[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7507-H7521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            GUADALUPE-HIDALGO TREATY LAND CLAIMS ACT OF 1998

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 522, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 522

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2538) to establish a Presidential commission 
     to determine the validity of certain land claims arising out 
     of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848 involving the 
     descendants of persons who were Mexican citizens at the time 
     of the treaty. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the 
     bill for failure to comply with section 303(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the 
     bill, modified by striking the last two sentences of 
     subsection (c) of section 6. Each section of that amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 522 is an open 
rule providing 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources.
  The rule waives points of order against the consideration of the bill 
for failure to comply with section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974. The rule makes in order as an original bill for purposes 
of amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, as modified, and 
considered as read.
  The rule further permits the Chair to accord priority in recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record and considers them as read.
  In addition, the rule allows the Chair to postpone recorded votes and 
reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
postponed votes, provided voting time on the first in a series of 
questions shall be not less than 5 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2538 establishes the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty 
Land Claims Commission to review petitions from eligible descendants 
regarding the validity of certain land claims in New Mexico arising 
from the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848.
  In order to be eligible for consideration under this act, petitions 
by eligible descendants must be filed within 5 years of the bill's 
enactment.
  This legislation was reported by the Committee on Resources by voice 
vote on May 20, 1998. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 
implementing the bill will cost approximately $1 million per year over 
the fiscal year 1999-2003 period. The bill may affect direct spending, 
so pay-as-you-go procedures will apply. However, CBO estimates that any 
such effects will total less than $500,000 per year.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation is sponsored by our colleague the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) representative and was 
originally introduced by our former colleague, the Honorable Bill 
Richardson. It is strongly supported by the New Mexico delegation and, 
accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and 
H.R. 2538.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and urge my 
colleagues to support it so that all potential improvements to this 
legislation may be considered.
  The underlying bill establishes a presidential commission to make 
recommendations to resolve land claims in New Mexico by descendants of 
people who were Mexican citizens when the treaty ending the Mexican-
American War was signed in 1848.
  The bill also authorizes the establishment of a research center to 
assist the commission and authorizes $1 million annually in fiscal year 
1999 through fiscal year 2007 for the purpose of carrying out the 
activities of the commission and the center.
  Opponents of the bill argue that it contains numerous flaws and fails 
to deal with the substantive questions raised by the land claims and 
opens the door to numerous future land claims. The bill fails to 
specify exactly which lands in New Mexico are eligible for 
consideration, since portions of New Mexico were acquired in the 
Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, as well as the Treaty of 
Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
  Furthermore, the treaty covered all or parts of several other Western 
States. Thus, the bill also opens the door to numerous potential land 
claims down the road in all of these other States.
  The bill contains no legal standards or rules of evidence by which 
the commission is to judge any claim that is brought forth. As a quasi-
judicial body, there are potential conflicts of interest in having 
eligible descendants serving as members of the commission, and with the 
commission being able to accept gifts, especially from those who may 
benefit from the commission's decisions.

[[Page H7508]]

  Finally, the bill neglects existing legal precedent. Since the 
ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848, more than 200 
Federal, State, and district court decisions have interpreted the 
treaty, with the Supreme Court deciding almost half the major cases. 
Several laws also were enacted in the 19th century to address such 
claims.
  In addition, there have been subsequent agreements with Mexico that 
have addressed treaty claims. This bill ignores this body of law and 
legal decisions and reopens land grants to commission review.
  Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, I will support this open rule to allow 
the full debate of the legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the 
Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Act. I want to commend my 
colleague the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) for bringing this 
important matter to the attention of Congress. It is a remarkable 
accomplishment on his part, especially as a freshman Member of this 
body.
  This bill rights a wrong, Madam Speaker. After annexing New Mexico 
from Mexico, our government failed to honor the commitments it made in 
the Treaty of 1848 to respect the property rights of landowners. Many 
Mexicans who became American citizens as a result of the treaty lost 
all right and title to much of their lands.
  This bill takes the first step to right this wrong that was committed 
by the Government. It restores land the Federal Government had taken 
from individuals. This is a property rights issue in its most pure and 
simple form. Citizens should be compensated for property that is 
wrongfully taken from them.
  The bill also protects the property rights of current landowners in 
New Mexico. Any compensation to affected parties will come from Federal 
lands.
  This bill has been carefully crafted and will not allow for Federal 
land to be handed to any person who simply asks for it. The bill sets 
up a commission and any claims have to be presented to the commission 
and the legal claim must be proven. Then the commission will make 
recommendations to Congress for final consideration. The bill lays out 
a fair process for all claims to be heard.
  This legislation represents what is best about America: fairness, 
equality, and opportunity. It seeks to right the wrongs of the past. It 
says the rule of law will prevail and prevail over us all equally.
  I cannot count the number of times I have stood before my colleagues 
on the House floor and argued for property rights of landowners across 
this country. I stand here again in support of property rights and 
encourage my colleagues to do the same and support this important piece 
of legislation.
  Once again, I want to commend my friend the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Redmond) for working so diligently to ensure this bill is 
considered by Congress. He has worked every day since he has been 
elected to support this issue that is supported strongly by people in 
his congressional district and from areas that are outside his 
congressional district as well. It is very important to New Mexicans 
that we pass this rule and this bill, and I hope that the rest of my 
colleagues see fit to vote for the rule and for the bill.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
  Mr. GANSKE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the open rule, but I 
rise in reluctant opposition to the legislation. I appreciate the hard 
work that my colleague from New Mexico has done on this bill, but I 
believe the bill creates a larger problem than it solves.
  The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo between the United States and the 
Republic of Mexico was signed in 1848. Since then, over 150 years ago, 
more than 200 Federal and state decisions have interpreted the treaty. 
Even the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, has had the 
opportunity to review multiple land claims related to the treaty. In 
fact, the large number of claims in new Mexico arising from the treaty 
led to the establishment of a court of private land claims in 1891. 
This bill disregards 150 years of case law history and empowers a 
quasi-judicial commission to revisit all land claims arising from the 
treaty, even if our own judicial system has thoroughly reviewed and 
adjudicated the claim.
  What sort of precedent would this be setting? Maybe we should expand 
the commission's scope so that all land claims arising out of any 
treaty can be reopened by the commission. Should we, for example, 
provide an avenue for disgruntled Americans who feel the Louisiana 
Purchase violated their ancestors' rights? Where is the logical 
stopping point?
  For Congress to best serve the potential claimants, we must demand 
those empowered to determine the merit of land claims utilize the tools 
already developed within the judicial branch.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Speaker, I think that we have got to remember that 
the United States signed a treaty with the people of Mexico. This 
treaty specifically required that Mexican nationals who are in the 
territory to be annexed by the United States make a decision, a 
decision to either pack up and go to Mexico and retain their Mexican 
citizenship and to abandon their property in the U.S., or to stay in 
the United States and, as the treaty states, take on the embodiment of 
the people of the United States, take on the obligations of the culture 
and the citizenship of the United States.
  With that responsibility, to take on the obligations of citizens of 
United States, came the rights that were vested by all American 
citizens, either born or nationalized or converted through the Treaty 
of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
  We are talking about the fact that we need to address the fact that 
with the responsibilities that the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo required 
these Mexican nationals to take on came the rights of American 
citizens, the right to be able to have property rights, to be able to 
have due process.
  Let us be very frank about that: It was a very, very tough time to 
try to figure out how a nation could absorb such a huge area as the 
Mexican cessation. And let us be frank about that; justice and property 
rights were violated again and again, as it does in any country.
  We are not immune from those problems. I would just ask that we 
support the gentleman from New Mexico's bill, but let us support this 
rule, let us address it and debate it, but also talk about the fact 
that with the responsibilities of citizenship comes the rights of 
property protection. Those rights were not always guaranteed, and need 
to be addressed.
  This is a chance for this Congress to revisit this issue, to address 
it, and then to be able to say is it or is it not appropriate that we 
move on from now on. I think, Madam Speaker, this is an issue of 
property rights, but it is also an issue of human rights. If we expect 
those nationals and their ancestors to bear the responsibilities of 
citizenship, they should have the rights.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 522 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2538.

                              {time}  1136


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page H7509]]

