[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 113 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8619-H8620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERRING JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO LAND CLAIMS OF ISLETA PUEBLO

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 740) to confer jurisdiction on the U.S. Court of Federal 
Claims with respect to land claims of Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 740

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. JURISDICTION.

       Nothwithstanding sections 2401 and 2501 of title 28, United 
     States Code, and section 12 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (60 
     Stat. 1052), or any other law which would interpose or 
     support a defense of untimeliness, jurisdiction is hereby 
     conferred upon the United States Court of Federal Claims to 
     hear, determine, and render judgment on any claim by Pueblo 
     of Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico against the United 
     States with respect to any lands or interests therein the 
     State of New Mexico or any adjoining State held by aboriginal 
     title or otherwise which were acquired from the tribe without 
     payment of adequate compensation by the United States. As a 
     matter of adequate compensation, the United States Claims 
     Court may award interest at a rate of five percent per year 
     to accrue from the date on which such lands or interests 
     therein were acquired from the tribe by the United States. 
     Such jurisdiction is conferred only with respect to claims 
     accruing on or before August 13, 1946, and all such claims 
     must be filed within three years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act. Such jurisdiction is conferred notwithstanding 
     any failure of the tribe to exhaust any available 
     administrative remedy.

     SEC. 2. CERTAIN DEFENSES NOT APPLICABLE.

       Any award made to any Indian tribe other than the Pueblo of 
     Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act under any judgment of the 
     Indian Claims Commission or any other authority with respect 
     to any lands that are the subject of a claim submitted by the 
     tribe under section 1 shall not be considered a defense, 
     estopped, or set-off to such claim, and shall not otherwise 
     affect the entitlement to, or amount of, any relief with 
     respect to such claim.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H8620]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 740, introduced by the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Schiff] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] would permit 
the Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe to file a claim in the U.S. Court of 
Federal Claims for certain aboriginal lands acquired from the tribe by 
the United States. The tribe was erroneously advised by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs in regard to this claim, and as a result never filed a 
claim for aboriginal lands before the expiration of the statute of 
limitations.
  The court's jurisdiction would apply only to claims accruing on or 
before August 13, 1946, as provided in the Indian Claims Commission 
Act.
  The Pueblo of Isleta Tribe seeks the opportunity to present the 
merits of its aboriginal land claims, which otherwise would be barred 
as untimely. The tribe cites numerous precedents for conferring 
jurisdiction under similar circumstances, such as the case of the Zuni 
Indian Tribe in 1978.
  An identical bill passed the Senate in the 103d Congress, but was not 
considered by the House. In the 102d Congress, H.R. 1206, amended to 
the current language, passed the House, but was not considered by the 
Senate before adjournment. On June 11, 1996, the Judiciary Committee 
favorably reported this bill by unanimous voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the bill has been explained that was introduced 
by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. It is a fair bill, and I would just urge 
colleagues to support it at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my strong support for 
H.R. 740 which deals with the Pueblo of Isleta Indian land claims. H.R. 
740 comes before Congress for a vote which will correct a 45-year-old 
injustice. In 1951, the Pueblo of Isleta was given erroneous advice by 
employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs regarding the nature of the 
claim the Pueblo could mount under the Indian Claims Commission Act of 
1946. This is documented and supported by testimony. The Pueblo was not 
made aware of the fact that a land claim could be made based upon 
aboriginal use and occupancy. As a result, it lost the opportunity to 
make such a claim.
  The Pueblo of Isleta was a victim of circumstances beyond its 
control, and this bill is an opportunity for us to correct this wrong. 
No expenditure or appropriations of funds are provided for in this 
bill: only the opportunity for the Pueblo to make a claim for 
aboriginal lands which the Isletas believe to be rightfully theirs. 
This bill may be the last chance for the United States to correct an 
injustice which occurred many years ago because of misinformation from 
the BIA.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 740.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 740.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________