identity. I do not believe this bill is intended to solve our problem, but to solve other interested groups' problems such as counties.

I feel we are somebody with a reservation which is a home to all enrollees for somebody does care, meaning ourselves. If we prosper, our whole community prospers. An Indian without a reservation becomes a nobody with no identity. But now we can say we are somebody because we have a reservation.

We have already met our obligations under Public Law 772. That is, a bill that is no longer a bill, because it was killed in the last year when this new one was introduced. I feel we have met our obligation that directed us to submit it. That was the plan that was asked for, and we no longer feel that we are obligated to follow any bill of this type.

The only restriction that I think these people protest against is the protection that carries to keep our land base through the Government. There has been no reading and no interpretation of the bill last summer on the reservation. There has been no interpretation of this bill on the reservation. They have gone off the reservation, and I see by some minutes that we have that 40 or 50 were present at those. I request any other hearing be on the reservation only so that everyone can be heard without any hardships because of needed funds as we had at this time.

In my opinion the remaining tribes should be the ones to make the major decisions as to how our future should be handled.

I believe only a few members will be prudent enough to make any special investments. As I mentioned before, there have been a number of land sales and I have asked several if they could point to one person that has made a good investment; if there were, most of them I would say, well, maybe they will benefit for something like this.

I believe maybe it is wrong at this time and something I believe should have been corrected that you had before you today, four members who have one-eighth degree of Indian. I think that has a great bearing because they no longer care what happens as long as they get what they have coming and, in fact, I think they have lost their identification as our requirements these days is one-quarter, but this is something that happened before, and I feel very strongly that these people should not make decisions for us. Some of them have been adopted into the tribe and some have had some problems being identified.

Thank you, Senator Metcalf.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Miss Covington.

You suggested a degree of Indian. Now, how much Indian, what degree of Indian are you?

Miss COVINGTON. I am three-fourths.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Moses.

Mr. MOSES. Full.

Senator METCALF. I will withhold any further questions until we hear from the rest of the witnesses.

(Additional testimony of Lucy F. Covington.)

Senator LEE METCALF,

NESPELEM, WASH., April 20, 1965. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I wish to supplement my statement of April 5, in opposing S. 1413 in its entirety. In regard to my statement against the voting procedure of this bill, I would like to enlarge the fact that I feel that every member should be allowed to vote. The minors should have their parent or guardian cast their vote for them, their share involves exactly the same in size as any other member, therefore, this decision should be respected and I believe shareholders have used this type of voting in liquidating of corporation, etc. But probably not as important as dissolving an Indian tribe. It has been stated and expected that before the major consideration now before your Senate will be the question of allowing the people of the Colville Tribe to decide their future by referendum and that the method mentioned should be used in voting. The voting procedure should not be confused with any general elections accorded all citizens but for the private property involved of the reservation.

The next consideration should be the quantum of blood by which each member is entitled to belong to the tribe. When you vote to receive your share from the liquidation of an Indian-owned reservation, your share should be determined by the amount you are identified by for enrollment to this tribe. This division if it should happen would be the same as a deceased ancestor divided only by relationship to the person. This question of division in this matter is going to get loud and noisy and reach other reservations faced with the same problem and a decision will have to be made to satisfy the true blooded Indian that never have been vocal and a nuisance about making requests. For instance the law allows only the blood relatives of a deceased to inherit his private property. The relationship to inheritance here is similar to our tribal property or reservation.

The first duty of Congress is to the people on the reservation, which is at a poverty level, whose needs are tremendous, and won't be solved with cash on the barrel. The future of my people are at stake, your recommendations on this bill is important, which group are in need of help to advance, and be assisted to achieve, the respect, dependability, self-reliance, and to resist temptation to bribery and influence by those advanced in education and business. Only an investigation would prove that many of the people don't understand the undertaking of the liquidation of this reservation, in this bill, S. 1413. The protection given by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to tribal rights, Indian lands, and reservation would be lost if the referendum vote passes. For generations we have engaged in a struggle for protection of our land and rights involving many times over the less fortunate, uneducated people who have hung onto their tradition, ancient rights, group identity with its native values and culture. We have struggled for education, starting like myself to learn the English language first. At home we were punished if we tried speaking English, in school we were punished if we used the Indian dialect. Discrimination prevalent then and it still exists, Indians are rather shy and that is one reason our Indian schools have helped our students to overcome some of the causes, such as manners, proper dress for certain occasions, to engage in social activities, to create enjoyment which is absent on the reservation through lack of knowledge and association with the non-Indians. Most of the contact is for business matters only. They are more mature at this time and can cope with situations with more ability and understanding. As I say only an investigation by your recommendation by unknown persons would prove that we are not ready to undertake termination.

