[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.