[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 152 (Monday, December 11, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11757-S11759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     OMNIBUS INDIAN ADVANCEMENT ACT

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5528, which is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5528) to authorize the construction of a Wakpa 
     Sica Reconciliation Place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and 
     for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


              ancsa historic site and cemetery selections

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of my colleague 
from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, and of my colleague from Hawaii, Mr. 
Inouye on H.R. 5528, the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act. I am pleased 
that this measure includes several provisions that will benefit 
Wisconsin tribes.
  However, I have concerns regarding title XV of this measure, which 
reinstates applications for particular parcels of land that are now 
part of the Chugach National Forest to be conveyed to the Chugach 
Alaska Corporation, CAC, the Alaska Native Corporation for the Chugach 
Region. The provisions included in title XV of H.R. 5528 differ from 
those included in title II of H.R. 2547 and its companion bill in this 
body S. 1686. These bills are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Energy 
Committee. Would the Senator be willing to allow me to engage in 
discussion with the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski to clarify a few 
important points about this legislation?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to allow the Senator to 
clarify aspects of this legislation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. As I understand the legislation, it directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to reinstate applications for the conveyance 
of seven parcels of land, now in federal ownership as part of the 
Chugach National Forest, for a determination of eligibility for 
conveyance to the CAC as historical places or cemetery sites under 
section 14(h) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. My colleague from Wisconsin is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Am I also correct in my understanding that five of 
these parcels covered by these applications are currently within the 
Nellie Juan-College Fjord Wilderness Study Area, WSA, designated by 
Congress in section 704 of Public Law 96-487, the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. My colleague from Wisconsin is correct, and I am sure 
my colleague shares my concern that the Secretary of Agriculture has 
not met

[[Page S11758]]

the requirement of section 704 of ANILCA that he report to the 
President and Congress within three years his recommendation as to the 
suitability and nonsuitability of such lands for wilderness 
designation. I would also note that the submission of these 
applications by the CAC pre-dated enactment of ANILCA.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Am I further correct in my understanding that one of 
these parcels, Coghill Point, is near an area which was determined to 
be eligible for designation as a wild and scenic river as part of the 
Chugach National Forest planning process?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, my colleague from Wisconsin is correct, 
however, the land containing such parcel is not designated as such in 
the draft forest plan identified by the Forest Service as the preferred 
alternative.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. As the Senator knows, 43 C.F.R. Sec. 2653.5 requires 
that regional corporations that are conveyed cemetery sites or 
historical places pursuant to section 14(h) of ANCSA agree to accept a 
covenant in the conveyance that these cemetery sites or historical 
places will be maintained and preserved solely as cemetery sites or 
historical places by the regional corporation, in accordance with the 
provisions for conveyance reservations in 43 C.F.R. Sec. 2653.11. Is it 
the case that, if the Secretary of the Interior chooses to act 
favorably on these conveyance applications, nothing in this act is 
intended to prevent the Secretary from complying with the covenant 
requirements of these regulations in conveying these seven parcels of 
land to the CAC?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Wisconsin is correct. This 
legislation is not intended to eliminate any covenant requirements.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. As my colleague further knows, the conveyance 
reservations contained in 43 C.F.R. Sec. 2653.11 prohibit the grantee 
from authorizing any mining or mineral activity of any type, or ``any 
use which is incompatible with or is in derogation of the values of the 
area as a cemetery or historic place'' as defined further by 36 C.F.R. 
Sec. 800.9. Is it the case that nothing in this act is intended to 
prevent the United States from seeking enforcement of such 
prohibitions, as authorized under C.F.R. 2653.11?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Wisconsin is correct. This 
legislation is not intended to prevent enforcement of such 
prohibitions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Alaska for helping me to 
clarify these issues.


 the torres-MARTINEZ DESERT CAHUILLA INDIANS CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT OF 
                                  2000

