HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.congrecreports/crptxaxr0001 and id is 1 raw text is: AUTHENTICATEO
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
Op
104TH CONGRESS REPORT
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104-694
PUEBLO OF ISLETA INDIAN LAND CLAIMS
JULY 22, 1996.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HYDE, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 740]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 740) to confer jurisdiction on the United States of Court of
Federal Claims with respect to land claims of Pueblo of Isleta In-
dian Tribe, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H.R. 740, as reported by the Committee, would permit the Pueblo
of Isleta to file a claim in the United States Court of Federal
Claims for certain aboriginal lands acquired from the tribe by the
United States. The Court's jurisdiction would apply only to claims
accruing on or before August 13, 1946, as provided in the Indian
Claims Commission Act (ICCA).
BACKGROUND
The Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe asserts that a land claim was
never filed by the tribe based on aboriginal use and occupancy
under the ICCA because it received erroneous advice regarding the
types of claims that could be filed. Tribal officials were told by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that specific documents must be
produced in order to mount a claim, and were not informed that
a claim could be based on aboriginal use and occupancy.
As a result, the tribe filed only a limited and unsuccessful claim
in 1951 seeking compensation for some 17,000 acres that were cov-
ered by specific land grant documents. The tribe states that no
claims were filed based on aboriginal use due to the misdirected
29-006](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congrecreports/crptxaxr0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)