SILETZ INDIAN TRIBE RESTORATION HEARING

SILETZ INDIAN TRIBE RESTORATIONOCUCMENTY 4.1n2/11:Si3 /HEARINGBEFORE THEUNITED STATES SENATESELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRSNINETY-FIFTH CONGRESSFIRST SESSIONONS. 1560TO RESTORE THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANSOF OREGON AS A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED SOVEREIGNINDIAN TRIBE, TO RESTORE TO THE CONFEDERATED TRIBESOF SILETZ INDIANS OF OREGON AND ITS MEMBERS THOSEFEDERAL SERVICES AND BENEFITS FURNISHED TO FEDER-ALLY RECOGNIZED AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES AND THEIRMEMBERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESJULY 13, 197796-637 0U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEWASHINGTON: 1977

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS[Created by S. Res. 4, 95th Cong.]JAMES ABOUREZK, South Dakota, ChairmanHOWARD METZENBAUM, OhioDEWEY F. BARTLETT, OklahomaJOHN MELCHER, MontanaMARK 0. HATFIELD, OregonERNEST L. STEVENS, Staff DirectorALAN R. PARKEE, General CounselMICHAEL D. Cox, Minority Counsel(II)

CONTENTSBILL AND DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. 1560Report of the Department of the InteriorWITNESSESBensell, Arthur, Chairman, Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes ofSiletz IndiansButler, Raymond V., Acting Deputy Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Department of the InteriorPrepared statementDonaldson, John R., director, Oregon Fish and Wildlife CommissionPrepared statementProposed Siletz Health, Education and Welfare ActMATERIAL SUBMITTEDBellinger, Donald F., letterClapper, Louis F., prepared statementLane, Joe H., prepared statementMeuret, Forrest L., lettersRivlin, Alice M., Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter(III)Page3152524222730345541464956

SILETZ INDIAN TRIBE RESTORATIONWEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1977U.S. SENATE,SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,Wa8hington, D.C.The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 457,Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark 0. Hatfield (acting chairmanof the committee) presiding.Present: Senator Hatfield.Staff present: Keith Kennedy, professional staff member; LeahGungoll, administrative secretary; and Debra Lyle, administrativesecretary.Senator HATFIELD. The hearing will come to order.These hearings have been called to receive testimony on S. 1560,legislation to restore the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians tothe status of a federally recognized tribe. The bill was introduced onMay 18 of this year by Senator Bob Packwood and myself. Identicallegislation has been introduced in the House by Representative LesAuCoin.The Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians were among thosetribes of western Oregon that were terminated by the act of August 13,1954. With little preparation and certainly without tribal consent, theFederal Government unilaterally and abruptly severed the trust relationshipthat had been established by treaty and statute over the years.The ostensible purpose of termination was to end a paternalisticgovernmental relationship and allow Native Americans to participatefully in the mainstream of society. The practical result, however, hasbeen economic and cultural devastation for the terminated tribes. Thisis particularly true in the case of the Siletz. Recent figures indicate a44 percent unemployment rate in Lincoln County, Oreg., the majorityof whom are Siletz. The median family income of Indian families inthe town of Siletz is $3,300 a year. Roughly 70 percent of the Indianstudents in Siletz school have only one parent due to the death of theother parent. Health needs are great; of 84 Siletz Indians questionedin a nonrandom survey, 52.9 percent reported dental needs, 21 percentreported medical needs, and 22 percent reported visual needs. Thesefigures bear sad witness to the presumably inadvertent attempt to destroya once proud people through the policy of termination.S. 1560 will help the Siletz Indians get out of this situation. By restoringthem to the status of a federally recognized tribe, it will makethem eligible for the Indian health, education, and economic assistanceprograms of the Federal Government. The bill is consistent with the(1)

2principle of self-determination and is strongly supported by the ConfederatedTribes. It is the product of lengthy deliberations of theSiletz and other interested parties. Similar legislation in the last Congress,S. 2801. was the subject of intensive hearings last year.One issue which has come up in the public discussion of this billanissue of concern to many Oregonians-is the matter of hunting andfishing rights. Let me emphasize that this bill does not grant or restoreany hunting, fishing, or trapping rights, and says so explicitly in section(3) (c). Furthermore, no reservation is created by this bill. Rather,the Secretary of the Interior is directed to determine, in full consultationwith all local interests, whether a reservation should be created,and, if so, how. The Secretary is required to report to Congress in 2years; and, if the report calls for the creation of a reservation, theappropriate committees are asked to give it priority. Of course, thecreation of a reservation, if called for, would require a separate act ofCongress.If a reservation is created, that would also not grant any hunting orfishing rights or any procedural right or advantage in any attempt tosecure those rights. That is made completely clear by section 7(d) (2)of the bill.S. 1560 is a simple bill. It simply restores the Siletz as a federallyrecognized tribe, thereby making them eligible for the Federal servicesthey so badly need. So, I hope we can move swiftly to enact this bill.It will serve as a much needed installment toward paying a moral debtto which this Nation has committed its national honor; it is the rightthing to do.I now place in the record a copy of S. 1560, and also the report ofthe Department of the Interior on that bill.Our first witness this morning is Mr. Raymond Butler, the ActingCommissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.Mr. Butler, your full prepared statement will be printed in therecord.[Material follows:]

.3WITH' CONGRESS1ST SESSIONSo1560IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESMAY 18 (legislati-Cvday, MAY 10), 19T7Mr. HATFIELD (for himself and Mr. PAcKWooD) introduced the following bill;which was read twice and referred to the Select Committee on IndianAffairsA BILLTo restore the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregonas a federally recognized sovereign Indian tribe, to restoreto the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon andits members those Federal services and benefits furnished tofederally recognized American Indian tribes and theirmembers, and for other purposes.1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,3 That this Act may be cited as the "Siletz Indian Tribe4 Restoration Act".5 SxC. 2. For the purposes of this Act-6 (1) the term "tribe" means the Confederated7 Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon;II

421 (2) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of2 the Interior or his authorized representative;3 (3) the term "interim council" means the council4 elected pursuant to section 5;5 (4) the term "member", when used with respect6 to the tribe, means a person enrolled on the member-7 ship roll of the tribe, as provided in section 4 of this8 Act;9 (5) the term "final membership roll" means the10 final membership roll of the tribe published on July 20,11 1956, on pages 5454-5462 of volume 21 of the Federal12 Register.13 SEC. 3. (a) Federal recognition is hereby extended to14 the tribe, and the provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to15 conserve and develop Indian lands and resources; to extend16 to Indians the right to form businesses and other organiza-17 tions; to establish a credit system for Indians; to grant cer-18 tain rights of home rule to Indians; to provide for vocational19 education for Indians; and for other purposes", approved20 June 13, 1934 (25 1J.S.C. 461 et seq.) except as incon-21 sistent with specific provisions of this Act, are made ap-22 plicable to the tribe and the members of the tribe. The23 tribe and the members of the tribe shall be eligible for all24 Federal services and benefits furnished to federally recog-25 nized Indinn tribes. Notwithstanding any provision to the

53it contrary in any law establishing such services or benefits,2 eligibility of the tribe and its members for such Federal3 services and benefits shall become effective upon enactment4 of this Act without regard to the existence of a reservation5 for the tribe or the residence of members of the tribe on a6 reservation.7 (b) All rights and privileges of the tribe and of mein-8 bers of the tribe (other than hunting, fishing, and trapping9 rights) under any Federal treaty, Executive order, agree-10 ment, or statute, or under any other authority, which have11 been diminished or lost under the Act of August 13, 195412 (25 U.S.C. 691-708), are hereby restored and such Act13 shall be inapplicable to the tribe and its members after the14 date of enactment of this Act.15 (c) This Act shall not grant or restore any hunting,16 fishing, or trapping right of any nature, including any indirect17 or procedural right or advantage, to the tribe or any member18 of the tribe.19 (d) Except as specifically provided in this Act, nothing20 in this Act shall alter any property right or obligation, any21 contractual right or obligation, or any obligation for taxes22 already levied.23 SEC. 4. (a) The final membership roll is declared open.24 The Secretary, the Interim Council, and tribal officials un-25 der the tribal constitution and bylaws shall take such meas-

641 ures as will insure the continuing accuracy of the member-2 ship roll.3 (b) (1) Until after the initial election of tribal officers4 under the tribal constitution and bylaws, a person shall be5 a member of the tribe and his name shall be placed on6 the incinbership roll if he is living and if-7 (A) his name is listed on the final membership8 roll;9 (B) he was entitled on August 13, 1954, to be on10 the final membership roll but his name was not listed11 on that roll; or12 (C) he is a descendant of a person specified in13 subparagraph (A) or (B) and possesses at least one-14 fourth degree of blood of members of the tribe or their15 Siletz Indian ancestors.16 (2) After the initial election of tribal officials under17 the tribal constitution and bylaws, the provisions of the18 tribal constitution and bylaws shall govern membership in19 the tribe.20 (c) (1) Before election of the Interim Council, verifi-21 cation of descendancy, age, and blood shall be made upon22 oath before the Secretary and his determination thereon23 shall be final.24 (2) After election of the Interim Council and before25 the initial election of the tribal officials, verification of

751 descendancy, age, and blood shall be made upon oath before2 the Interim Council, or its authorized representative. A3 member of the tribe, with respect to the inclusion of any4 name, and any person, with respect to the exclusion of his5 name, may appeal to the Secretary, who shall make a final6 determination of each such appeal within ninety days after7 an appeal has been filed with him. The determination of the8 Secretary with respect to an appeal under this paragraph9 shall be final.10 (3) After the initial election of tribal officials, the pro-11 visions of the tribal constitution and bylaws shall govern12 the verification of any requirements for membership in the13 tribe, and the Secretary and the Interim Council shall de-14 liver their records and files, and any other material relating15 to enrollment matters, to the tribal governing body.16 (d) For purposes of sections 5 and 6, a member who17 is eighteen years of age or older is entitled and eligible to18 be given notice of, attend, participate in, and vote at, gen-19 eral council meetings and to nominate candidates for, to run20 for any office in, and to vote in, elections of members to21 the Interim Council and to other tribal councils.22 Slc. 5 (a) Within fifteen days after the date of the23 enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall announce the date24 of a general council meeting of the tribe to nominate candi-25 dates for election to the Interim Council. Such general

