[House Report 104-767]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-767
_______________________________________________________________________
CALIFORNIA INDIAN LAND TRANSFER ACT
_______
September 4, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3642]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3642) to provide for the transfer of public lands to
certain California Indian Tribes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
purpose of the bill
The purpose of H.R. 3642 is to provide for the transfer of
public lands to certain California Indian Tribes.
background and need for legislation
H.R. 3642 would transfer into trust 1,144.23 acres of
excess Bureau of Land Management land, to be subsequently
transferred by the Secretary of the Interior to the following
tribes:
(1) 560 acres to the Pit River Tribe;
(2) 40 acres to the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony;
(3) 240 acres to the Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe;
(4) 200 acres to the Fort Independence Community of
Paiute Indians;
(5) 5.03 acres to the Barona Group of Capitan Grande
Band of Mission Indians;
(6) 40 acres to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians;
and
(7) 59.2 acres to the Pala Band of Mission Indians.
Valid existing rights are preserved and grazing privileges
on these lands shall terminate two years after the date of
enactment of the Act. Those amounts which accrue to the United
States after the date of enactment of the Act from the lands
described in the Act shall be available to the related tribe
for whose benefit the land is taken into trust. The bill is
supported by the Administration.
committee action
H.R. 3642 was introduced on June 13, 1996, by Congressman
Elton Gallegly (R-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee
on Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on
Native American and Insular Affairs and the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Lands. On June 19, 1996, the
Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs met to mark
up H.R. 3642. The bill was then ordered favorably reported by
voice vote to the Full Committee without amendment. On August
1, 1996, the Full Resources Committee met to consider H.R.
3642. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands was
discharged from further consideration. The bill was ordered
favorably reported by voice vote to the House of
Representatives, in the presence of a quorum, without
amendment.
section-by-section analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section provides that this Act may be cited as the
``California Indian Land Transfer Act.''
Section 2. Lands held in trust for various tribes of California Indians
Subsection (a) would declare that all lands described in
subsection (b) shall be held in trust by the United States for
the benefit of certain California Indian tribes.
Subsection (b) describes 1,144.23 acres of land to be
transferred to the following tribes:
(1) 560 acres to the Pit River Tribe;
(2) 40 acres to the Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony;
(3) 240 acres to the Utu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe;
(4) 200 acres to the Fort Independence Community of
Paiute Indians;
(5) 5.03 acres to the Barona Group of Capitan Grande
Band of Mission Indians;
(6) 40 acres to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians;
and
(7) 59.2 acres to the Pala Band of Mission Indians.
Section 3. Existing rights preserved; miscellaneous provisions
Subsection (a) provides that valid existing rights shall be
preserved on those lands described in Section 2.
Subsection (b) provides that grazing privileges on these
lands shall terminate two years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Subsection (c) provides that those amounts which accrue to
the United States after the date of enactment of this Act from
the lands described in this Act shall be available to the
related tribe for whose benefit the land is held in trust.
Subsection (d) provides that those lands described in this
Act shall be added to the existing reservation of the related
tribe and the official boundaries of those reservations shall
be modified accordingly. Those lands shall be subject to the
laws of the United States relating to Indian land in the same
manner and to the same extent as other lands held in trust for
each tribe on the day before the date of this Act.
committee oversight findings and recommendations
With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
the Committee on Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
inflationary impact statement
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the
enactment of H.R. 3642 will have no significant inflationary
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national
economy.
cost of the legislation
Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 3642. However, clause 7(d) of that rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Compliance with house rule xi
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R.
3642 does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in tax
expenditures. Enactment of H.R. 3642 would result in an
extremely small loss of receipts to the Federal Government--
less than $100 annually.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 3642.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R.
3642 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
congressional budget office cost estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 22, 1996.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed H.R. 3642, the California Indian Land Transfer Act, as
ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on August
1, 1996. CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no
significant effect on discretionary spending. Enacting H.R.
3642 would affect direct spending by resulting in a small loss
in offsetting receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures
would apply to the bill. We estimate the effect on offsetting
receipts would not be significant.
H.R. 3642 would transfer into trust a total of 1,144 acres
of Federal land in California to various Indian tribes. The
bill would preserve valid existing rights on these lands,
though grazing privileges would terminate two years after
enactment. The bill also would require the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to hold in trust for the benefit of the
related tribes any receipts collected from use of the land.
Based on information from the BLM, CBO estimates that the loss
to the Federal Government of existing grazing receipts would be
negligible: less than $100 annually. There are no other
receipt-generating activities associated with the land, and the
agency has no plan to sell the land. Any discretionary costs
associated with the surveyance or transfer of the land also
would be minimal.
H.R. 3642 would impose no private-sector or
intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4), and would impose no
significant costs on state, local or tribal governments.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lisa Daley.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
compliance with public law 104-4
H.R. 3642 contains no unfunded mandates.
changes in existing law
If enacted, H.R. 3642 would make no changes in existing
law.