[Senate Report 106-449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 895
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-449

======================================================================



 
   TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF PUBLIC LANDS TO CERTAIN CALIFORNIA 
                             INDIAN TRIBES

                                _______
                                

October 2 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Campbell, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1840]

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 1840) to provide for the transfer of public lands to 
certain California Indian tribes, having considered same, 
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that 
the bill do pass.

                                purpose

    The purpose of S. 1840, introduced by Senator Boxer, is to 
add a total of 3,525.8 acres of public land to the existing 
reservations of eight small tribes of Indians in the State of 
California for use primarily for non-gaming economic 
development purposes and for housing. Pursuant to the Indian 
Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461), the authority to 
create Indian country is reserved to the Congress; thus, the 
addition of land to the subject reservations in California must 
be accomplished through legislation.

                   background and legislative history

    At a ``Western Listening Conference'' in December, 1994, 
the Secretary of the Interior met with more than sixty 
California tribal representatives and discussed, among other 
subjects, the tribes' land base and economic development needs, 
and pledged to help the tribes identify means to secure 
additional lands for their use. Subsequently, a draft bill was 
developed through the collective efforts of several agencies of 
the Department of the Interior and numerous Indian tribes in 
California. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) introduced this 
legislation in the 104th Congress as H.R. 3642. On June 13, 
1996, the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives reported H.R. 3642 favorably (H. Rept. 104-767) 
and the House passed it by voice vote on September 10, 1996. 
The bill had been cleared for Senate floor action when the 
104th Congress adjourned sine die.
    In the 105th Congress, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) introduced a 
similar bill, H.R. 2742, which was the subject of a hearing 
before the House Resources Committee on March 17, 1998. 
Testimony from the Administration and the affected tribes, like 
that provided in the previous Congress, strongly supported the 
legislation and emphasized the needs of the particular tribes 
for additional lands. The testimony emphasized findings of the 
congressionally established Advisory Council on California 
Indian Policy, in its final report to the Congress in the fall 
of 1997, which documented the acute needs of California tribes 
for land on which to conduct economic activities and to provide 
for housing for their members. On June 10, 1998, the Committee 
on Resources reported H.R. 2742 favorably (H. Rept. 105-575) 
and the House passed the bill on October 5th, 1998. As was the 
case with H.R. 3642 in the previous Congress, however, H.R. 
2742 had been cleared for Senate floor action but has not been 
acted upon when the 105th Congress adjourned sine die.
    On November 2, 1999, again at the request of the 
Administration, Senator Boxer introduced S. 1840, which would 
transfer parcels of public land to eight small tribes in 
California. All of the subject lands are adjacent to or are 
surrounded by existing reservation lands and have been formerly 
classified as suitable for disposal through the Bureau of Land 
Management's land use planning process. All of the lands have 
been subject to environmental reviews that concluded that these 
lands are suitable for transfer, have no potentially protected 
habitat as defined in section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1536), and will create no significant impacts to the 
environment. Pursuant to the National Environmental Quality Act 
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), additional environmental analysis will 
be performed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs prior to 
authorization of any development.
    The Department of the Interior and the involved tribes 
consulted with local governments on the proposed transfers 
through the planning process, and with the State of California. 
In all cases local governments either expressed no concerns 
with the proposed transfer or adopted formal positions 
supporting the proposed action, and the California State Lands 
Commission notified the BLM that there is no state interest 
barring the transfers. On September 12, 2000, Chairman Campbell 
received a letter from Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for 
Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, iterating the 
Department's strong support for enactment of S. 1840.

            COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTE

    The Committee on Indian Affairs, in an open business 
session on September 27, 2000, by voice vote ordered S. 1840 
reported with the recommendation that the Senate pass it as 
reported.