House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2538) to establish a Presidential commission to determine the validity 
of certain land claims arising out of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
of 1848 involving the descendants of persons who were Mexican citizens 
at the time of the Treaty, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen)
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2538, introduced by the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Redmond), would establish a commission to examine the 
validity of certain land grants in New Mexico arising under the Treaty 
of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
  H.R. 2538 is a very important piece of legislation. We have ample 
evidence that the United States has failed in its obligation to defend 
the property rights of a group of people in the State of New Mexico, 
yet the U.S. Government has ignored this grave injustice for over 150 
years.
  Hispanic descendants have been fighting for over 150 years to get the 
Federal Government to look into that matter, to get someone to bring 
this matter before Congress. Well, it has finally happened. Since he 
was elected last year, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) has 
worked tirelessly to restore the property rights to these people from 
New Mexico and to bring this matter to everyone's attention. So before 
I explain H.R. 2538, I would just like to commend the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) for working so hard to finally bring this 
important matter to the floor of the United States Congress.
  Madam Chairman, in 1848 the United States signed the Treaty of 
Guadalupe-Hidalgo with Mexico. Under this treaty, Mexico sold the 
United States the lands that now compromise California, Nevada, Utah, 
Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Wyoming. At that time 
there were several communities of Mexican citizens living in what is 
now the State of New Mexico who were living on community land grants 
given to them by the King of Spain. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
contained a provision that guaranteed that the United States would 
respect these people's property rights. Yet, over the next few years, 
this section of the treaty was totally ignored. Ultimately, most of 
these lands ended up in the hands of the Federal Government, the same 
government that signed the treaty and guaranteed the protection of 
these property rights.
  H.R. 2538 would establish a five member commission to examine the 
validity of petition community land grant claims filed by eligible 
descendants. Once the commission finishes its research, it will submit 
its finding to the President and to Congress. Congress will then decide 
how to proceed.
  I want to emphasize, this is only a commission. The only power this 
commission would have would be to look into the validity of these 
community land grant claims and then to make recommendations to the 
Congress. These recommendations would be nonbinding and would have no 
legal effect, unless Congress decides to act on them in subsequent 
legislation.
  Madam Chairman, as I have said, H.R. 2538 is very important. There is 
substantial evidence that these people have been deprived of property 
rights that are by treaty rightfully theirs. We have an obligation to 
look into that matter. I think the provisions of this legislation are 
the best way to do this. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2538.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Madam Chairman I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2538. This poorly-
drafted piece of legislation does a disservice to the important issues 
involved here. This bill is also a very controversial measure which the 
administration strongly opposes.
  No one can tell us how many potential land grants or claims there may 
be or what Federal, state or private lands would be affected by this 
bill. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo covered all parts of present day 
California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming and 
Utah. We are creating here a new standard for the consideration of 
treaty claims in every one of those states. Although this legislation 
is limited to New Mexico, clearly the standard here has potential to be 
exercised with respect to those states, and it is a very poor standard 
and could proliferate and affect current land ownership in every one of 
those states.
  H.R. 2538 contains no legal standard or rules of evidence for the 
commission to apply. We have no idea as to the quality or the amount of 
evidence available in support of or to disprove these claims. This 
Congress certainly should be sensitive to the very real concerns about 
the conflict of interest involving who would serve on the commission 
charged with reviewing the claims. Should this quasi-judicial body 
include eligible descendants who might have issues before the 
commission? Should a commission charged with considering such sensitive 
and potentially inflammatory issues be allowed to receive gifts, 
especially from those who may benefit from the commission's decisions?
  While the rule for H.R. 2538 includes a self-executing amendment to 
strike the provision on the taxability of gifts to the commission, this 
correction fails to address the underlying problems of such gifts and 
potential conflicts of interest and the beneficiaries of the rulings of 
the commission that those gifts raise.
  Members should be aware that this bill deals not only with claims 
involving the Federal Government, but also claims involving actions of 
private parties and claims involving actions of a private party and a 
local government. This opens up the Federal Government to potentially 
hundreds of millions of dollars in liability for actions that we were 
never a part of. We were never a party to these actions, and yet this 
legislation is asking us to open up the Federal Treasury to those 
actions.
  Why does this bill permit claims against Federal forest and other 
Federal assets to compensate for actions taken by state and local 
government or private parties? If state and local governments took 
actions which prejudice these individuals, which put these people at a 
disadvantage, then state and local governments ought to compensate 
these people, not the Federal Government. If private parties did this, 
then private parties ought to compensate these people, not the Federal 
Government.
  We are Uncle Sam, we are not Uncle Sucker, and this legislation 
suggests that we are the latter.
  This bill represents a very serious challenge to private property 
rights, which I find surprising coming from those who frequently assert 
the primacy of such rights when dealing with other legislation. In 
committee we attempted to limit the applicability of this act to public 
lands, but the majority defeated that amendment. So, under this bill, 
claims can be made against lands that are in private ownership, that 
have been in private ownership for generations. If claims against 
privately-held lands is upheld, once again the Federal Government is 
called upon to parcel out public resources to compensate the claimant, 
even though the Federal Government does not own the disputed land and 
may not have been involved in all of the actions that deprived the 
claimants' ancestors of the land.
  So, once again, in a dispute between two private individuals, the 
remedy here is to reach your hand into the Federal treasury, into the 
taxpayers' pocket, and suggest that we compensate those individuals, 
even though we were not involved in those proceedings.
  For those who do not think this bill will affect private property, I 
suggest you look again. Allowing land claim petitions to include 
private lands will cloud the title of those private properties. What 
will be the response of a title insurance company or a lending 
institution to private land that the commission has under review?

                              {time}  1145

  Who suggests for a moment that that property right is going to be 
insured or

[[Page H7510]]

the transfer of that land can take place or that money can be borrowed 
on that, given whatever the needs are of the owners of those lands?
  Title insurance, lending institutions, insist upon clear title. Once 
the commission has made a determination that there is potentially a 
valid claim, that claim can languish for many years and that property 
owner can be prejudiced during that entire process awaiting the 
determination of Congress.
  Let me say this, that these treaty claims are not new. There have 
been more than 200 court decisions involving the treaty, with the U.S. 
Supreme Court having decided almost half of the major cases. Nor has 
the Congress ignored the issue. In fact, Congress has dealt with these 
claims on several occasions, including passage of the 1891 Act that 
established the Court of Private Land Claims to deal specifically with 
land claims in New Mexico. As a result of these laws, 504 claims were 
confirmed by the Congress while hundreds of spurious, forged, antedated 
claims were dismissed.
  H.R. 2538 ignores this body of law, ignores these legal decisions, 
ignores the determinations of the Congress and reopens hundreds of 
these claims, hundreds of these claims, to new review by this 
commission.
  Madam Chairman, the interest of the public and many private parties, 
including any potential claimants, have been poorly served by this 
legislation. This is a politically inspired piece of legislation that 
is far from expediting the judicious review of legitimate claims. It 
will provoke a division and bias because the bill is so poorly drafted.
  H.R. 2538 represents a threat to private property, contains 
unwarranted conflicts of interest provisions, will cost the Federal 
taxpayers potentially hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars 
for actions that were taken by others, including State and local 
officials.
  Lastly, let me remind every Member that this legislation initially 
was written not to cover just New Mexico but also California, Texas, 
Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming and Utah. If this flawed legislation 
is enacted, you can bet that the House will be called upon to pass 
similar legislation in these other States affecting millions of our 
constituents and raising justifiable concerns about their property 
rights and holdings.
  So this is not a free vote. It is a precedent that will come back to 
haunt us and to haunt our constituents and to haunt the Federal 
Treasury. So I urge that the House reject this piece of legislation.
  Finally, let me say this, that there is nothing that prevents people 
from filing these claims, from filing these claims against properties, 
and then simply waiting around for a financial settlement, because what 
you have done is you have impeded a person's ability to freely transfer 
their private property, to freely mortgage their private property, to 
pass it on to their heirs, to use it how they will, and then you simply 
wait for a financial settlement.
  There is no shortage of people, as we have seen in every one of these 
efforts, there is no shortage of people that make that decision that 
this is just a matter of raising enough obstructions, filing enough 
lawsuits, and the minute there is success here, if in fact there is 
success, then we will move on to these other States and we will be 
called upon to set up similar commissions and make the Federal 
taxpayers and the Federal Treasury a party to proceedings, to perhaps 
injustices, that they were never a part to.
  This is a Federal remedy for an action that the Federal Government 
was not involved in. I think we are about to repeat a very sad history 
and we are about to do a serious injustice to Federal taxpayers and a 
serious injustice to many private landowners that have believed, and 
properly so, that the title to their land was settled many, many 
generations ago. They once again now are all going to be exposed to 
this legal problem.
  You will not be able to answer this by walking in and just putting 
down your claim and saying, this is my property, it was my father's 
property, my grandmother's property and so forth. You will have to go 
out, get yourself an attorney, start that process, and a lot of people 
are going to find themselves in a position of jeopardy through no fault 
of their own, through no fault of the Federal Government, through no 
fault of their ancestors, but they will simply have to remove that 
cloud from their property. I do not think that is an action that this 
Federal Government ought to sanction.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time.
  Madam Chairman, I have been very impressed, since the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) arrived in this chamber, with his 
extraordinary perseverance and leadership on the issue of redress for 
what is, yes, a historic injustice but it is nevertheless an injustice.
  One of the characteristics that I think speak very highly of the 
people of the United States of America is that Americans redress and 
rectify injustice, even when it is historic, and even when it is an 
injustice of generations ago. It is without doubt, it can be without 
doubt, that at the end of the war between the United States and Mexico, 
many of the rights that were given by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
to the citizens who were previously Mexican citizens and then became 
American citizens, many of the rights that were given to them under 
that treaty were not complied with.
  What the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) is seeking to do in 
this historic legislation is not to give the Commission that this 
legislation is creating any judicial powers, but it is authorizing this 
commission to review and make recommendations to Congress with regard 
to precisely any historic injustices that have not been redressed and 
have not been remedied.
  So I think we owe a debt of gratitude to this representative, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond), who so courageously and with 
great leadership is bringing this matter to the floor. I commend him 
again.
  This is an extremely important matter, Madam Chairman. The reality of 
the matter is that these citizens, these citizens who became Americans 
virtually overnight, many of them at the time, nearly 80,000, their 
rights were not always protected. And it is many of the descendents of 
those citizens who have long maintained that the United States did not 
fulfill the obligations under the treaty and that the Mexicans who 
became American citizens lost their rights and their titles to much of 
their property.
  That is why an analysis of this situation, a thorough study has to be 
done. That is why this commission is an important idea, and that is why 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) has to be congratulated and 
supported for his leadership, and we must all support this legislation 
today.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this measure. It 
was stated on the floor that this issue has gone unresolved for 150 
years, and in fact, of course, I think most of us recognize in the 
Mexican-American War that occurred in the middle of the last century 
that there was an issue here of equity and land claims that did persist 
after that conflict. But the fact is that in a letter from the 
Department of State, they point out, and did point out to the 
committee, that there had been a 1941 settlement between Mexico and the 
United States, and I would just quote from it:

       The United States of America and the United Mexican States 
     reciprocally cancel, renounce and hereby declare satisfied 
     all claims of whatever nature of nationals of each country 
     against the government of the other which arose prior to the 
     date of the signing of this convention, whether or not filed, 
     or formally or informally presented to either of the two 
     governments.