Now then, if by overwhelming response from the people for the bill, is the main reason to base your recommendation, you will be involving people not ready to cope with the bill's intent. You will be putting people in reverse for advancement with the many programs available to them as Indians would be null and void. Since you have helped us for this long for some advancement, then what would the several more years we need to accomplish the aim of understanding and the important conquest of having the Indian accomplish through education to maintain and manage their reservation. When an Indian and a nonIndian can deliberate over business matters on equal bases, living conditions won't be referred to as squalor or the reservation a ghetto for hopeless people.

But certainly it will be opportunity for those that have heart ties here and wish to live here. Then and only then would the Government claim credit for protecting their Indians rights and reservations from those that have either dislike of Indians, and wish to part them from the vast resources with motives to influence them, with outside interested nonmembers as directing this bill to reach their aims. This group your committee will well know are more affluent, oppressive, and very vocal, all have prepared written statements, pledge cards, and sent in telegrams, their main interest is cash, as quick as possible, which started with $40,000 promise but has dwindled to $20,000 recently.

Our local papers have scoffed at any tribal enterprise proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. I think this is a tipoff of their true interest in termination, since they can't buy the tribal timber they want the Department of Agriculture to buy it and want it to manage the forest and sell the timber to lumbermen, and therefore depriving us from managing our tribal forest and making plans for its uses.

These people claim they are ready to be freed from Federal control. If they had any allotments you can be sure they freed themselves of that years ago. (First share.) Now they want to free us from our tribal holdings which we got through our ancestors as a place to use for our benefit and luckily we receive income from it and the value will increase with the years and so will our knowledge and education. They know the Bureau doesn't govern us, we govern ourselves. If they think the Bureau is inefficient, let's strive to make it efficient, push modern programs for development of our tribal assets. We all want progress, then let us take the proper steps toward that purpose.

The people that live on the reservation and want to keep it intact should be the ones to make the major decisions on how the tribal assets and the future memberships should be handled, for continued identity. We have four members on the council with one-eighth degree of Indian blood. The assistant to the joint committee is one-eighth degree. That is below the Government and tribal degree for enrollment or to be entitled for Government programs.

The influx on the business council by these people is a fluke of fate that their ancestors either picked up a little Indian blood to be on the census roll or bought their way in by adoption with ancestors that have no affiliation with the tribes of the Colville Confederated Tribes. We have many on our rolls that should not be deciding our fate by their vote for termination but should be thankful they are treated equally and receive per capitas the same as a full-blood enrollee.

This statement is to bring as clear a picture as my ability will enable me. I hope that it will make your decision easier and to understand our unfortunate situation that is before you. Thank you, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

LUCY F. COVINGTON.

I request that this statement be made part of the record against S. 1413.
Senator METCALF. Go ahead, Mrs. Palmer.

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY PALMER, COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL

Mrs. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

My name is Shirley Palmer. I am a member of the confederated tribes and member of the business council. I do not have too much to add. I do have quite a long statement but rather than read it, as it would be repetitious, I would like to insert a few remarks of my own, and that will substantially add to what has already been stated. I am opposed to Senate bill 1413 in its entirety.

A termination bill of this sort without preparation will create havoc, chaos, and tragedy, besides being extremely costly, and if this bill is destined to pass the State of Washington will inherit a relief and welfare problem under the guise of making first-class citizens of the Indians by having first-class improvements.

As long as the Indians populate the reservation the obligation of the Federal Government and of the American people to the Indian will remain unfulfilled.

Where else in American law can you find anything with wards throughout without the regard, as in this bill, to the needs of the wards and their qualifications to vote?

