 
prohibition on gaming to cover the entire county, not just the 
lands described in the bill. This MOA goes beyond the language 
in the Act to ensure that new gaming will not be conducted in 
the County by the Lytton Rancheria. On June 16, 2018, Margie 
Mejia, Tribal Chairperson, and Larry Stidham, Legal Counsel for 
the Tribe, signed the amended MOA. On August 7, 2018, David 
Rabbitt, Vice Chair of the County Board of Supervisors, and 
Bruce Goldstein, County Counsel, signed the amended MOA.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    On January 20, 2017, Representative Denham introduced H.R. 
597, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017, which was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska 
Native Affairs of the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
House of Representatives. The full Committee on Natural 
Resources of the House of Representatives favorably reported 
the bill on June 27, 2017, without amendment. The House of 
Representatives passed the bill on July 11, 2017.
    On July 12, 2017, the bill, H.R. 597 was received in the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On 
April 25, 2018, the Committee held a legislative hearing on the 
bill. On July 11, 2018, the Committee held a duly called 
business meeting to consider H.R. 597. The Committee passed 
H.R. 597 by voice vote and ordered the bill to be favorably 
reported.
    During the 114th Congress, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands 
Act of 2015, H.R. 2538, was introduced by Representatives 
Huffman and Denham on May 21, 2015 and referred to the 
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs of 
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
Representatives. Representative Thompson was added as a co-
sponsor on June 9, 2015.
    The House Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native 
Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 2538 on June 17, 2015. On 
February 2, 2016, the House Subcommittee discharged the bill 
and the full Committee on Natural Resources considered H.R. 
2538 during a mark-up session, at which the bill was ordered to 
be reported, as amended, by unanimous consent. On June 21, 
2016, H.R. 2538 was placed on the Union Calendar where no 
further action was taken on the bill.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title

    This section cites the Act as the ``Lytton Rancheria 
Homelands Act of 2017.''

Sec. 2. Findings

    This section explains the history of Lytton Rancheria, a 
federally recognized tribe, and how they lost their trust 
status and homelands. Through litigation, the Lytton Rancheria 
and other Indian tribes challenged the loss of their trust 
status. In a Stipulated Judgement, the court restored the 
Lytton Rancheria's trust relationship with the United States 
and held that the Tribe would have the ``individual and 
collective status and rights'' it had prior to its termination. 
The Stipulated Judgement expressly contemplated the acquisition 
of trust lands for the Lytton Rancheria.
    While the Findings section, specifically (2)(17), states 
that future ``gaming restrictions between Sonoma County and the 
Tribe will be effective without further review by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs,'' this provision does not furnish the Tribe or 
the County with the authority to modify the restrictions set 
forth in Sections 5 and 6 of this Act, IGRA's requirements, the 
2000 Omnibus, or the subsequent 2001 Amendment.

Sec. 3. Definitions

    This section provides for definitions used throughout the 
Act, including the term ``County'' to mean the Sonoma County, 
California; the term ``Secretary'' to mean the Secretary of the 
Interior; and the term ``Tribe'' to mean the Lytton Rancheria 
of California, a federally recognized Indian tribe.

Sec. 4. Lands to be taken into trust

    This section specifies the land that will be taken into 
trust; the land owned by the Tribe and depicted on the map 
titled ``Lytton Fee Owned Property to be Taken into Trust,'' 
dated May 1, 2015. The land to be taken into trust are part of 
the Lytton Rancheria's reservation and shall be administered in 
accordance with the laws and regulations generally applicable 
to property held in trust by the United States for an Indian 
Tribe.

Sec. 5. Gaming

    This section explains that the lands taken into trust under 
this Act within Sonoma County are not eligible for gaming under 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act until after March 15, 2037. 
Lands located north of a line that runs east and west, defined 
by Highway 12, as it crosses Sonoma County at Highway 101, and 
extending to the furthest extent of Sonoma County that are 
physically on the ground and used for transportation are 
permanently ineligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710).
    This Section does not create a new gaming exception within 
IGRA's existing framework (see 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2719(b)) but 
instead limits the Tribe's ability to conduct gaming in 
accordance with IGRA's existing requirements. Nothing in this 
Section or this Act modifies or supersedes the gaming 
limitations set forth in IGRA, and the Tribe must comply with 
IGRA's requirements in addition to those set forth in this Act, 
the 2000 Omnibus, and the subsequent 2001 Amendment.

Sec. 6. Applicability of certain law

    This section states the Memorandum of Agreement entered 
into by the Lytton Rancheria and the County concerning the 
trust land is not subject to review or approval of the 
Secretary in order to be effective, including review or 
approval under (25 U.S.C. Sec. 81).

                   COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

    The following cost estimate, as provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office, date August 10, 2018, was prepared 
for H.R. 597:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 10, 2018.
Hon. John Hoeven,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 597, the Lytton 
Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
            Sincerely,
                                                Keith Hall,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 597--Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017

    H.R. 597 would take into trust, for the benefit of the 
Lytton Rancheria of California, a federally recognized Indian 
tribe, certain lands located in the County of Sonoma, 
California. The bill would specify certain prohibitions on 
gaming on the affected land, consistent with an existing 
memorandum of understanding between the tribe and the County of 
Sonoma.
    Using information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 597 would have no significant 
effect on the federal budget. CBO estimates that any change in 
the agency's administrative costs under the bill, which would 
be subject to appropriation, would not exceed $500,000 
annually.
    Enacting H.R. 597 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 597 would not increase net direct 
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    H.R. 597 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by 
preempting the authority of state and local governments to tax 
land taken into trust for the Lytton Rancheria. CBO estimates 
the costs of the mandate would be well below the threshold 
established in UMRA ($80 million in 2018, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    H.R. 597 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    On July 5, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
597, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017, as ordered 
reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on June 
27, 2018. The two versions H.R. 597 are similar and CBO's 
estimates of their costs are the same.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Robert Reese 
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The 
estimate was reviewed 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 H.R. 597 will 
have minimal impact on regulatory or paperwork requirements.

                        EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

    The Committee has received no communications from the 
Executive Branch regarding H.R. 597.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    In accordance with Committee Rules, subsection 12 of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate is waived. In the 
opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to dispense with 
subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
to expedite business of the Senate.

                                  [all]
```