  So the implication that this has not been addressed is not taking 
into consideration the fact that there has been this settlement based 
on the initial treaty.
  There have been numerous questions raised with regard to this. Some 
of these claims would be as much as 150 years old. The fact is that 
this legislation before us that charges this responsibility to I 
believe a 5-member commission has no legal standards that

[[Page H7511]]

they need follow, rules of evidence for the commission to apply to the 
decisionmaking, rights to be afforded to third parties whose property 
rights might be affected, and finally, no judicial review of the 
court's decisions.
  Now, some have suggested that this is only a study. The Commission is 
not only doing a study. We are giving them various types of subpoena 
power, various authorities and status. It does not take much of an 
understanding of law to recognize that once these findings are made, 
that they are going to establish legal clouded title over many lands in 
New Mexico. I think that once we do that, we set that up as a legal 
point, a point of argument that will be made and indeed will cloud 
title of public and private property in New Mexico and the other seven 
States.
  I can speak of that particular problem, because it has occurred with 
regards to Native American lands in my own State of Minnesota. We had 
to pass legislation to try and rectify that after it occurred. That is 
exactly what this legislation does.
  Now, of course, this legislation and the treaty apply to California, 
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Wyoming, and Utah. The 
legislation before us suggests only that it applies to New Mexico. 
Well, is there any doubt that what we are establishing here as 
standards will become precedent once this commission makes its 
findings? Are we going to deny the same sort of treatment to land 
claims that might arise in Texas or in other States? I mean we are 
setting and establishing standards.
  The fact is that this is a flawed, a very flawed measure in terms of 
resolving this issue. If Congress has this interest and want to resolve 
this matter, then rather than delegating this to a commission, we ought 
to bring these matters to the Congress in terms of oversight and find 
greater substance to these matters before we send such long-term 
problem to a commission.
  In terms of a sense of a solution, this is flawed and should not be 
acted on. Obviously the State Department has voiced concerns about it. 
There should be concerns because of the clouded titles that this would 
create, the precedent that it sets up, and a variety of other problems 
that arise with regards to this legislation. That there are feelings 
and concerns about what happened to various land claims that grew out 
of the Mexican-American War, there can be no doubt. But there has been 
an effort, an effort 57 years ago, to resolve that problem which is 
being resurrected in 1998 without any clear policy path that is 
established as to how this will be resolved in the end, as to what the 
obligation is and whose obligation.
  This could expose the United States, at the very least, to exchanging 
lands, to greater uncertainty, and certainly to hundreds of millions, 
if not billions of dollars of liability that would grow out of a flawed 
system, a commission-type of system with judicial-types of significant 
powers to use the mail to do a variety of things that can, in fact, and 
would, in fact, be presented to Congress as a predicate for action.
  I just think that this is the wrong way to go at this point. I think 
this needs a lot more study and review by the committee rather than the 
brief hearings that they have had, and then the perfunctory 
consideration on the floor here today when it has been put ahead of 
another bill which most of us thought was going to be considered first.
  I think the bill deserves to be rejected. I will not offer the 
amendments on property rights and other amendments that were offered in 
committee today. I just do not think it is possible to improve this 
bill. The predicate for it is wrong. This is not the way to go. The 
Members ought to reject this. It will expose, and many in these States 
apparently have little regard for the Federal lands that might be in 
those States that would be used. I just think it is a very disruptive 
process. I think it could invite the same sort of precedent with 
regards to Native American issues, and certainly with regards to these 
other States that are excluded from this, and that we should really 
think twice before we vote on this.
  Madam Chairman, this deserves to be defeated and brought back up and 
considered in a more deliberate manner.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Chairman, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was not just a treaty 
between two nations, it was a treaty between the United States and 
individuals that we required to make a choice within a year either to 
be Mexican citizens or U.S. citizens.
  In that contract that we signed called the Treaty of Guadalupe-
Hidalgo, we said there were going to be certain rights that the Federal 
Government would uphold. One of those rights was the right to be able 
to retain their property based on appropriate deed evidence.
  The trouble is, Madam Chairman, the fact is that there were a whole 
lot of false documents written up. Deeding was made right and left by 
the Mexican Governors while the U.S. occupational forces were coming 
on. Sadly about this, those who had a paper in their hand to be able to 
claim rights were usually those who had just gotten a deed from their 
buddy who happened to be the Governor, but those who were families like 
the family who owned Rancho at the Point had been there, the oldest 
ranch in one part of this territory, that had totally been forgotten 
because they did not have a deed because their father and grandfather 
had owned this property. They did not hold the deed, to have a piece of 
paper.
  The fact is, as so often, in the process those who had been the 
scallywags, they had deeds given to them, technically illegally by a 
Governor in the last minutes of the retention of the Mexican 
government; they were given deeds, while those who had been long-term 
owners did not have that piece of paper that the American courts 
recognize. So those deeds and that evidence was not in hand by the 
descendants at that time.
  Let me remind Members, this contract is not just those who owned 
property at that time. It states, ``* * * and with their heirs.'' And 
with their heirs, it is the fact that at that time they did not have a 
piece of paper. Today we have the ability to go into Seville, to go 
into Madrid, and find the original documents of deed that were not 
available historically in many ways. In fact, there are many historical 
documents we are just discovering now in the Mexican archives, or in 
the Spanish archives.
  The fact is, there was another negative, Madam Chair. Many grants 
were not recognized strictly because they were along the frontier with 
Mexico, and there was a concern about what was perceived as a Mexican 
threat, that deeds were not granted Mexican or ex-Mexican citizens 
because of the proximity to the border. We need to rectify that. I 
support the bill.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I would just point out that if this is such an important bill that 
needs to be rectified, why are seven of the eight States that are 
affected being excluded from this particular bill?
  This commission is going to be set up for 10 years, it is going to 
get $1 million a year and then it is going to make the recommendations 
to Congress. I think the idea is that we intend to place some credence 
in what it is doing. Yet, the procedures that are followed are flawed. 
The concept only addresses itself to one State.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) rose to talk about the 
injustices that are occurring here, but apparently they are only 
important as they apply to the treaty areas in New Mexico, not to 
Arizona, not to California, not to Texas, not to the other five states.
  I understand there is some concern about it, but if we set up a 
procedure that is flawed, if we set up a commission with all sorts of 
dollars and with no procedure, well, can we trust, and it is it really 
a leap of faith in terms of saying this commission is going to provide 
the answer? There is no provision for conflict of interest for the 
members that belong to the commission, or would be appointed to it. 
That could very well be the case. I just think we have a bill that 
needs a lot more work.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7512]]

  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, it is interesting, because 
we set up a commission that is going to make these judgments. It is no 
skin off their tail, because all they are doing is handing out public 
lands and Federal assets to solve what they perceive to be a problem.
  So whether or not the claim is valid or just or what have you, it 
really does not matter to them because it is not coming out of their 
pocket. They are just coming, and if private parties injured one 
another or local governments injured one another, if the commission 
finds that to be the case, they just hand out a Federal remedy. They 
hand out Federal assets. It is an incredible process. This is like if 
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I get into a fight, and 
whichever one of us loses, we pay them by dipping into your pocket. It 
does not make any sense. You were not a party to the fight.
  I can understand if people want to limit this to where the Federal 
Government was a party to the situation here, but that is not what this 
bill does. This bill makes the Federal Government liable for the 
actions of a lot of other people and entities that the Federal 
Government was not a party to.
  It is just incredible that we would allow people to go around and 
make a raid on the Treasury of the United States based upon actions 
that the Federal Government was not a party to. I thank the gentleman 
for raising that.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, we are giving this commission the dollars 
and I do not think the proper guidance. It is actually seven out of 
eight States that are not included in this, only the State of New 
Mexico is the focus. This is a 10-year commission we are setting up.
  Fundamentally, this is $10 million in new spending. There are no 
additional dollars here being recognized that this is going to cost the 
State Department, this is going to cost the land management agencies, 
in order to try and deal with this. This is just the tip of the 
iceberg, the $10 million that is placed in this bill that is authorized 
by this bill. We can double or triple that particular amount, and we 
are basing it on a flawed supposition in terms of the charge we are 
giving to this particular commission.
  Also, we are only dealing with one State, so we can probably multiply 
that number by eight or ten times in terms of the commissions that are 
going to have to be established based on this bill. We are looking at a 
bill that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, just in 
terms of the judicial process, no doubt about that and that will just 
be for attorneys and legal redtape.
  One of the ways to cut through this is by dealing with the clouded 
titles, but we do not have that solution. I think that proposition 
ought to be before the committee, before the Committee on Resources, 
before other committees of this body, not delegated to a commission 
that Congress will have little or no control over in the final 
analysis. These may be appointed by Clinton, they may be appointed by 
subsequent executives. We have little control over this type of 
commission in terms of what happens and what they might report. We do 
not even deal with the conflict of interest issues with regard to these 
individual Members that may have such conflicts of interest in some of 
these lands that affect themselves.
  This is an invitation to problems. This bill, if it is such a 
wonderful bill, would apply to all eight of the States. They will not 
do that because they cannot, because the issue is the costs of this, 
the costs would be too wide, and the scope of the problem is too great. 
Why would this commission only be limited to New Mexico? I cannot 
understand that other than as a means of damage control.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Heather Wilson).
  Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer some of the questions 
put by my colleagues from California and Minnesota. The fact is that 
the reason that this applies to New Mexico is because the bulk, the 
vast bulk of these land grants are in New Mexico. That is where, for 
150 years, there has been a simmering dispute and bad feeling among the 
citizens of the State of New Mexico about the taking of lands.
  We are now celebrating this year the 400th anniversary of the 
settlement of the Southwest by Spain. It was only 250 years later that 
that part of what is now the United States became part of the United 
States. I believe that this bill is about justice, it is about saying 
to the people of the State of New Mexico that America keeps its 
promises, that we provide ways to redress grievances, and that we will 
consider the facts and the claims on the merits, and do what is right 
and what is just. It requires congressional action for any land to be 
transferred.
  All this commission does is look at the facts, take the evidence, 
evidence which people from New Mexico, from my district and from my 
colleagues' districts, have been asking people to look at for over 100 
years. That is fair and just, and I want to commend my colleague from 
northern New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) for his persistence and diligence and 
determination to bring this bill to the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2583, a 
bill which establishes a presidential commission to make 
recommendations to resolve land claims in New Mexico, and quite 
possibly other States, by descendents of people who were Mexican 
citizens when the treaty ended the Mexican war. It was signed in 1848.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2538 sets up a presidential commission out of this 
Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and obviously for the claimants and their 
supporters this is a matter of considerable interest. However, I 
believe we saw from our hearing that we held in the subcommittee this 
bill needs anything but a simple answer. There are many questions that 
need answering.
  As we learned from the hearings that were held previously in the 
subcommittee, we do not know how many potential land grants or claims 
there may be. Since portions of New Mexico were acquired in the 
Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, and the Treaty of 
Guadalupe-Hidalgo, we do not know exactly what parts of the State are 
affected by this legislation.
  Since, also, this bill deals solely with New Mexico, we do not know 
if there are claims in other States covered by the treaty. Further, the 
lands in question may include numerous tracts in private as well as 
public ownership, and may even include parts of some Indian pueblos or 
reservations.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New 
Mexico as the chief sponsor of this legislation, but given the fact 
that the administration does not support this legislation, the 
questions still abound concerning this piece of legislation. If we 
establish a commission for New Mexico, let us establish a commission 
for Texas, for Colorado, or other States that were formerly part of 
Mexico after this treaty was signed.
  I believe there are still problems with this legislation, and we 
ought not to support it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this settlement of the treaty that is 57 
years old I would just point out has never been successfully legally 
challenged in court. I am talking about the clouded titles that 
occurred with Native American lands, because there was a clouded title 
issue with regard to Native American lands. The courts found that. The 
courts did that. We came back.
  The reason we did that, and I want the chairman of the subcommittee 
to listen to me, and others, is because we found that after the early 
1900s, not 150 years back, just about 80 years back, we found all the 
money was going to be spent on attorneys in terms of subdividing these 
lands and the types of claims and processes that we have to go through. 
That is what the gentleman is funding here, they are funding that type 
of analysis.

