Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       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. * * *