[Senate Report 109-175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 282
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-175
======================================================================
DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN LAND HELD IN
TRUST FOR THE PAIUTE INDIAN TRIBE OF UTAH TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
November 7, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 680]
The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 680), to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain land held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe
of Utah to the City of Richfield, Utah, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose
The purposes of H.R. 680 are to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to convey certain land held in trust for the
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (``Tribe'') to the City of
Richfield, Utah, upon the request of the Tribe and the City; to
provide that lands taken into trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe
after February 17, 1984, are part of the Tribe's reservation;
to authorize the Secretary, upon request by the Tribe, to
transfer land held in trust for the Tribe to two of the Tribe's
constituent bands; and to amend the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 761 et seq.) by striking the words
``Cedar City'' wherever it appears in that Act and replacing
them with ``Cedar''.
Background
Four of the constituent bands of the Paiute Indian Tribe--
specifically, the Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem, and Indian Peaks
Bands--were the subject of Federal termination legislation
enacted in 1954.\1\ In 1980, Federal supervision was restored
to the four bands, and ``restored or confirmed'' with respect
to the fifth (the Cedar City Band), with the enactment of the
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. See Public Law 96-
227, 25 U.S.C. 761, et seq. (94 Stat. 317). Certain lands
described in the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Reservation Plan
published by the Secretary pursuant to Public Law 96-227 were
made a part of the Tribe's reservation in 1984 under Section 1
of Public Law 98-219 (98 Stat. 11). The Committee has been
informed that a tract of the Tribe's trust lands is needed by
the City of Richfield, Utah, for purposes of expanding its
airport facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Act of September 1, 1954 (68 Stat. 1099). This Act did not
mention the Cedar City Band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Provisions of H.R. 680
The principal purpose of H.R. 680 is to give the Secretary
of the Interior statutory authority to transfer, upon request
by the Tribe and the City of Richfield, a certain tract of land
(described in section 5(2) of the bill) to the City pursuant to
an agreement for sale between the Tribe and the City.\2\ The
Committee has received information that the City of Richfield,
Utah, needs and intends to use this particular tract of land
for expansion of its airport facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Secretary must ensure that the terms of the sale have been
approved by a resolution of the Tribe, and the consideration given for
the land must not be less than its appraised fair market value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other operative provision of the bill relates to
certain tracts of land, currently held by the United States in
trust for the tribe, that were acquired for the Tribe
subsequent to February 17, 1984, the date on which lands were
added to the Tribe's reservation in Utah under Public Law 98-
219. Subsequent to the enactment of Public Law 98-219, the
United States acquired lands in trust for the tribe within the
state of Utah. The effect of section 2 of the bill is to
confirm that these tracts of land are part of the tribe's
reservation.
Legislative History
H.R. 680 was introduced on February 9, 2005, by
Representative Cannon, and passed by the House on March 14,
2005. After being received by the Senate, the bill was referred
to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. An identical
companion bill, S. 623, was introduced by Senator Hatch on
March 15, 2005. Senator Bennett joined as a cosponsor of S. 623
on June 13, 2005.
Committee Recommendation and Tabulation of Vote
The Committee on Indian Affairs, in an open business
session on June 29, 2005, by voice vote ordered the bill
reported favorably to the Senate, without amendment.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Sec. 1. Land conveyance to the city
Section 1 of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior
to convey all right, title and interest in certain property
(specifically defined and identified in section 5 of the bill)
to the City of Richfield, Utah, within 90 days after receiving
a request from the Tribe and the City. This section sets out
the conditions for the conveyance, and states that the proceeds
from the sale of the property shall be paid immediately to the
Tribe.
Sec. 2. Tribal reservation
Section 2 of the bill states that land acquired by the
United States in trust for the Tribe after February 17, 1984,
shall be part of the Tribe's reservation.
Sec. 3. Trust land for Shivwits or Kanosh Bands
Section 3 directs the Secretary, at the request of the
Tribe, to take land out of trust for the Tribe and place the
land in trust for the Shivwits or Kanosh Bands of the Tribe.
Sec. 4. Cedar Band of Paiutes technical correction
Section 4 of the bill makes a technical amendment to the
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act by striking ``Cedar
City'' and inserting ``Cedar'' when referencing that band of
the Tribe, and directing that the same amendment be made in any
other laws, maps, regulations or other records referencing
``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians.''
Sec. 5. Definitions
Section 5 sets forth the defined terms used in the bill.
Cost and Budgetary Considerations
The cost estimate for H.R. 680, as provided by the
Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below:
H.R. 680--An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain land held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah
to the city of Richfield, Utah, and for other purposes
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 680 would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting H.R. 680
would not affect revenues or direct spending. H.R. 680 would
direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey three acres of
land held in trust for the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to
Richfield, Utah, for use by a local municipal airport. Because
the act would require the city to pay all costs related to the
conveyance, there would be no federal administrative costs for
the transfer.
H.R. 680 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The land conveyances authorized by this bill would be voluntary
on the part of the Paiute Tribe and the city of Richfield. Any
costs they might incur to comply with the conditions of the
conveyance would be incurred voluntarily.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mike Waters.
This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Executive Communications
The Committee has received no official executive
communications regarding H.R. 680.
Regulatory and Paperwork Impact
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. The Committee finds that the regulatory
and paperwork impact of H.R. 680 should be minimal.
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 H.R. 680 will effect the following changes to
existing law (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed
in black brackets, and new matter is printed in italic):
25 U.S.C. 761(1)
Sec. 761. Definitions
For the purposes of this subchapter--
(1) the term ``tribe'' means the [Cedar City] Cedar,
Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem, and Indian Peaks Bands of
Paiute Indians of Utah;
* * * * * * *
25 U.S.C. 762(a)
Sec. 762. Federal restoration of supervision
(a) Trust relationship restored or confirmed; statutory
provisions applicable; eligibility for Federal services and
benefits
The Federal trust relationship is restored to the
Shivwits, Kanosh, Koosharem, and Indian Peaks Bands of
Paiute Indians of Utah and restored or confirmed with
respect to the [Cedar City] Cedar Band of Paiute
Indians of Utah.
* * * * * * *
25 U.S.C. 763(b)(1)
Sec. 763. Membership roll
* * * * * * *
(b) Prerequisites for inclusion
(1) Until after the initial election of tribal
officers under the tribal constitution and bylaws, a
person shall be a member of the tribe and his name
shall be placed on the membership roll if he is living
and if--
* * * * * * *
(E) he was entitled on October 17, 1968, to
be on the judgment distribution roll as a
member of the [Cedar City] Cedar Band as
specified in subparagraph (D) but his name was
not listed on that roll; * * *
25 U.S.C. 766(c)
Sec. 766. Tribal reservation
* * * * * * *
(c) Plan for enlargement of reservation; negotiation;
development; scope and approval
Inasmuch as the Kanosh, Koosharem and Indian Peaks
Bands of Paiute Indians lost land which had been their
former reservations and the [Cedar City] Cedar Band of
Paiute Indians had never had a reservation, the
Secretary shall negotiate with the tribe or bands,
concerning the enlargement of the reservation for the
tribe established pursuant to subsection (a) of this
section and shall within two years after April 3, 1980,
develop a plan for the enlargement of the reservation
for the tribe. * * *