[[Page H7513]]

  I am sure there are inequities that have occurred, none that have 
successfully challenged the treaty. What the gentleman is setting in 
motion here is a situation where the attorneys and the various land 
management agencies are going to have to spend an extraordinary amount 
of money with regard to resolving this.
  Instead of spending the money in terms of resolving the problem, if 
we discover there is a problem, it is going to be spending $1 million 
on this commission, and I would say an extraordinary amount of money 
just in establishing these, because the descendents from 150 years ago 
are going to be into the thousands today. They are going to be into the 
thousands of individuals that are going to be making claims in New 
Mexico and some of these other States. That is literally where we are 
spending the money.
  As I said, there has never been a successful legal challenge for 
this, so what is the predicate for why we are doing this? There is 
none. There have been court cases after court cases that have tried to 
challenge this for the last 60 years and have not, but only the 
Congress can step in and screw things up this badly. That is why this 
bill ought to be defeated.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, the essence of my strongest 
reservation in opposition to this legislation is that given the fact 
that New Mexico is not the only State affected, and if we are going to 
set up a presidential commission for New Mexico, let us do it for other 
States that were part of Mexico when this treaty was signed in 1848.
  The another concern I have is that the bill fails to specify which 
lands are eligible for consideration. There are no legal standards or 
rules of evidence by which the commission is to judge any claims 
presented. The members of the commission are not prohibited from 
accepting gifts, and the United States government could end up being 
involved in land claims between private parties.
  While I am concerned also with any wrongs which may have been 
perpetuated by the United States government, these problems have been 
addressed many times in the past. I am not satisfied that this 
legislation could provide any new worthwhile information. At this time, 
Mr. Speaker, this bill would create expectations which I do not believe 
Congress has any intention of honestly considering.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will yield further, I said there were a 
number of cases. Since 1948, more than 200 Federal, State, and district 
court cases occurred. There have been more than 200 Federal, State, and 
district court decisions that have interpreted the treaty. The U.S. 
Supreme Court has decided almost half of the major cases involving the 
treaty.
  Several laws were enacted in the 19th century to address this, and of 
course we have talked about the treaty that was adopted some 57 years 
ago in the 1940s, so there have been 200.
  I will place in the Record, Mr. Chairman, the letter from the State 
Department and this list of U.S. court cases interpreting the treaty. I 
would just point out, 200 court cases, and none of them have 
established this particular precedent that this Congress is apparently 
hellbent on establishing.
  The material referred to is as follows:


                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 1998.
     Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,
     Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, Committee on 
         Resources, House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Faleomavaega: I am writing in response to a letter 
     of March 16, 1998 from Subcommittee Chairman James Hansen 
     inviting a representative of the Department to testify at a 
     hearing on H.R. 2538, the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land 
     Claims Act of 1997. We appreciate the Subcommittee's 
     invitation and regret that Department officials were unable 
     to attend the hearing. This letter provides the Department's 
     views on H.R. 2538.
       H.R. 2538 would create a Presidential commission to 
     determine the validity of certain land claims of descendants 
     of Mexican citizens. The claims in question assert that U.S. 
     federal and/or state officials confiscated land from Mexican 
     nationals or their descendants in violation of the 1848 
     Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
       The Department opposes H.R. 2538.
       First, some or all of the claims at issue may already have 
     been fully and finally settled as part of a 1941 Claims 
     Settlement Agreement between the United States and Mexico. 
     That agreement provides, with exceptions not relevant here, 
     that
       ``The United States of America and the United Mexican 
     States . . . reciprocally cancel, renounce, and hereby 
     declare satisfied all claims, of whatever nature, of 
     nationals of each country against the Government of the 
     other, which arose prior to the date of the signing of this 
     Convention, whether or not filed, formulated or presented, 
     formally or informally, to either of the two Governments . . 
     .''

     This agreement discharged the United States of any liability 
     it may have had with respect to any claims which arose prior 
     to November 19, 1941 alleging infringement of the property of 
     Mexican nationals referred to in the Treaty of Guadalupe-
     Hidalgo. To the extent that the claims at issue in H.R. 2538 
     were covered by the Claims Settlement Agreement, the United 
     States has no further obligations to the claimants in 
     question and further consideration of the claims by a 
     commission is unnecessary.
       Second, the age of the claims in question, some of which 
     are as many as 150 years old, makes it unlikely that the 
     amount and quality of available evidence will be sufficient 
     to permit the commission rationally to determine the validity 
     of individual claims. In particular, the bill does not 
     specifically address legal standards or rules of evidence for 
     the commission to apply to its decision making, rights to be 
     afforded third parties whose property rights might be 
     affected, or judicial review of the commission's decisions. 
     Enactment, therefore, could exacerbate and renew land title 
     disputes which have previously been adjudicated or which are 
     barred by statutes of limitations. Such statutes of 
     limitations are informed by important public policy concerns 
     regarding finality and resource conservation.
       Moreover, the Department is concerned that the creation of 
     such a commission could result in a flood of requests from 
     potential claimants seeking assistance in reconstructing 
     claims over a century after they arose. The bill make no 
     provision for the additional resources necessary to allow the 
     Department of State and other affected agencies to meet the 
     burden of responding to such inquiries.
       In addition to the concerns stated above, federal land 
     management agencies advise that H.R. 2538 could pose 
     significant legal and practical problems, disrupt their land 
     management activities, and profoundly affect public and 
     private uses of federal lands, particularly environmentally 
     sensitive and valuable resources. We defer to these agencies 
     for their views on the bill.
       I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee. 
     Should you or other members of the Committee have questions 
     about the Department's views on H.R. 2538, please feel free 
     to contact us.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this report to the 
     Committee.
           Sincerely,

                                               Barbara Larkin,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
     Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____


                   Statement of Administration Policy

          H.R. 2538--Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Act

                  (Rep. Redmond (R) NM and 79 others)

       H.R. 2538 would create a commission to address the validity 
     of claims asserted by the descendants of Mexican citizens to 
     land in New Mexico based on 19th century Spanish and Mexican 
     community land grants. The Administration is sympathetic to 
     those individuals who believe their land claims have been 
     inappropriately or unfairly handled. However, the 
     Administration opposes the bill because its approach is 
     flawed and unworkable.
       In summary, this bill would renew land title disputes that 
     already have been resolved by an international agreement or 
     operation of law, in many cases over 50 years ago. It would 
     create a process that provides no legal standards or rules of 
     evidence, no means for final resolution of these reopened 
     claims, and no judicial review. In addition, this bill could 
     disrupt Federal land managers' abilities to carry out their 
     duties, including protection of natural resources and of 
     existing uses and rights on Federal land including grazing, 
     hunting, fishing, and mineral and water rights. A fuller 
     explanation of these issues is presented below.
       Consideration of these claims would renew land title 
     disputes that have already been fully and finally resolved 
     either by the 1941 Claims Settlement Agreement between the 
     United States and Mexico, or through adjudication. Any claims 
     not previously adjudicated are barred by relevant statutes of 
     limitations, which are based on fundamental policy concerns 
     of fairness, finality, and resource conservation.
       In addition, the bill envisions that public lands, would be 
     removed from Federal ownership to satisfy these claims, thus 
     disrupting Federal land management activities. These 
     activities include the conservation and preservation of 
     national forests, monuments, parks, wilderness areas, wild 
     and scenic rivers, and cultural and prehistoric sites. 
     Further, recreation, hunting, and fishing on Federal lands 
     would be adversely affected, and valid existing rights to, or 
     interests in, water, timber, grazing, and mineral on Federal 
     lands may be disturbed.
       Further, H.R. 2538 would institute a flawed process. 
     Although it is claimed that H.R. 2538 is modeled on the 
     Indian Claims Commission Act (ICCA), the ICCA provided for

[[Page H7514]]

     monetary compensation, not the reconstitution of land grants. 
     Moreover, the ICCA provided for judicial determination of 
     claims, according to certain legal standards and subject to 
     the appellate process. H.R. 2538 does not appear to provide 
     any legal standards or rules of evidence and does not allow 
     for judicial review of the commission's recommendations 
     before they are submitted to Congress.
       Finally, H.R. 2538 could have several other problematic 
     results for both land claimants and private landowners. The 
     existence of the Commission will raise unrealistic 
     expectations that land claims now closed will be addressed. 
     Furthermore, although private land cannot be transferred 
     under H.R. 2538, the commission's recommendations pertaining 
     to claims to private lands could cloud private land titles. 
     Although H.R. 2538 would affect only lands in New Mexico, 
     19th century land claims in many other states were resolved 
     in a manner similar to those in New Mexico. This bill's 
     passage would logically prompt calls for the creation of 
     similar commissions in other States with the attendant 
     problems outlined above.
       Pay-As-You-Go Scoring: H.R. 2538 would affect receipts; 
     therefore, it is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement of 
     the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. OMB's 
     preliminary scoring estimate of this bill is zero. Final 
     scoring of this legislation may deviate from these estimates. 
     If H.R. 2538 were enacted, final OMB scoring estimates would 
     be published within seven working days of enactment, as 
     required by OBRA. The cumulative effects of all enacted 
     legislation on direct spending and receipts will be reported 
     to Congress at the end of the congressional session, as 
     required by OBRA.
                                  ____


                               Appendix 3


     u.s. court cases interpreting the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo

 (This is a list of selected cases. It does not include all the court 
                                 cases)