861 council meeting shall be held within thirty days after the2 date of the enactment of this Act. Within forty-five days3 after such general council meeting the Secretary shall hold4 an election by secret ballot, absentee balloting to be per-5 mitted, to elect nine members of the tribe to the Interim6 Council from among the nominees submitted to him from7 such general council meeting. The Secretary shall assure8 that notice of the time, place, and purpose of such meeting9 and election shall be provided to members described in sec-10 tion 4 (d) at least fifteen days before such general meeting11 and election. The ballot shall provide for write-in votes. The12 Secretary shall approve the Interim Council elected ptusu-13 ant to this section if he is satisfied that the requirements of14 this section relating to the nominating and election process15 have been met. If he is not so satisfied, he shall hold16 another election under this section, with the general council17 meeting to nominate candidates for election to the Interim18 Council to be held within thirty days after such election.19 (b) The Interim Council shall represent the tribe and20 its members in the implementation of this Act and shall be21 the acting tribal governing body until tribal officials are22 elected pursuant to section 6 (c) and shall have no powers23 other than those given to it in accordance with this Act. The24 Interim Council shall have full authority and capacity to25 receive grants from and to make contracts with the Secre-

91 tary and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,2 with respect to Federal services and benefits for the tribe and3 its members and to bind the tribal governing body as the sue-4 cessor in interest to the Interim Council for a period extend-5 ing, not more than six months after the date on which the6 tribal governing body takes office. Except as provided in the7 preceding sentence., the Interim Council shall have no poweer8 or authority after the time when the duly elected tribal9 governing body takes office.10 (c) Within thirty days after receiving notice of a vacancy11 on the Interim Council, the Interim Council shall hold a gen-12 eral council meeting for the purpose of electing a person to13 fill such vacancy. The Interim Council shall provide notice14 of the time, place, and purpose of such meeting and electiof15 to members described in section 4 (d)- at least ten days before16 such general meeting and election. The person nominated17 to fill such vacancy at the general council meeting who re-18 ceived the highest number of votes in the election shall fill19 such vacancy.20 SEc. 6. (a) Upon the written request of the Interim21 Council, the Secretary shall conduct an election by secret22 ballot, pursuant to the provisions of section 16 of the Act23 of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 987), for the purpose of adopt-24 ing a constitution and bylaws for the tribes. The election25 shall be held within sixty days after the Secretary has-

10X 81 (1) reviewed and updated the final membership roll2 for accuracy, in accordance with sections 4 (a), 4 (b)3 (1),and4(c) (1),4 (2) made a final determination of all appeals filed5 under section 4 (c) (2), and6 (3) published in the Federal Register a certification7 copy of the membership roll of the tribe.8 (b) The Interim Council shall draft and distribute to9 each member described in section 4 (d), no later than thirty10 days before the election under subsection (a), a copy of the11 proposed constitution and bylaws of the tribe, as drafted12 by the Interim Council, along with a brief, impartial de-13 scription of the proposed constitution and bylaws. The mem-14 bers of the Interim Council may freely consult with members15 of the tribe concerning the text and description of the con-16 stitution and bylaws, except that such consultation may not17 be carried on within fifty feet of the polling places on the18 date of the election.19 (c) In any election held pursuant to this subsection20 (a), the vote of a majority of those actually voting shall21 be necessary and sufficient for the adoption of a tribal con-22 stitution and bylaws.23 (d) Not later than one hundred and twenty days after24 the tribe adopts a constitution and bylaws, the Interim Coun-25 cil shall conduct an election by secret ballot for the purpose of

1191 electing the individuals who will serve as tribal officials as2 provided in the tribal constitution and bylaws. For the pur-3 pose of this election and notwithstanding any provision in4 the tribal constitution and bylaws to the contrary, absentee5 balloting shall be permitted.6 SEC. 7. (a) This Act shall not be construed as estab-7 lishing a reservation for the tribe, but any reservation for8 the tribe shall be established by an Act of Congress enacted9 after the enactment of this Act.10 (b) The Secretary shall negotiate with the tribe, or11 with representatives of the tribe chosen by the tribe, con-12 cerning the establishment of a reservation for the tribe, and13 the Secretary shall, in accordance with subsections (c) and14 (d), develop a plan for the establishment of a reservation15 for the tribe and shall submit such plan, in the form of pro-16 posed legislation, to the Congress within two years after the17 date of enactment of this Act. The appropriate committees18 in each House shall give such proposed legislation priority19 on their calendars.20 (c) To assure that legitimate State and local interests21 are not prejudiced by the creation of a reservation for the22 tribe, the Secretary, in developing a plan under subsection23 (b) for the establishment of a reservation, shall notify and24 consult with all appropriate officials of the State of Oregon,25 all appropriate local governmental officials in the State of

12101 Oregon and any other interested parties. Such consultation2 shall include the following subjects:3 (1) the size and location of the reservation;4 (2) the effect the establishment of the reserva-5 tion wvould have on State and local tax revenues;6 (3) the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the State7 of Oregon with respect to the reservation and persons on8 the reservation;9 (4) hunting, fishing, and trapping rights of the10 tribe and members of the tribe, on the reservation;11 (5) the provision of State and local services to the12 reservation and to the tribe and members of the tribe on13 the reservation; and14 (6) the provision of Federal services to the reserva-15 tiors and to the tribe and members of the tribe and the16 provision of services by the tribe to members of the tribe.17 (d) Any plan developed under this section for the estab-18 lishment of a reservation for the tribe shall provide that-19 (1) any real property transferred by the tribe or20 members of the tribe to the Secretary shall be taken in21 the name of the United States in trust for the benefit of22 the tribe and shall be the reservation for the tribe;23 (2) the establishment of such a reservation will not24 grant or restore to the tribe or any member of the tribe25 any hunting, fishing, or trapping right of any nature,

13111 including any indirect or procedural right or advantage,2 on such reservation;3 (3) the Secretary shall not accept any real prop-4 erty in trust for the benefit of the tribe or its members5 unless such real property is located within Lincoln6 County, State of Oregon;7 (4) any real property taken in trust by the Secre-8 tary for the benefit of the tribe or its members shall be9 subject to all rights existing at the time such property is10 taken in trust, including liens, outstanding Federal, State,11 and local taxes, mortgages, outstanding indebtedness of12 any kind, easements, and all other obligations, and shall13 be subject to foreclosure and sale in accordance with the14 laws of the State of Oregon;15 (5) the transfer of any real property to the Secre-16 tary in trust for the benefit of the tribe or its members17 shall be exempt from all Federal, State, and local taxa-18 tion, and all such real property shall, as of the date of19 such transfer, be exempt from Federal, State, and local20 taxation; and21 (6) the State of Oregon shall have civil and crimi22 nal jurisdiction with respect to the reservation and per-23 sons on the reservation in accordance with section 136024 of title 28, United States Code, and section 1162 of title25 18, United States Code.

1412l (e) The Secretary shall append to the plan a detailed2 statement describing the manner in which the notification3 and consultation prescribed by subsection (c) was carried4 out and shall include any written comments with respect to5 the establishment of a reservation for the tribe submitted to6 the Secretary by State and local officials and other interested7 parties in the course of such consultation.8 SEC. 8. The Secretary may make such rules and regula-9 tions as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

15United States Department of the Interior1,, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARYWASHINGTON, D.C. 20240Honorable Janes AbourezkChairman, Select O~mmittee onIndian AffairstUited States SenateWashington, D.C. 20510Dea Mr. Chainnan:JUL 1 2 1977This responds to your request for our views on S. 1560, a bill'To restore the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregonas a federally recognized sovereign Indian tribe, to restore tothe Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon and itsmembers those Federal services and benefits furnished to federallyrecognized American Indian tribes and their marbers, and for otherpurposes.We reocanend that, with the exception of section 7, S. 1560 notbe enacted, but that the enclosed draft, along with section 7 ofS. 1560, be enacted in order to provide more simplified proceduresfor restoration.S. 1560 would restore Federal recognition to the ConfederatedTribes of Siletz Indians and thereby restore their eligibilityfor services and assistance fran the DeparbTent of the Interiorand Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The bill doesnot establish a reservation for the tribe, but provides that anyreservation for the tribe shall be established by an Act of Congressenacted subsequent to enactment of S. 1560.The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (hereinafter 'the Tribe")was amonrg the Western Oregon Tribes who were terminated pursuantto the Act of August 13, 1954 (69 Stat. 724; 25 U.S.C. 691-708)as part of the termination policy set out in H. Con. Res. 108 ofthe 83rd Congress. After enactment of the 1954 Act, all remainingtribal land was sold by the Federal Government. Sone 37 acreswhich had been used primarily for a BIA agency and a tribal cemetarywere transferred to the town of Siletz, because the Tribe was unableto pay the required property taxes. Tribal activities generallyceased and many tribal members left the area.