                      SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

    Section 1 of the bill states the short title as the 
``California Indian Land Transfer Act''.
    Section 2(a) provides that, subject to valid existing 
rights, all right, title and interest of the United States in 
and to the lands, including improvements and appurtenances, of 
the lands described in (2)(b) are declared in trust for the 
benefit of the respective tribe, band, or group named therein, 
and that none of such lands shall be considered to have been 
taken into trust for gaming as that term is used in the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
    Section 2(b) describes the lands to be transferred, 
totalling 3,525.8 acres, to the following tribal entities:
    (1) Pit River Tribe--561.69 acres;
    (2) Fort Independence Community of Paiute Indians--200.6 
acres;
    (3) Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission 
Indians--5.03 acres;
    (4) Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians--1,360 acres;
    (5) Manzanita Band of Mission Indians--1,000.78 acres;
    (6) Morongo Band of Mission Indians--40 acres;
    (7) Pala Band of Mission Indians--59.2 acres; and,
    (8) Fort Bidwell Community of Paiute indians--299.04 acres.
    Section 3(a) provides that any amounts that accrue to the 
United States after the date of enactment of this Act from 
sales, bonuses, royalties and rentals relating to any land 
described in section 2 shall be available for use or 
obligation, in such manner and for such purposes as the 
Secretary may approve, by the tribe, band or group of Indians 
for whose benefit such land is taken into trust.
    Section 3(b) provides that grazing preferences on lands 
described in section 2 shall terminate 2 years after the date 
of enactment of this Act.
    Section 3(c) provides that the lands to be held in trust 
pursuant to this Act shall be added to the existing reservation 
of the named tribe, band, or group, and the official 
reservation boundaries shall be modified accordingly. Further, 
the transferred 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 such tribe, 
band or group on the day before the date of enactment of this 
Act.

                   cost and budgetary considerations

    The cost estimate for S. 1840, as provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 28, 2000.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1840, the California 
Indian Land Transfer Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. 
Keith.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

S. 1840--California Indian Land Transfer Act

    CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no 
significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting S. 1840 
would affect direct spending by resulting in a small loss in 
offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending); 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
    S. 1840 would transfer a total of 3,526 acres of federal 
land in California into trust for various Indian tribes. The 
bill would terminate grazing privileges on that land two years 
after its enactment. At that time, tribes would be able to 
renegotiate the grazing permits. The bill stipulates that all 
receipts collected from use of the land after enactment be made 
available to the tribes. Based on information from the Bureau 
of Land Management, CBO estimates that the loss to the federal 
government of existing grazing receipts would be less than $100 
annually. There are no other income-generating activities 
associated with the land, and the agency does not plan to sell 
the land. Any discretionary costs associated with the transfer 
of the land would be minimal.
    S. 1840 contains no private-sector or intergovernmental 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no significant costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J. 
Keith. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                      regulatory impact statement

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the 
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill S. 1840. The Committee finds that the 
regulatory impact of S. 1840 will be minimal.

                        executive communications

    The Committee received a letter dated September 12, 2000, 
from Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, 
United States Department of the Interior, regarding S. 1840.

                        Department of the Interior,
                                   Office of the Secretary,
                                Washington, DC, September 12, 2000.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
offer the Department of the Interior's strong support of S. 
1840, the ``California Indian Land Transfer Act''. This 
legislation, originally offered by the Administration and 
passed by the House as H.R. 2742 in the 105th Congress, 
represents the most affirmative, collaborative and extensive 
effort ever taken by Indian Tribes to work with federal, state 
and local agencies in seeking to augment their small 
reservation land base.
    The bill would authorize the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) to transfer more than 3,500 acres of public lands to 
eight tribes in California for non-gaming economic development 
and housing. The public lands, which are adjacent to or 
surrounded by existing reservation lands, have been formally 
classified as suitable for disposal through the BLM land use 
planning process.
    This transfer authorizes no surface disturbing activity. 
The Department conducted environmental reviews of the lands to 
be transferred in conjunction with the preparation of the 
resource management plans and classification decisions. These 
environmental reviews concluded that these lands are suitable 
for transfer. No potentially protected habitat exists pursuant 
to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536), 
and the transfers will create no significant impacts to the 
environment. Pursuant to the National Environmental Quality Act 
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)), additional environmental analysis will 
be performed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) prior to 
authorization of any development.
    The BIA will be responsible for compliance with section 106 
of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), to 
the same extent, in the same manner, and to the same degree as 
currently applies to BLM.
    The Department and the involved tribes consulted with local 
governments on proposed transfers through the planning process. 
In all cases local governments either expressed no concerns 
with the proposed transfer or adopted formal positions 
supporting the proposed action. Pursuant to Section 707(c) of 
the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-
433 (108 Stat. 4471, 4499), the Department consulted with the 
State of California on this initiative. The California State 
Lands Commission notified BLM that there is no State interest 
barring the transfer. This legislation is truly the product of 
tribal and community collaboration and a model for effective 
consideration of tribal land needs.
    The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
program to the transmittal of this letter.
            Sincerely,
                                               Kevin Gover,
                            Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.

                        changes in existing law

    In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that 
enactment of S. 1840 will not result in any changes in existing 
law.

                                  