       Amaya et al. v. Stanoline Oil and Gas Co. et al. 158 F.2d 
     554 (1947).
       Anisa v. New Mexico and Arizona Rail Road 175 U.S. 76 
     (1899).
       Apapos et al. v. United States 233 U.S. 587 (1914).
       Application of Robert Galvan for Writ of Habeus Corpus 127 
     F. Supp. 392 (1954).
       Asociacion de Reclamantes v. The United Mexican States 735 
     F.2d 1517 (1984).
       Astiazaran et al. v. Santo Rita Land and Mining Co. et al. 
     148 U.S. 80 (1984).
       Baker et al. v. Harvey 181 U.S. 481 (1901).
       Baldwin v. Goldrank 88 Tex. 249 (1896).
       Basse v. Brownsville 154 U.S. 168 (1875).
       Borax Consolidated Ltd. et al. v. City of Los Angeles 296 
     U.S. 10 (1935).
       Botiller et al. v. Dominguez 130 U.S. 238 (1889).
       California Power Works v. Davis 151 U.S. 389 (1894).
       Carpentier v. Montgomery et al. 80 U.S. 360 (1891).
       Cartwright v. Public Service of New Mexico 66 N.M. 64 
     (1858).
       Cessna v. United States et al. 169 U.S. 165 (1898).
       Chadwick v. Campbell 115 F.2d 401 (1940).
       City and County of San Francisco v. Scott 111 U.S. 768 
     (1884).
       City of Los Angeles v. Venice Peninsula Properties et al. 
     31 Cal. 3d 288 (1913).
       City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co. 209 Cal. 105 
     (1930).
       Grant v. Jaramillo 6 N.M. 313 (1892).
       Horner v. United States 143 U.S. 570 (1892).
       Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell Land Co. 139 U.S. 569 
     (1891).
       Lockhart v. Johnson 18 U.S. 481 (1901).
       Lockhart v. Wills et al. 54 S.W. 336 (1898).
       Lopez Tijerina v. Henry 48 F.R.D. 274 (1969).
       Lopez Tijerina et al. v. United States 396 U.S. 990 (1969).
       McKinney v. Saviego 59 U.S. 365 (1856).
       Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe 617 F.2d 537 (1980).
       Minturn v. Brower et al. 24 Cal. 644 (1864).
       Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States 324 
     U.S. 335 (1945).
       Palmer v. United States 65 U.S. 125 (1857).
       Phillips et al. v. Mound City 124 U.S. 605 (1888).
       Pitt River Tribe v. United States 485 F.2d 660 (1973).
       Pueblo of Zia v. United States et al. 168 U.S. 198 (1897).
       Reynolds v. West 1 Cal. 322 (1850).
       State of Texas v. Balli et al. 144 Tex. 195 (1945).
       State of Texas v. Gallardo 135 S.W. 644 (1911).
       Summa Corporation v. State of California 80 L.Ed. 2d 237 
     (1984).
       Tameling v. United States Freehold Land and Emigration Co. 
     2 Colo. 411 (1874).
       Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States 348 U.S. 272 (1955).
       Tenorio v. Tenorio 44 N.M. 89 (1940).
       Texas Mexican Railroad v. Locke 74 Tex. 340 (1889).
       Townsend et al. v. Greenley 72 U.S. 326 (1866).
       United States v. Abeyta 632 F.Supp. 1301 (1986).
       United States v. Aguisola 68 U.S. 352 (1863).
       United States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose 788 F.2d 638 
     (1986).
       United States v. Green et al. 185 U.S. 256 256 (1901).
       United States v. Lucero 1 N.M. 422 (1869).
       United States v. Moreno 68 U.S. 400 (1863).
       United States v. Naglee 1 Cal. 232 (1850).
       United States v. O'Donnell 303 U.S. 501 (1938).
       United States v. Reading 59 U.S. 1 (1855).
       United States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Co. et al. 
     175 U.S. 690 (1899).
       United States v. Rio Grande Dam and Irrigation Co. et al. 
     184 U.S. 416 (1901).
       United States v. Sandoval et al. 167 U.S. 278 (1897).
       United States v. Sandoval et al. 231 U.S. 28 (1913).
       United States v. Santistevan 1 N.M. 583 (1874).
       United States v. State of Louisiana et al. 363 U.S. 1 
     (1960).
       United States v. Title Insurance and Trust Co. et al. 265 
     U.S. 172 (1924).
       United States v. Utah 238 U.S. 64 (1931).
       Ward v. Broadwell 1 N.M. 75 (1854).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen) has 20 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Paxon).
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2538, the 
Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Act. This legislation before us 
today is truly the culmination of the hard work and tenacious, never-
say-die attitude of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond), our 
good friend.
  As a freshman Member of this body, I believe it is an unbelievable 
accomplishment that we are here debating this bill today after so many 
years of discussing this legislation. Having this before this body 
today I think is a real tribute to the gentleman's tireless efforts. It 
is also, I believe, a tribute to the leadership of the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the Committee on Resources who has worked so hard 
moving this legislation forward.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress is finally taking a step in the right 
direction to help the U.S. keep its word that resulted from the signed 
Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848.
  Let us be clear, this legislation will not settle any claims 
directly. Further action will be required for settlement. What this 
legislation does is do the right thing. It sets up a presidentially 
appointed commission to review claims. Numerous safeguards are provided 
in the legislation, such as the fact that claims must be filed within 5 
years from date of enactment of the bill, and also by three or more 
descendants.
  The establishment of this commission, the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty 
Lands Claims Commission, is the right way to go in reviewing these 
claims of private property rights that were guaranteed by the treaty 
when it was signed well over 150 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear. This is a matter of civil 
rights. This is a matter of racial justice, and it is a matter of 
private property rights. I cannot think of one reason in the world why 
this legislation should not enjoy unanimous bipartisan support today as 
it moves forward to the President's desk for signature and moves this 
commission forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and proud to support the efforts of the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) and the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that it was suggested here 
that the claims are in New Mexico. The claims are in New Mexico because 
of this legislation. The fact is, there are over 14 million acres of 
land in California that are subject to the same kind of contest. And my 
colleagues should not believe for a minute, if this commission starts 
going around and handing out valid land claims that are not paid by the 
people who theoretically stole the land, which are not paid by the 
local government to prove the stealing of the land, if that is the 
case, but are going to be paid by the Federal Government that uses the 
public lands of this country as a piggy bank for people who want to 
establish claims on these lands.
  Do not think for a second that people are not going to ask that this 
be done in California, Arizona, Utah and elsewhere where millions of 
acres of lands and generations of historical ownership have been 
established.
  To suggest that this has been ignored up to this very moment, it has 
not been ignored. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has 
addressed it. The Congress has addressed it. These claims have been 
settled.

[[Page H7515]]

  The suggestion is that also somehow this is about a lot of people who 
are Mexican, Mexican-American, Hispanics who have been thrown off of 
the land and this is a minority issue. Many of the people in these 
lands are Hispanic families that have been on these lands for many, 
many generations. That is true in the Central Valley of California and 
Southern California and elsewhere. But the notion that somehow we can 
come along and decide that we are going to reopen all of these claims 
and if this commission decides that it is going to be valid, that we 
are going to reach into the public land base of the United States of 
America, the public lands that belong to all the citizens of America, 
and the notion of justice is that they have to pay, even though they 
were not party to the injustice. That is not justice.
  Justice is when people who are party to the injustice pay. But if the 
State of California created the injustice and the State of New Mexico 
created the injustice, and private landowners created the injustice by 
running people off of the land, why is that a Federal taxpayer problem? 
Why is the notion of justice over here the notion that we go into the 
Federal taxpayers' pocket and solve this problem? We just go into the 
national forests and the public lands and the BLM lands of this Nation 
and go in there to get justice. Why is that justice?
  No, Mr. Chairman, claimants ought to go to the people who harmed 
them. Let the State of California or the State of New Mexico dig into 
their treasury and their land base to solve these claims that they 
created. Let the private landowners let their heirs solve these 
problems, if that is what they did.
  Somehow now justice is being equated with the ability to get to the 
Federal land base or the Federal tax base. This commission, once they 
start handing out clouds on titles and making these determinations, 
when the Congress ever acts on them, there will be a host of people 
asking for commissions on California and the other western States that 
are affected by this and a whole host of attorneys that see it is 
pretty clear that it is no skin off of anybody's nose here because the 
way to settle this is to give the attorney 50 acres of public lands. 
Give them some forest lands. Make whatever settlement they want, 
because there are no rules of evidence here. No burden of proof. No 
established burden of proof.
  That is why the administration has sent up its statement of 
administration policy today which is in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Redmond), the sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo begins 
with these words:

       In the name of Almighty God, the United States of America 
     and the United Mexican States, animated by a sincere desire 
     to put an end to the calamities of the war which unhappily 
     exists between the two Republics, and to establish upon a 
     solid basis relations of peace and friendship which shall 
     confer reciprocal benefits upon the citizens of both, and 
     assure the concord, harmony and mutual confidence wherein the 
     two peoples should live as good neighbors, there shall be 
     firm and universal peace between the United States of America 
     and the Mexican Republic, between their respective countries, 
     territories, cities, towns, and people without exceptions of 
     places or persons.

  Mr. Chairman, those are the opening words to the Treaty of Guadalupe-
Hidalgo, which is the treaty that settled the hostilities between the 
American Government in 1848 and the Government of Mexico. In America, 
as we study history, all too often we read history from East to West, 
as opposed to reading our history from West to East.
  To my left here is a commemorative stamp that is now issued by the 
Post Office of the United States. Many people, when they see this 
stamp, they will be reminded that the first Europeans in North America, 
which is now a part of the United States of America, were not the 
British. They were not the Dutch. They were the Hispanics that first 
came with the Conquistadores and with the settlers.
  This year in New Mexico we are celebrating what is called the 
``Cuatro Centenario,'' the 400th anniversary of European settlement at 
a pueblo now called Santo Domingo, but it was once called Ohkay 
Owingeh, and the first seat of European government that is now in the 
United States is here in this Congressional district in the State of 
New Mexico on a land grant.
  For 250 years, both the Spanish Government and the Mexican Government 
practiced what was the same practice as the Anglos had as they came 
across the frontier. We have President Martin Van Buren, President 
Andrew Jackson and many, many other presidents that granted homesteads 
or granted parcels of land for the purpose of settlement of the North 
American continent.
  Nobody would think for one moment that anybody would dare introduce 
into this body a piece of legislation that would make it possible for 
the Federal Government to take away land that had been farmed by a 
family for more than 150, and in some cases 250 years, and claim it as 
eminent domain for the American people. This land was legally owned and 
we had agreed to in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that these people 
could keep their land.
  When they settled the land, there were two kinds of land grants. One 
was individual land grants, which are not a part of this bill, which 
have been made reference to by the opposition, and then there were the 
community land grants. The community land grants of necessity required 
10 families or more coming together to settle an area. If they stayed 
on the land, if they cleared the forest, if they built a home, if they 
built a barn, they built a corral, they could stay there and the land 
was theirs.
  It is the same under Spanish law as what it was under American law, 
and that is the why the United States Senate, when they ratified this 
treaty, they were willing to honor the community land grants that had 
been so long a part of Spanish culture in New Mexico.
  But very rapidly after the treaty was signed, there were people that 
came to New Mexico and, one by one, the community land grants were 
wrested from the people because they did not speak the language. And 
the community land grants were not only for Hispanic people, but they 
were the Pueblo land grants that the Pueblo people lost as well.
  So when we read our history from West to East, we see the merging of 
three cultures in New Mexico: the Native American culture, the Hispanic 
culture, and the Anglo culture. And for 400 years, two cultures have 
lived in peace, and for 150 years, three cultures have lived in peace 
in spite of the fact that land was taken.
  Now, in response to some of the questions that were raised, I 
appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), 
my good friend. He refers to a letter that came from the State 
Department that deals with a 57-year agreement between the Government 
of Mexico and the Government of the United States. I am very happy to 
say that I am glad that we are talking about who the parties are in 
this agreement. The parties that settled that particular agreement 57 
years ago were the Government of the United States and the Government 
of Mexico.
  The citizens of the United States who were the heirs of these land 
grants were never part of that discussion. That agreement dealt with 
something other than the community land grants. Many people might ask 
why are we interested in the heirs of the land grants? Article 8 is 
very, very clear. Article 8 says without a doubt that this treaty is 
not only for the original landowners, but it is also for their heirs.
  Over to my left we have a copy of the final page of the treaty and 
the very first signature on this treaty is from Nicholas Trist. 
Nicholas Trist is the one who wrote the treaty. And then also we have 
those signing from the Government of Mexico. When the people in the 
area which was to become the Territory of New Mexico and, later, the 
State of New Mexico, they were there for many years and it was the 
agreement between those people and the American Government that the 
right to the land would not be violated.
  In response to the question that the Treasury of the United States, 
or as my colleague from California said, ``Uncle Sucker'' would be 
doling out money, there is no money to be doled out. The people of New 
Mexico do not want favors. They want the land that was theirs to be 
returned.
  The treaty is very specific because it says that they not only have 
the right to private property in the treaty, the