16The Tribe reorganized in the late 1960's and incorporated as anon-profit corporation in 1973. The organization is composed ofSiletz Indians living in Siletz, as well as those who left the areasince termination. The Tribe is currently negotiating with thetown for return of the 37 acres of land.Recent studies indicate that the unemployment rate for Siletz Indianliving in the former reservation area is 43.8%. The median familyincome for Siletz families in the area is $3,333.In 1974, 44% of Siletz Indians between the ages of 17 and 25 hadnot finished high school. There is a high incidence of alcoholismamong tribal members, and there are other health problems for whichmany members cannot afford medical care. Nearly 800 out of the929 persons listed on the Siletz termination roll of 1956 are stillliving and the current number of Siletz Indians are approximatelybetween 1,500 and 2,000.Our support for restoration for the Siletz Indians is based upon thefinding that the Siletz meet the following criteria: thereexists an on-going, identifiable ccamunity of Indians who are menbersof the formerly recognized tribe or who are their descendents; theircommunity is located in the vicinity of the forner reservation;there exists an available land base which could be taken in trust andproclaimed a reservation; the group has continued to perform selfgoverningfunctions, either through elected representatives or inmeetings of the group's general membership; there is wide spreaduse of their aboriginal language, customs and culture; there hasbeen some deterioration in their socio-econonic conditions sincetermination; and their conditions are more severe than in otheradjacent rural areas or in comparable areas within the State.Restoration would make a large difference to both individuals andthe Tribe as a whole in that they would be eligible for such benefitsas: certain BIA programs such as Johnson-O'1alley Act funds forelementary and secondary school children in the Siletz schools;and BIA scholarships for post-secondary education for tribal youths.Tribal members could receive health benefits throught HEW's IndianHealth Service. The Tribe would be able to administer some BIAprograms, which would provide jobs for tribal members, and it wouldalso be eligible for certain BIA loan funds. While the Tribe doesnot seek the return of its Reservation under the bill, if it doeseventually acquire the 37 acres, this land could, at a later date,go into trust and provide a focal point for tribal activities andidentity.We estimate the BIA program costs under the bill would be approximately$300,000 in the first year after enactment. Appropriations for theseprograms are authorized under existing law.

17Our substitute draft bill would provide more simplified proceduresfor restoration. In addition, there is an existing organization("The cOnfederated Tribes of Siletz Indians") incorporated underOregon law with a 9-member elected board of directors who servethree year terms with 3 members being elected each year. This boardcan serve as the tribal council until the Siletz Indians organizeand adopt a constitution and by-laws under the Indian PeorganizationAct.Section 7 of S. 1560 provides that the Secretary of the Interiorshall negotiate with the tribes concerning the establishment of areservation, develop a plan providing for such establishment, andsubmit it to Congress as proposed legislation within two years ofenactment of S. 1560. In developing the plan, the Secretary willnotify and consult with appropriate State and local officials andother interested parties. Thus, section 7 of S. 1560 assuresthat the legitimate interests of State and local authorities willbe considered in establishing a reservation for the Siletz Tribe, andwe recommend that the section be retained together with our draftbill.While we support enactment of legislation to restore the SiletzTribe, the Federal government is developing criteria for restorationof terminated tribes.The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is noobjection to the presentation of this report from the standpointof the Administration's program.Sincerely,SECREWTARCECIL D. ARDRUSEnclosure

18AB I L LTo restore the Federal trust relationship with, and Federal services andassistance to, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon andto the members thereof, and for other purposes.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited asthe "Siletz Restoration Act".Sec. 2.(a)The Federal trust relationship is hereby restored to theConfederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (hereinafter sometimesreferred to as the "Tribe") and the provisions of the Act of June 18,1934 (48 Stat. 984), as amended [25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.] are made applicableto its members.The Tribe and its members shall be considered asa tribe and as Indians for the purposes of the Act of November 2, 1921(42 Stat. 208) [25 U.S.C. 13], the Act of August 16, 1957 (71 Stat. 370)[42 U.S.C. 2005-2005f], and any other present or future Act applicableto Federally recognized Indian tribes or their members.For purposes ofeligibility for services or assistance under any such Act, or theregulations issued pursuant thereto, the geographic area of the formerSiletz Reservation as it was constituted on August 13, 1954, shall beconsidered as if it were the Tribe's Reservation.For purposes of theAct of August 16, 1957 the members of the Tribe shall be deemed to beIndians for which hospital and medical care was being provided by or atthe expense of the Public Health Service on August 16, 1957.

19(b) The provisions of sections 7, 13(a), and 14(b), [25 U.S.C.697, 703(a), and 704(b)] of the Act of August 13, 1954 (68 Stat. 724),and any other provisions of said Act which are not consistant with thisAct, shall hereafter not apply to the Tribe or its members.Subject tosubsection (c) of this section there are hereby reinstated all rightsand privileges of the Tribe or its members under Federal treaty,Executive Order, agreement, statute, or otherwise which may have beendiminished, lost, or denied, pursuant to said Act of August 13, 1954.(c) This Act shall not be construed to grant or restore any hunting,fishing, or trapping rights of any nature to the Tribe or its members.(d) The provisions of section 1162, title 18, United States Code,section 1360, title 28, United States Code, and section 403(a) of theAct of April 11, 1968 (82 Stat. 79) [25 U.S.C. 1323] shall be applicableto the Tribe, its members, and lands to the same extent as such provisionsapply to other tribes, Indians and Indian country (except the WarmSprings Reservation) in Oregon.(e) Nothing in this Act shall alter any property rights or obligationsor any contractual rights or obligations.Sec. 3.(a)The Board of Directors (hereinafter sometimes referred to as"the Board") of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Incorporated,a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State ofOregon, shall serve as the interim governing body of the Tribe forpurposes of (1) drafting a proposed constitution and by-laws for the

20Tribe (or for appointing a committee to draft such documents), (2)entering into contracts, grant agreements, and other arrangements withany Federal Department or Agency (3) administering, operating,subcontracting, subgranting, or other activities under such contracts,agreements, or arrangements.Any such contracts, agreements, or arrangementsshall not involve any financial obligation which could become anobligation of the Tribe.(b) The Board may delegate to the Chairman and other officers ofsuch Board such of its authorities under this Act as would be appropriatefor exercise by the chief executive officer or other such officialsof a Federally recognized Indian tribe.Sec. 4.(a)The membership roll of the Tribe which was published in theFederal Register on July 20, 1956 is hereby declared open.The Secretary,under contract with the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians,Inc., shall proceed to make current the roll in accordance with theterms of this Act.The names of all enrollees who are deceased as ofthe date of enactment of this Act shall be stricken.All persons shallbe added to the roll who were entitled to be included on said roll ofJuly 20, 1956, but who were not, for whatever reason, included on thatroll.The names of any descendants of an enrollee shall be added to theroll provided such descendant possesses at least one-fourth degreeSiletz Indian blood.(b) Upon installation of elected constitutional officers of theTribe, the Secretary and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians,

21Inc., shall deliver their records, files, and any other material relatingto enrollment matters to the chief executive officer of the Tribe. Allfurther work in bringing and maintaining current the Tribe's roll,including the determination of membership in the Tribe, shall be performedby the Tribe in such a manner as may be prescribed in accordancewith the Tribe's governing documents. The constitution and bylaws ofthe Tribe shall provide that all persons listed on the Tribe's rollpursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be members of theTribe, except where their enrollment was in error.(c) Until responsibility for the Tribe's rQll is assumed by theTribe's governing body, appeals from the omission or inclusion of anyname upon the Tribe's roll shall lie with the Secretary and his determinationthereon shall be final. The Secretary shall make the finaldetermination of each such appeal within ninety days after an appeal isinitiated.Sec. 5. Upon request from the Board of Directors of the ConfederatedTribes of Siletz Indians, Inc., the Secretary of the Interior shallconduct an election by secret ballot, pursuant to the provisions of theAct of June 18, 1934, and the regulations issued in accordance therewith,for the purpose of determining the Tribe's constitution andbylaws.The election shall be held within sixty days after finalcertification of the Tribe's roll.Sec. 6. [Same as section 7 of H.R. 7259 and S. 1560.]

22STATEMENT OF RAYMZ( V. BULmER, ACTING DEPIJI' CCM4SSION'EROF INDIANAFFAIRS, DEPAFM4ENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON4 S. 1560, A BILL "TO RESIORETHE CONFEDERATM TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS OF ORPliON AS A FEDERALLYMXX)GNIZED SONFEREIQN IDIAN TRIBE, TO RESIORE T0 THE CCNFEMRATEDTRIBES CF SILETZ INDIANS OF OREGON4 AND ITS NENBERS THOSE FEDERALSERVICES AND BEN1EFITS FUJRNISHED TO FED)ERALLY RE2CX13IZED AMERICANINDIAN TRIBE AND THEIR NMF4ERS, AND FOCR OTHER PURPOSES", BEFORE THSECT~ CCM4ITrEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STA~TES SENATE, JULY13, 1977.Mr. Chairman and memnbers of the Committee, I am pleased to appar todayto testify on S. 1560, the 'Siletz Indian Tribe Restoration Act".Wh~ile we strongly support the intent of S. 1560, our report on the billincludes a substitute draft which simp~lifies the process of reestablishingthe Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and restoring their eligibilityfor services and assistance fram the Bureau of Indian Affairs andthe Indian Health Service.In addition to technical differences, ourdraft differs fran S. 1560 in that it does not provide for the establishmentof a separate interim tribal governoent because there isan existingorganization ("The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians") incorporatedunder Oregon Law with en elected board of directors who can serve as thetribal council until the Siletz Indians organize and adopt a constitutionand bylaws under the Indian Reorganization Act.The Siletz Indians were among the western Oregon Tribes who were terminatedin 1956 pursuant to the Act of August 13, 1954, as part of the Iowrepudiated termination policy set out in House Concurrent Resolution 108of the 83rd Congress.The Siletz Indians reorganized in the late 1960's and incorporated as anon-profit corporation in 1973.The organization is ccorpoxsed of Siletz

23Indians living in Siletz and Lincoln County, Oregon, as well as thosewho have left the area. Nearly 800 out of the 929 persons listed onthe Siletz termination roll of 1956 are stillliving and the currentnumber of Siletz Indians has been estimated at between 1,500 and 2,000.The 300 to 400 Siletz Indians which are living in Lincoln County willbe the principal beneficiaries of the reestablishment of eligibilityfor BIA services.They would be eligible for the benefits of BIAprograms such as Johnson-OMalley Act funds for elementary and secondaryschool children in the Siletz school; and BIA higher education scholarshipsand financial aid for Adult Vocational Training.The Tribe wouldbe able to administer these BIA programs under the Indian Self-DeterminationAct. If they choose to not do so, the programs will be administeredthru our Portland Area Office.This concludes my statement.I will be pleased to respond to any questionsyou may have.

