    [House Hearing, 108 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    H.R. 884, ``WESTERN SHOSHONE CLAIMS DISTRIBUTION ACT;'' AND H.R. 1409,
        ``EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2003.''

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            Wednesday, June 18, 2003

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 108-27

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     house
                                       or
             Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                                     ______

    87-772              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                     RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska                    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana     Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey                   Samoa
    Elton Gallegly, California           Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Ken Calvert, California              Calvin M. Dooley, California
    Scott McInnis, Colorado              Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
    Barbara Cubin, Wyoming                   Islands
    George Radanovich, California        Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North          Jay Inslee, Washington
        Carolina                         Grace F. Napolitano, California
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Tom Udall, New Mexico
    John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania       Mark Udall, Colorado
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada,                 Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
      Vice Chairman                      Brad Carson, Oklahoma
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Greg Walden, Oregon                  Dennis A. Cardoza, California
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona               George Miller, California
    Tom Osborne, Nebraska                Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
    Jeff Flake, Arizona                  Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana           Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
    Rick Renzi, Arizona                  Joe Baca, California
    Tom Cole, Oklahoma                   Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
    Rob Bishop, Utah
    Devin Nunes, California
    VACANCY

                         Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                     James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
                   Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on June 18, 2003....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate to Congress from the
          Virgin Islands, Prepared statement on H.R. 1409............    28
        Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Nevada, Prepared statement of.....................    25
            ``People's Petition'' submitted for the record...........    93
        Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................     4
            Prepared statement on H.R. 884...........................     5
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1409..........................     6
            ``The Truth about NPCA's Testimony'' from the Eastern
              Band of Cherokee submitted for the record..............    64
        Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     1
            Prepared statement on H.R. 884 and H.R. 1409.............     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Barger, Don, Senior Director, Southern Regional Office,
          National Parks Conservation Association....................    53
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1409..........................    55
        Blankenship, Cory Matthew, Enrolled Member, Eastern Band of
          Cherokee Indians...........................................    47
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1409..........................    49
        Ike, Felix, Chairman, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone
          Indians of Nevada..........................................    75
            Prepared statement on H.R. 884...........................    77
        Jones, Leon D., Principal Chief, Eastern Band of Cherokee
          Indians....................................................    38
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1409..........................    40
        Olsen, Michael D., Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for
          Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Oral
          statement on H.R. 884......................................    10
            Oral statement on H.R. 1409..............................     7
            Prepared statement on H.R. 884...........................    12
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1409..........................     9
        Piffero, Laura L., Lead Co-Chairman, Western Shoshone Claims
          Distribution Steering Committee............................    79
            Prepared statement on H.R. 884...........................    82
            Resolution, memorandum and letter submitted for the
              record.................................................    86
        Yowell, Raymond D., Chief, Western Shoshone National Council.    88
            Prepared statement on H.R. 884...........................    91

          LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 884, TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE AND
    DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUNDS AWARDED TO THE WESTERN SHOSHONE IDENTIFIABLE
     GROUP UNDER INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBERS 326-A-1, 326-A-3,
         AND 326-K, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``WESTERN SHOSHONE CLAIMS
       DISTRIBUTION ACT;'' AND H.R. 1409, TO PROVIDE FOR A FEDERAL LAND
     EXCHANGE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND CULTURAL BENEFIT OF
     THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS, AND FOR
    OTHER PURPOSES. ``eastern band of cherokee indians land exchange act of
                                    2003.''

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 18, 2003

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                             Committee on Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard W.
    Pombo (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Pombo, Duncan, Jones, Gibbons,
    Hayworth, Kildee, Faleomavaega, Pallone, Christensen, Inslee,
    Napolitano, Tom Udall, Bordallo, and Baca.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
        The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
    1409, a bill to provide for Federal land exchange for the
    environmental, educational, and cultural benefit of the
    American public and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and
    H.R. 884, to provide for the use and distribution of the funds
    awarded to the Western Shoshone identifiable group under the
    Indian Claims Commission Docket Numbers 326-A-1, 326-A-3, and
    326-K.
        Under Rule 4G of the Committee rules, any oral opening
    statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking
    Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses
    sooner and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if
    other members have statements, they can be included in the
    hearing record under unanimous consent.
        Today's hearing concerns two bills affecting two groups of
    Native Americans. They are H.R. 1409, sponsored by Congressman
    Charles Taylor of North Carolina, and H.R. 884 by the Vice
    Chairman of the Committee, Jim Gibbons of Nevada.
        H.R. 1409 provides a land exchange between the National
    Park Service and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians whose
    reservation is located in western North Carolina. The purpose
    of the land swap is to facilitate the construction of a new
    school badly needed by the Cherokee people. Under the
    legislation, the Eastern Band would give the American public
    high-value, pristine land along the Blue Ridge Parkway in
    exchange for lower-value land called the Ravensford tract,
    which is adjacent to the Cherokee Reservation called the Qualla
    Boundary. The Ravensford tract would be held in trust and added
    to the reservation. The amount of land the Eastern Band
    acquires is only 143 acres, but it has attractive features
    making it ideal for locating a new school. The witnesses from
    the Eastern Band will explain the need for a new school and why
    this tract is a logical site for it.
        It should also be noted that the Ravensford tract was
    supposed to be conveyed to the Eastern Band in the 1940's as
    part of a deal which enabled the construction of the Blue Ridge
    Parkway through their reservation. This tract is part of the
    ancestral homeland of the Cherokee people, but the Congress,
    for no known reason, decided to delete this part of the deal
    after it was agreed to. That was wrong, and I am puzzled why
    anyone today would reject the moral right of the Cherokee to
    reacquire their ancestral land through an exchange which adds
    more value to the National Park System.
        Under this bill, the Park Service will add 218 acres of
    pristine land to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Many of the nearby
    lands are being developed. Adding this parcel to the parkway
    would preserve a pristine view from an overlook on the road. I
    think Congressman Taylor has written an outstanding bill that
    will benefit the American public which uses the Blue Ridge
    Parkway and the Eastern Band of Cherokees who need a new school
    for future leaders of the Indian country, North Carolina, and
    the United States of America.
        The Chairman. The second bill which is the subject of this
    hearing is H.R. 884, sponsored by the gentleman from Nevada and
    the Vice Chairman of the Committee. This bill provides for the
    distribution of more than $140 million to the Western Shoshone
    people. This is money which was awarded to the Indian Claims
    Commission over two decades ago to Western Shoshone people who
    sought compensation for a taking of their aboriginal lands in
    Nevada, California, Idaho, and Utah. The bulk of this money,
    $142 million, would be distributed on a per capita share basis
    to the Western Shoshone of at least one-quarter degree blood.
    About $1.3 million would be placed in an educational trust fund
    for the benefit of the Shoshone people. The judgment fund has
    been sitting in a treasury account gathering interest for over
    20 years because no plan for distributing it has ever been
    implemented. This simply provides for distribution of the
    funds. Without this legislation, over $140 million will
    continue to be out of reach of the people to whom it rightfully
    belongs. While there are some people who continue to pursue the
    Shoshone land claim, it is not right to hold these funds
    hostage in the meantime.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

            Statement of The Honorable Richard W. Pombo, Chairman,
               Committee on Resources, on H.R. 1409 and H.R. 884

        The Committee will receive testimony on two bills affecting Native
    Americans. They are H.R. 1409, sponsored by Congressman Charles Taylor
    of North Carolina, and H.R. 884, by the Vice-Chairman of the Committee,
    Jim Gibbons of Nevada.
        H.R. 1409 provides a land exchange between the National Park
    Service and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, whose reservation is
    located in western North Carolina. The purpose of the land swap is to
    facilitate the construction of a new school badly needed by the
    Cherokee people.
        Under the legislation, the Eastern Band would give the American
    public high-value, pristine land along the Blue Ridge Parkway in
    exchange for lower-value land called the ``Ravensford Tract,'' which is
    adjacent to the Cherokee Reservation, called the Qualla Boundary. The
    Ravensford Tract would be held in trust and added to the Reservation.
        The amount of land the Eastern Band acquires is only 143 acres, but
    it has attractive features making it ideal for locating a new school.
    The witnesses from the Eastern Band will explain the need for a new
    school and why this tract is the logical site for it.
        It should also be noted that the Ravensford Tract was supposed to
    be conveyed to the Eastern Band in the 1940's as part of a deal which
    enabled the construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway through their
    Reservation.
        This tract is part of the ancestral homeland of the Cherokee
    people. But the Congress, for no known reason, decided to delete this
    part of the deal after it was agreed to. This was wrong, and I'm
    puzzled why anyone today would reject the moral right of the Cherokee
    to re-acquire their ancestral lands through an exchange which adds more
    value to the National Park System.
        Under this bill, the Park Service will add 218 acres of pristine
    land to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Many of the nearby lands are being
    developed. Adding this parcel to the Parkway would preserve a pristine
    view from an overlook on the road.
        I think Congressman Taylor has written an outstanding bill that
    will benefit the American public which uses the Blue Ridge Parkway ...
    and the Eastern Band of Cherokees who need a new school for future
    leaders of Indian Country, North Carolina, and the United States of
    America.
        The second bill which is the subject of this hearing is H.R. 884,
    sponsored by the gentleman from Nevada and Vice Chairman of the
    Committee.
        This bill provides for the distribution of more than $140 million
    to the Western Shoshone people. This is money that was awarded by the
    Indian Claims Commission over two decades ago to Western Shoshone
    people who sought compensation for a taking of their aboriginal lands
    in Nevada, California, Idaho and Utah.
        The bulk of this money--$142 million--would be distributed on a per
    capita share basis to Western Shoshone of at least 1/4 degree blood.
    About $1.3 million would be placed in an education trust fund for the
    benefit of the Shoshone people.
        This judgment fund has been sitting in a Treasury account gathering
    interest for over 20 years because no plan for distributing it has ever
    been implemented. This bill simply provides for a distribution of the
    funds.
        Without this legislation, over $140 million will continue to be out
    of reach of the people to whom it rightfully belongs. While there are
    some people who continue to pursue the Shoshone land claim, it isn't
    right to hold these funds hostage in the meantime.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. I would like to now recognize the Ranking
    Minority Member, Mr. Kildee, for any statement he may make.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Kildee. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want
    to thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1409 and
    H.R. 884.
        H.R. 1409 is a land exchange bill which will allow the
    Eastern Band of Cherokee to build new schools for their
    children. I also want to welcome my friend, Chief Leon Jones,
    Principal Chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, who is
    here to testify on behalf of this legislation.
        One of the central promises the U.S. Government made to the
    Indian Nations in their treaties was the promise of education
    for their people. Time and time again, our Government has
    failed to live up to that promise.
        Mr. Chairman, I have visited several of the tribal schools
    in my 26 years here in Congress, and I can honestly say that
    when the Federal Government has run those schools, they have
    not always done a very good job. I have visited schools that a
    Federal judge would not let us keep prisoners in. As a matter
    of fact, we had to destroy a jail in Flint, Michigan, because
    the Federal judge said it was unfit for human habitation, and
    that jail was in better shape than some of the Indian schools I
    have visited.
        So the Federal Government has not done a good job. This
    nation, the Cherokee Nation, wants to build schools for their
    children, and I think we should work with them.
        It is unacceptable that we do not encourage them by
    legislation to do that which they choose to do under their
    sovereignty. In my years of elective office, I have enjoyed the
    support of the environmental community for my commitment to
    protecting our Nation's precious resources. That is something
    of which I am very proud. In fact, I wrote the law establishing
    one of the largest Federal wilderness areas east of the
    Mississippi River. I have also drafted laws protecting some of
    our Nation's most threatened wild and scenic rivers. I have set
    aside a thousand miles of rivers in Michigan as wild and scenic
    rivers. And I know that some of my environmental friends oppose
    this legislation and feel that no land should ever be exchanged
    from the National Park Service. But in this instance, I must
    disagree. We have made commitments to this tribe, this
    sovereign nation, and we should keep that commitment.
        One fact remains indisputable in this case. Before there
    was a park on the Ravensford tract, that land belonged to the
    sovereign Cherokee Nation, and thousands of Cherokee people
    were forcibly removed from this land during the infamous Trail
    of Tears, which, in my view, is one of the most shameful acts
    in our country's history.
        Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation because I believe
    it will give back to the tribe what was traditionally theirs
    and unite their reservation which has significant cultural and
    historic meaning to the Cherokee people. I have seen pictures
    of this land, and I am convinced that the land exchange will
    not endanger the integrity of this park. As a matter of fact, I
    think the park will be enhanced by this exchange.
        I understand that the tribe has agreed to exchange some
    other valuable property that was identified by the National
    Park Service, and this is a very reasonable approach. And when
    we find this type of reasonable approach, I think Congress
    should give its imprimatur to that.
        Mr. Chairman, I also would like to speak on H.R. 884, a
    bill which would provide for the use and distribution of funds
    awarded the Western Shoshone Indians under a 1979 ruling by the
    Indian Claims Commission. The award, which today includes over
    $130 million, is compensation for what is called an
    encroachment by the United States onto Western Shoshone
    ancestral lands. Considering the riches in much of the land, I
    do not think anyone could characterize this as a good deal for
    the Western Shoshone. But it was what was litigated and
    determined to be legal. Disputes and disagreement among the
    Western Shoshone and between the bands in the United States has
    kept the monies from being distributed. Congress has also
    clearly played a part in holding up the distribution of these
    judgment awards.
        I have served on this Committee now for over two decades,
    and during this time several proposals have been submitted
    providing for distribution of these funds. We have seen
    everything from a total straight per capita payment to several
    funds being set up for specific purposes, to proposals with
    overly generous attorneys' fees attached. Each proposal came
    with a promise of wide support throughout the Western Shoshone.
    And each proposal failed to be enacted because ultimately not
    enough members were comfortable with the provisions and the
    support behind them.
        Many Western Shoshone Indians want these awards distributed
    and are frustrated with the delay. They want to receive the
    funds so they can pay a few bills and move onto their lives.
    However, for many other Western Shoshone Indians, no monetary
    compensation can satisfy their hope for the return of some of
    the Western Shoshone ancestral lands.
        Many on this side of the issue believe that accepting the
    awards money would be supporting the Federal actions that took
    their land. Today, we are again faced with a proposal to
    distribute judgment award funds to the Western Shoshone
    Indians. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and
    learning more about the activities which have brought us up to
    this point.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this bill
    up for a hearing at this time. Because of the long and somewhat
    tumultuous history, I believe we must move carefully and
    deliberately on this bill. Bringing the bill up during the
    first session gives us time to study the issue and fully
    understand its ramifications.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Kildee follow:]

