respect to the three provisions named in resolution 1965-111 remain as presently worded.

In reference to perfecting amendment No. 1:

The report of the Department of the Interior recommended a change in the language of the bill that would require a majority vote of all enrolled adult members of the tribes rather than a majority of those voting.

The report stated in part, "In a matter of this importance, it seems to us that a substantial number of the tribal members ought to express their views and that the legislation should specify the necessary number. We recommend that a majority of the adult enrolled members ought to vote affirmatively for liquidation before the decision is made so to do."

We agree with the Department that a substantial number of the tribal members ought to express their views. In our opinion the present language of the bill will encourage that effect, whereas the suggested amendment of the Department may have an opposite effect by inviting confusing and ill-conceived boycotts of the referendum by some members of the tribes.

The suggested language change will have the effect of counting nonparticipants in the referendum as "No" voters regardless of the reasons for lack of participation. It would be extremely unfair to count all nonvoters as being opposed to the proposal when this may not be the case in many instances. This matter is of such importance that there should be language in the bill which will minimize the possibility that nonparticipants could decide the issue by default.

It is also unfair to place the entire burden of participation on those who favor the proposal, requiring positive action by them to gain a specific predetermined majority, and at the same time requiring nothing but passivity by those in opposition to the proposal who would have the advantage of nonvotes counting in their favor.

To recommend that a majority of the total adult membership ought to vote affirmatively is unrealistic taking into consideration the voting records of the tribes to date which show that a bare majority thus far has actively participated in tribal elections and polls concerning tribal affairs. This indifference is a situation which often holds true in other societies as well as Indian tribes. We think it is wise to abide by the principles which guide other societies, that vital issues are traditionally decided by those who are active participants in referendums.

In our opinion, a far healthier and representative situation will prevail if the tribal members realize beforehand that positive action by all should be encouraged in order to determine a true majority viewpoint and that the majority and minority expressions of those voting shall be considered to be representative of the attitude of the entire membership proportionately, considering that all will have had equal opportunity to participate.

We call your attention to the number of voters participating during 1958 through 1964 as per attachment.

In reference to perfecting amendment No. 3:

It is probable that the tribal members will have more faith in the correctness of a final figure representing the value of the tribal land and timber assets if the figure is arrived at by an average of three separate appraisals. If, as suggested by the Department, the responsibility rests with the Secretary of the Interior, and the opinions of separate independent qualified appraisers are not used, there will be some question as to the accuracy of the appraisal. It would especially be subject to question since the Government, through its departments, would be both appraiser and buyer of the forest assets.

In reference to perfecting amendment No. 7:

The Department of the Interior should be required to make every effort to expedite and complete the termination process within the 4-year time period as set forth in S. 1413. This bill would appear to offer a much simpler procedure for disposal of the tribal assets and the termination process than that which affected the Klamath Reservation.

A 7-year period for completion of the actions required by the termination legislation, rather than the 4-year period specified in the bill, would cause great inconvenience and monetary loss to the tribal members. This delay can hardly be justified. An acceleration of administrative procedures would not be an unreasonable requirement of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The Colville Business Council will appreciate your consideration and assistance in retaining the present language of S. 1413 as it relates to our desire to adhere to the original intention of that language as stated herein. We appreciate your kind attention.

RESOLUTION, 1965-111

Whereas in response to a request for a report on S. 1413, the proposed legislation in the U.S. Senate affecting the Colville Confederated Tribes, the Department of the Interior submitted a report on April 2, 1965, to Senator Jackson which contained a number of recommended perfecting amendments to S. 1413; and

Whereas the joint legislative committee has reviewed the amendments as recommended by the Department of the Interior; and

Whereas the joint legislative committee recommends that the Colville Business Council oppose the following numbered perfecting amendments which are contained in the above-mentioned report:

Amendment No. 1, relating to the number of adults voting in a referendum; Amendment No. 3, relating to the methods of appraisal of tribal assets; Amendment No. 7, relating to the time required to complete termination actions; and

Whereas the said committee further recommends that the language of the bill, S. 1413, in respect to these three provisions, remain as suggested by the Colville Business Council by enactment of resolution 1965-1: It is, therefore Resolved, That we, the Colville Business Council, meeting in regular session at the Colville Indian Subagency, Nespelem, Wash., acting for and in behalf of the Colville Confederated Tribes this 8th day of April 1965, do hereby approve the recommendations of the joint legislative committee; be it further

Resolved, That the joint legislative committee is hereby authorized to compose this resolution and send copies to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees, the Subcommittees on Indian Affairs and others with necessary explanatory material.

The foregoing was duly enacted by the Colville Business Council by a vote of 7 for; 4 against, under authority contained in article V, section 1(a) of the constitution of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, ratified by the Colville Indians on February 26, 1938, and approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on April 19, 1938.

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT ON S. 1413

In the opinion of this committee the proposal to develop a forest products enterprise for the Colville Confederated Tribes as outlined in the report of April 2, 1965, by the Department of the Interior is unrealistic for several reasons. 1. A very small percentage of the tribal members have indicated a desire for development of this type of project.

2. The plan presumes an indebtedness approximating $14 million, necessitating mortgaging of the reservation assets.

3. The plan presumes set gross revenues which may or may not be forthcoming depending on market outlets and cost factors.

4. The 3,454,000 estimated to be available for per capita payments of $700 does not appear to allow for cost factors related to social and economic function of the tribes. Such costs in the past have reduced the funds available for per capita payments to less than one-half of the tribal income.

5. The 600 jobs that would be estimated to be available in the forests and mill complex would not necessarily provide all Indian employment because of possible union regulations.