24STATEMENT OF RAYMOND V. BUTLER, ACTING COMMISSIONER,BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY: RALPHREESER, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRSSTAFF, BIA; AND SCOTT McELROY, ATTORNEY, SOLICITOR'SOFFICE, INTERIOR DEPARTMENTMr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.It is a pleasure for me to appear before the committee this morningto testify in strong support of S. 1560.We have, in our view, added some technical changes; in particular,they are changes relative to the recommended interim governmentperhaps,using the governmental body which they now have under incorporationin the State of Oregon as the interim governing body.Our recommendation to the committee in that area, Senator, islargely based upon our experiences with a restoration act in whichthere were considerable time-consuming, difficult problems in institutingthe restoration committee and the interim government.Mr. Chairman, we realize that section 7 does not of itself in any wayestablish a reservation. However, we are recommending to the commnitteefor consideration the administrative utilization of that reservationarea for the purposes of establishing eligibility criteria in consultationwith the people of the Siletz Nation.Mr. Chairman, that would conclude my summary of the preparedstatement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you mayhave.Senator HATFIELD. I thank you for your summary, Mr. Butler.WVhy do you believe this provision is necessary as a basis for determiningeligibility? Why is that provision necessary?Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, it is necessary for us to establish certaineligibility criteria. It is our suggestion and recommendation that weuse this general area.We are charged, with the Supreme Court decision in the Ruez case,to establish what is commonly referred to as an on or near reservationcriterion for eligibility of services. Hence, Mr. Chairman, it would beour recommendation that we utilize that geographical area purely foradministrative purposes in assisting the tribe, if they wish to contractfor the services under the provision of Public Law 93-638 or for administrativepurposes, if they wish us to provide the services directly.Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Butler, for the record, in no way does thislanguage, then, constitute or create a, reservation for the Siletz?Mr. BUTLER. No, sir.Senator HATFIELD. In no way?Mr. BUTLER. Neither in intent nor in any other way.Senator HATFIELD. Nor does it in any way imply a congressionalintent to so establish a reservation, say, in the future?Mr. BUTLER. Absolutely none, sir. We would be totally guided bythe provisional language of section 7 on that.Senator HATFIELD. In your statement you recommend more simplifiedprocedures for restoration.Could you elaborate on that statement and tell us what these proceduresmight be?

25Mr. BUTLER. Basically, Mr. Chairman, it has to do with the creationof the interim form of government. It is our understanding that theSiletz people now have an organized unit incorporated under the Stateof Oregon laws which we would consider and recognize as that interimform of government.So, neither we nor the people there would need to go through all ofthe election process, the close time frames that are established withinthe proposed legislation, for accommodating the purposes of an interimgovernment.Senator HATFIELD. Last, Mr. Butler, in your statement you say thatthe Federal Government is developing national legislation for therestoration of all tribes nationwide.When will this legislation be ready for presentation to Congress?Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, at the present time we have draft reviewmaterial which is in the hands of the Office of Management andBudget. We have completed our inhouse work within the bureau andthe Department of Interior and have set forth the options to them.They have them under current consideration at this time.I would not be one to actually set a date for my successor in office,who was nominated yesterday, for consideration by the Senate. But itshould be in the not-too-distant future.Senator HATFIELD. You have been very helpful. I appreciate verymuch your succinctness as well, Mr. Butler. Thank you.I would like to call Mr. Arthur Bensell, who is the chairman of theTribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians. Hewill be accompanied by Mr. Charles Wilkinson, Mr. Don Miller, andany others he may wish to accompany him.STATEMENT OF ARTHUR BENSELL, CHAIRMAN, TRIBAL COUNCILOF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE SILETZ INDIANS, AC-COMPANIED BY CHARLES WILKINSON, ATTORNEY; DON MILLER,ATTORNEY; DEE PIGSLEY, AND ROBERT PAUL TOMMr. BENSELL. Mr. Chairman, we are very happy to be here again;we did not think we would have to. I think the testimony that wvepresented last year was very comprehensive and inclusive. We are notoffering anything for the record but hope that that would stand andbe sufficient.I would like to say that I think you have covered very closely thebenefits that we would receive. We are not asking for a handout. Thethings that we are asking for will be giving us tools which we canwork with that will help in particular our younger people to becomebetter citizens of our county, our State, and the United States. Theseare the things which we are looking forward to.I think education is the most important thing that we have.We did not know until about 2 months ago that there would not bea reservation clause in the bill. It was a thing where we had to go backto the tribe and decide whether or not we would give up this reservationplan.But we agreed that the benefits that we would receive f rom the healthand education and other benefits were more important. We agreed thatmaybe we should go with the plan that Congressman AuCoin had

26come up with, although we do not agree. We think a reservation planis central to our purpose. Many of the grants and moneys that comedown say that you have to live on or near a reservation.I think that if we can have some type, we hope that, when we putthat piece of information in the bill, that we would have to come upwith the Department of the Interior some plan. We hope that thatwould pass very quickly with another bill.We learned very early that in this bill we could not have anythingcontroversial. Congressman Meeds brought that out very early to us.So, we have tried to keep everything-particularly the hunting andfishing issue is not in this bill. We maintained from the start that thisbill would not be a hunting and fishing issue.These people here, that have come with me, know where we aregoing. We hope that the bill will pass very quickly and that we willenjoy-maybe before the end of the year-some of the benefits that wehave long sought.I thank you. I have no more unless there are questions. These peoplewith me will be happy to answer any questions that you may have,Mr. Chairman.Senator HATFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Bensell.I must say that, having worked with you and your associates for anumber of years, not only on this objective but in general Indianlegislation and matters affecting the Indian people of this country, Iknow of no group that has been more accommodating or has yieldedmore on matters that are important to you in order to try to seek acommon agreement and to compromise with opposing parties. I wantto commend you.Mr. BENSELL. Thank you.Senator HATFIELD. It has been a most unusual experience, this businessof legislation. Frequently groups will dig their heels in and haveonly a myopic view about something; they become totally insensitiveto others who have a need.I want to commend you on the kind of way in which you approachthis whole matter.Mr. BENSELL. Thank you.Senator HATFIELD. I do have one question. You heard a while agoMr. Butler, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,recommend more simplified procedures for restoration. He suggestedthat the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Inc., be regardedas the governing body. I believe the language is: "In the interim periodprior to the final restoration and election of a tribal government."Does the tribe fully support the provisions of the bill concerningestablishment of the interim council?Mr. BENSELL. We do not have too much concern with what the peoplefrom the BIA have recommended here today. But we think politicallythat it would be better that we have an election so that everybodyconcerned-we have gone with the bill the way it is. Our people, whenwe left Oregon, said this is what to do.It would be better to have an election than have the interim committee.This committee is very powerful and probably will be doingmore work than the regular tribal council later on. They will besetting up bylaws and other things that are quite important.

27Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Wilkinson or Mr. Miller, do you care to comment'?Would any of the folks accompanying you care to comment?Mr. WILKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I think 1 would offer just one verybrief comment and perhaps not go into great detail on it.Mr. Donaldson will have a proposal later. I know you are well awareof the great service Mr. Donaldson has made to the State of Oregon.I think all of us out there appreciate that. He has been a breath offresh air in that commission. So, this is in no way intended as criticismof him.What has happened is that the Fish and Wildlife Commission hasrecycled the McKean amendment of last year. That is the proposalthat is being made.In addition, to give it a new dress look, they have suggested that,rather than there be a Siletz Reservation, there be a Siletz historicalsite.Not only does that strike me as unfortunate to think of the Siletzas historical only, I think the tribe does not at all look at itself thatway.Again without going into detail, I think the idea of having anIndian tribe administered by the National Park Service under 16U.S.C. and being required to charge admission-which the statute doesrequire for people to come onto what they would like to be a reservation-doesnot make any sense at all. I think it would be a seriousaberration in the field of Indian policy.The real problem here is that the Fish and Wildlife Commissionis not familiar with Indian policy and should not be making recommendationsthat would result in Indian tribes being administered bythe National Park Service.I just say that briefly. I would be glad to provide written commentslater, although I hope it would not be necessary.Senator HATFIELD. That is in relation to the hearing procedure. Imight interject at this point that we will use the hearings of last yearas part of our basic record. We, will keep the hearing record open for2 weeks following this hearing, for any additional written statementsthat people may wish to offer to be incorporated in this part of ourhearing record.Thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen.Our next witness is Mr. John Donaldson, director, State of OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife.I welcome you here this morning. Mr. Donaldson, and tell you Iwouild rather be in Oregon because of this heat and humidity we haveher e.Mr. Do.NALDsoN-. Thank vou, Senator Hatfield. I agree with Youabout Oregon. I just flew in from Arizona, where it is 105°; so, itcouild be worse.STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DONALDSON, DIRECTOR, OREGON FISH ANDWILDLIFE DEPARTMENTMr. DONAL DSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is John R. Donaldson. Iam director of Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department.The Fish and Wildlife Commission for the State of Oregon has requestedthat I bring to Washington and submit into the record astatement in opposition to S. 1560.

