Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-594
_______________________________________________________________________


 
            GUADALUPE-HIDALGO TREATY LAND CLAIMS ACT OF 1998

                                _______
                                

 June 23, 1998.--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

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2538]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2538) to establish a Presidential commission to determine 
the validity of certain land claims arising out of the Treaty 
of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848 involving the descendants of 
persons who were Mexican citizens at the time of the Treaty, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
Treaty Land Claims Act of 1998''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as 
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions and findings.
Sec. 3. Establishment and membership of Commission.
Sec. 4. Examination of land claims.
Sec. 5. Community Land Grant Study Center.
Sec. 6. Miscellaneous powers of Commission.
Sec. 7. Report.
Sec. 8. Termination.
Sec. 9. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND FINDINGS.

  (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act:
          (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Guadalupe-
        Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Commission established under section 
        3.
          (2) Treaty of guadalupe-hidalgo.--The term ``Treaty of 
        Guadalupe-Hidalgo'' means the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, 
        Limits, and Settlement (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo), between 
        the United States and the Republic of Mexico, signed February 
        2, 1848 (TS 207; 9 Bevans 791).
          (3) Eligible descendant.--The term ``eligible descendant'' 
        means a descendant of a person who--
                  (A) was a Mexican citizen before the Treaty of 
                Guadalupe-Hidalgo;
                  (B) was a member of a community land grant; and
                  (C) became a United States citizen within ten years 
                after the effective date of the Treaty of Guadalupe-
                Hidalgo, May 30, 1848, pursuant to the terms of the 
                Treaty.
          (4) Community land grant.--The term ``community land grant'' 
        means a village, town, settlement, or pueblo consisting of land 
        held in common (accompanied by lesser private allotments) by 
        three or more families under a grant from the King of Spain (or 
        his representative) before the effective date of the Treaty of 
        Cordova, August 24, 1821, or from the authorities of the 
        Republic of Mexico before May 30, 1848, in what became the 
        State of New Mexico, regardless of the original character of 
        the grant.
          (5) Reconstituted.--The term ``reconstituted'', with regard 
        to a valid community land grant, means restoration to full 
        status as a municipality with rights properly belonging to a 
        municipality under State law and the right of local self-
        government.
  (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
          (1) New Mexico has a unique history regarding the acquisition 
        of ownership of land as a result of the substantial number of 
        Spanish and Mexican land grants that were an integral part of 
        the colonization and growth of New Mexico before the United 
        States acquired the area in the Treaty of Guadalupe- Hidalgo.
          (2) Various provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
        have not yet been fully implemented in the spirit of Article 
        VI, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
          (3) Serious questions regarding the prior ownership of lands 
        in the State of New Mexico, particularly certain public lands, 
        still exist.
          (4) Congressionally established land claim commissions have 
        been used in the past to successfully examine disputed land 
        possession questions.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION.

  (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be known as 
the ``Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Commission''.
  (b) Number and Appointment of Members.--The Commission shall be 
composed of five members appointed by the President by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate. At least two of the members of the 
Commission shall be selected from among persons who are eligible 
descendants.
  (c) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of the 
Commission. A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the manner 
in which the original appointment was made.
  (d) Compensation.--Members shall each be entitled to receive the 
daily equivalent of level V of the Executive Schedule for each day 
(including travel time) during which they are engaged in the actual 
performance of duties vested in the Commission.

SEC. 4. EXAMINATION OF LAND CLAIMS.

