```

[House Report 107-708]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-708

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

 
PROTECTING CERTAIN LANDS HELD IN FEE BY THE PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO 
  MISSION INDIANS FROM CONDEMNATION UNTIL A FINAL DECISION IS MADE BY THE 
  SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR REGARDING A PENDING FEE TO TRUST APPLICATION 
  FOR THAT LAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

October 1, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Hansen, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3476]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 3476) to protect certain lands held in fee by the 
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from condemnation 
until a final decision is made by the Secretary of the Interior 
regarding a pending fee to trust application for that land, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 
do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 3476 is to protect certain lands held 
in fee by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from 
condemnation until a final decision is made by the Secretary of 
the Interior regarding a pending fee to trust application for 
that land.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians resides in 
Riverside County, California, near the City of Temecula. The 
Band's existing tribal trust lands consist of 3,163 acres. Much 
of this land is utilized for tribal member housing and 
community services, tribal government, and administration 
areas. The Band also uses a portion of its current land base to 
promote its economic development with a recreational vehicle 
park, a casino, and a concert area.
    In May 2001, the Pechanga Band purchased the Great Oak 
Ranch property. The property, which consists of approximately 
700 acres, connects two noncontiguous parcels that comprise the 
Pechanga Band's reservation. The Ranch is part of the ancestral 
lands of the Pechanga and contains cultural, spiritual, and 
archaeological sites, including the oldest living coastal oak 
tree.
    San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), a subsidiary of Sempra 
Energy, is considering exercising its power of eminent domain 
and placing a 500,000-volt transmission line on the Great Oak 
Ranch property. While the California Public Utilities 
Commission's (CPUC) review of the project is not complete, 
SDG&E has argued that the CPUC's approval of the project is not 
a condition precedent to a regulated utility's acquisition of 
property.
    On March 21, 2002, the Department of the Interior released 
a notice of its decision to take the Great Oak Ranch property 
into trust for the Pechanga Band. Sempra Energy has appealed 
the Department's decision, and the tribe believes that because 
the Great Oak Ranch Property could still be condemned after a 
successful appeal, its only protection from condemnation may be 
enactment of H.R. 3476.
    The Committee believes that the Great Oak Ranch located in 
Temecula, California, and the Great Oak Tree for which the 
Ranch is named, have unique natural and cultural significance 
and should therefore be protected as part of the Pechanga 
Band's heritage. The Committee understands that members of the 
Southern California Congressional delegation will work to 
identify a right-of-way through the nearby Cleveland National 
Forest as an alternative to the proposed Great Oak Ranch route, 
and move authorizing legislation to that effect in tandem with 
H.R. 3476.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 3476 was introduced on December 13, 2001, by 
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), and was subsequently referred 
to the Committee on Resources. On April 17, 2002, the full 
Resources Committee held a hearing on the bill, and on July 10, 
2002, the Committee met to consider the legislation. No 
amendments were offered and H.R. 3476 was ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
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 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. This bill does 
not authorize funding and therefore, clause 3(c)(4) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not 
apply.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 29, 2002.
Hon. James V. Hansen,
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. 3476, a bill to 
protect certain lands held in fee by the Pechanga Band of 
Luiseno Mission Indians from condemnation until a final 
decision is made by the Secretary of the Interior regarding a 
pending fee to trust application for that land, and for other 
purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lanette J. 
Walker (for federal costs), Marjorie Miller (for the state and 
local impact), and Cecil McPherson (for the private-sector 
impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3476--A bill to protect certain lands held in fee by the Pechanga 
        Band of Luiseno Mission Indians from condemnation until a final 
        decision is made by the Secretary of the Interior regarding a 
        pending fee to trust application for that land, and for other 
        purposes

    H.R. 3476 would prohibit the transfer or condemnation of 
certain lands in fee by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission 
Indians until the Secretary of the Interior renders a final 
decision on the pending application to designate such fee lands 
as held in trust and until final decisions have been made 
regarding all appeals to that application.
    In March 2002 the Secretary decided to take the land into 
trust for the Band, but the Sempra Energy company has appealed 
that decision. San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), a subsidiary 
of Sempra Energy, has proposed a new corridor for an electric 
transmission line that would cross this property and has 
indicated its intention to condemn the property. (Electric 
utilities in California have the power of eminent domain.)
    Under current law, these fee lands may be taken for public 
use upon just compensation paid to the owners of the land. Such 
compensation would be paid directly to the Pechanga Band of 
Luiseno Mission Indian tribe. Enacting H.R. 3476 could delay or 
prevent a taking of the land by SDG&E, but that transaction 
would not affect the federal budget. Because enactment of H.R. 
3476 would not affect direct spending or receipts of the 
federal government, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    H.R. 3476 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 
costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Enacting this 
legislation would benefit the Pechanga Band because it would 
protect tribal land from condemnation until its application to 
have that land taken into trust is resolved.
    H.R. 3476 contains a private-sector mandate as defined by 
UMRA. The costs of the mandate, if any, would be the expected 
incremental costs to SDG&E of choosing among several 
alternative properties as routes for the new transmission line. 
CBO expects that the direct cost of the mandate would be below 
the annual threshold for the private sector established by UMRA 
($115 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).
    The staff contacts for this estimate are Lanette J. Walker 
(for federal costs), Marjorie Miller (for the state and local 
impact), and Cecil McPherson (for the private-sector impact). 
This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates as defined in 
Public Law 104-4.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

    This bill is not intended to preempt any local or tribal 
law.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                                  

```