28I recognize your time constraints this morning, Mr. Chairman. Indeference to those, I will merely briefly sum up what the statement saysand then recommend to you the alternate situation that we proposeto you.The issue still remains a very critical one for us of hunting andfishing. We have experienced over the years a number of difficultpositions in court cases, particularly where State resources have beeneroded by decisions that have been unfavorable to the State's right andability to manage fish and wildlife resources.It is our desire that the alternate bill that we have proposed be atleast strongly considered. It gives the health, education, and welfareneeds that we so recognize as necessary to the Siletz people. It protects,we feel, the hunting and fishing rights of all the citizens of theState of Oregon.Mr. Wilkinson has already alluded to an additional clause in ourproposal that relates to a historic site and museum.In summary, we are still very concerned about hunting and fishingrights. Recognizing that in the present bill every effort has been made-I, too, compliment the Siletz people for being understanding, willing,and able to negotiate a position that I know some of their people feelextremely strong about; others less so.I have visited with these people on numerous occasions and findthem very delightful folk. It is very difficult to be here in this positionand take this stand. But at the same point our commission feels thatwe absolutely must dig our heels in relative to hunting and fishing.Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Donaldson, I appreciate the role you are in.I have had sessions with some of your colleagues on this issue.If you were confronted with the following hypothetical situation,which is moving beyond a hypothetical character and will soon becomereality, I would like to know your feelings.There are two bills. One you have seen and are testifying on today.It deals directly with one tribe in the State of Oregon with explicitlanguage as well as a legislative record firmly established saying noprocedural rights, no hunting and fishing rights are granted or inferredor implied or derived from this bill.There is a second bill that grants restoration nationwide to allIndians without the focus on the Siletz or Oregon or the hunting andfishing subject.. It is just a general national piece of legislation. It isalready drafted. It has already been at the OMB. It will be cominginto Congress. I would put my wagering dollars on the side that itwould pass.What would be your preferenceaMr. DONALDSON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is always much more desirableto work close at home and work with friends. When you workon the national scene. I think you have, as you recognize, a great dealof problems relative to Indian issues particularly as they relate tohunting and fishing. We have been major losers in that arena.We feel, however, that it is the responsibility of Congress to resolvethis problem. It is a problem that was created as a national issue. Ithas now been literally dumped upon the States to suffer the burden.Frankly, we are very tired of this. It has cost us dearly in time, energy.and resource. It is the property of all the people.

29To answer your question quite simply, I would prefer to go with thelocal situation unless, by some magnanimous act, the national legislationwere to be writLen to provide the things tWat we hold so dear;that is, the States' rights to manage hunting and fishing relative toIndian reservations.Senator HATFIELD. In this bill we have very carefully and explicitlydenied any hunting and fishing rights at all. We have focused on thehealth and education benefits. So, this is a health and education bill.The restoration is only the technicality to qualify for those benefits.When you get a nationwide restoration bill, you are going to bedealing with a far different situation. I am only suggesting that I thinkthe commission ought to exercise some farsightedness at this point andsee in this bill, through the record and through the explicit language,that you can be on the side of the Indians and still retain those rightsthat are traditionally the States' to administer the fish and game. Whenyou begin to deal with the forces of nationwide restoration, it is notso easy to extrapolate those specific issues which are near and dear toyour heart because they incorporate probably many other issues. Sucha bill becomes, perhaps, more complex. Such a bill can become muchmore inclusive. All sorts of things can happen in that kind of legislativethicket.I am offering some free counsel.I suppose you might think I am offering you a choice here thismorning similar to the choice given Louis Agassiz when he was becominga citizen of this country. He was being queried by the naturalizationofficial, who posed the question to him, "Do you believe in theoverthrow of the U.S. Government by force or violence?"He stopped and thought and thought. Finally he said, "By force."So, I suppose you think I have given you that kind of a questionthis morning. But I am not intending it in that way at all. I just wantto bring focus to this reality that I think is down the road a short way.Mr. DONALDSON. I do understand, and I do appreicate the words youare giving here this morning. They will undoubtedly get back to thepeople in the State of Oregon.Senator HATFIELD. Jack, it is good to see you.Your prepared material will be inserted into the record if there isno objection.[Material follows:]

30STATEMENT ON S.1560BYOREGON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSIONBEFORE THESENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRSJULY 13, 1977My name is Jack Donaldson.I am director of the Oregon Fish andWildlife Department.The Commission has requested that the followingstatement in opposition to S. 1560 be read into the record as supplementaltestimony to the record that was established at the congressionalhearings of March 30 and 31, 1976.The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has gone on record as fullysupporting the legitimate aspirations of the Siletz Indians forhealth, education and welfare benefits.We are willing to assistthem in those goals.We recognize however, that federal court decisionshave held that certain Indian Tribes have federally-protectedtreaty rights to hunt and fish seperate from the non-Indian citizenryand outside of state regulations.We also recognize our responsibilityto conserve the state's natural resources, and to enable thevast majority of the citizens of Oregon to have an opportunity toequally share in the recreational and commercial use of these resources.We hope that you will be sympathetic to this concern.A recent decision of a federal court, Kimball v. Callahan, holds thatthe Klamath Indians still have, by treaty, an exclusive right to hunt

31and fish on their former reservation despite the fact that they wereterminated in 1954 and subsequently sold their lands.The Klamath case has inspired other terminated tribes in Oregon toclaim that they have the right to unlimited hunting and fishing ontheir ancestrial lands. Although the Siletz Indians are not at thistime claiming these rights, the Commission firmly believes thatrestoration of the Siletz tribe, as provided in S 1560, provides aprocedural advantage to the Indians when the issue is ultimatelyaddressed. For example, recent federal court cases uphold the sovereignimmunity of Indian tribes. In addition, Section 7, which willultimately lead to the establishment of a reservation, directlychallenges the state's jurisdiction over its resources and itscitizenry.This goes beyond just hunting and fishing.These issues are not local even though attention is now focused onthe Siletz Indians. In Oregon alone about 6 million acres of land,of which only 1.4 million acres are within the former Siletz Reservation,were once in reservations of terminated Oregon tribes.Nationally, of course, the total land and water area within formerreservations is significantly larger.The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission strongly believes that thestate must retain authority to manage and conserve its fish andwildlife resources in the interest of all citizens.The trends that the federal courts are establishing which createseparate Indian rights and multi-resource management authorities is

32alarming to us and must be fairly addressed by Congress, on nationalbasis.The deplorable situation that has existed on Puget Sound inthe State of Washington for some 20 years illustrates the chaos thatresults when the state agencies lose their management control to afederal court.As this situation worsens the resource loses.In opposing S 1560 the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission does notwant tt jeopardize the stated objective of the bill, which is togrant Siletz Indians certain health, education, and welfare benefitsthat are now only provided to recognized tribes.We are recommending an alternative bill which specifically providessocial benefits to the Siletz people without restoring federal recognitionto the tribe. A copy of that Bill is attached to this statement.In addition, the Commission supports the creation of a NationalSiletz Indian Historical Site and Museum, in Lincoln County, whichwill preserve the rich cultural history of the Confederated Tribesand will provide a sense of tribal identity for *future generations.Section 6 (a) of the proposed substitute bill expresses the strongbelief of the Commission that Congress must begin to address thepolicy issue of the state's authority to equitably manage its fishand wildlife resources for all citizens.Without this language we are headed for serious confrontations.Congress can help avert such actions by adopting federal legislationwhich maintains the state's authority and will compensate the Indian

33tribes for any valid rights which may have been taken from them.Anyobligation owed to the Indian people is a national one and must be sorecognized.It cannot be satisfied solely at the expense of stateresources and the non-Indian citizens residing in the state.Thecreation of special rights for a small group has led to resentment bythe rest of the citizenry.Thank you for the opportunity to present our position.I offer myassistance to this committee and to the members of the Oregon delegationin developing legislation that achieves adequate socialbenefits for Siletz Indians, yet maintains the state's authority overresource management.

34PROPOSEJ SILETZ HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE ACTBYOREGON FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSIONJULY 10, 1977To make the members of the terminated Confederated Tribes ofSiletz Indians of Oregon eligible for those federal servicesand benefits furnished to federally recognized AmericanIndian tribes and their members.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representativesof the United States of America in Congress assembled, Thatthis Act may be cited as the "Siletz Health, Education andWelfare Act."Sec. 2. For the purpose of this Act --(1) The term 'tribe" means the Confederated Tribeof Siletz Indians of Oregon.(2) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of theInterior.(3) The term "Siletz Tribal Council" means the councilwho shall be elected pursuant to Section 5 of this Act.Sec. 3.(a) Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, the provisions of the Indian Self-determination Act, 25USC s 450 et seq, are hereby made applicable to the tribe.25 USC s 450 (b) is amended to read as follows:

35Page 2.Indian tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, orother organized group or community . . . which is recognizedas eligible-for the special programs and services provided bythe United States to Indians because of their status as Indians,or any organized group or community which would be recognizedut for the Act of August 13, 1954, (68 Stat 724-28; 25 USCPt691 - 708)."(b) In providing to the tribe the services to whichit may be entitled pursuant to subsection 3(a) of this Act,the Secretary and the Secretary of Health, Education, andWelfare, as appropriate, are authorized, from funds appropriatedpursuant to the Act of November 2, 1921 (25 USC 13); the Actof August 5, 1954 (68 Stat 674); the Act of January 4, 1975(88 Stat 2203); or any other Act authorizing appropriationsfor the administration of Indian affairs, upon the requestof the tribe and subject to such terms and conditions as maybe mutually agreed upon, to make grants and contract to makegrants which accomplish the general purposes for which thefunds were appropriated.Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,any provisions in any statutes which provide federal healthand educational benefits to federally recognized Indiantribes are hereby made applicable to the Confederated Tribesof Siletz Indians.The Tribe and the members of the Tribeshall be eligible for all federal health and educationalservices and health and educational benefits furnished tofederally recognized tribes.