[[Page H7516]]

treaty also says that they have full rights as American citizens. That 
includes the Fifth Amendment right and that includes the 14th Amendment 
right.
  So when individuals say this is not a civil rights issue, if we 
remember correctly, the first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights. 
Those are the civil rights for all Americans.

                              {time}  1230

  So not only was the treaty violated, but also their 14th Amendment 
and their Fifth Amendment rights were violated.
  To my left is a photograph, and these are the men and women and the 
children who are the heirs of what is known as the Chilili land grant 
in New Mexico. Much of their land was lost. They have only a very small 
portion of it remaining. Those are the people that my colleagues says 
are coming to ``Uncle Sucker'', these young boys, these young girls, 
this grandmother, this grandfather.
  The treaty said that this was their land, but the government took 
their land away. If the land were held by the State of New Mexico, this 
debate would be held in the capital of Santa Fe; but because 95 percent 
of this land is now held by the Federal Government, this discussion 
must be held here.
  Also, in response to one of the individuals from the opposition, the 
amendment that made this specific to New Mexico was offered and passed. 
It was offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) in 
committee. He specifically asked that this be applied only to New 
Mexico, which was in concurrence with the desires of the people from 
the land grant.
  This piece of legislation is important not only for the people of New 
Mexico but for the people across America. The gentleman is correct that 
this is not an issue unique only to New Mexico because if the Federal 
Government can come into my State of New Mexico and take away farms and 
ranches that had been a part of a family for 250 years, we can bet our 
bottom dollar that they can come into Illinois and Indiana and Missouri 
and Oklahoma and any other State where the farmers received a homestead 
grant from, not only the Spanish government, but also the American 
government.
  I would like to thank my colleagues for their support, for the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young). I would like to thank Speaker Newt Gingrich who personally 
traveled to New Mexico to hear the pleas of the land grant heirs.
  I would like to thank my staff Michael Quintana and Jennifer Hamann. 
But most of all, I would like to thank those members of the Land Grant 
Forum, State historian Robert Torres, Richard Nieto, Richard Ponse, 
Estephen Arellano for their tireless effort in working on this bill, 
former Lieutenant Governor Roberto Mondragon, and most of all the 
people of New Mexico who so long waited on justice.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close on general 
debate?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) has 
the right to close.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) for pointing 
out my efforts in committee to limiting this to New Mexico. Of course I 
do not favor it for New Mexico. I think it does have applications for 
the other States. In spite of the fact that we offered the amendment, 
we cannot prevent the standards and precedent. I think it would be a 
bigger problem if all of the eight States were involved as opposed to 
New Mexico with this five-member commission.
  But I would point out also, he suggests what about the private 
individuals that, in good faith, bought the property in New Mexico or 
the Federal Government that has established a forest. I remember the 
controversy over the issue with regards to the Hopi-Navaho Conflict 
when, in fact, Secretary Lujan recommended a couple hundred thousand 
acres of forest be given to the Navaho in Arizona. That is the sort of 
issue that we are setting up here over the next 10 years.
  Furthermore, if one has title to the property and one bought it in 
good faith, this legislation says that that property will go back to 
the individuals we recommended and that the Federal Government will do 
the compensation. That is dollars and cents.
  So the suggestion that you can just simply avoid this by virtue of 
returning the land, that there is no money involved is, of course, not 
what the legislation proposes. It provides that the Federal Government 
will do the compensation.
  Even though, as the gentleman from California pointed out, we may not 
have been the result of it, the good intentions of the treaty, the good 
intentions of the settlement act. What is to say that we are going to 
have perfect justice here, that no resolution or claim will go 
unresolved. This is an ongoing problem. We fight it in court, 200 
cases, and we are establishing it again here.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting debate we have 
had regarding this piece of legislation. I want to commend the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) for coming up with something 
that probably should have been done for a long time.
  It was interesting to hear the opponents of this bill talk about the 
various lawsuits that have come up. Of course they have come up. Why 
would they not come up. These people have been seeking redress and 
remedy for years and years and years. When one cannot get it through 
lawsuits and one cannot get it through other means, where do people 
normally come? They normally come to Congress to take care of it.
  What do we do in an event like this? We just say, hey, let us ignore 
this. It happened in 1848. It did not turn out the way it was supposed 
to by the treaty and the provisions of the treaty that Mr. Redmond put 
in front of us at this time. It turned out a little differently. The 
Federal Government came in, and people came in and took that land.
  There are a lot of treaties we have made. It is very interesting. 
Those of us who are interested in the west and come from the west like 
to read the treaties that happened with the Native Americans. For a 
while, that happened.
  They had a group of smart attorneys who got together, and one lawsuit 
after another, it cost the American government big bucks. They were 
resolved. They are still doing that. They are still being litigated. 
Every year, we come up with something from the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
regarding these areas.
  What do we want to do in this area, ignore it or to somewhat bring it 
to a conclusion? I am kind of shocked in a way that my good friends 
keep bringing up the idea that the money and land is going to change. 
It is not. It says this is a commission.
  If you read the bill, the commission will give their recommendation 
to this body, to the United States Congress. Congress will determine 
what money is going to change hands. Congress will determine what to do 
with it. We are waiting for a recommendation from the commission. That 
is all this is.
  It is a rather simple piece of legislation saying let us wait for the 
commission to do their work to go back and live up to something that 
this United States Government said they would do in 1848. They said, we 
will give it to these people who had a valid claim to that property 
from the King of Spain.
  Can we negate that? Can we just throw it out, repudiate it because we 
feel that we are stronger and better than they are and we speak English 
and we have got more guns? I hope that is not the case. I hope somebody 
looks at it.
  I think many of the arguments were very good brought up by our 
opponents. Those are the kinds of arguments that will come up when the 
commission brings it to us. This piece of legislation only does that.
  I find it very interesting and love to hear my good friends from the 
other side talk about private property. That to me just made my whole 
day, probably my whole month, that I can go home and say people have 
been willing to walk right over private property regarding the 
Endangered Species Act, regarding the Wetlands Act, regarding the 
Wilderness Act, regarding the Wild

[[Page H7517]]

Horse and Burro Act, regarding the Scenic River Act, regarding the 
Mormon Trail Act are now sticking up for private property. This should 
be a red letter day to this Congress that we all feel so good to see 
that happen. I hope we keep that trend going.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for my good friend the gentleman 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, 
modified by striking the last two sentences of subsection (C) of 
section 6, shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is 
considered as read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the original 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Guadalupe-
     Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Act of 1998''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions and findings.
Sec. 3. Establishment and membership of Commission.
Sec. 4. Examination of land claims.
Sec. 5. Community Land Grant Study Center.
Sec. 6. Miscellaneous powers of Commission.
Sec. 7. Report.
Sec. 8. Termination.
Sec. 9. Authorization of appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that the entire 
bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there an objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, as modified pursuant to House Resolution 522 is as 
follows:

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Commission established 
     under section 3.
       (2) Treaty of guadalupe-hidalgo.--The term ``Treaty of 
     Guadalupe-Hidalgo'' means the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, 
     Limits, and Settlement (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo), between 
     the United States and the Republic of Mexico, signed February 
     2, 1848 (TS 207; 9 Bevans 791).
       (3) Eligible descendant.--The term ``eligible descendant'' 
     means a descendant of a person who--
       (A) was a Mexican citizen before the Treaty of Guadalupe-
     Hidalgo;
       (B) was a member of a community land grant; and
       (C) became a United States citizen within ten years after 
     the effective date of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, May 
     30, 1848, pursuant to the terms of the Treaty.
       (4) Community land grant.--The term ``community land 
     grant'' means a village, town, settlement, or pueblo 
     consisting of land held in common (accompanied by lesser 
     private allotments) by three or more families under a grant 
     from the King of Spain (or his representative) before the 
     effective date of the Treaty of Cordova, August 24, 1821, or 
     from the authorities of the Republic of Mexico before May 30, 
     1848, in what became the State of New Mexico, regardless of 
     the original character of the grant.
       (5) Reconstituted.--The term ``reconstituted'', with regard 
     to a valid community land grant, means restoration to full 
     status as a municipality with rights properly belonging to a 
     municipality under State law and the right of local self-
     government.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) New Mexico has a unique history regarding the 
     acquisition of ownership of land as a result of the 
     substantial number of Spanish and Mexican land grants that 
     were an integral part of the colonization and growth of New 
     Mexico before the United States acquired the area in the 
     Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
       (2) Various provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
     have not yet been fully implemented in the spirit of Article 
     VI, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
       (3) Serious questions regarding the prior ownership of 
     lands in the State of New Mexico, particularly certain public 
     lands, still exist.
       (4) Congressionally established land claim commissions have 
     been used in the past to successfully examine disputed land 
     possession questions.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims 
     Commission''.
       (b) Number and Appointment of Members.--The Commission 
     shall be composed of five members appointed by the President 
     by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. At least 
     two of the members of the Commission shall be selected from 
     among persons who are eligible descendants.
       (c) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of 
     the Commission. A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (d) Compensation.--Members shall each be entitled to 
     receive the daily equivalent of level V of the Executive 
     Schedule for each day (including travel time) during which 
     they are engaged in the actual performance of duties vested 
     in the Commission.