  (a) Submission of Land Claims Petitions.--Any three (or more) 
eligible descendants who are also descendants of the same community 
land grant may file with the Commission a petition on behalf of 
themselves and all other descendants of that community land grant 
seeking a determination of the validity of the land claim that is the 
basis for the petition.
  (b) Deadline for Submission.--To be considered by the Commission, a 
petition under subsection (a) must be received by the Commission not 
later than five years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
  (c) Elements of Petition.--A petition under subsection (a) shall be 
made under oath and shall contain the following:
          (1) The names and addresses of the eligible descendants who 
        are petitioners.
          (2) The fact that the land involved in the petition was a 
        community land grant at the time of the effective date of the 
        Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty.
          (3) The extent of the community land grant, to the best of 
        the knowledge of the petitioners, accompanied with a survey or, 
        if a survey is not feasible to them, a sketch map thereof.
          (4) The fact that the petitioners reside, or intend to settle 
        upon, the community land grant.
          (5) All facts known to petitioners concerning the community 
        land grant, together with copies of all papers in regard 
        thereto available to petitioners.
  (d) Petition Hearing.--At one or more designated locations in the 
State of New Mexico, the Commission shall hold a hearing upon each 
petition timely submitted under subsection (a), at which hearing all 
persons having an interest in the land involved in the petition shall 
have the right, upon notice, to appear as a party.
  (e) Subpoena Power.--
          (1) In general.--The Commission may issue subpoenas requiring 
        the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of 
        any evidence relating to any petition submitted under 
        subsection (a). The attendance of witnesses and the production 
        of evidence may be required from any place within the United 
        States at any designated place of hearing within the State of 
        New Mexico.
          (2) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to obey 
        a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the Commission may apply 
        to a United States district court for an order requiring that 
        person to appear before the Commission to give testimony, 
        produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter under 
        investigation. The application may be made within the judicial 
        district where the hearing is conducted or where that person is 
        found, resides, or transacts business. Any failure to obey the 
        order of the court may be punished by the court as civil 
        contempt.
          (3) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission 
        shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued by 
        a United States district court under the Federal Rules of Civil 
        Procedure for the United States district courts.
          (4) Service of process.--All process of any court to which 
        application is to be made under paragraph (2) may be served in 
        the judicial district in which the person required to be served 
        resides or may be found.
  (f) Decision.--On the basis of the facts contained in a petition 
submitted under subsection (a), and the hearing held with regard to the 
petition, the Commission shall determine the validity of the community 
land grant described in the petition. The decision shall include a 
recommendation of the Commission regarding whether the community land 
grant should be reconstituted and its lands restored.
  (g) Protection of Non-Federal Property.--The decision of the 
Commission regarding the validity of a petition submitted under 
subsection (a) shall not affect the ownership, title, or rights of 
owners of any non-Federal lands covered by the petition. Any 
recommendation of the Commission under subsection (f) regarding whether 
a community land grant should be reconstituted and its lands restored 
may not address non-Federal lands. In the case of a valid petition 
covering lands held in non-Federal ownership, the Commission shall 
modify the recommendation under subsection (f) to recommend the 
substitution of comparable Federal lands in the State of New Mexico for 
the lands held in non-Federal ownership.

SEC. 5. COMMUNITY LAND GRANT STUDY CENTER.

  To assist the Commission in the performance of its activities under 
section 4, the Commission shall establish a Community Land Grant Study 
Center at the Onate Center in Alcalde, New Mexico. The Commission shall 
be charged with the responsibility of directing the research, study, 
and investigations necessary for the Commission to perform its duties 
under this Act.

SEC. 6. MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COMMISSION.

  (a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
carrying out this Act, hold hearings, sit and act at times and places, 
take testimony, and receive evidence as the Commission considers 
appropriate. The Commission may administer oaths or affirmations to 
witnesses appearing before it.
  (b) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of the 
Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action which 
the Commission is authorized to take by this section.
  (c) Gifts, Bequests, and Devises.--The Commission may accept, use, 
and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of services or property, 
both real and personal, for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the 
work of the Commission. Gifts, bequests, or devises of money and 
proceeds from sales of other property received as gifts, bequests, or 
devises shall be deposited in the Treasury and shall be available for 
disbursement upon order of the Commission. For purposes of Federal 
income, estate, and gift taxes, property accepted under this subsection 
shall be considered as a gift, bequest, or devise to the United States.
  (d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails in the 
same manner and under the same conditions as other departments and 
agencies of the United States.
  (e) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of the 
Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall provide to the 
Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the administrative support 
services necessary for the Commission to carry out its responsibilities 
under this Act.
  (f) Immunity.--The Commission is an agency of the United States for 
the purpose of part V of title 18, United States Code (relating to 
immunity of witnesses).

SEC. 7. REPORT.

  As soon as practicable after reaching its last decision under section 
4, the Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress a 
report containing each decision, including the recommendation of the 
Commission regarding whether certain community land grants should be 
reconstituted, so that the Congress may act upon the recommendations.

SEC. 8. TERMINATION.

  The Commission shall terminate on 180 days after submitting its final 
report under section 7.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for each of the 
fiscal years 1999 through 2007 for the purpose of carrying out the 
activities of the Commission and to establish and operate the Community 
Land Grant Study Center under section 5.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 2538 is to establish a Presidential 
commission to determine the validity of certain land claims 
arising out of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848 
involving the descendants of persons who were Mexican citizens 
at the time of the Treaty.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    H.R. 2538 directs the President of the United States to 
establish a Commission to determine the validity of certain 
land claims (community land grants) arising out of the Treaty 
of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848 involving the descendants of 
persons who were Mexican citizens at the time of the Treaty. 
The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was the result of the end of 
the Mexican-American War. This treaty led to the acquisition by 
purchase ($15 million) of territories which now are the entire 
states of California, Nevada, and Utah, along with significant 
portions of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, and smaller 
portions of Colorado and Wyoming.
    Under the terms of the Treaty, sale of these territories to 
the United States by Mexico was guaranteed. However, private 
property rights within these territories held by Mexicans who 
became or who were to become United States citizens would be 
respected. In part, Article VIII of the Treaty states:

          In the said territories, property of every kind, now 
        belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be 
        inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of 
        these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said 
        property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it 
        guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to 
        citizens of the United States.