     Statement of The Honorable Dale Kildee, a Representative in Congress
                    from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 884

        MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING TODAY ON H.R. 884,
    A BILL WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
    AWARDED TO THE WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS UNDER A 1979 RULING BY THE
    INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION. THE AWARD, WHICH TODAY INCLUDES OVER $130
    MILLION, IS COMPENSATION FOR WHAT IS CALLED AN ``ENCROACHMENT'' BY THE
    UNITED STATES ONTO WESTERN SHOSHONE ANCESTRAL LANDS.
        CONSIDERING THE RICHES IN MUCH OF THE LAND, I DON'T THINK ANYONE
    WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS AS A GOOD DEAL FOR THE WESTERN SHOSHONE BUT IT
    IS WHAT WAS LITIGATED AND DETERMINED TO BE LEGAL.
        DISPUTES AND DISAGREEMENTS AMONG THE WESTERN SHOSHONE AND BETWEEN
    THE BANDS AND THE UNITED STATES HAS KEPT THE MONIES FROM BEING
    DISTRIBUTED. CONGRESS HAS ALSO CLEARLY PLAYED A PART IN HOLDING UP THE
    DISTRIBUTION OF THESE JUDGMENT AWARDS.
        I'VE SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR OVER TWO DECADES AND DURING THIS
    TIME SEVERAL PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROVIDING FOR DISTRIBUTION
    OF THESE FUNDS. WE'VE SEEN EVERYTHING FROM A TOTAL STRAIGHT PER CAPITA
    PAYMENT, TO SEVERAL FUNDS BEING SET UP FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, TO
    PROPOSALS WITH OVERLY GENEROUS ATTORNEY'S FEES ATTACHED. EACH PROPOSAL
    CAME WITH THE PROMISE OF WIDE SUPPORT THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN SHOSHONE.
        YET EACH PROPOSAL FAILED TO BE ENACTED BECAUSE ULTIMATELY NOT
    ENOUGH MEMBERS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROVISIONS AND THE SUPPORT
    BEHIND THEM.
        MANY WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS WANT THESE AWARDS DISTRIBUTED AND ARE
    FRUSTRATED WITH THE DELAY. THEY WANT TO RECEIVE THE FUNDS SO THEY CAN
    PAY A FEW BILLS AND MOVE ON WITH THEIR LIVES.
        HOWEVER, FOR MANY OTHER WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS, NO MONETARY
    COMPENSATION CAN SATISFY THEIR HOPE FOR THE RETURN OF SOME OF THE
    WESTERN SHOSHONE ANCESTRAL LANDS. MANY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ISSUE
    BELIEVE THAT ACCEPTING THE AWARD MONIES WOULD BE SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL
    ACTIONS THAT TOOK THEIR LAND.
        TODAY WE ARE AGAIN FACED WITH A PROPOSAL TO DISTRIBUTE JUDGMENT
    AWARD FUNDS TO THE WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
    FROM OUR WITNESSES AND LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE
    BROUGHT U.S. TO THIS POINT.
        I WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN POMBO FOR BRINGING THIS BILL UP FOR A
    HEARING AT THIS TIME.
        BECAUSE OF THE LONG AND SOMEWHAT TUMULTUOUS HISTORY, I BELIEVE WE
    MUST MOVE CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATIVELY ON THIS LEGISLATION. BRINGING
    THE BILL UP DURING THE FIRST SESSION GIVES U.S. TIME TO STUDY THE ISSUE
    AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS RAMIFICATIONS.
        THANK YOU.
                                     ______

    Statement of The Honorable Dale E. Kildee, a Representative in Congress
                    from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 1409

        MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING TODAY ON
    H.R. 1409, A LAND EXCHANGE BILL WHICH WILL ALLOW THE EASTERN BAND OF
    CHEROKEE TO BUILD NEW SCHOOLS FOR THEIR CHILDREN. I ALSO WANT TO
    WELCOME MY FRIEND, CHIEF LEON JONES, PRINCIPAL CHIEF OF THE EASTERN
    BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS, WHO IS HERE TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THIS
    LEGISLATION.
        ONE OF THE CENTRAL PROMISES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT MADE TO THE INDIAN
    NATIONS IN THEIR TREATIES WAS THE PROMISE OF EDUCATION FOR THEIR
    PEOPLE. TIME AND TIME AGAIN, OUR GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO LIVE UP TO
    THAT PROMISE.
        MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE VISITED SEVERAL OF THE TRIBAL SCHOOLS IN MY 26
    YEARS IN CONGRESS, AND I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT SO MANY OF THESE SCHOOLS
    WERE IN SUCH DISREPAIR THAT A JUDGE WOULDN'T ALLOW CRIMINALS TO STAY IN
    THEM.
        THIS IS THE KIND OF ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH MANY OF OUR INDIAN
    CHILDREN HAVE BEEN FORCED TO LEARN.
        THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION WE CAN HELP THE
    EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE MOVE FORWARD WITH ITS COMMITMENT TO EDUCATE
    ITS CHILDREN.
        IN MY YEARS OF ELECTED OFFICE, I HAVE ENJOYED THE SUPPORT OF THE
    ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY FOR MY COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING OUR NATION'S
    PRECIOUS RESOURCES. THAT IS SOMETHING FOR WHICH I AM VERY PROUD.
        IN FACT, I WROTE THE LAW ESTABLISHING ONE OF THE LARGEST FEDERAL
    WILDERNESS AREAS EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
        I HAVE ALSO DRAFTED LAWS PROTECTING SOME OF OUR NATION'S MOST
    THREATENED WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS. MY COMMITMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT IS
    SECOND TO NONE.
        I KNOW THAT SOME OF MY ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDS OPPOSE THIS
    LEGISLATION AND FEEL THAT NO LAND SHOULD EVER BE EXCHANGED FROM THE
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, I MUST DISAGREE.
        ONE FACT REMAINS INDISPUTABLE IN THIS CASE. BEFORE THERE WAS A PARK
    ON THE RAVENSFORD TRACT, THAT LAND BELONGED TO THE SOVEREIGN CHEROKEE
    NATION. AND THOUSANDS OF CHEROKEE PEOPLE WERE FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM
    THIS LAND DURING THE INFAMOUS TRAIL OF TEARS, WHICH IN MY VIEW, IS ONE
    OF THE MOST SHAMEFUL ACTS IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY.
        MR. CHAIRMAN, I SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT WILL
    GIVE BACK TO THE TRIBE WHAT WAS TRADITIONALLY THEIRS AND UNITE THEIR
    RESERVATION WHICH HAS SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL AND HISTORIC MEANING TO THE
    CHEROKEE PEOPLE.
        I HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THIS LAND AND I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS LAND
    EXCHANGE WILL NOT ENDANGER THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PARK.
        I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TRIBE HAS AGREED TO EXCHANGE SOME OTHER
    VALUABLE PROPERTY THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.
    THIS IS A REASONABLE APPROACH TO THIS ISSUE.
        I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE WITNESSES TODAY AND MOVING
    FORWARD ON THIS LEGISLATION. THANK YOU.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I would now like to welcome our first panel. Panel one
    consists of Mr. Mike Olsen, Counselor to the Assistant
    Secretary for Indian Affairs of the Department of Interior. He
    is providing testimony on both bills today.
        Please come up. Before you sit down, you forgot.
        [Witness sworn.]
        The Chairman. Let the record show he answered in the
    affirmative.
        Michael, remember that under the Committee rules you must
    limit the oral testimony to 5 minutes, but the entire written
    statement will appear in the record.

        STATEMENT OF MICHAEL OLSEN, COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT
     SECRETARY OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
                              ON H.R. 1409

        Mr. Olsen. OK. Thank you. If you can hear me OK?
        The Chairman. Go ahead.
        Mr. Olsen. OK. I appreciate the opportunity to present the
    views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1409. Is that
    OK that we start there? OK. My name is Mike Olsen. I am a
    Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. It is
    nice to be back with the Committee, even if it on the other
    side of this table all by myself.
        The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Reservation is located
    in western North Carolina and is home to 12,500 enrolled
    members. The reservation is adjacent to both the Great Smoky
    Mountains National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway, which are
    both under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.
        H.R. 1409 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
    exchange with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
    approximately 143 acres of the Great Smoky Mountains National
    Park for 218 acres of tribal land. Just to clarify, the 143-
    acre tract is referred to as the Ravensford tract; the 218
    acres that the tribe would be giving up is referred to as the
    Yellow Face tract. The Ravensford tract would be held in trust
    by the United States for the benefit of the tribe, and the
    Yellow Face tract would be added to the parkway.
        The Department has no objection to action by Congress on
    this legislation. We are, however, moving forward with an
    administrative process for evaluation of the environmental
    effects of the proposed exchange and alternatives.
        In the report that accompanied the Department of the
    Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, the
    House Committee on Appropriations expressed support for a land
    exchange between the tribe and the Park Service so the tribe
    could obtain land suitable for a new school complex. The
    Committee urged the cooperation of the Park Service to ensure
    the exchange with the tribe takes place expeditiously. The Park
    Service held a series of initial scoping meetings in early
    2002. The compilation of the public comments, evaluations, and
    appraisals are contained in a Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement, which was available for public review starting on
    June 13th and extending through August 15th. And the Department
    will update the Committee on the issues raised in this public
    review.
        The tribe has been seeking flat land on which to build a
    new school for over 20 years. The tribe plans to use a portion
    of the Ravensford tract for the construction of an educational
    campus. The bill's findings point out that over 40 years ago,
    the Department of the Interior built the existing Cherokee
    Elementary School which has a capacity of 480 students. The
    school now hosts 794 students in dilapidated buildings and
    mobile classrooms at a dangerous highway intersection in
    downtown Cherokee, North Carolina.
        Under the legislation, the Park Service and the tribe would
    enter into consultations to develop mutually agreed upon
    standards for size, impact, and design of the educational
    facilities in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts
    on natural or cultural resources. The Park Service would also
    be authorized to enter into cooperative agreements to provide
    training, management, and protection of the natural and
    cultural resources on the tract. The development of the tract
    would be restricted to a road and utility corridor, and an
    educational campus and support infrastructure.
        The legislation simply authorizes a land exchange for a
    site for a school. The tribe will still have to go through the
    process necessary for using BIA funds under the school cost
    share demonstration project or replacement priority. In
    addition, while the Park Service will mutually agree on the
    standards for size, impact, and design, the tribe will still
    have to follow BIA requirements with regard to design and
    planning.
        The Ravensford tract is rich in biodiversity and in
    historical artifacts and Cherokee history. The tribe's Historic
    Preservation Office, in consultation with the Park Service, the
    State Historic Preservation Office, and an independent expert
    review panel, has developed a cultural resource mitigation plan
    to ensure the preservation of these properties.
        Finally, the land exchange contemplated in H.R. 1409
    presents an extremely unique situation. The Department does not
    typically support land exchanges that establish restrictions,
    such as those contained in Section 4 of the legislation, on
    tribal trust land. We understand, however, that there was
    mutual agreement between the tribe and the bill's sponsor to
    include these provisions in the bill in order to ensure the
    least amount of impact on the adjoining park property.
        This concludes my testimony, and I would certainly be happy
    to answer questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Olsen follows:]

    Statement of Michael D. Olsen, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for
         Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1409