     SEC. 4. EXAMINATION OF LAND CLAIMS.

       (a) Submission of Land Claims Petitions.--Any three (or 
     more) eligible descendants who are also descendants of the 
     same community land grant may file with the Commission a 
     petition on behalf of themselves and all other descendants of 
     that community land grant seeking a determination of the 
     validity of the land claim that is the basis for the 
     petition.
       (b) Deadline for Submission.--To be considered by the 
     Commission, a petition under subsection (a) must be received 
     by the Commission not later than five years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Elements of Petition.--A petition under subsection (a) 
     shall be made under oath and shall contain the following:
       (1) The names and addresses of the eligible descendants who 
     are petitioners.
       (2) The fact that the land involved in the petition was a 
     community land grant at the time of the effective date of the 
     Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty.
       (3) The extent of the community land grant, to the best of 
     the knowledge of the petitioners, accompanied with a survey 
     or, if a survey is not feasible to them, a sketch map 
     thereof.
       (4) The fact that the petitioners reside, or intend to 
     settle upon, the community land grant.
       (5) All facts known to petitioners concerning the community 
     land grant, together with copies of all papers in regard 
     thereto available to petitioners.
       (d) Petition Hearing.--At one or more designated locations 
     in the State of New Mexico, the Commission shall hold a 
     hearing upon each petition timely submitted under subsection 
     (a), at which hearing all persons having an interest in the 
     land involved in the petition shall have the right, upon 
     notice, to appear as a party.
       (e) Subpoena Power.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may issue subpoenas 
     requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
     production of any evidence relating to any petition submitted 
     under subsection (a). The attendance of witnesses and the 
     production of evidence may be required from any place within 
     the United States at any designated place of hearing within 
     the State of New Mexico.
       (2) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the Commission 
     may apply to a United States district court for an order 
     requiring that person to appear before the Commission to give 
     testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter 
     under investigation. The application may be made within the 
     judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where 
     that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as civil contempt.
       (3) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission 
     shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued 
     by a United States district court under the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
       (4) Service of process.--All process of any court to which 
     application is to be made under paragraph (2) may be served 
     in the judicial district in which the person required to be 
     served resides or may be found.
       (f) Decision.--On the basis of the facts contained in a 
     petition submitted under subsection (a), and the hearing held 
     with regard to the petition, the Commission shall determine 
     the validity of the community land grant described in the 
     petition. The decision shall include a recommendation of the 
     Commission regarding whether the community land grant should 
     be reconstituted and its lands restored.
       (g) Protection of Non-Federal Property.--The decision of 
     the Commission regarding the validity of a petition submitted 
     under subsection (a) shall not affect the ownership, title, 
     or rights of owners of any non-Federal lands covered by the 
     petition. Any recommendation of the Commission under 
     subsection (f) regarding whether a community land grant 
     should be reconstituted and its lands restored may not 
     address non-Federal lands. In the case of a valid petition 
     covering lands held in non-Federal ownership, the Commission 
     shall modify the recommendation under subsection (f) to 
     recommend the substitution of comparable Federal lands in the 
     State of New Mexico for the lands held in non-Federal 
     ownership.

     SEC. 5. COMMUNITY LAND GRANT STUDY CENTER.

       To assist the Commission in the performance of its 
     activities under section 4, the Commission shall establish a 
     Community Land Grant Study Center at the Onate Center in 
     Alcalde, New Mexico. The Commission shall be charged with

[[Page H7518]]

     the responsibility of directing the research, study, and 
     investigations necessary for the Commission to perform its 
     duties under this Act.

     SEC. 6. MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act 
     at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence as 
     the Commission considers appropriate. The Commission may 
     administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing 
     before it.
       (b) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of 
     the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action which the Commission is authorized to take by this 
     section.
       (c) Gifts, Bequests, and Devises.--The Commission may 
     accept, use, and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of 
     services or property, both real and personal, for the purpose 
     of aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission.
       (d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (e) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
       (f) Immunity.--The Commission is an agency of the United 
     States for the purpose of part V of title 18, United States 
     Code (relating to immunity of witnesses).

     SEC. 7. REPORT.

       As soon as practicable after reaching its last decision 
     under section 4, the Commission shall submit to the President 
     and the Congress a report containing each decision, including 
     the recommendation of the Commission regarding whether 
     certain community land grants should be reconstituted, so 
     that the Congress may act upon the recommendations.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate on 180 days after submitting 
     its final report under section 7.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for each 
     of the fiscal years 1999 through 2007 for the purpose of 
     carrying out the activities of the Commission and to 
     establish and operate the Community Land Grant Study Center 
     under section 5.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendment?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a situation where I will be voting 
against the bill that I have cosponsored. At this moment, I am not 
allowed to ask unanimous consent to have my name removed, but I do 
think it is important that I explain my actions.
  When I was first asked to cosponsor this, it was to call for a 
commission. I now see this commission will cost the taxpayer $1 million 
for up to 7 years, which is up to $7 million.
  When we look a little bit further into this, originally it was a few 
families that had been wronged, but as we heard in the debate, the 
entire States of California, Nevada, and Utah, were basically seized 
from the Government of Mexico, as well as portions of Arizona, Texas, 
and New Mexico, portions of Colorado and Wyoming. So we would be 
basically seeing a situation where just a few people would be 
compensated.
  The second part that I think is important to state is, yes, we have 
to look at this historically. Yes, these people probably had claims 
given to them by the Government of Mexico, a government that, in 
effect, took the land from Spain. But who did the King of Spain take it 
from? He took it from the folks who lived there when the Conquistadors 
came over.
  We are basically opening a can of worms and I do not think anyone has 
any idea where it ends. I think, at the end of 7 years, we will have 
spent $7 million of the American taxpayers' money and find ourselves in 
exactly the same situation we have right now.
  If you want to go a little bit further, why do we not give Panama 
back to Colombia, because our Nation stole it fair and square from them 
in the first part of this century so we could build the Panama Canal.
  Our Nation lately has been pretty good. As recently as Bosnia, we 
sent some troops over there, not to take their land, not to rape their 
people, not to take their wealth, but just to keep people from killing 
each other. It might be the most honorable thing this Nation has ever 
done.
  But some years ago, when we had our manifest destiny and decided that 
we were going to have a Nation that ran from ocean to ocean, we did so, 
and we did not particularly care who got in our way. In this instance, 
the Mexican Government got in our way.
  I do not think we serve the American people by going back and 
reopening this, causing no telling how many people in all of the States 
that I have mentioned to have the title to their property called into 
question in each of these States, including some huge States like 
California.
  I think we are best letting the courts make these decisions and not a 
congressionally appointed commission at the cost of $1 million a year.
  For those reasons, although I understand the gentleman is trying to 
redress what he perceives is a wrong, I think the greatest good is 
served by the defeat of this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask at this point that my name be removed.
  Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the idea that 
almost all of the Southwest is somehow under a community land grant. 
Just to put this into perspective, in the State of New Mexico--
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
point that I made was that most of the Southwest was seized from Mexico 
and, as the gentleman pointed out, under duress. We were occupying 
their capital at the time.
  We did it for what we thought was the best interest. Quite frankly, 
all of the people in all of those States are better off because we did 
it. But we seized the whole Southwest, not just this portion of the 
Southwest.
  If we start looking back into each of these claims, I think we cause 
more harm than good. Again, we had make a gentleman's request to look 
into it. At the time, it seemed to make sense. But the more I have 
looked into the total repercussions of creating this commission at the 
cost of $7 million, I have decided to oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a 
cosponsor.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. While that permission is normally sought in 
the full House, the gentleman cannot have his name removed from a bill 
that has already been reported out of committee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Very good.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments?
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that we finally have Congress addressing 
this issue involving the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo because, for more 
than 150 years, we have allowed an injustice to continue in this 
country. This country, while it has made mistakes, has always been 
strong enough to come up and stand up and say when it has been wrong; 
and that is one of the things that makes me very proud to be able to 
serve in this legislative body for this country.
  It is time to address the injustice caused by the theft that occurred 
years ago of property held by thousands of people in the Southwest that 
was taken from them as a result of our government's representations to 
these people.

                              {time}  1245

  Good faith representations to these people, through a treaty that 
these people would have rights and they would be treated in ways that 
accorded to law. And those folks depended on that contract, that treaty 
that was signed with the U.S. Government, and they did so in good 
faith.
  But I look at H.R. 2538, and I ask myself, is this the right vehicle 
to try to redress those injustices? And I look within H.R. 2538 for 
something that tells me there are teeth in this bill that will allow us 
to actually redress the wrongs committed against many people and their 
offspring, and I see no teeth. What I do find is a procedural 
nightmare. I find a system that allows a commission to be created.
  And by the way, we often know what happens with commissions. We can 
talk about all the commissions we have now that have nothing but 
vacancies and are doing no work. And we have a commission, if it should 
happen to get impaneled, that has no teeth to do anything. It could 
recommend to Congress that certain people be compensated, that redress 
be provided, but there is nothing in the bill that would require

[[Page H7519]]