36Page 3.Sec. 5(a)Within fifteen days after the enactment ofthis Act, the Secretary shall announce the date of a generalcouncil meeting of the tribe to nominate candidates forelection to the Siletz Tribal Council.Such general councilmeeting shall be held within thirty days of the enactment ofthis Act.Within forty-five days of the general councilmeeting provided for herein, the Secretary shall hold anelection by secret ballot, absentee balloting to be permitted,to elect the membership of the Siletz Tribal Council fromamong the nominees submitted to him from the general councilmeeting provided for herein.The ballots shall provide forwrite-in votes.The Secretary shall approve the SiletzTribal Council elected pursuant to this section if he issatisfied that the requirements of this section relating tothe nominating and election process have been met.TheSiletz Tribal Council shall represent the Siletz people int:ieimplementation of this Act.(b) In the absence of a completed tribal roll preparedpursuant to subsection (d) hereof and solely for the purposesof the general council meeting and the election provided forin subsection (2) hereof, all living persons on the finalroll of the tribe published under section 3 of the Act ofAugust 13, 1954 (25 USC 693), and all descendants, who areat least eighteen years of age and who possess at least one-

37Page 4.fourth degree of Siletz Indian blood, of persons on suchroll shall be entitled to attend, participate, and vote atsuch general council meeting and such election.Verificationof descendancy, age, and blood quantum shall be made uponoath before the Secretary or his authorized representativeand his determination thereon shall be conclusive and final.The Secretary shall assure that adequate notice of suchmeeting and election shall be provided eligible voters.(c) If vacancies occur on the Siletz Tribal Council,the Siletz Tribal Council shall hold a general councilmeeting within thirty (30) days after receiving writtennotice of such vacancy.The Siletz Tribal Council shallgive at least ten (10) days notice of such general councilmeeting. Any vacancy or vacancies shall be filled at suchgeneral council maeting after nominations have teen made atsuch general council meeting. The person or persons receivingthe highest number of votes shall fill the vacancy orvacancies. Eligibility to vote at such general councilmeeting shall be determined by the procedures provided forin subsection (b) hereof except that verification of descendancy,age, and blood quantum shall be made upon oathbefore the Siletz Tribal Council and their determinationthereon shall be conclusive and final. The Siletz Tribal

38Page 5.Council shall assure that adequate notice of such meetingand election shall be provided eligible voters.(d) The members of the tribe who are eligible toreceive benefits under this Act shall be determined asprovided in this section.The Secretary, under contractwith the Siletz Tribal Council, shall proceed to make currentthe membership roll which was published in the FederalRegister on July 12, 1956, in accordance with the terms ofthis Act.The names of all enrollees who are deceased as ofthe date of enactment of this Act shall be stricken.Allpersons shall be added to the roll who were entitled to beincluded on the roll of July 12, 1956 but who were not, forwhatever reason, included on that roll.The names of anydescendantsof an enrollee shall be added to the roll providedsuch descendant possesses at least one-fourth degree SiletzIndian blood.Appeals from the omission and inclusion ofany name upon the tribal roll shall lie with the Secretaryand his determination thereon shall be final.The Secretaryshall make the final determination of each such appealwithin ninety days after an appeal is initiated.Sec. 6(a)Notwithstanding any other provision of lawor court decision, the State shall have the authority toregulate hunting, fishing and trapping by the tribe and its

39Page 6.members to the same extent and in the same manner as theState may regulate hunting, fishing and trapping by non-Indian persons.(b) Nothing in this provision shall affect theright of the tribe to file any claim against the UnitedStates for compensation for any hunting, fishing or trappingrights.Sec. 7. There is hereby created a National SiletzHistorical site and appropriate cultural Museum, to belocated in Lincoln County, Oregon at a site to be selectedby the Secretary with the approval of the Siletz TribalCouncil.Sec. 8. The Secretary is hereby authorized to makesuch rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out theprovisions of this Act.Sec. 9. There are hereby authorized to be appropriatedsuch sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions ofthis Act.

40Senator HATFIELD. It is good to work with you.Mr. DONALDSON. Thank you. We will continue to do so.Senator HATFIELD. We will.Mr. DONALDSON. We have lots of things to do.Senator HATFIELD. That is right.Mr. DONALDSON. We have a new facility in Newport and we arevery excited about aquaculture; it is extremely important.Senator HATFIELD. I have a vision that that is but an increment ofwhat I hope to see as one of the most comprehensive complexes foraquaculture research in the country.Mr. DONALDSON. If I may just take a moment, Mr. Chairman. I havediscussed with the Siletz people this very idea of aquaculture for them.This, I think, is an important avenue for them to pursue toward usingthe sea that they have such a history in the use of. With that site there,I think this is a nice beginning.We are going to stimulate aquaculture in the State of Oregon. Thisis the right way to go. It is a good way to use our resource and nothave to use State dollars to further. I think there is a nice tie heredown the line. We would work very closely here with the people nomatter what develops in the way of legislation.Senator HATFIELD. The potential is there. We have only developedfive or six crops, as compared to dozens in other countries.Mr. DONALDSON. That is true.Senator HATFIELD. You have certainly been a leader in this areayourself. I think that is one of the assets we have in the State ofOregon, in looking down the road of aquaculture; it is your ownbackground and experience.Mr. DONALDSON. Thank you.I was talking to Mr. Kennedy before this meeting. I mentionedthat I spend all too much time in things other than resource management.I am very anxious to get back to doing those very things Ienjoy.Senator HATFIELD. Thank you, sir.We have other material which has been submitted for the record.Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at the conclusion ofthe hearing.I thank all of you for your statements.The meeting is adjourned.[Whereupon, at 10: 05 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.][The material submitted to the committee for inclusion in the recordfollows :]

415.1560, H.R.7259--Siletz IndiansSTATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATIONPRESENTED BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRSJuly 13, 1977Mr.Chairman, I am Louis S. Clapper, Conservation Director for the NationalWildlife Federation, which has its headquarters at 1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W.,here in Washington, D.C. Ours is a private, non-profit organization whichseeks to attain sound conservation goals through educational means.of the National Wildlife Federation are found in all 50 states, Guam,AffiliatesPuertoRico, and the Virgin Islands. Affiliate members, associate members, and supporterstogether number more than 3.5 million individuals, making the Federationthe largest private conservation organization in the Nation.The National Wildlife Federation is concerned about certain aspects of S.1560and H.R.7259, bills "To restore the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indiansof Oregon as a federally recognized sovereign Indian tribe, to restore tothe Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon and its members thoseFederal services and benefits furnished to federally recognized AmericanIndian tribes and their members, and for other purposes." Our concerns areexplained more fully in the balance of this statement.Attached is a copy of a resolution (no. 20) adopted by our organizationearlier this year.This resolution recommends that the Congress defineIndian hunting and fishing rights, as set out in treaties. Further, iturges that the Congress confirm authority of the various states to regulateoff-reservation hunting and fishing activities, for Indians and non-Indians

42alike, and reiterates its continuing adherence to the principle that justIndian claims should be compensated for by means other than discriminatoryallocations of natural resources.These principles, Mr. Chairman, apply to problems in many parts of theNation, not just Oregon or the Pacific Northwest.Consequently, we fearthat provisions in S.1560-H.R.7259 will have implications extending farbeyond the Siletz Tribe and the State of Oregon.The National Wildlife Federation certainly would not wish to deny Federalhealth, education and welfare benefits to the Siletz people, supposedlythe prime objective of the bills under consideration here today.However,we fear that some provisions in the bills would set unfortunate precedentswhich we must oppose.It is our opinion thae recent Federal Court decisions have taken unfortunatetrends.One held that certain Indian tribes have federally-protected treatyrights to hunt and fish which provide them with privileges not accordedothers, and outside of state regulations.Further, a court found that atribe stillhas exclusive treaty hunting and fishing rights on its formerreservation even though the tribe is terminated and sells its lands. Obviously,the implications of these decisions are enormous, and we believe that theCongress should enunciate a policy which is non-discriminatory to thosecitizens who are non-Indians.

43We also feel that provisions in S.1560-H.R.7259 which relate to hunting,fishing, and trapping are confusing.The wording in Section 3(c) and Section7(d)(2) appear inconsistent with Section 7(c)(4). And, despite the disclaimerthat this Act will not establish a reservation for the Tribe, itclearlyanticipates subsequent action to do this. And, unless the State has theauthority to regulate, the non-Siletz citizens will suffer. The bills, aspresently drawn, offer no such assurance.In all candor, we believe that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Solicitor'sOffice of the U.S. Department of the Interior are waging aggressive campaignsto lodge the regulation of hunting and fishing inthe hands of thevarious Tribes and, in our opinion, this is not a development in the overallpublic interest.To conclude, we recommend that the Congress enact an alternative billdeveloped by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in lieu of S.1560-H.R.7259.We are also attaching a copy bf an article in the Portland OREGONIAN ofJuly 12, 1977. This article was authored by Herbert Lundy, a Regional Directorof the National Wildlife Federation and a member of the Oregon Fishand Wildlife Commission. We believe it can be of material importance to theMembers of this Committee.Thank you for the opportunity of making these observations.

,44Resolution No. 20INDIAL TREATY RIGHTSWHEREAS, various Indian tribes are asserting rights to various fishand wildlife resources, as well as rights in and to public and privatelands and/or the timber and minerals located thereon; andWHEREAS, many of the rights asserted are based upon treaties executedbetween various Indian tribes and the United States Government many yearsago when conditions were vastly different; andWHEREAS, many of the assumptions on which these treaties were based,such as the inexhaustibility of certain resources, have proved to beinaccurate; andWHEREAS, decisions by various courts interpreting various Indiantreaty provisions relating to fish and wildlife resources have made theeffective management of various fish and wildlife resources virtuallyimpossible; andWHEREAS, the lack of effective management threatens, in some cases,the continued existence of certain publicly-owned fish and wildliferesources;INOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation,in annual meeting assembled March 24-27, 1977, in Washjngton, D.C.,hereby recommends that the 95th Congress take immediate action to defineIndian hunting and fishing rights, as set out in the treaties; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization urges the Congress toconfirm authority of the various states to regulate off-reservationhunting and fishing activities of all Americans - Indians and non-Indians alike, for conservation purposes; and :BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federationreiterates its continuing adherence to the principle that just Indianclaims should be compensated for by suitable means other than discriminatoryallocations of natural resources.