That is all I have to add. As I said, the rest of my statement would be repetitious.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will submit a written statement also.

Senator METCALF. Fine, Mrs. Palmer. It will be a part of the record. You will submit that.

(The statement was not received at the date of final printing.) Senator METCALF. Mr. Boyd.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH P. BOYD, COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

My name is Joseph P. Boyd, and I am from the Inchelium District, and I am here to oppose S. 1413. I believe that I can safely say that a majority of the members of the Inchelium District are opposed to this bill.

This bill, I think any action on this bill I feel is premature because this bill has not been out. In fact, the bill has only been circulated in the Colville Reservation I think for about a week. I think I have my copy about a week, and there has not been any meetings held in regard to S. 1413, and I feel that the tribal council should make additional efforts to get around to the members of the tribes, such as in towns, in addition to the reservation, such as Fall City, Kelso, Spokane, Tacoma, and Seattle.

Any action on this bill I feel is going to be taken without the consent of the majority of the members of the tribe. I think I can safely say that.

That is about all.

Senator METCALF. Mr. George.

Mr. GEORGE. I will not testify at this time but will testify later. Senator METCALF. Does this conclude the presentation of your testimony?

Mr. BOYD. That is right, sir.

Senator METCALF. I think Mr. Moses remembers that when this legislation first came up in the House of Representatives I was insistent upon a proposition that there be tribal consent before there be any termination. I believe that is a good basis to move from at the present time.

But if there is a referendum with sufficient notice given to the tribes as to what the people are voting on, would you still be opposed, if there was a majority of the vote to have this bill enacted? First, Mr. Boyd and then Mr. Moses.

Mr. BOYD. I respect the choice of the majority of the tribe.
Senator METCALF. What about you, Mr. Moses?

Mr. MOSES. I would, too. But the reason, the main reason for opposing this bill is that, in its present form, there are not enough safeguards. In fact, there are no safeguards whatsoever.

As I stated, all you are really assured of is that Federal supervision is terminated by the referendum, and then, as I stated, too, all your evaluation and all your studies and whatnot in regard to termination comes after. If possible we would be a lot better off if it was in the same form as S. 1442, which I did support.

In fact, the information was pretty comprehensive, and this information would be made to the people before any referendum vote was taken.

Senator METCALF. What information is there that you do not know about that was in the preceding legislation?

Mr. MOSES. Well, I said it refers to the evaluation.

Now, evaluation is real important in this one because there is literature going around, in reference to elections on the tribal council, of tribal assets being worth approximately $40,000 per enrolled member. Senator METCALF. $40 million.

Mr. MOSES. $40 million rather.

Senator FANNIN. $40,000 per member.
Senator METCALF. $40,000 per member; yes.

Mr. MOSES. Which isn't so.

Senator METCALF. Is that part of the campaign on the tribal council?

Mr. MOSES. I said some literature going around.

Senator METCALF. Where is that information coming from?

Mr. MOSES. From some of the candidates, obviously, who are running for the council, and there is such information going around to support this bill.

I pointed out, too, as I pointed out in my testimony, in my written testimony here, the reason for the $40,000 comes from comparison with the Klamath, and I would like in my testimony to state that $40,000 is quite a lot of money and it would be pretty hard to state that the Colville Indians will receive approximately $40,000 per individual under present conditions.

Senator METCALF. You heard testimony this morning it would be something around $90,000 a family. I neglected to ask what is the family?

Mr. NASH. As to the family on the Colville, we are dealing, I think, on the average the off-reservation and on would run more than four but less than five, so if you take this windshield appraisal, if I may use the term, of $100 million and divide it by 5,000, which is also a round number, you would get about $20,000 per capita, and then you multiply that by more than four and less than five.

Senator METCALF. Yes. Thank you very much.

Mr. MOSES. Actually, I believe the Department's testimony this morning was very confusing. That is real confusion there to say you got a $90,000 figure. Actually, if it was confined to each individual, then you could have some basis to operate on.

Senator METCALF. He said it was $90,000 per family based upon a computation of family of somewhere between four or five. If it were four it would be something over $20,000 per person. If it were five it would be something a little less.

Mr. MOSES. I would like to make a brief report on our education, on our local school in that particular area that I live in. There are a