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
    the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1409, a bill to provide for a
    Federal land exchange for the environmental, educational, and cultural
    benefit of the American public and the Eastern Band of Cherokee
    Indians.
        The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Reservation is located in
    western North Carolina and is home to 12,500 enrolled members. The
    Reservation is adjacent to both the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
    (Park) and Blue Ridge Parkway (Parkway), which are under the
    jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS). Congress established
    the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on June 15, 1934. President
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt officially dedicated the Park on September 2,
    1940.
        H.R. 1409 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exchange
    approximately 143 acres of the Park and Parkway, known as the
    Ravensford tract, to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (Tribe) for
    approximately 218 acres of land, known as the Yellow Face tract, to the
    NPS. The Ravensford tract would be held in trust by the United States
    for the benefit of the Tribe and the Yellow Face tract would be added
    to the Parkway.
        We have no objection to action by Congress in this matter. On the
    administrative front, we are moving forward with a process for
    evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed exchange and
    alternatives. House Report 106-646, which accompanied the Department of
    the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-
    291), the House Committee on Appropriations expressed its support of
    the Tribe's efforts to enter into a land exchange with the NPS for
    purposes of obtaining land suitable for building a new school complex.
    The Committee urged ``the cooperation of the NPS to ensure the exchange
    with the Tribe takes place expeditiously.'' In response, in January
    2000 the NPS committed to begin this process and on June 14, 2000, a
    general agreement was executed between the NPS and the Tribe to
    identify the resource evaluations and appraisals required to be carried
    out by law. The NPS held initial scoping meetings in Knoxville (TN),
    Asheville (NC), and Cherokee (NC) in early 2002. The compilation of the
    public comments, evaluations and appraisals are contained in a Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement, which is available for public review
    from June 13th through August 15th. The Department will update the
    Committee on the issues raised in this public review.
        The Tribe plans to use a portion of the Ravensford tract for the
    construction of an educational campus, which would replace existing
    schools that were constructed 40 years ago. The Tribe has been seeking
    flat land on which to build a new school for over 20 years. The bill's
    findings point out that the current Cherokee Elementary School was
    built by the Department of the Interior over 40 years ago with a
    capacity of 480 students, but now hosts 794 students in dilapidated
    buildings and mobile classrooms at a dangerous highway intersection in
    downtown Cherokee, North Carolina.
        Under the legislation, the NPS and Tribe would enter into
    consultations to review the planned construction allowing the NPS and
    Tribe to develop mutually agreed upon standards for size, impact, and
    design of construction of the educational facilities in order to
    minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts on natural or cultural
    resources. The NPS would also be authorized to enter into cooperative
    agreements to provide training, management, protection, preservation,
    and interpretation of the natural and cultural resources on the tract.
    The development of the tract would be restricted to road and utility
    corridor, and an educational campus and support infrastructure. No new
    structures would be constructed on the portion of the tract north of
    the point where the Big Cove Road crosses the Raven Fork River.
        The legislation simply authorizes a land exchange for a site for a
    school. The Tribe will still have to go through the process necessary
    for using BIA funds under the school cost share demonstration project
    or replacement priority. In addition, while the NPS will mutually agree
    on the standards for size, impact and design, the Tribe will still have
    to follow BIA requirements with regard to design and planning.
        During the 2002 National Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
    meeting, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was given a tour of the
    lands proposed in this exchange. The Ravensford Tract is rich in
    biodiversity and in historical artifacts and Cherokee history. There is
    evidence that this property has more intact archeological properties
    that are historically significant to the Cherokee than any place other
    than a place known as Katooah, which is considered the birthplace of
    the Cherokee. The Tribe's Historic Preservation Office in consultation
    with the NPS, the State Historic Preservation Office, and an
    independent expert peer review panel has developed a cultural resource
    mitigation plan to ensure the preservation of these properties.
        The land exchange contemplated in H.R. 1409 presents an extremely
    unique situation. The Department does not typically support land
    exchanges that establish restrictions, such as the ones contained in
    section 4, on tribal trust land. We understand, however, there was
    mutual agreement between the tribe and the sponsor to include these
    provisions in the bill in order to ensure the least amount of impact on
    the adjoining park property. This concludes my testimony. I would be
    happy to answer any questions that you may have.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Mr. Olsen, you may as well do the testimony
    on both bills.
        Mr. Olsen. OK.
        The Chairman. And we will open it up for questions at that
    point.

        STATEMENT OF MICHAEL OLSEN, COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT
    SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
                              ON H.R. 884

        Mr. Olsen. Very good. H.R. 884, the Western Shoshone Claims
    Distribution Act.
        Taking a step back, the Western Shoshone judgment funds
    that are discussed, contemplated in this legislation originated
    with two claims filed in 1951 by the Te-Moak Bands of Western
    Shoshone in the Indian Claims Commission. One is an aboriginal
    land claim that was concluded in 1979 for $26.1 million. The
    other is an accounting claim that resulted in two awards. The
    first was for approximately $823,000, which Congress
    appropriated in 1992, and the second award was for $29,000,
    which was appropriated in 1995.
        Section 2 of H.R. 884 proposes to distribute the Western
    Shoshone land claim funds 100 percent per capita to
    approximately 6,500 individuals who have at least one-quarter
    degree of Western Shoshone blood. The balance of this fund,
    including interest, as of June 11, 2003, is $142,472,644.
        Section 3 of the legislation proposes to use the principal
    portion of the Western Shoshone accounting claims funds for a
    non-expendable trust fund. The interest and investment income
    will be available for educational grants and other forms of
    educational assistance to individual Western Shoshone members
    that are enrolled under Section 2 of the legislation and to
    their lineal descendants. The principal fund totals $754,136.
    The interest fund, as of June 11, 2003, totals $632,582.
        Since 1980, numerous attempts have been made to reach
    agreement on the disposition of the Western Shoshone judgment
    funds. Moreover, a large segment of the Western Shoshone people
    have indicated that they support the judgment fund
    distribution. However, the tribal councils of the four
    successor Western Shoshone tribes, which are the Te-Moak, Ely,
    Duckwater, and Yomba, have mostly opposed the distribution of
    the judgment funds because they wanted Western Shoshone
    aboriginal lands returned.
        Now, although the tribal governments were unanimous in
    their opposition in the early 1990's, since 1997 three of the
    four tribal councils have modified their position to support
    the distribution of the judgment funds.
        The Te-Moak Tribal Council enacted a resolution on March 6,
    1997, adopting a plan for the distribution of the funds and
    asked the Department of the Interior to support that plan. The
    next tribal council rescinded that resolution in the summer of
    2000, but the current tribal council rescinded that action in
    January of 2002 and reinstated the 1997 resolution supporting
    distribution.
        The Duckwater Shoshone Tribal Council enacted a resolution
    on March 18, 1998, supporting the Western Shoshone claims
    distribution proposal. On March 10, 1999, the council
    reaffirmed the earlier resolution supporting the distribution
    proposal, and within the last month of 2003, it enacted another
    resolution reconfirming its support of the proposal.
        The Ely Tribal Council enacted a resolution on October 9,
    2001, supporting the bills of the 107th Congress dealing with
    this issue. It, too, has enacted another resolution
    reconfirming its previous support.
        We have been advised that the Yomba Tribal Council
    continues to oppose the distribution. However, Duck Valley,
    Fallon, and Fort McDermitt, three tribes with enrolled members
    that would be eligible to share in the distribution, in the
    judgment fund distribution under this legislation, have also
    enacted resolutions supporting the distribution.
        We testified during the 107th Congress before the Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs that the Shoshone-Paiute Tribal
    Business Council of Duck Valley withdrew its support by
    resolution dated November 13, 2001. However, the Western
    Shoshones of Duck Valley continue to support the legislative
    language and have taken no action to rescind the resolutions.
        The Department supports the enactment of H.R. 884 because
    we believe that it reflects the wishes of the vast majority of
    the Western Shoshone people. We are also pleased that three of
    the four successor tribes have expressed their support of the
    distribution as well as two other tribes with a significant
    number of tribal members of Western Shoshone descent.
        We understand that many of the beneficiaries continue to
    believe in their rights under the Treaty of Ruby Valley.
    Subsection (2)(9) of the legislation acts as a savings clause
    for whatever rights remain in effect.
        This concludes my prepared statement. We are submitting a
    report to be included in the record that gives more of a
    detailed history of the Western Shoshone claims, and I will be
    happy to answer any of your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Olsen follows:]

    Statement of Michael D. Olsen, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for
          Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 884

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
    for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the
    Interior on H.R. 884, a bill entitled ``The Western Shoshone Claims
    Distribution Act.''
        The distribution of the Western Shoshone judgment funds is a long-
    standing issue that needs to be settled. The judgment funds stem from
    two claims that were filed by the Te-Moak Bands of Western Shoshone in
    the Indian Claims Commission in 1951. One is an aboriginal land claim
    that was concluded in 1979 in Docket 326-K for $26.1 million. The other
    is an accounting claim. Several issues in the accounting claim were
    handled separately and resulted in two awards. The first award in the
    accounting claim was for approximately $823,000, and Congress
    appropriated funds to pay the claim in 1992. The second award was for
    $29,000, and funds were appropriated in 1995 to pay the claim. The
    accounting claims were in Dockets 326-A-1 and 326-A-3.
        Since 1980, numerous attempts have been made to reach agreement on
    the disposition of the Western Shoshone judgment funds. The most recent
    attempt began in March 1998, the Western Shoshone Steering Committee
    (WSSC), which is composed of individuals that are tribal members at
    various reservations in Nevada. With the approval of the Te-Moak Tribal
    Council, the WSSC has worked over the past four years investigating if
    the Western Shoshone people were in favor of a judgment fund
    distribution.
        Since 1980, when the BIA held its first Hearing of Record on the
    distribution of the land claims judgment funds, a large segment of the
    Western Shoshone people have indicated that they are in favor of the
    judgment fund distribution. In the meantime, it's important to note
    that the tribal councils of the four successor Western Shoshone tribes
    (Te-Moak, Ely, Duckwater and Yomba) have mostly opposed the
    distribution of the judgment funds because they wanted the Western
    Shoshone aboriginal lands returned. Although the tribal governments
    were unanimous in their opposition in the early 1990's, since 1997,
    three of the four tribal councils have modified their position to
    support the distribution of the judgment funds.
        The Te-Moak Tribal Council enacted Resolution No. 97-TM-10 on March
    6, 1997, adopting a plan for the distribution of these funds and
    requested the Department to support it. That resolution was rescinded
    by the next tribal council in the summer of 2000, but the current
    tribal council rescinded that action in January of 2002 and reinstated
    the 1997 resolution, supporting distribution. It too, has not been
    rescinded. The Duckwater Shoshone Tribal Council enacted Resolution No.
    98-D-12 on March 18, 1998, supporting the Western Shoshone claims
    distribution proposal. On March 10, 1999, they enacted Resolution No.
    99-D-07 reaffirming the earlier resolution supporting the Western
    Shoshone Claims distribution proposal and within the last month of
    2003, they enacted another resolution reconfirming their support of the
    proposal. The Ely Tribal Council enacted Resolution No. 2001-EST-44 on
    October 9, 2001, supporting the bills of the 107th Congress. They, too,
    have enacted another resolution that reconfirms their previous support.
    We have been advised that the Yomba Tribal Council continues to oppose
    the distribution. Several other tribes with enrolled tribal members
    that would be eligible to share in the judgment fund distribution under
    H.R. 884 have also enacted resolutions supporting the distribution.
    Those tribes are Duck Valley, Fallon and Fort McDermitt. We testified
    during the 107th Congress before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
    that the Shoshone-Paiute Tribal Business Council of Duck Valley
    withdrew its support by Resolution No. 2002-SPR-012, dated November 13,
    2001. However, the Western Shoshones of Duck Valley continue to support
    the legislative language and have taken no action to rescind the
    resolutions.
        We support the enactment of H.R. 884 because we believe that it
    reflects the wishes of the vast majority of the Western Shoshone
    people. We are also pleased that three of the four successor tribes
    have expressed their support of the distribution, as well as two other
    tribes with a significant number of tribal members of Western Shoshone
    descent.
        Section 2 of H.R. 884 proposes to distribute the Western Shoshone
    land claims funds that were awarded in Docket 326-K, one hundred
    percent (100%) per capita to approximately 6,500 individuals who have
    at least one-quarter (1/4) degree of Western Shoshone Blood. The
    current balance of this fund, including interest, as of June 11, 2003
    is $142,472,644. This section appears to be in accord with the wishes
    of the Western Shoshone people.
        Section 3 proposes to use the principal portion of the Western
    Shoshone accounting claims funds awarded in Dockets 326-A-1 and 326-A-3
    for a non-expendable Trust Fund. The interest and investment income
    will be available for educational grants and other forms of educational
    assistance to individual Western Shoshone members that are enrolled
    under Section 2 of this Act, and to their lineal descendants. The
    principal fund totals $754,136. The interest fund, as of June 11, 2003
    totals $632,582. This section appears to be in accord with the wishes
    of the Western Shoshone people.
        We understand that many of the beneficiaries of this treaty
    continue to believe in their rights under the Treaty of Ruby Valley and
    this subsection acts as a savings clause for whatever rights remain in
    effect. We are concerned that some tribes or individuals may believe
    that Article 5 of the Treaty (land provisions) remains in effect. To be
    safe, the clause should read, ``Receipt of a share of the funds under
    this subsection shall not alter any treaty rights, or the final
    decisions of the Federal Courts regarding those rights, pursuant to the
    `1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley,' inclusive...''
        This concludes my prepared statement. We are submitting a report to
    be included into the record that gives a detailed history of the
    Western Shoshone claims. I will be happy to answer any questions the
    Committee may have.
                                     ______

