I am personally in favor of S. 1413. I believe it is a bill that is about as fair as any bill can be to all tribal members. The old twostep bill was written to favor the remaining members. I believe that it would have been completely unworkable because, if my guess is right, a very small percentage of the tribe want to remain in the tribe and keep their shares of the tribal assets tied up.

The intention of that bill was to keep the remaining members in control in such a way that the withdrawing members would have to settle for a fraction of their real worth in the tribal holding. To my mind any proposition like that would have ended up with a few cheating the many and they would have set Indian against Indian. We cannot tolerate a situation like that. We must have legislation which provides absolute equal and dollar-for-dollar division between all tribal members, whether they stay in or get out. I say get out, meaning get out of tribal ownership. I do not mean get off the reservation as the propagandists tell you. Converting shares of tribal-owned property to cash does not cause dislocation of any tribal member that I can foresee at this time.

It is true that some may want to locate some place else. You are going to hear a lot of talk here today that this bill is going to deprive the Indians of their inherent rights. Most of that talk comes from those persons used to governing rather than those being governed. Certainly we all feel a sentimental attachment to our fishing and hunting rights. There comes a time in all our lives when we have to look at these things from a practical standpoint.

Our fishing today is not used just by the Indians. More white people use our lakes than Indians. They buy permits to fish our lakes. There is only one lake that whites cannot fish in.

It is true that some of the Indians kill deer for meat. Some abuse that privilege. I don't know what percentage of the tribe never uses that privilege at all, but there is quite a large percent of them. Senator METCALF. A large percent?

Mr. NICHOLSON. I would say so; yes. We always have those who are opposed to termination trying to frighten the people with talk of taxes they would have to pay on their allotments. I do not believe that any system of taxation is going to bleed the Indians like they are being bled today. By maintaining these forests and by keeping the tribal government in business, they are paying a tremendous figure out of income which can be estimated to be close to $150 per year for every man, woman, and child in the tribe.

If that figure is multiplied by the number of members in the family, it looks like a pretty heavy burden for the Indians in comparison to what they are receiving, which amounts to about an equal amount as the expenses they are paying. The Indians are paying these expenses, but the economy of the whole area depends on the maintenance of the forests. The Indians are actually subsidizing the economy.

I believe S. 1413, by the provision for Federal purchase, has the remedy for this situation. By permitting the Indians to convert this huge asset to cash they will be able to make investments that will earn money on the principal, which is impossible under ownership of the forest under the conditions of today. To keep the Indians tied to these forests today is almost like telling them that they have to use the horse and buggy in the jet age.

There have been some kinds of security for the Indians in the ownership of the reservation in the years gone by, but today most of the In

46-705-65-6

dians are anxious to take their place in the competitive world. I have five children who are tribal members. I weigh these things with their future in mind. I certainly believe that S. 1413 is the right answer for my children.

Opponents of this measure would have you believe that there is a sharp difference of opinion between the fullblooded and mixed blood members of the tribe, and between those members who live on the reservation and those who live off. There are a lot of fullblooded Indians on the reservation who want termination just as much as anyone else. I don't think they appreciate being put in the category of opposition to something which they do want to see happen. Thank you. That completes my part. Barney Rickard has a statement.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Rickard, will you proceed with your state

ment.

STATEMENT OF BARNEY RICKARD, COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL Mr. RICKARD. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf. Barney Rickard is my

name.

The Indian people of the Colville Indian Reservation wish to have their views expressed by a referendum vote of all adult members in regard to termination. The dissenting group is against any expression of views of the Indian people. This group says, "I can do what I think is best for you," which amounts to dictatorship and not the role of democratic process.

Whereas the majority of the Colville Business Council as of today view the principle of representation by the people with respect to the views of all the people, we think that if the wishes are to express their desires, they should be respected. There would be more contentment if they were allowed to live by desires of the people concerned.

I would say that perhaps those wishing to remain could do so under a trust arrangement or under Federal supervision. There should be a choice and not actions of the

Senator METCALF. Just a minute, would you mind if I interrupt you there?