    Allegedly, the federal government failed to observe this 
section of the treaty and failed to protect the property rights 
of these people. Thus, the Mexicans who became American 
citizens lost all right and title to much of their property. It 
is the heirs of these Mexicans who are now claiming the land 
under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Most of this property is 
currently under federal ownership and is managed by the U.S. 
Forest Service. It is a considerable amount of acreage 
involving approximately 65 community land grant claims 
estimated to be 1.5 million acres in New Mexico alone. There 
are other land grants in Arizona and Texas.
    This bill would establish a Commission to review and 
determine the validity of the petitioned community land grant 
claims filed by eligible descendants. The Commission will be 
comprised of five members appointed by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate. After reaching its last decision the 
Commission will submit to the President and to Congress a 
report containing the decisions and a recommendation on whether 
each community land grant should be reconstituted.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 2538 was introduced on September 24, 1997, by 
Congressman Bill Redmond (R-NM). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. On March 26, 
1998, the Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 2538, where 
witnesses from the State of New Mexico, including Roberto 
Mondragon from the New Mexico Land Grant Forum, and Robert 
Torrez, a State Historian, testified in favor of H.R. 2538. The 
Clinton Administration failed to provide a witness or to 
provide testimony at the hearing. On May 4, 1998, however, the 
State Department sent a letter stating its opposition to H.R. 
2538. On May 7, 1998 the Subcommittee met to mark up H.R. 2538. 
An en bloc amendment was offered by Subcommittee Chairman James 
V. Hansen (R-UT) to remove an unnecessary clause referring to 
the tax status of the lands in question, make a minor spelling 
correction, increase the length of the Commission from three to 
five years, limit the jurisdiction of the Commission to the 
State of New Mexico, clarify that the Commission may not 
recommend taking private property to reconstitute a land grant 
but may recommend the substitution of comparable federal lands 
in their place, and insert a clause stating that Congress shall 
act after receiving the Commission's recommendations. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote. The bill was then ordered 
favorably reported to the Full Committee by voice vote. On May 
20, 1998, the Full Resources Committee met to consider H.R. 
2538. An en bloc amendment to strike language requiring that 
two eligible descendants sit on the Commission and to strike 
language allowing the Commission to accept gifts, bequests and 
devises was offered by Congressman Bruce Vento (D-MN), and was 
defeated by voice vote. Congressman Vento offered another 
amendment to prevent the Commission from examining any land 
claims that dealt with private property. The amendment was 
defeated by a roll call vote of 11-17, as follows:





    Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA) offered an amendment to clarify 
that the Commission may only recommend the substitution of New 
Mexico lands to reconstitute a land grant. The amendment passed 
by unanimous consent. The bill as amended was then ordered 
favorably reported to the House of Representatives in the 
presence of a quorum by voice vote.

            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.

                  FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    The functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized 
in H.R. 2538 are not currently being nor could they be 
performed by one or more agencies, an advisory committee 
already in existence or by enlarging the mandate of an existing 
advisory committee.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact H.R. 2538.

                        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. 2538. 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(i)(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. 
2538 does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of H.R. 
2538 would result in increased governmental receipts and 
expenditures because the Commission established in the bill may 
accept and spend donations. The estimated donations are less 
than $500,000 a year.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(i)(3)(D) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee has received no report of oversight findings 
andrecommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 2538.
    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. 
2538 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 29, 1998.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2538, the 
Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Act of 1998.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Victoria V. 
Heid.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2538--Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Act of 1998

    Summary: H.R. 2538 would establish a commission, to be 
known as the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Commission, 
and a study center to review petitions from eligible 
descendants regarding the validity of certain land claims.
    CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost about 
$1 million a year over the 1999-2003 period, assuming 
appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the bill 
could affect direct spending and receipts; therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures would apply, but we estimate that any such 
effects would total less than $500,000 per year. H.R. 2538 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
have no significant impact on the budgets of state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2538 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 
(natural resources and the environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      By fiscal years, in millions of dollars-- 
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       1999     2000     2001     2002     2003 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                       
                                                                                                                
Authorization level................................................        1        1        1        1        1
Estimated outlays..................................................        1        1        1        1        1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: H.R. 2538 would establish a Guadalupe-
Hidalgo Treaty Land Claims Commission to review petitions from 
eligible descendants regarding the validity of certain land 
claims arising out of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848. 
To assist the commission in carrying out research, studies, and 
investigations related to these claims, the bill also would 
direct the commission to establish a Community Land Grant Study 
Center at the Onate Center in Alcade, New Mexico. To be 
considered by the commission, petitions would have to be 
submitted within five years of the bill's enactment. H.R. 2538 
would not empower the commission to settle any land claims, but 
would direct it to submit a report to the President and the 
Congress on its decisions and recommendations regarding such 
petitions as soon as practicable thereafter. The commission 
would terminate 180 days after submitting its final report.