6. Entering the tribes in this competitive field would undoubtedly cause some disruption in the timber supply and output of existing mills.

7. In addition to the burden of already maintaining this huge forest asset as a conservation measure which benefits the area, the tribes would be obliged to incur heavy indebtedness, involving great risks, supposedly as an answer to economic and social needs of the areas. Is this justifiably the responsibility of the tribes, including its minor members?

This committee wishes to make the following observation relating to the condition of life among the Colville Indians as described in the same Department report:

1. The report cites a high rate of unemployment among the reservation's labor force but does not state that the available employment is often seasonal with normal periods of unemployment. The figures also include the chronically unemployed who lack initiative. Many of the tribal members are industrious and are regularly employed.

2. The report cites that an average of 20 percent of the 2,900 residents have graduated from high school. At least half of these are minors. The figures do not allow for different age brackets and the opportunities that have been available to the different generations for education. Those in the older age brackets are educated to the degree that was common for their generation. The younger generations are advancing further than previous generations, most of them in public schools. The State of Washington is furnishing aid to dependent children which includes provision for normal schooling.

The proposed legislation, S. 1413, makes adequate provision for educational programs for tribal members who wish to avail themselves of it. In the opinion of the adult educational specialist of the Colville Indians currently the Colville Indians are second only to one other Tribe, the Hopi Indians, in their degree of educational advancement.

3. The housing on the reservation was described in the report as seriously substandard. In our opinion the Indians generally take pride in their homes and even though they may not measure up to certain standards in some instances, the report did not make allowance for the fact that most of the Indians are clean and neat and the cleanliness of their homes reflects their pride in themselves.

4. We do not anticipate that the welfare costs of Okanogan and Ferry Counties will mount as a result of dissipation of individual shares of the tribal assets. Trust funds should prevent dissipation of funds by those who are least able to handle their funds. It is this type of person who is now receiving State aid. Neither the Bureau of Indian Affairs nor the tribes have assumed the responsibility of furnishing subsistence to the tribal members. BARNEY RICKARD,

Chairman, Joint Legislative Committee.
NARCISSE NICHOLSON, Jr.,
Chairman, Colville Business Council.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson. If there are no other witnesses to appear on behalf of the Colville Business Council, the majority delegates, we will now proceed to hear the minority delegates of the Colville Business Council. Thank you.

According to my list there is Lucy F. Covington, Joseph P. Boyd, and Shirley Palmer. If they will come forward we will hear them in any order that they wish to proceed.

STATEMENTS OF LUCY F. COVINGTON, JOSEPH P. BOYD, SHIRLEY PALMER, FRANK GEORGE, AND HARVEY MOSES, COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL MINORITY DELEGATES

Mrs. COVINGTON. Senator Metcalf, we have two other council members who were not delegated by the council. They had to come on their own expenses to appear.

Senator METCALF. I want to be sure about this situation. I wonder if Mr. Nicholson would come forward, too, at this time. We have received communications from Mr. Nash, the Commissioner. and I have received communications and the chairman of the full committee, Senator Jackson has, insisting that the council send a complete complement of minority and majority delegates so that both sides of this would be heard.

I hope that you have satisfied that situation because this hearing will have to be continued if both sides are to be heard to their complete satisfaction. Just what did you do, Mr. Nicholson?

Mr. NICHOLSON. It hasn't been confirmed yet, but we authorized these additional delegates. We sent the telegram.

Senator METCALF. Are these the leaders on the minority side?
Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes.

Mrs. COVINGTON. I wouldn't say we are the leaders. Our leader here is Harvey Moses. He has been chairman in the past years, and he has been preparing a statement which is more thorough than we have.

Senator METCALF. What happened to Mr. Moses?

Mrs. COVINGTON. He had to pay his own way. He came yesterday. He is present.

Senator METCALF. He is present and he is prepared to testify?
Mrs. COVINGTON. Yes.

Mrs. PALMER. I would like to make a request of the committee, if you please, that Mr. Harvey Moses also be asked to sit up here with us as he has a prepared statement which is the views of the minority.

Senator METCALF. We want you to put your testimony in in any way you want. Are you satisfied that you have been accorded fair and equal and equitable treatment as far as the tribal council is concerned? Mrs. COVINGTON. No, I am not.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Boyd?

Mr. BOYD. No, I haven't been.
Senator METCALF. Mrs. Palmer?

Mrs. PALMER. I am a member. I am a member of the financing and legislative committee. I am the only one of the minority group who was officially delegated here.

I expressed my opinion that I wished the other members of the minority group also to be present because this affects not only the majority but the minority.

Senator METCALF. How many of the majority group had their way paid here?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Eight of them.

Senator METCALF. And how many of the minority group?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Three.

Senator METCALF. What was the vote in the council when this votecame up?

Mr. NICHOLSON. It hasn't been confirmed yet. It will be confirmed. at our regular meeting. This is a committee

Senator METCALF. As I understand it, however

Mr. NICHOLSON. This was the finance committee.
Senator METCALF. The vote was 7 to 6?

Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes. These additional ones

Senator METCALF. Wouldn't it be fair and equitable as far as the council is concerned to send people back here in the same ratio as the vote at the time it was taken? An 8-to-3 ratio is out of proportion to a 7-to-6 vote.

Mr. NICHOLSON. They are back here. Their pay will probably beconfirmed when we return, I imagine.

Senator METCALF. I hope that you will take care of it. Since Mr. Moses is back there, we won't take any further time. Do you want Mr. Moses to come forward?

Mrs. COVINGTON. Please.

Senator METCALF. Will he come forward? You have one other?
Mrs. COVINGTON. Mr. Frank George also.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Frank George is listed down here with the petitioners' party, so we will hear him later.