                Western Shoshone Claims - Background Information

        In 1935, the Western Shoshone started pursuing their claims against
    the United States by seeking legislation (S. 2510 - 74th Congress, 1st
    Session) to grant jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to hear the
    Western Shoshone claims arising under the Treaty of October 1, 1863, 18
    Stat. 689 (1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley). This bill, and several others
    that were introduced in Congress between 1935 and 1946, did not result
    in legislation. The last bill, S. 2278, was introduced on May 31, 1946.
    The primary reason Congress did not enact this legislation was because
    it deferred action on all special jurisdictional bills for individual
    tribes so that it could pass legislation to create an Indian Claims
    Commission (ICC) with the authority to consider the claims of all
    Indian tribes. The ICC was created under the Act of August 13, 1946, 60
    Stat. 1049.
        The Shoshone claims in Docket 326 were filed before the ICC on
    August 10, 1951. Docket 326 included multiple claims involving the
    Eastern Bands of Shoshone, the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone, the
    Western Shoshone, the Shoshone-Goship Bands, and the mixed Bands of
    Bannock and Shoshone Indians. The ICC closed Docket 326 in 1967 when it
    severed all of the claims into separate Dockets numbering from 326-A
    through 326-K. The Western Shoshone land claims were transferred to
    Docket 326-K and their accounting claims were transferred to Docket
    326-A. 40 Ind. Cl. Comm. 318, 453
        On August 15, 1977, the ICC granted a final award of $26,145,189.89
    in Docket 326-K to the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group as
    represented by the Temoak Bands of Western Shoshone Indians, Nevada.
    See 219 Ct. Cl. 346 (1979) Crt. Denied 444 U.S. 973 (1979) Litigation
    and other actions initiated by some Western Shoshone entities,
    including the Te-Moak Bands (aka Temoak) delayed until December 19,
    1979, the appropriation of funds to satisfy the award.
        The ICC concluded that the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group
    aboriginally exclusively used and occupied a large tract of land
    located principally in Nevada with a small portion extending into
    California. The tract formed roughly a wedge from near the northeast
    corner of Nevada extending south, southwest, with the point of the
    wedge in California, including Death Valley.
        The ICC found that the Western Shoshone California lands were
    acquired by the United States by statute on March 3, 1853, and that
    Indian title to the Nevada lands was extinguished gradually by the
    United States which treated the tract as public lands. On February 11,
    1966, the ICC approved a joint stipulation between the United States
    and the Western Shoshone plaintiff that established July 1, 1872, as
    the aggregate valuation date for the encroachment upon and taking of
    the Nevada lands.
        Prior to the agreement of the Nevada evaluation date the ICC had
    established that the Nevada tract consisted of 22,211,753 acres and the
    California tract consisted of 2,184,650 acres. On October 11, 1972, the
    ICC awarded in an Interlocutory Order $21,350,000 for the Nevada land,
    $200,000 for the California land, and $4,604,600 for the removal of
    minerals from the Nevada tract prior to the 1872 taking date. The ICC
    deducted $9,410.11 as payment on the claim, but nothing for offsets,
    resulting in the 1977 award of $26,145,189.89. See 29 Ind. Cl. Comm. 5.
    Pertinent Aspects Concerning the Western Shoshone Land Claims
        Controversy surrounds any discussion concerning the Western
    Shoshone land claims and the distribution of the judgment funds awarded
    in Docket 326-K. The disputed issues include the size and location of
    the claimed land area, whether the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley grants
    the Western Shoshone recognized title to the lands described in the
    1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, and effect the distribution of the judgment
    funds will have on the remaining claims of the Western Shoshone and on
    individual Western Shoshone people.
        The issue concerning the size and location of the claimed land area
    first surfaced in 1935 when the Department of the Interior issued a
    report on S. 2510, dated June 12, 1935, and stated that the Duck Valley
    Indian Reservation was within the country described in the treaty and
    that the contention of the Indians to the contrary was not supported by
    Royce's Indian Land Cessions (Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of
    American Ethnology). In a later report on S. 23 (Senate Report No. 79,
    dated March 5, 1943), the Department of the Interior acknowledged that
    its earlier statement concerning the Duck Valley Reservation was
    erroneous. The report further states that:
            In recent years, there has been discovered a map that was
            prepared by James Duane Doty, one of the Commissioners who
            negotiated the treaties with the Western and four other bands
            of Shoshone Indians in 1863. The map accompanied the treaties
            concluded by Commissioner Doty with these Indians and roughly
            depicted the boundaries of the lands claimed by them as
            described in the separate treaties. An examination of the map
            discloses that the Duck Valley Reservation is not within the
            country described in the treaty with the Western Shoshones,
            but, as contended by them for many years, is situated a
            considerable number of miles north of their country. Further
            support is given to the contention of the Indians by a map
            prepared by the General Land Office of this Department in May,
            1939, showing the boundaries of the lands claimed by the
            various bands of Shoshone Indians in the treaties of 1863 and
            the acreage of such lands in each State. This map also shows
            that the Duck Valley Reservation is far north of the lands
            described in the Western Shoshone Treaty of 1863. The map shows
            in addition that the lands described in the Western Shoshone
            Treaty comprised approximately 15,811,000 acres situated
            entirely within the State of Nevada.
        This same issue is discussed in ICC Finding of Fact No. 73 (40 Ind.
    Cl. Comm. 318, 400-403). The ICC found that:
         The locations of the boundaries of the Western Shoshone
    country, described by metes and bounds in Article V of the Treaty of
    Ruby Valley, are not free from doubt. The decision in the valuation
    proceeding herein noted that the territorial claim of the Western
    Shoshones, as described in the Treaty of Ruby Valley and depicted by
    Royce, Indian Land Cessions in the United States, supra, was larger
    than the area of the claim in Docket 326-K (29 Ind. Cl. Comm. 5, 47,
    note 5). The Western Shoshone lands are shown as Area 444 on Royce's
    maps of Nevada, California, Utah, Oregon, and Idaho. Royce Area 444
    extends far north into Idaho, northwest into Oregon, east into Utah,
    and covers more Nevada land than is included in the Docket 326-K claim.
    According to Royce's maps and cession schedules, the Lemhi reserve,
    established by Executive Order of February 12, 1875 (for the Shoshoni,
    Bannocks, and Sheepeaters), the Carlin Farms reserve, established by
    Executive Order of May 10, 1877, and the Duck Valley reserve,
    established by Executive Order of April 16, 1877, were all located
    within the boundaries of the Western Shoshone country as described in
    the Treaty of Ruby Valley.
         Leaders of the Western Shoshones who lived near the area
    of the Duck Valley Reservation suggested that the Duck Valley land be
    set aside for all Western Shoshones, but the Temoak bands, who lived in
    the Ruby Valley area south of Duck Valley objected because the
    reservation was not within their country. The Temoak bands believed
    that the treaty promised them a reservation in Ruby Valley. This
    disagreement is consistent with the observations of Powell and Ingalls
    who reported in 1873 that each local group wanted a separate
    reservation in its particular aboriginal area.
         Royce relied on data and information of the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and the General Land Office in preparing his material.
    (Royce, supra, p. 644.)
         The Royce maps, in an official publication of the United
    States (as is the 18th Annual Report of the Bureau of American
    Ethnology), show the Duck Valley Reservation as being within the lands
    described in Article V of the Treaty of Ruby Valley and within the
    aboriginal area of the Western Shoshones. These maps and the notes in
    the Land Cession Schedules . . . indicate that officers of the United
    States believed in 1877 when the reservation was established that it
    was within the Western Shoshone aboriginal area. However, plaintiff's
    exhibit 72 in the offsets proceeding includes a report accompanying a
    letter of July 11, 1941, of the Department of the Interior to the
    Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of
    Representatives which states that according to maps available to the
    Department in 1941, the country of the Western Shoshones, as described
    in the Treaty of Ruby Valley, was much less extensive than that shown
    as Area 444 on the Royce maps, and that according to the then recently
    discovered maps, the Duck Valley Reservation was outside of the Western
    Shoshone aboriginal lands. In 1935, before the discovery of the maps
    referred to in the 1941 report, the Department of the Interior reported
    to Congress that the reservation was within the Western Shoshone
    aboriginal area.
         In sum, from about 1869 through 1877, the United States
    assisted some Western Shoshones in maintaining small farms and one or
    more reservations within the aboriginal areas, and in 1877, set aside
    the Duck Valley Reservation for all Western Shoshones. Between 1877 and
    1941, the Department of the Interior records indicated that the
    reservation was within the plaintiff's aboriginal area, but since 1941
    the matter has been open to doubt.
        We are mentioning this issue because we note that the map used by
    the Western Shoshone National Council to show the claimed area is
    different than the maps used by the United States and the ICC in Docket
    326-K. The Western Shoshone aboriginal land area was established in
    1962 by the ICC, and it is much larger than the land area described in
    the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. We have attached copies of the maps to
    this report. The first map is a portion of a larger map that was
    included with the Final Report of the Indian Claims Commission that was
    issued in 1978. The second map shows the boundaries of the Western
    Shoshone aboriginal land area and the 1863 Treaty area.
        The second issue concerns whether the Western Shoshone have
    recognized title to the lands described in the 1863 Treaty of Ruby
    Valley. This issue was discussed by the United States Supreme Court in
    its decision in Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. The United
    States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945). The decision specifically pertains to the
    claims of the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone under the 1863 Box Elder
    Treaty, but it also discusses the five treaties entered into with the
    Shoshones, including the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty. The following are
    excerpts from the Supreme Court decision:
            On July 5, 1862, 12 Stat. 512, 529, Congress appropriated
            $20,000 for defraying the expenses of negotiating a treaty with
            the Shoshones. The appropriation followed a letter from the
            Secretary of the Interior to the chairman of the House
            Committee on Indian Affairs expressing the view that the lands
            owned by the Indians of Utah were largely unfit for cultivation
            and that it was ``not probable that any considerable portion of
            them will be required for settlement for many years.'' A
            special commission was promptly appointed and instructed that
            it was not expected that the proposed treaty would extinguish
            Indian title to the lands but only secure freedom from
            molestation for the routes of travel and ``also a definite
            acknowledgment as well of the boundaries of the entire country
            they claim as of the limits within which they will confine
            themselves, which limits it is hardly necessary to state should
            be as remote from said routes as practicable.''

            As the distances made it impracticable to gather the Shoshone
            Nation into one council for treaty purposes, the commissioners
            made five treaties in an endeavor to clear up the difficulties
            in the Shoshone country. These are set out in full in the
            report below. 95 Ct. Cl. 642. Four will be found also in 13
            Stat. 663, 681, and 18 Stat. 685, 689. . . Northwestern Bands,
            324 U.S. 335, 341-342 (1935)
        Later in the opinion the Court stated:
            Without seeking any cession or relinquishment of claim from the
            Shoshone, except the Eastern Shoshone relinquishment of July 3,
            1868, just referred to, the United States has treated the rest
            of the Shoshone territory as a part of the public domain.
            School lands were granted. . . National forests were freely
            created. . . The lands were opened to public settlement under
            the homestead laws. . . Thus we have administration of this
            territory by the United States proceeding as though no Indian
            land titles were involved.

