Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)

[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.

____________________