STATEMENTS OF THOMAS E. EDWARDS, PRESIDENT; ALYCE HALLENIUS, NORMA K. INKS, MARY HALL WONG, HELEN TOULOU, AND ALBERT A. GRORUD, COLVILLE INDIAN ASSOCIATION Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to have the rest of them. Alyce Hallenius, Trustees, and Norma K. Inks, Vice President. Mr. EDWARDS. And also Mary Hall Wong and Mrs. Toulou. Senator METCALF. Mr. Edwards, I presume during the course of your testimony you are going to tell us what the Colville Indian Association is, and so forth. Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. Senator METCALF. You go ahead and proceed as you desire. Are you going to read all this testimony? Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. Senator METCALF. You are going to read it all alone because at 4 o'clock I have another engagement, and I will come back as soon as I can, but it would seem to me that some of this material can be summarized in your presentation. Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to have it all appear in the record. Senator METCALF. It all will appear in the record without objection as if read. But we have heard a lot about this and as I glance through it some of it is repetitious material. It has been heard both at this hearing and at the hearing conducted in 1963. Those hearings have been printed, so I hope that you will confine yourself to new material. Go ahead, Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. I will try to modify it as I go along, then. Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas E. Edwards, president of the Colville Indian Association. I am and have been since shortly after birth, an enrolled member of the federally created tribal entity known as the Colville Confederated Tribes. I want to take this opportunity to say I appreciate Senator Jackson giving the association a chance to be heard. The association has four of its officers to testify today at this hearing on S. 1413. I would like to ask that the association's officers be allowed to testify after I have completed this statement. We would like to have the association officers give their statements in the following order: Mrs. Alyce P. Hallenius, trustee; Mrs. Norma Inks, vice president; Mrs. Mary Hall Wong, treasurer; and Mrs. Helen Toulou, protem for Mrs. Violet Assing, secretary. The time for termination is long past due. Senator METCALF. Are you going to tell us what the Colville Indian Association is? Mrs. EDWARDS. Yes. It is the second paragraph down, sir. The time for termination is long past due. The bill S. 1413 deals with the task of termination. There also is another bill, H.R. 6331, in the House of Representatives which also deals with the task of termination. The bill, H.R. 6331, is a piece of legislation sponsored by the Colville Indian Association. I realize that the purpose of this hearing is S. 1413, but before I go into the association's comments on S. 1413, I want to tell the committee the purpose of the association's bill H.R. 6331. I will be brief on the description of the association's bill. The purpose of the association's bill, H.R. 6331, is to provide among the individual Colvilles what will amount to a simple straightforward "probate" of their Indian estate, the Colville Indian Reservation, which is being held in trust for them by their guardian, the Federal Government. The association feels that the individual Colvilles should be able to look to their guardian, the Federal Government, for the same protection from loss to the value of their equity in their estate that they would have been able to expect had they instead had a bonded guardian. Therefore, the association has attempted to embody this provision in H.R. 6331. The bill, H.R. 6331, attempts to accomplish these important individual considerations by providing every member of the Colville Confederated Tribes with full citizenship by extinguishing the federally created tribal entity and then vesting each tribal member with his cash share representing his equity in all reservation assets. The real issue which is before this committee is termination and not simply the bill, S. 1413, a termination bill which if enacted would be very unfair to the individual Colvilles who are living heirs to the Colville Indian Estate (reservation) which is held in trust for them by their guardian, the Federal Government. The Colville Indian Association is opposed to the enactment of S. 1413, in its present form, introduced by Senator Jackson, and we are opposed to S. 1413's identical sister bill H.R. 5925, introduced by Congressman Thomas Foley. By opposing S. 1413 the association wants to make it clear that it is not opposed to termination of Federal control over the lives, property, and affairs of the enrolled Indians of the Colville Indian Reservation. The association is opposed to S. 1413 because it is not proper termination legislation. The association realizes and appreciates the great deal of work that the Senate's Subcommittee on Indian Affairs has already done in the preparation of S. 1413, and is happy that the consensus of opinion is all in agreement that the Colville's should have termination legislation enacted. Senator METCALF. Make a note of that, that is a conclusion of the witness and not a statement that is binding on the members of the subcommittee or the full committee. Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir; this was the impression we gathered because we were very happy there was and still is before the Congress termination legislation. Senator METCALF. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether or not to pass this legislation. It is not the point that the members of the committee will have witnesses testify as to what we believe in or what the consensus of the opinion of this committee is. We form our opinion and our consensus of opinion after we have heard and read the testimony. Now, you proceed. Mr. EDWARDS. Although there are now some sections of the bill, S. 1413, which reflect the influence of the association's work, the association is now very much concerned with some of the innocent looking phrases which could inflict great losses on the individual Colvilles. The association is very happy that the Senate's subcommittee approved the bill S. 1169 in the last session of Congress, which was identical to H.R. 13239 in the 87th Congress. The bill S. 1169, as you will recall, provided for a $350 per capita payment. The important aspect of the judgment bill, S. 1169, was that it vested each Colville Indian equally with his equal share of the judgment funds. Now, today, all that we ask is that S. 1413 be amended to embrace the same philosophy as bill S. 1169, which this committee approved during the last session and which was enacted by the Congress of the United States. We urge that each member of this committee should ask himself these questions: 1. Does S. 1413 vest each Colville equally with his equity in the Indian estate being held in trust for him by the Federal Government? 2. Does S. 1413 protect each Colville Indian's equity from losses beyond his control, because of his status as an Indian? 3. Does S. 1413 fulfill the Federal Government's role as a guardian and protector of the individual Indian's equity in an estate which has been held in trust these many years? 4. Does S. 1413 provide the individual Colville with what would amount to an individual probate of the estate of all Colvilles granting him his equal share; or does it go off on a tangent by trying to perpetuate a so-called tribal entity, which has been created by a longstanding Federal Government Indian policy concerning American citizens of Indian ancestry? 5. Does S. 1413 afford the individual the same results and protection he would have had, had he been under a bonded guardian instead of the Federal Government's guardianship? 6. Does S. 1413 remove the burden of loss to each Colville's equity caused by market impact considerations which are the result of the Federal Government's choice of arbitrarily holding the entire estate together until today, instead of gradually over the years vesting each individual Colville the economic bargaining power of his equity as he became capable to make his own economic decisions? 7. Does S. 1413 protect each Colville and prevent him from suffering a loss caused by a devaluating encumbrance such as sustained yield being imposed on his forest assets? Senator METCALF. Mr. Edwards, you have not missed a word so far. Now, Mr. Edwards, I am going to interrupt your presentation because I think perhaps we can finish some of these other people today and obviously you are going to take the rest of the afternoon, and you are going to take probably longer than we are going to permit you to testify today. I have a firm commitment at 6 o'clock tonight. I am going to ask you to step aside and if anybody will have to come back tomorrow you will come back and we will try to finish these other wit nesses. Mr. EDWARDS. If we do not finish today, will there be a hearing tomorrow? Senator METCALF. There will be a hearing tomorrow and you will be heard. But in view of the length of your testimony, and as I said I asked you to summarize, and you read almost two pages here and have not missed a word. You have not summarized a single phrase. You have four other witnesses. I read your testimony, and in last year's record you had extended testimony, and so in deference to the rest of the witnesses who have been here all day, who may have other commitments, I am going to 46-705-65-8 ask you to step down and if anybody comes back tomorrow, in view of the length of your testimony, it is going to be you and your wit nesses. Mr. EDWARDS. We would like to have the opportunity to present our testimony here. Senator METCALF. You will have the opportunity to present your testimony. Mr. EDWARDS. And read it. Senator METCALF. You have had the opportunity to present your testimony in rather extended form in previous matters before this committee. It is already a printed hearing before the committee. You