            The Court of Claims examined the evidence adduced before it and
            reached the conclusion as a finding of fact that the United
            States ``did not intend that it [the treaty] should be a
            stipulation of recognition and acknowledgment of any exclusive
            use and occupancy right or title of the Indians, parties
            thereto . . . The treaty was intended to be, and was, a treaty
            of peace and amity with stipulated annuities for the purposes
            of accomplishing those objects and achieving that end.'' . . .
            324 U.S. 335, 346 (1945)
        In its conclusion, the Supreme Court held that:
            It seems to us clear that the circumstances leading up to and
            following the execution of the Box Elder Treaty that the
            parties did not intend to recognize or acknowledge by that
            treaty the Indian title to the lands in question. Whether the
            lands were in fact held by the Shoshones by Indian title from
            occupancy or otherwise or what rights flow to the Indians from
            such title is not involved. Since the rights if any the
            Shoshones have, did not arise under or grow out of the Box
            Elder treaty, no recovery may be had under the jurisdictional
            act. 324 U.S. 335, 354 (1945)
        The Supreme Court decision caused an uproar. Congressman Karl E.
    Mundt of South Dakota was critical of the decision and his comments
    were included in the Extension of Remarks portion of the Congressional
    Record. Congressman Mundt's remarks, dated March 14, 1945, were
    included in the Appendix to the Congressional Record, 79th Congress,
    1st Session, page A1185. Copies of Congressman Mundt's remarks and the
    Supreme Court decision are attached.
        The controversy escalated in the 1970's when the Bureau of Land
    Management filed suit against Mary and Carrie Dann for trespass
    violations on public domain lands. Given a choice, some of the Western
    Shoshone would prefer to acquire additional trust lands within their
    aboriginal land areas rather than accept compensation for the loss of
    those lands.
        In 1974 the United States filed a complaint against Mary and Carrie
    Dann alleging that they had trespassed on public lands by grazing their
    cattle there without a permit from the Bureau of Land Management. The
    government sought an injunction and damages. The Danns based their
    defense on the grounds that they were members of the Western Shoshone
    Tribe of Indians, and that the Western Shoshone held aboriginal title
    to the lands in question.
        Meanwhile, the Western Shoshone Legal Defense and Education
    Association (Association) filed a petition before the ICC requesting it
    to suspend further action in the proceedings in Docket 326-K until the
    United States District Court for the Nevada District had decided the
    trespass action brought by the United States in the case of United
    States v. Dann, Civil No. R-74-60, BRT, (D. Nev.). The Association also
    petitioned for leave to file an amended claim in Docket 326-K. The
    Association asserted that Indian title to the greater portion of the
    aboriginal lands of the Western Shoshone had not been extinguished. It
    also asserted that an award of damages in Docket 326-K would extinguish
    the Western Shoshone claim to lands.
        In the Dann case, the government argued that any title that the
    Western Shoshone ever had to the land in question had been
    extinguished, and that this fact had been conclusively established in
    proceedings brought before the ICC on behalf of the Western Shoshone.
        In 1975, the District Court accepted the government's arguments in
    the Dann case and granted summary judgment against the Danns.
        On February 20, 1975, the ICC denied the petition to stay the
    proceeding and for leave to present an amended claim. In 1976 and 1977,
    the Te-Moak Bands of Western Shoshone filed several motions before the
    ICC to stay the proceedings in Docket 326-K. The motions were denied by
    the ICC on August 15, 1977. The claims in Docket 326-K were transferred
    to the United States Claims Court (Claims Court) prior to the
    termination of the ICC on September 30, 1978. On December 6, 1979, the
    Claims Court certified the award of $26,145,189.89 and the funds were
    appropriated under 31 U.S.C. 1304.
        On March 11, 1980, the BIA issued its first results of research
    report in Docket 326-K. The report described the difficulties in
    identifying the beneficiary. The Western Shoshone entities were
    described as being extremely scattered. The report found that ``It is
    not possible to describe the Western Shoshone in terms of forming a
    tribe or a group of organized tribes, particularly in view of the
    Shoshone-Paiute combined organizations and the very real possibility
    that many Western Shoshone descendants (including those who strongly
    identify as Shoshone people) are not and never have been associated
    with any reservation entity.'' On that basis, the report identified
    those Western Shoshone people, and their descendants, who derive from
    the census and other rolls of twelve identified Shoshone and Shoshone-
    Paiute entities, and other descendants who prove Western Shoshone
    ancestry on the basis of rolls and records to the satisfaction of the
    Secretary of the Interior, to be the beneficiaries of the award in
    Docket 326-K.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) held a hearing of record on July
    26, 1980, in Elko, Nevada. Approximately 425 people attended the
    meeting to hear about the proposed plan for the use and distribution of
    the funds awarded in the Docket 326-K funds. Those in attendance were
    given the opportunity to testify at the hearing. A three-minute time
    limitation for testimony was established because a large number of
    those present wished to testify. The meeting was dominated by those
    opposed to the judgment fund plan. Many of those in favor of the plan
    felt intimidated and submitted written testimony with the request that
    it not be read publicly. At the conclusion of the meeting it appeared
    that the majority were opposed to the plan and wanted the funds
    invested until the Dann litigation was settled. Once the written
    comments were tallied it showed a different sentiment. The results of
    the written and oral comments were 75 against the fund distribution and
    194 for the distribution of the funds with most asking for 100 percent
    per capita to individuals with at least 1/4 degree Western Shoshone
    Indian blood.
        The BIA issued an amended Results of Research Report on January 22,
    1982, for Docket 326-K. The report was amended to bring it in line with
    the BIA's ``overall policy to designate successor tribes as
    beneficiaries of claims awards whenever possible in order that there
    might be maximum opportunity for those tribes that so wish to develop
    programming proposals for the use of judgment funds.'' In that report,
    four tribes were designated as the tribal successors to the Western
    Shoshone entity of the period of 1853 to 1872. Those tribes are 1) Te-
    Moak, 2) Duckwater, 3) Yomba, and 4) Ely. The remaining beneficiaries
    consist of all other persons of Western Shoshone ancestry, in their
    individual capacity who otherwise meet the criteria detailed in the
    March 11, 1980 Results of Research Report.
        On May 19, 1983, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor
    of the Danns. The Ninth Circuit held that the lower court was correct
    in concluding that the Western Shoshone title was not extinguished as a
    matter of law by application or administration of the public land laws,
    but reversed the lower court's holding that the Danns were barred by
    res judicata or collateral estoppel from asserting aboriginal title as
    a defense to the claim of trespass. This ruling was reversed by the
    United States Supreme Court on February 20, 1985. The Supreme Court
    held that ``To hold, as the court below has, that payment does not
    occur until after the final plan of distribution has been approved by
    Congress would frustrate the purpose of finality . . . while subjecting
    the United States to continued liability for claims and demands that
    'touch' the matter previously litigated and resolved by the Indian
    Claims Commission.''
        Since 1983 the Department of the Interior has been meeting with
    Western Shoshone organizations for the purpose of negotiating a
    legislative settlement to the land claims issue. In 1985, the Western
    Shoshone National Council received a grant from the Administration for
    Native Americans so that they could develop an inventory and historical
    analysis of the Western Shoshone aboriginal lands and other natural
    resources subject to the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. Meetings were held
    in 1985 and 1986 with the Western Shoshone leadership for the purpose
    of developing a plan for the distribution of the judgment funds, and to
    identify lands that could be transferred to the Western Shoshone tribes
    to increase the reservation land base. Nothing was accomplished due to
    the dynamics of tribal politics and power struggles within the
    leadership.
        A legislative proposal was drafted by an attorney representing the
    organization called the ``Western Shoshone Distribution Association.''
    The legislative proposal was used as the basis for H.R. 3384 that was
    introduced on September 28, 1989. This bill provided for the
    establishment of a Western Shoshone roll and the apportionment and
    distribution of the funds. A hearing was held on April 26, 1990, but no
    action was taken because the tribal governments, the Western Shoshone
    National Council, and the Administration opposed the bill. An attempt
    was made to revise the bill to address Interior's concerns but the
    Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs advised the
    Department in September 1990 that the bill would not be scheduled for
    full Committee consideration because all of the tribal governments
    adamantly opposed the bill and wished to begin negotiations with BIA to
    develop a plan to distribute the funds.
        In November 1990, legislation was drafted regarding the use of
    rangeland resources in Nevada, but never introduced. In January 1991,
    the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe drafted proposed legislation concerning
    the Tribe's asserted claim to the lands of the Western Shoshone nation.
    This proposal was never introduced. Another legislative proposal was
    drafted by the attorney for the Western Shoshone Distribution
    Association. It was used as the basis for H.R. 3897, which was
    introduced on November 22, 1991. Although a hearing was scheduled for
    April 30, 1992, it was never held and this caused the bill to die
    without action.
        On January 22, 1994, the Western Shoshone leaders met with the
    Secretary of the Interior in Denver, Colorado. As a result of that
    meeting, efforts were made to establish another Federal/Tribal
    negotiation team. Efforts were made to provide the members of the
    successor Tribes of the Western Shoshone with an inventory of public
    lands that were available for transfer to the tribes. The Bureau of
    Land Management continues to meet with some of the tribal governments,
    but to date no tangible results have been achieved.
    Docket 326-A-1 and A-3
        The claims in Docket 326-A-1 called for an accounting of two funds.
    The first was the $100,000 annuity to be paid to the Western Shoshone
    Indians under Article VII of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. In the
    Opinion of the ICC, dated April 29, 1970, 23 Ind. Cl. Comm. 74, the ICC
    found that the Government had not paid $16,392.76 of the Treaty funds
    to the Western Shoshone. The ICC also found that the Government
    improperly disbursed $9,930.74 of the Treaty funds. Those two amounts
    total $26,323.50, which could have potentially been awarded to the
    Western Shoshone. The subsequent ICC and Claims Court decisions never
    discussed the Treaty accounting claims again. It was inadvertently
    omitted from the award.
        The second fund was the Indian Monies Proceeds of Labor (IMPL) fund
    for the Western Shoshone Indians. The time-period of the accounting
    spanned from 1886 to 1951. The plaintiff asked the government to
    allocate the funds in the IMPL account between the various Western
    Shoshone Reservations. The government said that it could not allocate
    the funds because the records did not have sufficient information to
    allow such an allocation. The reports do show that the bulk of the
    funds were collected from the Duck Valley Reservation between 1919 and
    the mid to late 1930's.
        On December 3, 1991, the United States Claims Court entered a final
    judgment of $823,752.64, in Docket 326-A-1, on behalf of the Te-Moak
    Bands of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada, suing on behalf of the
    Western Shoshone Nation of Indians. On June 16, 1995, in Docket 326-A-
    3, the Court of Federal Claims awarded $29,396.60 in interest on the
    award previously entered in Docket 326-A-1. The funds to satisfy these
    awards were appropriated under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1304 on March 23, 1992,
    and August 21, 1995, respectively.
        In 1992, the BIA issued a Results of Research Report that
    erroneously identified the Te-Moak Band of Western Shoshone as the sole
    beneficiary of the funds awarded in Dockets 326-A-1 and A-3. On April
    29, 1997, the report was withdrawn.
        The BIA extended invitations to the Tribal leaders at Duck Valley
    1, Duckwater, Ely, Yomba, Te-Moak, and the Death Valley
    Timbi-Sha Shoshone Band of California asking them to attend a meeting
    scheduled for May 22, 1997, at Elko, Nevada, to discuss the disposition
    of the funds. The Chairperson from Ely informed the BIA that she would
    not be able to attend. The attorney representing the Timbi-Sha Shoshone
    informed us that they would not attend because they did not believe
    they had an interest in the judgment fund. No acknowledgment or
    response was received from the Chairman at Yomba. Representatives from
    Te-Moak, Duckwater and Duck Valley attended, as well as the Shoshone
    representatives from the Fallon Reservation 2. During the
    meeting we asked the tribal representatives to make recommendations on
    how the funds could be divided. They were advised that the record did
    not contain sufficient information for the government to allocate the
    funds between the reservations. The tribal representatives arrived at
    recommendations on how the funds could best be expended for the benefit
    of the Western Shoshone people by establishing a perpetual fund
    utilizing the interest to fund scholarship grants. This recommendation
    is contained in the legislative proposal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Business Council of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck
    Valley Reservation (Business Council) enacted Resolution No. 97-SPR-63
    dated February 11, 1997. The resolution granted recognition to the
    organization of Western Shoshone descendants called the ``Western
    Shoshone of Duck Valley Reservation'' for the purpose of handling all
    matters relating to the Western Shoshone claims until negotiations are
    finalized. The Business Council withdrew its recognition of the Western
    Shoshone organization and rescinded Resolution No. 97-SPR-63 four years
    later by Resolution No. 2002-SPR-012 dated November 13, 2001. The
    second resolution was enacted six months after S. 958 was introduced in
    Congress.
        \2\ The Business Council of the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes
    enacted Resolution No. 97-F015, dated February 11, 1997, and amended it
    with Resolution No. 97-F-063, dated May 27, 1997. The resolution
    granted official recognition of the Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee to
    represent, negotiate, and make decisions on behalf of the Fallon Band
    of Western Shoshone in all matters relating to the claims issue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Members of the Western Shoshone Claims Steering Committee,