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Campbell, engage in a brief 
colloquy regarding the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 
Settlement Act of 2000. The purpose of this legislation is to provide 
for the settlement of issues and claims related to the trust lands of 
the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians of California.
  In June 1996, after decades of neglect and months of difficult 
negotiations, representatives of the United States, the Torres-Martinez 
Tribe, the Imperial Irrigation District, and the Coachella Valley Water 
District signed a settlement agreement that resolves their conflicting 
claims and provides for dismissal of litigation. Legislation necessary 
to ratify this settlement agreement and to authorize the Federal 
actions and appropriations necessary for its implementation was 
introduced in 1996. However, because provisions in the legislation 
dealing with the taking of after-acquired land into trust for purposes 
of gaming proved very controversial, the legislation never passed the 
Senate. It has taken this long to get to the point where the bill is 
again being considered by the Senate, and the bill is still 
controversial.
  The basic settlement provisions involve land and cash in return for 
dismissal of all claims with regard to the Torres-Martinez Tribe. By 
far the most controversial of the provisions in the bill are those 
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to take lands into trust for 
the explicit purpose of gaming. These lands are isolated from the 
principal lands to be taken into trust for the tribe, and have only one 
purpose--to provide a place to build a casino. It is clear that these 
lands have been chosen, not because of their cultural or historical 
relationship to the tribal members, but because of their proximity to 
an area of high density traffic. While Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 
IGRA, authorizes the Secretary to take lands into trust as part of a 
land settlement, it was never the intent of IGRA to allow the Federal 
land claims settlement process to be manipulated in this manner.
  Personally, I feel that the language in H.R. 4643 is poorly drafted, 
particularly when it comes to authorizing the taking of land into trust 
for purposes of gaming. I think we should draft a new bill that more 
clearly respects the intent of IGRA. However, I understand the hardship 
that further delay would cause the Torres-Martinez Tribe; and so I am 
prepared to allow H.R. 5528 to proceed as drafted. I do believe, and I 
want to make my views clear, that the practice of settling Indian land 
claims with off-reservation land-into-trust acquisitions for purposes 
of gaming is something that should not become common practice in 
settling these claims.
  Does the chairman agree that H.R. 5528 represents a unique situation, 
and the Department of Justice and the Secretary of Interior should work 
to ensure that when they are negotiating Indian land claims they should 
try and hammer out fair settlements that fully compensate tribes for 
legitimate losses they have suffered and that land-into-trust 
acquisitions for gaming purposes as a component of such settlements 
should be avoided?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, first I would like to thank my colleague 
from Nevada for expressing his thoughts and concerns with H.R. 5528, 
and I want to express my thoughts on this matter as we pass this 
legislation.
  I think that H.R. 5528 does present a unique situation in that the 
Torres-Martinez Tribe's lands have been inundated by the waters of the 
Colorado River since the beginning of the 1900s and one that I hope is 
not in other settlement agreements negotiated by the Department of 
Justice and presented to Congress for its consideration.
  I understand your concerns about the precedent that would be set if 
as part of land settlements, land-into-trust acquisitions for gaming 
purposes were routinely proposed in exchange for the settlement of land 
claims. Though IGRA clearly calls for that situation in section 2719 of 
the Act, I agree that if a wholesale policy of off-reservation 
acquisitions as part of a settlement were adopted by the Department of 
Justice or this Congress, that a great many Senators would call for 
amendments to the act.
  While I appreciate these concerns and would not favor inclusion of 
off-reservation land-into-trust acquisitions for purposes of land 
settlement in all cases, the IGRA is clear in providing the authority 
to do just that if warranted by the facts of the case in question.
  Although this legislation is not the most desirable option and does 
not provide all parties with what they want out of a legislated 
settlement, it does provide justice to the Torres-Martinez Tribe and I 
think we are right in approving the bill.
  Mr. REID. I thank the chairman and agree with him that this is a 
matter for which we do not want to set precedent with the bill before 
us.


                      coushatta tribe of louisiana

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Breaux engage in a brief 
colloquy regarding S. 2792. The purpose of the legislation sponsored by 
the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana is to provide that land 
owned by the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana but which is not held in 
trust by the United States for the Tribe may be leased or transferred 
by the tribe without further approval by the United States.
  I am concerned because the language in this bill does not clearly 
provide that, if there is going to be gaming on this land, it is to be 
regulated gaming. That is, any land included in this bill is subject to 
regulation either by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, if Indians 
purchase the land, or subject to state and local regulation.
  I stand for a conservative interpretation of the IGRA. As such, with 
all land bills involving Indian land, we must follow IGRA--in statute 
and intent. Congressional intent for Indian gaming under IGRA was to 
provide economic flexibility regarding the use of land

[[Page S11759]]

which has a cultural or historical relationship to the tribal members. 
Congress did not provide in IGRA a mechanism for tribes to use to 
acquire and sell land which is only valuable because of its proximity 
to a commercially attractive area of high density traffic.
  Is it the intent of the Senator from Louisiana that S. 2792 fully 
comply with the statute and intent of IGRA and that if any gaming takes 
place on the land covered by this bill, such gaming continues to be 
subject to the applicable IGRA or state or local regulation?
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague from Nevada for 
expressing his thoughts and concerns with S. 2792, and I want to 
express my thoughts on this matter as we pass this legislation.
  I agree that it was never the intent of S. 2792 to circumvent 
regulation of gaming. This bill simply provides for the Coushatta Tribe 
to lease or transfer land without further approval. This bill in no way 
provides for any gaming regulatory loopholes.
  Mr. REID. I thank the senior Senator from Louisiana.


                  the graton rancheria restoration act

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of the Indian Affairs 
Committee, Senator Campbell, and the distinguished ranking Democrat, 
Senator Inouye, for moving this important bill to the Senate floor. 
This bill will restore Federal recognition and associated rights, 
privileges, and eligibility for Federal services and benefits to the 
Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria of California, formerly known 
as the Coastal Miwok tribe.
  This bill provides much needed recognition for the tribe. The Graton 
Rancheria have been waiting decades for the Government to undo a past 
wrong. In 1958, the Federal Government stripped the Graton Rancheria of 
Federal recognition. Recently, it was found that the tribe holds a 
small parcel of land in Graton, CA that had been set aside as 
reservation for them in the 1920s.
  As passed in the House of Representatives, this bill included 
language that waived the tribe's gaming rights. I supported that 
language, as did the Graton Rancheria and the local community. However, 
it was clear that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs would not support the language. The chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs have offered 
an amendment that removes the no-gaming clause. In his statement 
accompanying the amendment, Senator Inouye asserts that the no-gaming 
clause is unnecessary because the Graton Rancheria have no intention of 
conducting gaming.
  I hope with the Senate passage of this bill that the House, the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and the administration can work to 
resolve the differences over the no-gaming clause and come to an 
agreement on either bill or report language.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table, and any statement relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 5528) was considered read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________