Mr. RICKARD. No, sir.

Senator METCALF. Are you proposing that there be two things done? One, termination for all those who wish to be terminated, and two, retention in the trust status for those who do not wish termination?

Mr. RICKARD. Senator, these are my views. This is not the committee's views. I think perhaps that would satisfy lots of people, if the committee saw fit to recommend in such a manner.

Senator METCALF. That would take an amendment to the present bill.

Mr. RICKARD. Yes, sir; I view the obligation of the Colville tribe contained in section 5, Public Law 772, 84th Congress, the act of July 24, 1956, which says that terminal legislation shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior within 5 years from the date of enactment of the act proposing legislation providing for termination as necessary. However, at Senator Church's hearing in the field in 1963, a strong dissension to S. 1442 was expressed. Therefore, S. 1442, a two-step process, was not too proper and no legislation was pursued.

First, it would take a lifetime to achieve. Second, if tribal rolls were closed and terminal legislation agreed upon, there would be no need as

all Indians affected would be dead. I think a more equitable plan is in order.

Let the people decide. If the tribes were to undertake economic development, the only feasible program would be the development of the timber industry by utilizing logs in the manufacture of lumber and related products. Considering that such development would be undertaken over the objections of the tribal membership, the possibility of success would be doubtful.

There are already sufficiently large lumber mill capacities in the vicinity of the reservation to absorb easily the timber output of 120 million board feet from the reservation. It does not appear that the operation of a lumber mill utilizing reservation timber would be a profitable venture. Certainly any venture would have to be entered into in a spirit of cooperation.

This cooperation appears to be doubtful on the Colville Indian Reservation because many tribal members have fixed ideas opposing development projects. The cost of administration will be too great. A welfare project would not survive.

If, under the terms of S. 1413, the Federal Government purchases the timber assets at a price representing the value that could be obtained from cutting the timber over a 10-year period, ignoring the costs of holding an investment in the timber until it is actually sold, the Indians should receive a price that reflects market conditions. This is reference to section 6(b) of the proposed act.

Senator Metcalf, I think I shall add I heard the Commissioner state that termination should be decided by majority vote. I say "Yes," that is correct, but there is one sticker there. I say majority of those who appear at the polls, because in 1944-there is a member right here who will remember that-these people stayed away from the polls and defeated the purpose of that election. So if we could use those participating at the polls, I say that would be proper. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. Before we go on, as I understand it, all of you are opposed to the amendment offered by or suggested by the Department of the Interior that it be a majority of the enrolled members of the tribe. You want it a majority of those voting?

Mr. RICKARD. Voting; yes, sir.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I would like to have George Snider give his report. Senator METCALF. Will Mr. Snider come forward.

Mr. NICHOLSON. We might have Oliver Pooler come up.

Senator METCALF. Yes, call the next witness, too. All right, Mr. Snider, you can go ahead and present your testimony in your own langauge.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE SNIDER, COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL

Mr. SNIDER. I have a prepared statement here.

I am testifying before this committee with a true and sincere feeling that I am speaking for the majority of the tribal members in my district. My fellow councilwoman and myself ran on the termination ticket in our district. We were elected with a strong majority, poll and absentee votes, which included Indians of all blood degrees. Also from the other districts the candidates running on the termination ticket commanded a strongly majority.

The issues for which I have stood and voted in favor of during the time I have been a member of the Colville Business Council have been

the issues to support termination, which my constituents expect me to do. I have not had one condemn me for my actions, instead they have praised the actions taken by the present council.

As you Congressmen know through long experience, for every action you approve there are minority groups who condemn you for those actions, and, as you know, you take action with the sincere feeling that the action is good for all, which is the democratic way in this great United States of America.

I feel that the termination bill before you at this time is a good workable bill. It has been before the people for a number of months. They have studied it and are acquainted with it. The first section gives the people a chance which has been denied them by past council actions to vote and decide for themselves whether they want termination legislation or not. I believe if this council or any other governing body denies them that right it would be a great injustice to the tribe.

