[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERRING JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO LAND CLAIMS OF ISLETA PUEBLO

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. JOE SKEEN

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 29, 1996

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to offer 
my thoughts and comments on H.R. 740, the Pueblo of Isleta Indian Land 
Claims Act, which would permit the Pueblo of Isleta to file claims for 
the taking of aboriginal lands under the Indian Claims Commission Act 
of 1951.
  Identical legislation unanimously passed the House in the 102d 
Congress but was not acted on in the Senate. Interestingly then, in the 
103d Congress, the Senate unanimously passed identical legislation but 
it was never acted on by the House. I am hopeful that we will finally 
see this legislation passed by both Chambers in the same session of 
Congress.
  In 1978, another New Mexican Indian tribe sought passage of similar 
legislation. That year, the Congress granted the Zuni tribe an 
extension of the statute of limitations under the Indian Claims 
Commission Act so that they could file their claim in court. This is 
all I seek for the Pueblo of Isleta.
  There is further substantial precedent for this legislation beyond 
the Zuni case mentioned. Also in 1978, legislation was passed into law 
that authorized the Wichita Indian tribe of Oklahoma to file with the 
Indian claims commission. In more recent times, Congress passed special 
legislation allowing the Cow Creek band in Oregon, the Cherokee Nation 
of Oklahoma, the Sioux tribes, and the Blackfeet tribes to file claims 
with the Indian Claims Commission.
  In the Zuni and Isleta cases, the pueblos failed to act under the 
Indian Claims Commission Act because of erroneous advice received from 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Pueblo officials were not informed that a 
claim under the act could be made based on aboriginal use and 
occupancy.
  The Isleta Pueblo has previously filed a very limited claim under 
this act. However, their claim was not based on aboriginal use and 
occupancy. It has been the aboriginal use and occupancy issue which has 
been the basis for a majority of the Indian tribal claims under the 
Indian Claims Commission Act. None has been based on a claim founded on 
specific documentary evidence.
  In addition, this legislation contains a provision for the payment of 
interest, consistent with previously passed legislation. However, it is 
not automatic; it provides that interest may be awarded at the court's 
discretion. It seems to me that the payment of interest is an equitable 
way to compensate the pueblo in lieu of the beneficial use of the land 
by the pueblo since the land was taken by the Government. If the United 
States acts as a supreme sovereign and confiscates land, it necessarily 
violates its fiduciary duty.
  I would like to state that this bill does not support the merits of 
the pueblo's claim which it would lodge in the claims court; it merely 
grants the opportunity for the pueblo to present the merits of its case 
in the appropriate judicial forum.
  Again, I urge your support of this legislation as we finally try to 
correct this longstanding injustice.

                          ____________________