45rRight of regulationat issue for statei.tst cg tot the swttcittliVo'ase ar- Sente:1 hnns onct::;s I. en:tie::y to say that Sec. I ae*tt tAtt t secrety cO! tie trct-::"!-r . .Cskt ' A .Z.sfID ttre est5-Ush-rt of a :tsmni ^r for the Try.sar-C !ta` rhcrctp. In efe fortt..-lropse ie r d 3. r ia C^ t;.uth!: two t-cslIte at CI J treez"tIeat3 of aloe Act. The ireFor t'e t!st orrats0 of th*n who cmro.ro:tets is tacs Hose at5s gteB) HERBERT L:NDY rto- ': !,- the. S :t I-mt Vro>rth> ;-cpoi t-SO~t isget-t-o 0nrL ORGON F.'$ ate .!f5't. after t 'IodaC-,t aerse :a'rrd . :.:,:- a. c .. -U .c. ies LS CcN1]7 0Mde St Cr~:Ctsof :: St3:-Caa the teaen sex orte ctrt enus 'tst i;CCO! e.::a:.-3 Tre - s'-- oNe t^:u tMm s- rot-e - the Ia onrt: I'5 rzr:ber be-ieee: tIsC.-'t,/ trWc3- C:: a fou13r re .s so::h of Yeas#;S rW at' cUan iter twoyears by the !targasoe oft tlte r c:tsaid ^esen- trobd cenit- et tnt:rg.:Job:. tk'rhtso it a4'at ';sa severe It5 ra:.edt hoj Conr~gess- 0-n athe Cr, t-.rt Ytwi. LLt:DY perod en utters tcch anS!s. ftth*.! rcY tor-fdn r&f-tscaheeetsatlaooamost c-r-±:ly xwof!d bt Is-'tcstf¢ i' '.t'Otso ,e ti.. *bF; f_.nrd lcke ciestrwioS-ned. A toort decsion mgt= LAS r-s~tcornrs1-nee '.tsrirr ot *nt cs Sea- CwlriCeA c ± tt. jf's t;c SootuitZ-,'t szf if oiZ s ic eS t:o I: favcf r a and Ca nrs sz.ornbed to the yv roh r*.s 1-- tr9ea tM dawns Offrtrnt.ehoa.t :ogth the .Tart teTs-ns:'.s-j!Ye Ie.! or azeectne

46STATEMENT ON S 1560BYJOE H. LANETO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRSATTENTION: SENATOR MARK 0. HATFIELD,(OREGON)MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE:My name is Joe H. Lane. I am a member of the Chetco Tribe ofthe Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the immediate pastChairman of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz having served twoterms in this capacity, and respectfully ask that this statementbe entered into the record.My purpose in presenting this writtentestimony to this Committee is to affirm my position of supportinglegislation which will restore to my people health, educationaland welfare benefits available to recognized tribes across thisnation, but oppose S 1560 in its present form.My opposition is to section 7 which provides a mechanism forthe re-creation of a reservation at Siletz at a later date.It is my firm belief that to once again create an Indian Reservationin Lincoln County Oregon would be to turn the clock of historybackward, and instead of assisting the Siletz people in preparingthemselves educationally to become more competitive in today'sjob marketplaces which in itself would provide a solution tomany of the social and economic problems they encounter today, areservation would place them in a government dependency syndromedestroying incentive to improve the quality of life.Those not aware of the sad plight of the American Indian need

47only to study the report of the Indian Policy Review Commission.The data in the report has been known to Indian leaders acrossour nation many years prior to the creation of the Commission.Reservations have not solved the social and economic problemsfor their people, indeed, unemployment rates are reported as highas 64%, the incidence of suicide among young people 3 and 4 timeshigher than the rest of the populace, severe problems in hunger andmalnutrition, neglect in the delivery of health care for peopleof all ages, and acute problems with alcoholism and drug abuse.Indian leaders constantly seek federal programs in an effort tocombat these calamitous situations.I submit that the real help to the Siletz, will be the opportunitiesfor college, trade and technical school educational programs.Programs such as the Indian CETA programs are woefully inadequate,reach but a tiny percentage of those in need, and are in effectonly a temporary short-term welfare type of program which in mostcases does little or nothing for the participant but postponedrawing of unemployment insurance benefits until a later date. Whilesome are helped, most are not.Further, I submit that the vast majority of the members of theConfederated Tribes of Siletz do not live in Siletz or even inLincoln County, are not interested in nor would benefit from areservation in Siletz. Less than one-fourth of the estimated 1700to 1800 descendants live in Siletz, and many of those living inSiletz do not want a reservation there!Having studied the proposed Siletz Health, Education and Welfare Act

48submitted to this Committee for consideration as an alternativeto S 1560 by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, I cannotsupport S 1560 in its present form, and I respectfully urge thisCommittee to adopt the proposed bill as submitted by them.Notonly does it provide the objectives originally sought by the Tribes,but under Section 7 creates a National Siletz Historical siteand appropriate cultural museum which many Indian people, myselfincluded, have long wanted to someday realize.It is for the above mentioned reasons that I hope that this Committeewill, in its wisdom, not turn the hands of the clock of historybackward by creating or allowing the creation of a reservation inLincoln County which would further handicap the Siletz Indian peopleby segregating them with a psychological fence around them which issure to destroy incentive and hope.History has amply proven thatthose who "broke away" from dependecy upon the government for theirlivelihood and welfare are today responsible citizens makingcontributions to the communities in which they live.I therefore respectfully urge this Committee to adopt the SiletzHealth, Educational and Welfare Act as proposed by the OregonFish and Wildlife Commission.Mst Respectf ly Submitted,J e H. Lane335 S.e. 43rd St., Portland, Oregon 97206Telephones: Residence (503)771-1231;Office (503)284-1508

49&ve OreporY oerource8 Today Inc.July 11, 1977To: Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee;Subcommittee on Indian AffairsFrom: Forrest L. Meuret, Vice President and Legislative Director of SORt'RE: Please add this supplemental material to the record of my Lestinonyof 3/31/76, pertinent to S 2801, Siletz restoration.Please refer to the concerns of Save Oregon's Resources Today, Inc.forth in testimony onJ/31/76. We continue opposition to both HR 7239,and S 1560, unless amended to grant the State the right to regulate huntingand fishing equally for all residents.We support the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission's position and Lheirsubstitute bill. Those bills now being heard, only postpone the reservationquestion for two years, and do not relieve our concern that fishing andhunting beyond the regulatory powers of the state might occur. Denial ofsuch intentions, by current Siletz spokesmen, does not bind their cousinsor sons, unless spelled out in law. We lack confidence that either theCongress or courts have es intimate acquaintance with the lack of conservationin reservation hunting and fishing practices as we have.Sportsmen pay all of Oregon's terrestrial wildlife budget, and five timesas much toward the fishery budget as all other users combined, and takeonly about one fifth of the fish. More than half of the state's adultpopulation is licensed sportsmen. They support a service and supplyindustry more than a hundred times greater than Oregon's total commercialfishery receipts, including Indian, and outnumber other users a hundredand fifty times.We fail to understand how one man, whether Indian or non-Indian, shouldhave the right to more fish than another. We hold that anadramous fishshould belong to the country of origin, and that all who support the fi;.-ryby buying a license should have equal right to pursue a reasonable limitfor personal use. Personal use fishery should be recognized as the oldestand highest tradition, and should enjoy priority. Those who seek more t 1,nthat personal share should be limited to those fish that are either surplusto, or unavailable to, the personal use fishery. No one should hunt commercially.Indians should be limited the same as everyone else.It should be noted that the personal use fishery is paying in fees, 36 Limesas much per pound of fish harvested, as does the commercial fishery inOregon. The Indian fishery is part of the commercial fishery. Sportsmenare the majority stockholders in both number and investment, and aresubsidizing all others.To those who think the Restoration Bill is not the vehicle with which todeal with hunting and fishing rights questions, let them prove good faithby passing satisfactory hunting and fishing legislation first, so that weneed not doubt their intentions. Restoration can wait long enough for that.F'orrest L. MeuretPlease note attachment and material on the back thereof

50&e Oresr~ aource8 Today k..,.,b1.11, 221. M.dta.. {OR 9,742(August 8, 1976To:Senator Mark 0. Hatfield,Senator Robert Packwood,Representative James Weaver,Representative Les AuCoin,Representative Al Ullman,Representative Bob Duncan, andAll Challenging CandidatesFrom: Forrest L. Meuret, Vice President and Legislative DirecLor oi A œrGentlemen:We read and hear that the Siletz Restoration Bill may be in the proces_.of being amended. One rumor has it that the proposed reservation bereduced to 20 acres, not adjacent to any stream, and with subsequent additionseither being prohibited, or with language specifically eliminatingspecial hunting or fishing rights thereon.We wish to be on record that we are also unalterably opposed to the establishmentof even one more independent or autonomous Indian, or other,government within the State of Oregon, without including the language ofthe "McKean" amendment.Our observation is, that in those circumstances where independent tribalgovernments do exist, and choose to issue regulations contrary to thoseof the state, an impossible enforcement problem follows.It is not what the framers of the bill, legislative counsel, Indianattorneys, U. S. Solicitors, or Counsel for the Library of Congress saysabou^ the proposed legislation that counts. We have learned the hard waytha 's what any particular Federal Judge says that tells the tale.Please note the material on the back of this letter.Sincerely'A?4~Z