There are minority groups against this bill, but why? Are they afraid to have the people go to the polls? They don't want the people to have a chance to cast individual votes in favor or against this bill which is now before you. They know the outcome will be in favor of this termination bill by a great majority. Upon successful completion of this bill, the older people will have ample funds to live the rest of their lives in comfort and peace. The people in the middle years of their lives can go into business or whatever way of life they choose. The younger can educate themselves if they choose to do so. The small per capita payments now received each year are far from adequate to support any kind of higher education. The children will have ample funds in trust to acquire an education so that they will greatly benefit and be better able to raise and educate their children to fit into the mainstream of this great American way of life. This we or no others want to deny them; the days of living without an education and off the land are over and have been for some time.

We all know there will be some as there would be in any other group of people-that will not use their funds wisely. But why condemn the majority of the people for the actions taken by the few?

There are a great number of the Colville Indians that have, in the past years, moved from the reservation and integrated with the white people and are doing a good job. They did not have any trouble and are happy with the way of life they have taken up.

As far as employment is concerned, termination will not affect those working on the reservation. Mills and ranches that hire Indian people will remain. They hire now on the merits of the individual person, not just because he is an Indian. Those who wish belong to unions as do other people. They will be hired because the Indian has proved himself to be an energetic and industrious worker.

I am asking this congressional committee, on behalf of myself and the people who voted for me, to recommend to Congress and do everything possible within its power to get early Senate approval of Senate bill S. 1413. If approved, it will give the Colville Indians the opportunity to blend their assets into the free enterprise system in any manner they choose. Do not hold their shares, as they are without an equal right to use their rightful share toward a life of their choosing. Do not keep that share as it is now-at the mercy of intertribal politics. They are as ready as they will be 50 or 100 years from now to

use that share and to take their place beside the real citizens of this country.

Do not judge the large majority by the actions that we all know will be taken by the few. The same situation will remain any number of years from now.

The greatest heritage the Indian has is the right to live beside other citizens of the United States as equals. This they have earned. He will derive a better life for himself and his children. Do not hold this right from him but do everything in your power to help him.

I again ask this committee, which I know believes in giving each and every person his individual rights, to allow the Indians, as provided for in the first section of Senate bill S. 1413 and H.R. 5925, to go to the polls and give each and every enrolled adult member of the Colville Tribe a chance to cast his or her vote in favor of or against termination. There is no longer justification to deny a tribal vote on termination.

I believe the first section, which states the majority of adult members voting, is adequate and members vote every year at established places for their councilman. Those who take any interest at all have and will take the opportunity to vote. Those who do not vote are like any other segment of civilization-they lack the interest and initiative to help decide the problems that confront them. That segment and all others will have time and opportunity to vote.

On development, give the Indian his chance to develop his own personal share, the way he, himself, sees fit.

Thank you.

Senator METCALF. Where do you live?

Mr. SNIDER. On the reservation.

Senator METCALF. In what town?

Mr. SNIDER. Brewster.

Senator METCALF. What do you do?

Mr. SNIDER. I am a rancher.

Senator METCALF. You are a rancher? How many acres do you have?

Mr. SNIDER. I run a band of sheep. I run them in the mountains. They are on the reservation during the summer. Then in the fall I move them down to the lake in the Columbia Basin area, feed them there and graze them in the winter and lamb them and then bring them back to the reservation.

Senator METCALF. So you have a base ranch on the reservation? Mr. SNIDER. Yes.

Senator METCALF. And grazing rights in the mountains?

Mr. SNIDER. We all have the same opportunity for grazing in a national forest. In fact, I have known several sheepmen who graze sheep in the national forest and once they establish their base, the Forest Service permits are much more secure than the sheepmen would be on the reservation. The present rules on the reservation are pretty lax, but under the private national forest you have set rules. Once you have set roots in the ground and proved that you are sincere, you are protected under the Forest Service rule. Any Indian under termination would have the right to develop and establish himself in the national forest grazing areas.

The same grazing rights would always be there under this bill, but they wouldn't have the first privilege to take the rights and keep them.