Spending subject to appropriation

    The bill would authorize the appropriation of $1 million 
for each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2007 for the purpose 
of carrying out the activities of the commission and 
establishing and operating the Community Land Grant Study 
Center. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amount for 
each year, CBO estimates that costs would total about $5 
million over the 1999-2003 period.

Direct spending and revenues

    H.R. 2538 would authorize the commission to accept and 
spend donations. Donations collected under this authority would 
count as governmental receipts (i.e., revenues) and their 
expenditure would count as direct spending. CBO estimates that 
any such donations would total less than $500,000 per year.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
receipts. H.R. 2538 could affect both direct spending and 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. CBO 
estimates, however, that any changes in receipts from donations 
to the commission and consequent changes in direct spending 
would both total less than $500,000 per year.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2538 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would have no significant impact on the 
budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Victoria V. Heid.
    Estimate approved by; Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    H.R. 2538 contains no unfunded mandates.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, H.R. 2538 would make no changes in existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We are opposed to H.R. 2838 in its present form. The issues 
dealt with by the legislation are serious matters that deserve 
closer attention than the Committee provided. This failure to 
deal with the substantive questions raised by this bill has 
resulted in the Committee reporting a poorly drafted bill that 
creates more problems than it solves.
    No one can tell us how many claims there maybe as a result 
of this legislation. Since portions of New Mexico were acquired 
in the Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, as well as 
the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, we don't even know exactly 
what parts of the State are affected by the bill. Since the 
Treaty covered all or parts of seven western states, the bill 
is opening the door to numerous potential land claims down the 
road in those other states as well. Further, the lands in 
question in New Mexico likely include numerous tracts in 
private, as well as public ownership and may include parts of 
some Indian Pueblos or reservations.
    The language of H.R. 2538 itself is very troubling. The 
bill contains no legal standards or rules of evidence by which 
to judge any claims brought forth. As a quasi-judicial body, 
there are conflicts of interest in having eligible descendants 
serving as members of the commission, and with the commission 
being able to accept gifts, especially from those who may 
benefit from the commission's decisions. We also question how 
lands, as provided by the bill, can be ``reconstituted'' or 
restored as a municipality. What constitutes a municipality is 
something for the State of New Mexico to determine and not 
Federal law.
    Contrary to what one may be led to believe, this bill is 
not just directed at the possible actions of the Federal 
Government. Under H.R. 2538 claims involving the Federal 
Government, claims involving the actions of private parties, 
and claims involving actions of a private party and a local 
government are opened for the Commission's consideration. We 
are also troubled by the open-ended nature of the bill that 
provides that if at anytime a land grantee or descendent 
relinquished title, for whatever reason, their heirs can now 
come back and make a claim.
    Instead of simply prohibiting land claims against private 
property, the bill sets up a complicated system under which the 
Federal Government is supposed to compensate a claim that 
involves private lands. While the majority may have thought 
such a provision dealt with the private property issue, they 
have in reality opened untold private parcels to clouded 
titles.
    Since the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo 
in 1848, more than two hundred federal, state, and district 
court decisions have interpreted the Treaty. The U.S. Supreme 
Court has decided almost half of the major cases involving the 
Treaty. Several laws were enacted were enacted in the 19th 
century to address such claims, including a 1891 Act that 
established a Court of Private Land Claims to deal with land 
claims specifically in New Mexico. In addition, there have been 
subsequent agreements with Mexico that have addressed Treaty 
claims. H.R. 2538 ignores this body of law and legal decisions 
and reopens all land grants to Commission review.
    We recognize that for the potential claimants and their 
supporters, H.R. 2538 is a matter of considerable interest. 
However we believe that the interests of many private parties 
and the public are being poorly served by this legislation in 
its present form. Unless, the bill is amended to address the 
many concerns and problems associated with the legislation, we 
must urge our colleagues to oppose the bill.

                                   Eni Faleomavaega.
                                   Bruce F. Vento.
                                   George Miller.
                                   Edward J. Markey.
                                   Maurice Hinchey.
                                   Peter DeFazio.