are repeating a good deal of the material that you have previously testified to. Now, I am not going to argue with you. The chairman has the right to set the order in which the witnesses will appear and as I say I am going to ask you to step down and step aside at this time and we will come back and hear you tomorrow. Mr. EDWARDS. OK; I would like to have it in the record the same as if I read it then. Mr. GRORUD. We would like to have it in the record. Senator METCALF. That has already been done. That, Mr. Grorud, has already been done, and I asked him to summarize. He read two pages of his testimony which goes on to 15 pages. Mr. GRORUD. I realize that. Senator METCALF. And he has not summarized a word. Mr. GRORUD. Well, if he could submit it the same as read I think that would be all right. Senator METCALF. I think it would be better to hear the rest of the witnesses and then give him such time as is necessary tomorrow. Mr. GRORUD. I believe it is sufficient if it is just submitted as read and then I think it is all right. Senator METCALF. If he will do that and these others will summarize their testimony. Mr. GRORUD. They will not be very long witnesses. Senator METCALF. We are trying to accommodate all of the wit nesses. Mr. GRORUD. I know. Senator METCALF. In view of the length I was trying to have him summarize. Mr. GRORUD. You are very fair. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much. Mr. EDWARDS. All right. In connection with my statement here there was certain specific offered amendments to the bill that I would like to have you have copies of. Senator METCALF. You may testify as to those and in addition to the submission of your statement we would like to hear why you think these amendments should be put in. Mr. EDWARDS. OK. Senator METCALF. This will be received and placed in the files for the committee to study. Mr. EDWARDS. This does appear as part of my statement at the end where I go into explanation. Senator METCALF. Why don't you read that at this time? Mr. EDWARDS. OK. I am afraid there is also some repetition here in that on some of these sections I repeated the argument why there should be an amendment. The first section of the bill S. 1413: The association's objections to the first section of S. 1413 is that the Secretary of the Interior is given an option to interpret the meaning of the phrase "The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the enrolled adult members ***” Does it mean a vote will be taken to approve or disapprove the act; or does it mean that he can put two alternatives on the ballot, such as, Do you wish savings bonds or bank trusts? Now, we believe if it is the intent of this section to allow the individual adults to approve or disapprove the act in the referendum, then it would be more clear instead if it said instead of saying, "ascertain the wishes," that it said, "approve or disapprove of the Act," and you will find on the marked up copy that is what we have suggested. If it is the intent of this section to cause the enrolled Indians to vote on approving or disapproving the act within 90 days after the act is enacted, then the association objects to this vote being taken at a time when the enrolled Indians will not have adequate information to guide their decision. The association feels a referendum to approve or disapprove the act should come after each enrolled Indian knows what his equity is worth and also whether or not his name has been included or deleted. In other words, there are certain minimum things which must be done before the individual will have sufficient information to make a wise decision based on facts. A referendum at this time would amount to putting the cart before the horse. Voting at this time there would be many unknown factors: (1) Would an individual be voting for an act which may result in that same individual being thrown off the Indian rolls? (2) What criteria will the Secretary of the Interior decide to use for evaluating the timber assets based on the vague wording of subsection (b) of section 6? (3) What will the individual's equity turn out to be worth? Why did the Federal Government, his guardian, not tell him first? (4) What land will the Secretary of the Interior arbitrarily select for the so-called remaining group? Will it be feasible for that group to work out a business purpose in life for existing? Or will all the good land which had good business possibilities be arbitrarily sold to pay off the so-called withdrawing group? (5) What land will the Secretary of the Interior arbitrarily select for selling to pay off the so-called withdrawing member? Will it include land which the individual would like to pledge his equity share on in order to bid and compete economically to obtain? Or will all the good land be held arbitrarily for the so-called remaining group? If it was going to include land he wanted to bid on, how would the individual know ahead of time so he could afford himself the privilege to pledge by electing to withdraw? |