        Te-Moak Tribe:
         1. WSSC Co-Chair Leta Jim, Vice-Chairperson, Te-Moak Tribal
    Council Member, and Elko Band Council Member
         2. WSSC Co-Chair Larry Piffero, Te-Moak Tribal Council Member,
    and Elko Band Council Member
         3. Wilbur Woods, Chairman, Elko Band Council
         4. Grace Begay, Wells Band Council Member
         5. Lydia Sam, Chairperson, Battle Mountain Band
         6. Larson Bill, Tribal Representative, South Fork Band Council
        Duckwater Tribe:
         7. Henry Blackeye, Jr., Chairman, Duckwater Tribal Council
         8. Tim Thompson, Vice-Chairman, Duckwater Tribal Council
         9. Henry Blackeye, Sr., Secretary, Duckwater Tribal Council
        10. Jerry Millett, Member, Duckwater Tribal Council
        11. Douglas George, Sr., Member, Duckwater Tribal Council
        Ely Area: None
        Yomba Area:
        12. Glen Hooper, Tribal Representative, Yomba Area
        Owyhee Area:
        13. Iliane Premo, Chairperson, Western Shoshone Council at the
    Duck Valley Reservation
        14. Mildred Scissions, Member, Western Shoshone Council at the
    Duck Valley Reservation
        15. David Jones, Member, Western Shoshone Council at the Duck
    Valley Reservation
        Fallon Area:
        16. Nancy Stewart, Co-Chairperson, Fallon Shoshone Claims
    Committee
        17. Ermert Nihoa, Co-Chairman, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        18. Iola Byers, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        19. Betty Robison, Interpreter for the Fallon Shoshone Claims
    Committee
        20. Nevada Iverson, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        21. Kathy Bowen-Curley, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        22. Steven Amick, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        23. Francine Tohannie, Secretary for the Fallon Shoshone Claims
    Committee
        24. Ernest Hooper, Interpreter for the Fallon Shoshone Claims
    Committee
        25. Nila Shanley, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        26. Winford Graham, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        27. Wayne Ellison, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        28. Lynette Fisherman, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        29. Vana Roman, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        30. Cordelia Nordwall, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee
        31. Barbara Culbertson, Member, Fallon shoshone Claims Committee
        Fort Hall Area:
        32. Everett Jim, Tribal Representative, Fort Hall Western Shoshone
    Data Concerning the Western Shoshone Reservations and Tribal Enrollment
         Treaty of Ruby Valley entered into on October 1, 1863,
    with the Western Shoshone Indians.
         First Western Shoshone Reservation was established
    outside the aboriginal territory at Duck Valley by Executive Order
    dated April 16, 1877, for all Western Shoshone. Carlin Reserve Farm was
    established the same year, but it was later abolished.
         In 1885 Paddy Cap's Band of Paiute were sent to the Duck
    Valley Reservation. By Executive Order of May 4, 1886, approximately
    69,000 acres were added to the Duck Valley Reservation for them and
    other such Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to
    settle thereon.
         In 1917, a reservation was established at Battle Mountain
    for homeless Shoshone.
         In 1918, 160 acres were reserved at Elko, Nevada for
    Shoshone and Paiute Indians living near Elko.
         The Act of June 27, 1930, authorized the purchase of 10
    acres at Ely for the Shoshone already living there.
         The Act of June 18, 1934, authorized the purchase of
    lands for Yomba Shoshone. The Proclamation is dated October 27, 1938.
         Proclamation dated February 8, 1941, proclaimed a total
    of 9,548.46 acres within Elko County, Nevada to be an Indian
    Reservation for the use and benefit of the Te-Moak Bands of Western
    Shoshone.
         South Fork Indian Colony was established under the 1941
    proclamation.
         Wells Colony was established under the Act of October 15,
    1977.
                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.014

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. I just have a couple of
    questions for you.
        On H.R. 1409, I have not had the opportunity to visit the
    site yet, but in the pictures that I have seen, it appears that
    the land that the tribe is trying to obtain has electrical
    lines going across it. It has had some development over the
    years that has occurred on that site even though there is not a
    lot there right now other than electrical lines and such. And
    the land that they would exchange appears to be pristine lands
    that have some value in terms of protection and adding to the
    park site.
        Would it not make sense to you and the Department of
    Interior to have the pristine lands in the park and protected
    from development and to take the other lands that have had
    development and are crisscrossed with power lines, to use that
    as the school site?
        Mr. Olsen. Well, I think that the Park Service as a result
    of the exchange would be, as you say, receiving land that is in
    much more pristine condition than the land that the tribe would
    be acquiring, the Ravensford tract. And, in fact, it is also
    home of two endangered species that would be coming under
    National Park Service protection. Whereas, as you have pointed
    out, the land that the tribe would be obtaining is not in that
    pristine condition.
        In addition, as was pointed out before, the tribe is giving
    up 218 acres versus the 143 that it would be acquiring. So the
    tribe is able to accomplish what it is aiming for through the
    legislation, but the Park Service as well comes out not in
    terrible shape.
        The Chairman. Further, under the current rules that we
    operate under in terms of the relationship between Native
    Americans and the Federal Government, don't we have a
    responsibility to try to help improve the conditions on the
    reservations and provide better facilities for education on
    those reservations?
        Mr. Olsen. Indeed we do. We have certainly a trust
    responsibility to the Eastern Band of Cherokee as we do to
    other tribes, and we certainly take that responsibility
    seriously. And, in fact, one of the goals of this
    administration is to improve the education and educational
    facilities that Indian students attend. In fact, President Bush
    has made it a priority to do that, and we feel very strongly
    about that.
        The Chairman. I just wonder--and I know this may be--you
    may not be able to answer this question, but I wonder if we
    don't do this, if we don't make this exchange and provide this
    particular piece of property for them to build the school on,
    is the Park Service or someone else at Interior willing to step
    forward and provide a different piece of property that is
    suitable for them to build on?
        Mr. Olsen. I am not certain that I can answer that. I don't
    know that there is another suitable piece of property. I am
    accompanied by Randy Jones, who is the Deputy Director of the
    Park Service, who may be able to answer that question. My
    understand is that the tribe has gone to great lengths in the
    past to determine or to find or to come up with property that
    would be suitable for construction, ideally flat land, and has
    been unable to find any other property that would work.
        The Chairman. That fits with what I have been told. I have
    had the opportunity to talk to both the chairman of the tribe
    and the staff, and this is apparently an issue that has been
    kicking around for a number of years. And from what I have been
    able to gather, there has not been another site which has been
    identified that would be acceptable not only to the tribe but
    to anybody else. And I just think that at this point in time,
    we have an obligation to move forward with this, and I
    appreciate your testimony here today because I do think this is
    something that is extremely important, so thank you.
        At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Kildee.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mike, I have always enjoyed working with you in your other
    capacity and look forward to working with you in your new
    responsibilities.
        Mr. Olsen. Thank you.
        Mr. Kildee. This legislation, 1409, specifically bans
    gaming on these lands. Has the tribe talked to the BIA about
    using these lands for anything other than a school?
        Mr. Olsen. Not that we are aware of. There has not been any
    discussion between the tribe and the Bureau regarding use other
    than for education.
        Mr. Kildee. And that is my understanding, too. I have been
    talking to the tribe for quite some time. I just wanted to make
    sure that was part of the record.
        Would the BIA anticipate any problems taking this land into
    trust on behalf of the tribe? Would you anticipate any problems
    at all taking this land into trust?
        Mr. Olsen. Pursuant to the legislation?
        Mr. Kildee. Yes.
        Mr. Olsen. No. We feel that it is in the best interest of
    the tribe for this to go through, and, no, I do not believe so.
    I don't know if I am addressing your question, but this--
        Mr. Kildee. Yes, you are. This legislation, you support
    this legislation and this legislation would clear the way for
    you to accept this.
        Mr. Olsen. The Department does not objection to the
    legislation moving forward, and we feel that it is in the best
    interest of the tribe for the Congress to act on it.
        Mr. Kildee. How would you describe just briefly the basic
    condition of schools in Indian country?
        Mr. Olsen. Well, we certainly have an amount of work to do.
    There is approximately a $600 million backlog in replacement
    construction, and like I said before, it is a priority of this
    administration to correct those problems. It is a priority of
    President Bush to do that.
        We recognize that there is work to be done, and we are
    committed to doing that.
        Mr. Kildee. And this certainly dates back to many
    administrations. I can recall--I have been in Congress now 27
    years. About 25 years ago, I began to travel to various
    schools, particularly in the Western part of the United States.
    After a while, I would get a call from a BIA principal saying,
    ``Would you come and visit my school or just tell the BIA you
    are coming?'' because a week ahead of time, they are, you know,
    fixing things up before we get there. So this condition
    certainly has gone through many administrations, and I think
    anything we can do to encourage construction of proper schools
    is a step in the right direction. I appreciate your position on
    that.
        Let me ask another question. Could you explain to the
    Committee the process in H.R. 884 used to name the four tribes
    as the successor tribes for these Shoshone lands?
        Mr. Olsen. So that you know, I am accompanied also on this
    legislation as well by Daisy West, who is a Tribal Relations
    officer. And I am going to ask her to come up and answer that
    question for you.
        Mr. Kildee. I will repeat the question. Could you explain
    the process used to name the four tribes as the successor
    tribes?
        Ms. West. Historical research was done by a historian back
    in the 1970's to identify the tribal groups that were at the
    time of taking, which at the time of taking was in, I think,
    1870-something, 1872, I think. And then they traced the
    migration of those groups to where they are presently today.
    They identified that the majority of the Shoshone are with four
    present-day tribal governments: Te-Moak, Yomba, Ely, and
    Duckwater. And those tribal governments are composed primarily
    of Shoshone people, Western Shoshone people.
        They also identified other groups, which I think goes to
    around 17 or so, that are mixed with Paiute and Shoshone. And
    the Western Shoshone that are with those groups would also be
    eligible to participate under this distribution.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you. I am always interested in both
    genealogical and geographical studies that are made here, and I
    appreciate your response. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I would
    like to ask our witness, if you are going to answer any more
    questions, I am going to have to swear you in. But I would like
    you to state your name and your position for the record.
        Ms. West. My name is Daisy West, and I am Tribal Relations
    officer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Office of
    Tribal Services.
        The Chairman. There may be other questions for you, and the
    gentleman from the Park Service, if you could just come up, and
    both of you, I am just going to swear you in right now. That
    way if there are any questions for you, I do not have to stop.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        The Chairman. Let the record show that both answered in the
    affirmative. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbons?
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
    like to welcome our guests here today as well on these two very
    important bills. I am fully in support of H.R. 1409 and its
    effects on the Cherokee Tribe. I also would like to ask a
    question to focus on Mr. Olsen with regard to 884.
        Mr. Olsen, what is the current status of the Indian Claims
    Commission?
        Mr. Olsen. My understanding is the Indian Claims Commission
    no longer exists. In fact, in the legislation forming the
    Commission, there was a provision that said after a certain
    period of time, the Commission would go away.
        Mr. Gibbons. Do you know the date that the Commission
    dissolved?
        Mr. Olsen. I don't know the exact date.
        September 1978, I am being told.
        Mr. Gibbons. OK.
        Mr. Olsen. But we can certainly check on that and make sure
    we get you the accurate answer.
        Mr. Gibbons. OK. So any requirement of a defunct or
    dissolved commission to perform an act would be very difficult,
    at best, since the Commission no longer exists. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Olsen. Right.
        Mr. Gibbons. One of the requirements under the finality of
    the Supreme Court decision was a report that was due from the
    Indian Claims Commission. If the Indian Claims Commission is no
    longer in existence and has not been in existence for some
    number of decades, it would be impossible for that report to
    Congress to be submitted. Is that correct?
        Mr. Olsen. If the commission does not exist, it would be
    difficult for it to put together a report.
        Mr. Gibbons. OK. Is there an alternative body within the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs or another similar organization that
    could substitute that report?
        Mr. Olsen. I am not aware of one, no.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Olsen, the money that is in the account
    for the distribution to the Western Shoshone tribes has been
    there for a number of decades as well, since the late 1980's
    when the Supreme Court ruled on a final decision on the
    distribution of the money for the claims that were made in that
    Supreme Court case. Is that correct?
        Mr. Olsen. That is right.
        Mr. Gibbons. That money has not yet been distributed to
    these tribal members, has it?
        Mr. Olsen. That is correct.
        Mr. Gibbons. And as it sits there today and, if this bill
    does not pass, will sit there tomorrow and day on and day on
    after that, without being distributed or used by these members
    as well. So this bill simply takes what the Supreme Court
    ordered back in 1982 and actually divests the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs of that money and gives the money as it now stands to
    the tribes as a result of that Court decision.
        Mr. Olsen. That is correct.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement on
    H.R. 884 which I would like to submit for the record on this as
    well.
        The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
                     from the State of Nevada, on H.R. 884