Congress to do anything with that commission report.
  So what does that do? It leaves those who were affected and left 
without redress in a position of hope, and it leaves those, many of 
whom today are innocent purchasers and holders of property in these 
affected areas, with now clouded title over that property. Because, 
see, that property that they purchased, and I am talking about those 
who are innocent purchasers, those who purchased that property not 
knowing that there was any problem with how it was acquired by a 
predecessor owner, now will say I have a deed to this land but there is 
a commission that says I really do not have a right to it. So what the 
heck do I get to do with this land? Can I sell it? Who will want to 
purchase property that may be taken away by a commission?
  But yet those who seek the redress, who had the property through 
their forefathers taken from them, have no way to get redress, anything 
back, whether it is the land or some compensation because Congress is 
not required to do anything in this bill. So we leave not only those 
who for generations faced an injustice in limbo, but we leave also 
innocent purchasers of property in these areas without redress. There 
is no requirement for Congress to act on any claim, and that is perhaps 
the most egregious portion of this bill.
  And by the way, I think the gentleman from Utah sort of made that 
point for me earlier in his remarks because he made it clear we do not 
have to worry about taking land from private landholders because we do 
not have anything in this bill that would require that that happen. So 
it proves the point that this bill does not have the teeth we need to 
truly provide the redress we need. I am here to fight for that redress. 
I think people who had things stolen from them deserve to have 
compensation if our Federal Government signed a document saying I 
promise I will treat you according to the law and we did not fulfill 
that. But that is not what this bill says.
  Moreover, I do not believe that the Federal taxpayer should have to 
carry the burden for what local elected officials and State elected 
officials did in years gone by. Those injustices by State and local 
officials should be redressed by States and local governments. And if 
they are not willing to, then let us have a bill that says they must. 
Let us not make the Federal taxpayer in New York, in Alabama, in Maine, 
in Wisconsin pay for the misdeeds of local elected officials in New 
Mexico, Arizona, Colorado or anywhere else.
  Another point. This bill deals only with New Mexico. What about the 
folks in California, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma? They also need 
redress. They are not there. There are many ways to handle this. 
Senator Bingaman in the Senate has a bill. But this, I do not believe, 
is a real meaningful effort to do this, and I would ask my colleagues 
to vote against it.
  Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that it is important that the bill be read in 
its entirety. I want to make one thing very, very clear; that this 
action was by the United States Government upon United States citizens 
who had formerly been citizens of the country of Mexico. This is not 
Nation to Nation. This is an act performed on the citizens of the 
United States who resided in the territory of New Mexico, performed on 
them by the Federal Government.
  Secondly, this particular bill, in its original form, was written by 
former Congressman Bill Richardson. The bill was taken to the people of 
New Mexico, The Land Grant Forum, who have the entire history of the 
happenings in New Mexico. The people rewrote the bill themselves, with 
the understanding of settlement between the land grant heirs and the 
Federal Government. They took all the parties into consideration. This 
is a people's bill written by the people, though it was originally 
framed by the former congressman.
  The other thing we need to point out very, very clearly is that it is 
the responsibility of the Federal Government, because at the time that 
this took place, New Mexico was a territory under Federal law, not 
local jurisdiction.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REDMOND. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the effort of the gentleman, 
because I think there is a need, as I said before, to redress this 
issue for the people that were denied their rights and property, had 
those property rights stolen. But answer the question regarding the 
person who finds that a commission under this bill determines that 
property claimed by that individual is in fact property that fell under 
the land grants and, therefore, should revert back to the heirs of 
those owners of the land grant. What do we do if Congress takes no 
action on that claim, and what does that mean for the current holder of 
that property?
  I do not want to affect the rights of current owners who innocently 
purchased at the same time I am trying to redress an injustice. I think 
we have to fight to redress that injustice, but let us not also embroil 
people who are innocent in this fight for justice, because then we do 
nothing more than cause a harm while we are trying to correct one.
  Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the people of New 
Mexico already thought about that before the gentleman thought about 
it, because they are very concerned about their neighbors. And if the 
gentleman will read the bill very carefully, the land that is now 
private land will be completely exempt from this.
  So my colleagues need to remember that those who are current owners, 
that currently hold title, if they purchased that from the Federal 
Government, they are exempt. But if there is a claim on that land, the 
Federal Government will compensate the original heirs and the title 
will not be clouded.
  Mr. BECERRA. If the gentleman will further yield on that point, my 
understanding is that they will be compensated by taking Federal land, 
which may be a way to resolve this, but my concern would then be what 
Federal land?
  Mr. REDMOND. I am glad the gentleman raised the point. The first 
thing we need to understand is the context of the State of New Mexico. 
We can basically break New Mexico into three portions: One-third of the 
State is owned by the people, one-third of the State is owned by the 
State of New Mexico, and one-third of the State is owned by the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government owns 28 million acres of land in the 
State of New Mexico. If every single one of these was adjudicated in 
favor of the claimants, that would only total to somewhere between a 
million, to a million and a half acres, which would then leave the 
Federal Government with a total of 26\1/2\ million acres still in the 
State of New Mexico. So there is plenty of land there.
  The thing we need to remember is that this was private land taken 
from American citizens who were of Mexican descent, Hispanic descent. 
They themselves were American citizens and their land was taken by the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. BECERRA. If the gentleman will further yield, I appreciate that 
point, because he is right, the folks trying to make these claims are 
people who, in many cases, have not had access to our courts of justice 
nor our elected representatives. But my understanding is that it does 
not resolve the problem of now it appears that we are taking from Peter 
to give to Paul, and the last thing I want to do is start creating a 
difficulty with another American. We are all Americans, and I want 
these Americans to be redressed, but I do not want to do it at the 
expense of an innocent American.
  The gentleman may say that the land that would be taken is Federal 
land, but I would like to know which Federal land? Is it land that is 
currently used by Americans?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Are there any amendments?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  And to continue the thoughts our colleague from California has 
raised, the point was, and of course we went right by that, that 
somehow the Congress is going to come back and give away one of the 
national forests, apparently, or some portion of it in New Mexico or 
one of the other areas. But the fact is that we may very well not do 
that. I think there would be quite a debate here. And the issue is that 
we have created a cloud over the title of a Private Property. We have 
created a

[[Page H7520]]

cloud over the title, and generally what happens when there is an 
imperfect title is the value of the land is depreciated. So the answer 
to the gentleman's question is quite clear.
  Now, some concern was raised about my views on property rights and 
takings. I would just point out that I do believe, and have advocated, 
regulation of lands with regards to wetlands and with regards to the 
Endangered Species Act, and with regard to its impact in terms of 
zoning and some of the Federal Government's effort, the national 
government's effort to deal with that.
  The real issue here has been the debate over what constitutes an 
actual taking and the suggestion that they could not find redress in 
the courts with regards to takings. And that has been the case most 
often and there has been efforts in this Congress to change the 
definition of takings and define zoning as takings. But what we have 
here, of course, is a pretty well-established precedent in terms of how 
to cloud up a title. That is exactly what is going to happen here until 
this is resolved.
  The fact of the matter is, and I misspoke, because they changed the 
amount of money in this bill, it is actually a bill that will be 10 
years for this commission, with a million dollars a year rather than 
$1.5 or $10 million, so I wanted to clarify that for the record for 
this five-member commission. But in fact what we are creating here is, 
literally, whether we translate it into property that is transferred or 
land that is transferred, we are really setting up hundreds of millions 
of dollars of value of various claims that are going to be made. That 
is what this sets in motion, this commission will set in motion. In New 
Mexico I think it will amount to that type of dollar figure.
  Now, we can transfer lands and suggest that has no value because it 
is national lands or State lands. But all of these property rights are 
related to what happened in the States, whether or not they be 
territories at the time. It is not necessarily the territorial 
authority that made these decisions. It could and most often was 
private interests. I know in the case, for instance, of the Native 
American lands, that very often Native Americans lost their lands. They 
did not understand the language; did not understand how to read or 
write. They lost their lands on an unfair basis.
  My concern here is not with addressing it, it is that the system that 
is set up, the template in this bill, is deeply flawed. It is seriously 
flawed in terms of what is going to be produced. I would try to limit 
damage control by limiting it to New Mexico, but I can assure all of my 
colleagues who represent the other seven States are going to have the 
same problem. So if we want to base this on a flawed foundation, we can 
proceed.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I am trying to 
make sure I have read this bill correctly, and I am reading now on page 
11 under section 7, which deals with the report that is to be submitted 
to the Congress and to the President.
  It reads, ``As soon as practicable, after reaching its last decision 
under section 4, the commission shall submit to the President and the 
Congress a report containing each decision, including the 
recommendation of the commission regarding whether certain community 
land grants should be reconstituted so that the Congress may act upon 
the recommendations.''
  My concern again is this is all ``may'', ``might''. It is not a 
``shall''. We know in this body if we want to do something we have to 
say ``you shall do it''. That commands. ``You must do it''. ``May'' 
says you decide what you want to do. There are a lot of things in law 
that say ``may'' that we never work on.
  So to lead people to believe in New Mexico or any other State that 
this bill will give them redress is, I think, raising hopes to a higher 
expectation. And it is unfortunate because they will find themselves 
falling flat on the ground, and it will all be done while we are 
clouding the opportunity of those innocent purchasers of property to 
know whether or not they really can hold on to their land or even sell 
it in the future.
  I think that is the worst mistake, to embroil innocent folks in a 
fight that involves the government, which did wrong, with the 
successors of those who were wrong. That we need to change. And I wish 
this were a bill that really did have the teeth, because I would love 
to be able to support something so we could finally close this ugly 
chapter in American history where we caused pain and we stole from 
people at the expense of our reputation as a government.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I mean, legally I think there is no 
substance and basis, and morally I think we do have a responsibility. 
But this is an open invitation, and if something is presented to 
Congress that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars 
transferring vast areas of land in New Mexico to compensate, it is 
going to hit this Congress and it is going to go nowhere.
  We ought to be facing up to that at this time, at least anticipating. 
And I think that is the job of the Committee on Resources and the other 
committees of this Congress, not something to be sent to a commission.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California talks about the idea of 
it not having any teeth in it. Well, when this thing came about, what 
procedure do we follow on something that happened in 1848? We are 
somehow establishing a procedure. If it was that way, we would not get 
any votes on this thing.
  This is a procedure so we can come to the final position of having 
some teeth in it. And I agree with him. But at this point no one could 
figure out the hoops we go through, the paths we go down, the road map 
that is laid out because there are no road maps to go down. No one has 
given us one.
  So I commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) for giving 
us a road map to resolve this particular question.
  Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out in the bill, in 
section 4, part (g) concerning protection of non-Federal property. 
``The decision of the commission regarding the validity of a petition 
submitted under subsection (a) shall not affect the ownership, title, 
or rights of owners of any non-Federal lands covered by the petition.''
  And then in response to the idea that it does not have any teeth, the 
opposition cannot have it both ways. We have one view that we are 
raiding the Treasury for billions of dollars from one member of the 
opposition, and then another member of the opposition says that it is a 
pussy cat and it has absolutely no teeth at all. We cannot have it both 
ways. It either has teeth or it does not have teeth.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Are there any amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as modified.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Blunt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sununu, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2538) to establish a Presidential commission to determine the validity 
of certain land claims arising out of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
of 1848 involving the descendants of persons who were Mexican citizens 
at the time of the treaty, pursuant to House Resolution 522, reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.

[[Page H7521]]

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 187, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 421]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Barcia
     Berry
     Brown (CA)
     Cannon
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hefner
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     LaHood
     McDade
     Moakley
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Rush
     Schumer
     Sisisky
     Tauzin
     Towns
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1323

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Young of Alaska for, with Mr. Berry against.

  Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. DeLAURO, Ms. CARSON, Mr. MINGE, Ms. RIVERS, Ms. 
VELAZQUEZ and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DIXON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________