51Fishing and Hunting Provisions ofTreaty of the Tribes of Middle Oregon, 1855sad uponwhih thehIri m.allmi i r thij ,eli Uii mistIy ute,the aw sheL be d., I.- ii ii fir ro lad1mi, Iis c iftt tratn te tirety. 'ie reinterrte th he right wordie"inofkmghh~~~~~~~~~~-th-Lu `itmiiwith" to meof thakntat inthf reslierratsio e ' tihring ibi I iiuiigrsh emldnos bTreatio des Thu hif nd for betide of Indian.. Onlyltmiiregulated b~ynthea stathereyseured thieadlihimsii Inda could -fsh r at all ie oceremonial andtsubsiims cuaot c i ede I tatenamielpulrpiosnit thetrt ofihes. ty id tiulsifthbete Wanside Iiu/md h Stimism heig cii toar- porunitycatc 506of ratiachihe beirvestfr arili tremsaine, alasthfruined forthiusand accustomed (off rsvatind rot brest adions.rii tHer aet nok umahnrfo~Indians~~~ the … .in of Iartho, rseatesthego and Wamhidngtherraay-teoawth" tor mean that ofiht reservatonh fihngnIdin byt indan coul notsiberolreuae ythe statesmtha the Indiancouldnisgvn butt0 fish ataltimese forThis inattherpretatyiontndoes nothing r thwe rank and fie t Indan Onl ycheremon-Ialiand subistanen puporsmes and mustin be guaraned an opporvetunityratoencathe50 ofia the harvstable rhemane destinabed foreatanr ustual-about one Itne iwrn the tirety fiss. lif wei onsfd the talrd niubetri oia s io the states of f Iservation Oregsonan bW to Indian, aud nothe t tsntopping the spndisan ati0% lneavsralyfsing nogaateionycmone else. onmeularg of the citizes, tha t the Indian time is ent isistatledtemori tand l subsistenc e orp tespand no diant burtbi when conier oinlcth f r thke, Idepia fihe losueremanr ndesaboutin 13 ed f ishto orisbwht the treiaty intended. Neither do we feeithattwe toare fishing onuae inthe non-Ind fi ren.aSportsmen are finding iedt and ta believe thacommons with whnthe entiresfIao COlumbia and manyhofgthe, largerh tribtarieguaring the Indian ag 1,3 feavisn in teappliae for areas, adoselgaThie ingutersportsman hs notine is realyfshn I "in commo ndian w orntarer cosed cusitf ns, the r indo as onservatioiss, bu the Indian ttoconteinuegg hesotakdspaite tholoue, isarell desperately needed forh" spwnngtahe lankrgenities of fishrer e sale, mene abty sting tak t he isisporatthen treatso disturbed. atither continuing proagandar berragefishyn foinr suesIsianc. WExartin esp ia die s turede when ath f tishdepctimngnonIniban wthe wndin fihreguain. ase aecnsiervatonumist Sprentsmenforced capdable findin of it rhegulatigehardapa to hrimself.ebeleetahetihethei tribes in publiorconarevundoubtedlysonsraints, but the Indian cniustfishelrmen ounithebns of tihe rivr sare, not.l Thy wtaill thake the lastfish. gf Tria regulations are not enfrcedl adisotfrbe appear toefs bemostly windo Idrensing. Extncevtionist forevler eve whegltngaccomplshedfby an Indian fisherman.Equal hunting and fishing must be spelled out in any Indian legislation.

52July 13, 1977Teno Roncalio Sub-Committee on IndianAffairs House Committee on Interiorand Insular Affairs308 CannonHouse Office BuildingWashington D.C. 20515Gentlemen:Please consider this letter Formal testimony and commentaryon H.R. 7259 and S. 1560, identically entitled as the SiletzIndian Tribe Restoration Act, set forth as follows:The Title of the two Bills is misleading, inaccurate andnot respectful to the numerous tribes placed upon the permanentSiletz Reservation under the Act of March 3, 1875,and specifically named in the Executive Order of November9, 1855, by then, President Pierce.The records will show that many of the members of the finalapproved Roll are successors to the Ratified Treaties ofSeptember 10, amended November 15, and ratified March 3, 1855,10 Stat 1018, with the Rogue River Shastas, and the Scoton-Chasta under the treaty dated November 18, 1854, and ratified,March 3, 1855 10 Stat, 1122, which provided for PermanentReservation Homes, if moved from the Tablerock Reserve nearredford. Oregon.The quantum of 1/4 degree Siletz Indian blood setSectionforth4in(b) (c) is not compatible to the policy andimplementedstandardsby the Tribal Officials prior to Terminationenclosure(see#1 "Exhibits "HI', "K"'l, and "1L"1, regardingrequirements5.membershipIt is requested that blood quantuminbethisdeletedsub section until a proper Constitution is adoptedmembersbyand successors on the Final Approved Roll.The records show that members of the Siletz Reservation undertheir Constitution and By-laws voted to exclude themselvesfrom the provisions of 25 USCA. Sections 461-479, for reasons

53Page twoJuly 13, 1977that will be presented to your committees at a later date,if requested.The present Organization described as Confederated Tribes ofSiletz is not functioning under the Old Adopted Constitution,which was presumably approved in 1949 by an Assistant Secretaryof the Interior and lost in the Area Office, Swan Island,Portland, Oregon, in 1949.This was told to me by my Great Uncle, Alfred Land, Sr. sonof Scott Land, Sr. I have learned that over 50% of the IndianTribes in the U.S. are not under 25 USCA, 461 - 479, but stillreceive benefits through the BIA and other Federal Agencies.There are exceptions in those two bills under Section 3 (a)that would become difficult to fulfill by the limitationsimposed in the exception Clause "19 and 20", and the "notwithstandingclause at line 24, page 2 and line 1 of pageSubsection 3 (b) and (c) cannot be tolerated under the Treatystipulations stated heretofore.The following landmark cases are set forth for indulgence andevalution before there are any attempts to Legislate awayPerpetual Treaty and Reservation Rights construed in theselandmark cases, V 12.Menomonee vs U.S., 341 U.S. 404, 88 SCT 1705, Treaty at WolfRiver, 1854, 10 Stat 1064, in which there was no mention ofHunting or Fishing (The Reservation as a home, is to be heldas Indian lands are held). "Termination and Public Law 280must be considered pari-materia and does not overcome theTreaty and Reservation Home.)Kimball etal vs Callahan htals., Case No. 79-1512, 9th, Cir.Ct. Februray 26, 1974. "The Treaty gave plaintiffs the rightto hunt and fish without State interference, due to subsequentruling in Menominee vs U.S."Ref cases - vis U.S. Vinans, 198 U.S. 371, 80, 81, Sct 1905viz: "Its what that unlettered people understood that Languageto Mepn and counter poise the inequity by the Superior Justicewhich looks only to substance of the right without regard tothe technical rules. U.S. vs Washington, C.A. Washington 1975Re. U.S. vs Washington 520 F 2nd, at page 676."Treaties between the U.S. and the Indian Nations were not agrant of Rights to the Indian but rather a grant of rights fromthem and a reservation of those not granted."Strong U.S. vs 518 pages 556, Where Congress has by Treaty orStatute conferred upon the Indians or acknowledged in theIndians the right to permanently occupy and use land, then

54Page threeJuly 13, 1977the Indians have a right or title to land which has beenvariously referred to in court decisions as "treaty title""Reservation title", Recognized Title and "acknowledged Title".City of Newtown, N.D., vs U.S. CA. N.D. 1972, 454 F and 121."Purpose to abrogate treaty right of Indians is not to belightly imputed to Congress."Sec. 7 (a) does not establish a reservation for us and woulddelay receiving development funds and business loans for atleast five more years after the Secretary approves the newRoll, Constitution, and completes the Appeals and Hearingsas set forth in succeeding section 5,6,7.Section 7 (c) 4, and (d) (2) is an OVERKILL again on ourTreaty and Reservation, Hunting and Fishing Rights. It isrequested that any reference negatively set forth in thesetwo Bills regarding Fishing, Hunting and Trapping be Deletedby reasons set forth prior, relating to our Ratified ShastaTreaties and the above stipulated annotations.Section 7 (d) (6) is a contradiction to the Indian selfdeterminationAct, P.L. 93-638. and contradict policies ofthis Congress and is a Bill of attainder in denying us theright to vote on State jurisdiction as provided in the 1968Indian Civil Rights Act, which amends sections 1360 of Title28 and to section 1162 of Title 18 and which protected ourTreaty and Reservation Rights for Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping.Reference is made to enclosure # 2, A letter to GovernorStraub setting forth the serious ommissions provided in 25 USC,sections 694 and 695 regarding trarsfer of our Tribal propertyto a Corporate Legal Entity. This has not been accomplishedas of this date.Five sections of land were held in reserve under the Act ofAugust 14, 1894, ratifying the sale of 178,840 acres of theSiletz Reservation for 750 an acre. $100,000 was to be placedon trust deposit, but disappeared without benefit to ourpeople.It is requested that these two companion Bills, H.R. 7259 andS. 1560, be tabled indefintely, until a productive investigationis made to determine the disposition of the five sectionsof land held in reserve under the Act of August 14, 1894.Gentlemen, the Act of 1834 to regulate trade and intercoursewas carried over into the Act of June 5, 1850, authorizingTreaties with Indian tribes.

55Page fourJuly 13, 1977The Oregon Territorial Act contained similar provisions;and was further carried over into the Enabling Act creatingthe State of Oregon.All we want is equal rights under these Acts to protectour Treaties and Agreements which have been provided IndianTribes elsewhere, regarding Hunting and Fishing Rights andnot be intercoursed from these time proven sources of survivalas depicted in these two Restoration Bills.My Grandfather, John Adams, was recently featured in anarticle from the Oregon Territorial News, concerning hisefforts to preserve the Siletz Reservation. Other leadersof the Shasta and Rogue River Tribes placed on the upperSiletz River, Reservation District, such as George Harney,Ned Evans, Hoxie Simmons and David John, also boycotted themeeting on the old Government Hill at Siletz, which mastermindedthe sale of the valuable timbered Siletz Reservationfor 750 an acre by Government Agents, who furnish gallons ofillegal whiskey to the attending Indians and headmen.It is therefore, requested that the members of the Houseand Senate Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs givepersonal attention to the far reaching impact. These Billswill have on other Indian Tribes throughout the UnitedStates in setting such a dangerous precedent against theHuman Rights of American Indians.,,espectfullytonald F. BellingerfEncl:Membership Criteria's 1/8 degreeLtr to Governor StraubMap of Western Oregon

56CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICEU.S. CONGRESSWASHINGTON, D.C. 20515Alice AL RIvithDirectorAugust 2, 1977The Honorable James AbourezkChairmanSelect Committee on Indian AffairsU.S. Senate1105 Dirksen Senate Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20510Dear Mr. Chairman:Pursuant to Section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the CongressionalBudget Office has reviewed S. 1560, a bill to restore the Confederated Tribes of SiletzIndians of Oregon as a federally recognized sovereign Indian tribe, to restore to theConfederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon and its members those Federal servicesand benefits furnished to federally recognized American Indian tribes and their members,and for other purposes, as reported by the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, August 2,1977.Based on this review, it appears that no additional cost to the government would beincurred as a direct result of enactment of this bill. However, this bill would make theSiletz Indians eligible for benefits under a number of discretionary federal programs.Thus, while no additional expenditures are mandated by the bill, the relevant federalagencies can be expected to seek additional funds in order to provide such benefits.0Sincerely,QCane §06IAlice M. RivlinDirector