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss
    the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act.
        H.R. 884 requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
    judgement roll consisting of all Western Shoshones who have at least 1/
    4 degree of Western Shoshone blood, are citizens of the United States,
    and are living at the date of enactment of this legislation.
        The Secretary would then distribute and use the funds in two ways.
        First, the Secretary would distribute the $1.43 million from Docket
    326-K to each person on the judgement roll through a per-capita share.
        Second, using the $1.4 million awarded under Docket Numbers 326-A-1
    and 326-A-3, the Secretary would establish the ``Western Shoshone
    Educational Trust Fund'' and an administrative committee to oversee the
    distribution of accumulated and future interest and income for
    educational grants.
        It is important for the members of this Committee to understand
    that my constituents-the Western Shoshone people- have expressed to me
    in an overwhelming majority, their desire to see these funds
    distributed.
        In fact, the Western Shoshone have voted not once, but TWICE on
    this issue-in both instances over 90% of the voters favored the
    distribution reflected in this legislation.
        The vast majority of the Western Shoshone people have formed a
    cohesive group which operates under a democratic process to express the
    will of the tribal members.
        Just last year, in 2002, 1,647 Western Shoshone members voted in
    favor of the distribution while only 156 voted against it.
        These numbers account for approximately 65% of the eligible
    Shoshone voters.
        It is overwhelmingly obvious that the tribe wants these funds
    distributed.
        It is very disturbing to me to see the will of this Tribe thwarted
    by a small minority who have a very loud voice.
        There is one point that the opposition makes in their testimony
    that I would like to respond to--that is that the Indians Claim
    Commission (ICC) has not filed a report to Congress.
        This report is one of two criteria required for final judgement of
    the Western Shoshone Claim.
        I would like to point out that the Indian Claims Commission no
    longer exists, therefore making it impossible for this report to be
    issued.
        It is also important for this Committee to understand that the U.S.
    Supreme Court ruled on this issue nearly 20 years ago.
        The Supreme Court ruling is so clear that it made the need for the
    ICC report obsolete.
        In the U.S. V. Dann case, the Supreme Court held that payment of
    the ICC award had occurred when the $26 million was placed in the
    Western Shoshones' trust account, therefore giving the Western Shoshone
    Claim finality.
        It is important to note that H.R. 884 specifically ensures that the
    funds distribution is not a waiver of existing treaty rights, nor will
    it prevent the Tribe, Band or individual Shoshone Indians from pursuing
    other rights guaranteed by law.
        Lastly, H.R. 884 is a bipartisan effort in both the House and the
    Senate, and it is supported by the Nevada Delegation.
        The opposition has fought this issue in the courts all the way to
    the Supreme Court without success.
        They are now fighting it in the Legislative branch.
        The time is long overdue for the will of the majority of the
    Western Shoshone people to prevail!
        I urge each member of this Committee to support the Western
    Shoshone people in their endeavor to put this issue to rest once and
    for all.
                                     ______

        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Olsen, do you know, since you have related
    the historical process by which various different nations or
    tribes within the Indians have voted up or down on this
    agreement to accept this money, do you know what the vote was
    or what the support level is for the distribution of this
    money?
        Mr. Olsen. I cannot give you exact numbers, but it is--
    based on what we know, it is a significant amount of--I mean, a
    vast majority of the Western Shoshone people are in support of
    the distribution.
        Mr. Gibbons. In fact, it is about 90 percent of the
    population there that supports the distribution of this money?
        Mr. Olsen. Yes, that is what I have been told.
        Mr. Gibbons. So it would be a rather small number of
    individuals who are opposed to this on the presumption that if
    accepting this money precludes any further claim or settlement
    that may come from any claim they have for future land?
        Mr. Olsen. Correct.
        Mr. Gibbons. But the majority do accept and do wish to have
    this money distributed to them.
        Mr. Olsen. Yes.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
        Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
        The Chairman. Mrs. Christensen?
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Attorney Olsen, I think in response to the question of
    supporting the legislation, I just wanted to follow up on that.
    I think you said you did not have--the Department or the Bureau
    had no objection to the legislation?
        Mr. Olsen. Yes. On H.R. 1409?
        Mrs. Christensen. 1409.
        Mr. Olsen. Yes.
        Mrs. Christensen. But does the Department support--by
    passing the EIS or by doing legislation to accomplish this
    exchange, is that a policy of the Department to--for us to
    legislate while the process is going on?
        Mr. Olsen. Would you answer that one?
        Mr. Durand Jones. Well, of course, as the delegate knows,
    we do not control the timetable or the desires of this
    Committee or the Congress in how it proceeds. We, at the
    direction of our appropriations bill, prepared the
    Environmental Impact Statement. It was released to the public
    last week, and we are now in the public comment period. There
    will be public hearings on the EIS process. And that is one of
    the reasons why at this point we do not take a more definitive
    stand on the legislation because we still are going through the
    NEPA process. But we have been in negotiations with the members
    of the tribe concerning the restrictive covenants that are in
    the legislation, which we think go a long way toward protecting
    the values that the park is interested in, and also in defining
    the acreage involved in that the acreage is a little over 20
    acres less than their original request. And that is a result of
    ongoing discussions and negotiations.
        Mrs. Christensen. I guess my main concern, I really am
    leaning toward supporting this bill, but my main concern is
    really setting a precedent or opening some doors that we might
    not want to open for the future by doing this piece of
    legislation.
        Mr. Durand Jones. Looking back, I believe there are
    numerous examples of the Congress acting for the sake of making
    good public policy before we in the executive branch have
    completed all of our bureaucratic steps.
        Mrs. Christensen. Do you believe that the Park Service has
    the authority to complete the exchange administratively without
    legislation?
        Mr. Durand Jones. I think it is not totally clear. The
    legislation for Blue Ridge Parkway has flexible boundary
    authority in that once lands are acquired, the boundary can be
    automatically expanded. However, the lands to be added to Blue
    Ridge are clearly outside the existing boundary as it exists
    today. And, therefore, we think it is best that this be
    accomplished by legislation rather than trying to look at it
    administratively.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. I think I still have some time.
        Mr. Olsen, is it the case that the BIA currently has
    approximately $8 million in Fiscal Year 2003 in Federal funds
    for improvements to the school that has not been spent? And if
    that $8 million is there and has not been spent--I have seen
    some pictures of the school and I share the Administration's
    concern about the education of our children and the environment
    in which they are educated. Why has it not been spent? Or could
    you tell us what the immediate plans are for spending that $8
    million?
        Mr. Olsen. Certainly. I am not entirely certain. I know
    that the tribe is planning to use that money in order to put--
    use that money and put it toward the construction of the new
    educational facility that this legislation contemplates.
        Mrs. Christensen. But it is my understanding that is going
    to take about 7 years.
        Mr. Olsen. To construct the school?
        Mrs. Christensen. Yes.
        Mr. Olsen. That very well could be. I don't know exactly
    what the timeframe is. I know that the tribe and the Park
    Service have engaged in the discussions that the legislation
    requires and have been doing that over the course of several
    months. And the tribe is ready to begin work once the exchange
    is approved.
        Mrs. Christensen. I would just like to respectfully suggest
    that the $8 million be spent--if it is going to take that long
    to get a school, I don't think the children should be in some
    of the conditions I saw for the next 7 years.
        My last question would be: In your testimony, I think you
    said--or in the preliminary report of the EIS, it says that
    certain alternatives were eliminated from further study. I
    wonder if you would just--alternatives for the school site. I
    wonder if you would just respond to that. Did the alternatives
    that were excluded include the north end of the Cherokee
    business district and an area by the Aconee Road?
        Mr. Olsen. You want comment on why that was excluded?
        Mrs. Christensen. Yes.
        Mr. Olsen. I do not know and would certainly be more than
    happy to provide you an answer in writing. But we can certainly
    address that question.
        Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate some
    further information on those specific sites.
        The Chairman. The record will remain open in order to allow
    the Administration the opportunity to provide a written
    response to you.
        Mrs. Christensen. And I also have an opening statement that
    I would like to submit for the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Donna Christensen, a Delegate to Congress
                     from the Virgin Islands, on H.R. 1409

        Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on National
    Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, I would like to make a few, brief
    comments regarding one of the bills before the Full Committee today.
        H.R. 1409 would require the Secretary of the Interior to exchange
    approximately 143 acres of Federal land currently located within the
    Great Smokey Mountains National Park, known as the Ravensford Tract,
    for approximately 218 acres, currently owned by the Eastern Band of
    Cherokee Indians, known as the Yellowface Tract.
        Upon completion of the exchange, the Ravensford Tract would be held
    in trust for the benefit of the Tribe and the boundary of the Park
    would be altered to exclude the land. The Yellowface tract, located
    some thirty miles from the Park, would be added to the Blue Ridge
    Parkway.
        It is our understanding that the Eastern Band is pursuing this
    exchange to provide the Tribe with land on which to build three new
    school facilities, an obviously worthy goal. Furthermore, this proposed
    exchange appears to include lands to which the Tribe has a historical
    claim. We are very interested in hearing from our witnesses today
    regarding both of these issues.
        However, it must be noted that transferring lands located within a
    National Park to private ownership, regardless of the use to which
    those lands may be put, is exceedingly rare and raises a number of
    serious questions. Furthermore, to approve legislation which will
    short-circuit an ongoing EIS process designed to address these
    questions, would be problematic.
        It is our hope that today's hearing might provide sufficient
    information that, in working with the Tribe, the National Park Service
    and Mr. Taylor, we might be able to craft a solution that addresses the
    Tribe's needs without negatively impacting our most visited National
    Park.
        We would like to thank the witnesses for their time and effort to
    be here today and look forward to their insights on both of the
    measures before the Committee today.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Mr. Hayworth?
        Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank
    you for holding this hearing. And I have more than passing
    interest in H.R. 1409. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
    legislation, and I just wanted to take time--it is a common
    affliction that certainly my co-Chair on the Native American
    Caucus knows, indeed all Members of Congress here, of having to
    be three places at one time during the course of a day. But I
    wanted to stop by, and, Mr. Chairman, I have an opening
    statement for the record which I would like to submit. And I
    also just wanted to thank Chief Leon Jones and others from the
    Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians for being here to discuss what
    is transpiring there. I believe this is an innovative win-win
    solution that the Park Service and the Eastern Band has worked
    out. And as mention was made in previous testimony, this is not
    uncommon, but this legislative solution is needed. So I look
    forward to reviewing the record. I thank my friends from the
    Eastern Band for being here. And again, Chairman and
    colleagues, thank you for holding the hearing.
        Mr. Kildee. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hayworth. I would gladly yield to my good friend from
    Michigan.
        Mr. Kildee. I want to thank the co-Chair of the Native
    American Caucus because our staffs have worked together,
    studied this very, very thoroughly, and have concluded that
    this is a very, very good exchange. And I appreciate your
    continuing good work on this and other issues.
        Mr. Hayworth. I thank my friend from Michigan. As this
    illustrates, though we divide by part for purposes of the rules
    of the House, it is interesting that in the case of the first
    Americans, there are only two types of people who serve in
    Congress: those who represent what we now call Indian country
    and those who represent what was once Indian country.
        And with that acknowledgment, I would yield back to the
    balance of my time with thanks to the Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Olsen, there are several questions that I have, and
    part of it is a little bit of my inquisitive nature on what
    happens if the tribe decides to use it for gaming. Are there
    covenant restrictions?
        Mr. Olsen. We are talking about H.R. 1409, the Eastern Band
    of Cherokee bill?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Right.
        Mr. Olsen. OK. Well, gaming is explicitly prohibited in the
    legislation. I don't believe that there is a remedy provided in
    the legislation, but it is explicitly prohibited. And our
    understanding is that the tribe has no intent to construct any
    sort of gaming facility on that land.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, the Federal Government has long
    ignored my Indian brothers and sisters, and I think it is time
    we owned up to some of the responsibilities that have been
    ignored for many, many, many generations.
        I am concerned that it may begin not only setting a
    precedent, but if there is such a covenant that prohibits
    gaming, that we are sure that there is--sometimes there is no
    other way for the tribes to be able to survive, if you will.
    They need help and we certainly should be able to provide them,
    which leads to me the question of how old is the school on the
    other bill--or, no, on that one, that these deplorable
    conditions are found, that the Department of Interior or Park
    Service or the agencies, whoever's jurisdiction it falls under,
    have not taken action to be able to assist in the construction
    or reconstruction or putting them in a condition that they will
    be usable.
        When I look at some of the information about they are using
    a condemned building, that sends shivers up my spine. As a
    grandmother, I would not tolerate it, and I don't see why we
    should allow the Federal Government not to take action to
    remedy those conditions.
        Mr. Olsen. Understood, and as I stated before, we certainly
    feel that it is in the best interest of this tribe for the
    legislation to move forward, and--
        Mrs. Christensen. OK, but this has not happened yesterday.
    Why has action not been taken to remedy the conditions under
    which these children go to school?
        Mr. Olsen. I don't know. We are faced--again, I mean, it is
    the same answer that I gave before. We are faced with a
    significant backlog. I understand that it is a problem, and it
    is a priority to correct, and we are doing what we can little
    by little to correct those problems.
        Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Chair, maybe we should have a
    hearing, Mr. Chair, Chairman Pombo, I suggest, to see what the
    condition of the Indian schools are in so that we may not hear
    it in this Committee room at the time we are trying to work on
    legislation to address some of the shortfalls that we have had
    in those areas.
        The Chairman. If the lady will yield to me, we are actively
    looking at that. This is obviously part of that process.
        I am told that this particular school is at least 40 years
    old. That is 40 years of mismanagement that has occurred over
    the years that has allowed this to happen. I don't think there
    is any possible way that Mr. Olsen can explain to you why in
    the last couple of months that he has been on the job that over
    40 years this school was mismanaged and things happened in the
    BIA. But if you want to get serious about taking care of these
    problems, we have got to seriously look at the entire issue of
    how we have dealt with the BIA over the last 100 years. That is
    where the real problem is.
        Mrs. Christensen. Let's do so, sir.
        My next question will be on the distribution on 884. How
    many members will receive these dollars? Because I was looking
    at you report, and it says 1,230 voted, 3 opposed, but that is
    just the voting members. How many members are there in the
    tribes that are getting reimbursed? And are the ones opposing
    going to be receiving remuneration?
        Mr. Olsen. There are approximately 6,000 to 6,500 who would
    be receiving money through the distribution, and those who are
    opposed are included.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. The next question--
        Mr. Olsen. They can choose to apply, but they are eligible
    as everyone else.
        Mrs. Christensen. But does accepting the funding prevent
    their ability to litigate in the future toward the return of
    their land?
        Mr. Olsen. I am sorry. I did not hear your question.
        Mrs. Christensen. Would their accepting money preclude them
    from enjoining to get back their tribal lands that they are
    seeking, those that are opposed because of that?
        Mr. Olsen. No, it would not. But we feel that pursuant to
    the Treaty of Ruby Valley, which is the treaty at issue, that
    was a treaty of peace and friendship, and there is some
    question about whether the Western Shoshone people had title to
    that land, recognized title to that land.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. I have a
    markup over on my other committee. Are we under general leave
    to submit additional questions in writing to the witnesses
    today?
        The Chairman. Yes, all the witnesses will be asked to
    respond to any questions that are submitted in writing, to
    answer those in writing so that they can be included in the
    hearing record.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Jones?
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, thank you very
    much, and I want to say to Mr. Kildee before he leaves, thank
    you for your statement regarding your longevity and trying to
    help the Indians who have certainly not been treated fairly in
    the history of our country. So I thank you as well as the
    Chairman for his comments.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing both these bills up.
    It is nice to see the bipartisan support for this legislation
    as well as others. H.R. 1409 was introduced by Congressman
    Charles Taylor. The Cherokees live in his district, and this
    has been an issue that, when Chief Leon Jones is on the next
    panel, I think he can tell the Committee as well as myself the
    long history of trying to get this land exchange accomplished.
        Regarding Mrs. Christensen's statement about taking 7
    years, that possibly could be if it went through the
    administrative process. I don't know, and I would like for Mr.
    Olsen in a moment to answer that question.
        The beauty of this is that we all get on the floor of the
    House from time to time and talk about our children and wanting
    them to have the best education possible so they can compete in
    the world. And when you see what the Indian children have to
    deal with--I want my staffer if he would, to hold up just four
    enlargements so you can really see just how bad the school is.
        The first one is the steel beam rusting through the ceiling
    at the school. That in itself--if it is not condemned, it
    should be condemned.
        Then the next photograph is a major crack in the wall of
    the school.
        The third photograph is cracks in the gymnasium.
        I think those three photographs are deplorable. The last
    photograph would be the temporary building that the students
    are trying to learn in and become successful.
        This is a situation that I think requires this legislation,
    and I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, that you are holding this
    hearing.
        The problem is I do not understand those that will be in
    opposition to this land exchange. Mr. Olsen, would you say that
    the land swap--what the taxpayers will be receiving from the
    Cherokee Indians--is an excellent deal for the taxpayers of
    this country?
        Mr. Olsen. The tribe would be giving up 218 acres of
    pristine land that, arguably, would--it would go under Park
    Service protection, would arguably provide for a better--or
    provide for protection of the view shed. The tribe would be
    obtaining 143 acres, which, comparing the two, obviously there
    is a 70-acre difference that the tribe is giving up to the
    park.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, with that, I
    think many points have been made before I had my opportunity,
    and I hope showing the photographs to the members of the
    Committee will re-emphasize the need for this land exchange.
    So, with that, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Gibbons. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Jones.
        The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Boy, that was quick. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I just want to offer my full support of the
    gentleman's bill from North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, and, of
    course, to my colleague, Mr. Jones. This is in reference to
    H.R. 1409, and I want the gentleman to know that he certainly
    has my full support on this land exchange proposal.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, it is always comity and practice
    as a matter of courtesy to members and our colleagues. Given
    the fact that you had introduced this legislation with
    reference to Shoshone Tribe, presumably predominantly in your
    State of Nevada, I would be the last person to second-guess
    your wisdom and expertise and understanding of what has been
    the problem for all these years.
        At the same time, I don't think there is any negative
    connotation in terms of your participation. You are just simply
    trying to implement what has been decided by the Indian Claims
    Commission and also in reference to what the Supreme Court had
    ruled.
        But I had also read that there are some real strong
    feelings among some of the Shoshone members, tribal members, on
    how the Supreme Court ruling came about, the fact that you have
    got the Te-Moak, the Duckwater, the Ely, the Fallon, the Fort
    McDermitt, the Yomba, these are all different clans that make
    up the Shoshone Tribe, if I am to understand it correctly. This
    is my understanding of the bill.
        What are we talking about, Mr. Olsen, in terms of the
    principal that is to be distributed if this bill passes? I read
    here $26 million, with interest, $130 million, but then I hear
    someone else, it is only $900,000. Can you clarify what exactly
    we are talking about?
        Mr. Olsen. Refreshing my recollection here, the
    distribution that would take place as a per capita payment to
    the approximately 6,500 Western Shoshone people would be
    $142,472,644, which works out to be roughly $30,000 per person.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, right now I am going to register as
    a member of the Shoshone Tribe.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Faleomavaega. The first opportunity I have. I found out
    that some of my ancestors settled among the Paiutes and the
    Shoshones in Nevada a thousand years ago.
        Mr. Olsen, there is one concern, I think, with some of the
    tribal members in raising the question how the U.S. Government
    got to obtain the land that belonged to the Shoshone. Was there
    a treaty agreement or relationship between the Shoshone Tribe
    and the U.S.? Because we have sisters here by the name of the
    Dann sisters that had their cattle got taken by the BLM with no
    reason whatsoever. I mean, this is ridiculous.
        Could you explain how the Federal Government ended up
    owning the so-called Shoshone tribal lands?
        Mr. Olsen. One of the claims is, as I mentioned before, for
    the taking of land, and it was a result of the gradual
    encroachment of the United States on the Shoshone land.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Was it the United States or the ranchers?
        Mr. Olsen. Both.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Both. And we are talking about how much
    was taken by the Federal Government that belongs to the
    Shoshone people? Acreage. Half of Nevada?
        Mr. Olsen. Well, there is a difference between what is
    being claimed by some who are opposed to this distribution and
    what is described, basically. And I cannot give you an exact
    number of acreage, but, again, certainly will be happy to--
        Mr. Faleomavaega. My colleague from Nevada tells me one-
    third of the State of Nevada belonged to the Shoshone people.
        Mr. Olsen. That is a big piece of land.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Big piece of land. And it was taken by
    the Federal Government with no treaty agreements, nothing. This
    is what you might call adversary possession of the land. I go
    back to my original question. Was there a treaty relationship
    between the Federal Government and the Shoshone people allowing
    the Federal Government to take the land?
        Mr. Olsen. Referring back to the treaty, the treaty allowed
    people to pass through the land, but, you know, going back to
    what I had said before, we are talking about it is a taking,
    the gradual encroachment on the land. And that is about the
    best answer I can provide you now, and we will certainly, you
    know, provide a better historical perspective if that is what
    you are after.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. So what we are looking at in this
    proposed bill is the distribution of funds of approximately
    $140 million.
        Mr. Olsen. Correct.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Among some 6,500 Shoshone.
        Mr. Olsen. That is right.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Among the four different clans that make
    up the Shoshone Tribe.
        Mr. Olsen. Among the four successor bands as well as others
    who would be entitled to that distribution.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. I see. And if by chance there is no
    agreement, the interest continues to buildup on this fund.
        Mr. Olsen. It will continue to grow.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Are the Shoshone people so anxious that
    they really want the money or do they not care about the money?
    I get the impression from Mr. Yowell's testimony here that it
    is not the money, but the principle involved here on how the
    Federal Government ended up owning what is known as Shoshone
    territory. I think maybe this is where we are having problems
    and where some of the tribal members have very strong feelings
    about this issue because once we establish the foundation of
    how this came about in the first place, then the funds become
    relevant in terms of what else needs to be done.
        Is there any portion of this one-third of the State of
    Nevada that was used for nuclear testing?
        Mr. Olsen. I am not in a position to--
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Have you been to Nevada?
        Mr. Olsen. I have been to Nevada, certainly.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. But what portion of the State of Nevada
    are you aware of that we are talking about?
        Mr. Olsen. Congressman, can you--
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gibbons. Predominantly the Shoshone area would be the
    eastern part of Nevada.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Eastern part, I see.
        Mr. Olsen. I am not aware--I cannot answer whether there
    has been nuclear testing on that.
        Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I think my time is up. I
    will wait for the second round. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbons. The gentleman from Tennessee?
        Mr. Duncan. I have no questions, Mr. Gibbons. I thank you
    for calling this hearing, but since I did not hear the
    testimony, I will not ask any questions at this point, and I
    will listen to the next panel.
        Mr. Gibbons. Ms. Bordallo is next.
        Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olsen, I have a question on H.R. 884. How many trespass
    violations have been issued on Western Shoshone ancestral
    lands? Is the use of the land an ongoing concern to the
    Department? I believe it was approximately 3 years ago when a
    trespassing violation was issued for grazing on the BLM land
    without a permit. But I wanted to know if this is an isolated
    issue, or are there other land-use violations?
        Mr. Olsen. There have been trespass violations issued to
    both Western Shoshone and non-Indian people.
        Ms. Bordallo. You don't have a number?
        Mr. Olsen. I don't have a number.
        Ms. Bordallo. Has it been frequent?
        Mr. Olsen. Well, I know that it is more than one. I don't
    know how frequent it is. But we can certainly obtain that
    information and get that back to you.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right. And my other question, Mr.
    Chairman, does the treaty preclude a land settlement?
        Mr. Olsen. No, the treaty does not preclude a land
    settlement.
        Ms. Bordallo. All right. I have no further questions, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Udall?
        Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Olsen, your testimony refers to the support for the
    distribution of funds by three of the four successor tribes.
    What documentation is there that shows this support?
        Mr. Olsen. Well, tribal resolutions, basically, the
    resolutions that I referenced before in my testimony.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Was there an election or anything like that
    that was supervised by the BIA?
        Mr. Olsen. Over the course of a number of years, there have
    been various referendum votes, surveys, but they were not
    supervised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        Mr. Tom Udall. So this was not an official election
    supervised by the BIA and then officially accepted as an
    election held by a sovereign Indian tribe?
        Mr. Olsen. It was not supervised by the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs.
        Mr. Tom Udall. And yet you are willing to testify today
    that 90 percent--is that the figure you have used--90 percent
    of the tribe support this bill and support the distribution?
        Mr. Olsen. Ninety percent is the number that I have heard.
    I used ``vast majority''--
        Mr. Tom Udall. That is your figure? That is the Interior
    Department's figure?
        Mr. Olsen. That is the number that Congressman Gibbons
    used, but that is the number that I have heard. I would say a
    vast majority of the Western Shoshone members. I mean, 90
    percent is probably fairly accurate.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Can you give the Committee any documentation
    of that? Is there any evidence of that other than in several
    resolutions? There is no certified election? I mean, what is
    there for the Committee to rely on to show that there is this
    kind of, as you put it, overwhelming or the 90 percent figure
    that has been used by the Chairman, what is there to show that?
        Mr. Olsen. We will certainly provide, be more than happy to
    provide whatever we have to the Committee that demonstrates the
    support, absolutely.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Well, I would very much like to see that
    kind of evidence, and please, Mr. Chairman, if it is
    acceptable, have it submitted for the record.
        My understanding, there are about 6,000-plus members,
    something in--
        Mr. Olsen. Yes, 6,000-plus who would be eligible for the
    distribution.
        Mr. Tom Udall. And 1,500 voted for it? Is that right?
        Mr. Olsen. That is, I believe, the number.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Then how do we get to 90 percent and
    overwhelming if we--that is only one-quarter.
        Mr. Olsen. Well, as I am being advised here, the 6,000 also
    includes minor children.
        Mr. Tom Udall. So do you know the figure for the 6,000-plus
    for adults that would be eligible to vote?
        Mr. Olsen. I don't. I don't.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Udall, would you yield to me to answer the
    question?
        Mr. Tom Udall. Well, I would like them to answer the
    question, actually, because I think that is who normally
    certifies an election by a tribe, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    and the Interior Department, if they are able to answer. No
    disrespect at all to you, Mr. Gibbons, but--
        Mr. Olsen. I am unable to answer that question. I don't
    know what the percentage of voting adults--
        Mr. Tom Udall. Are you able to answer?
        Ms. West. First of all, I would like to clarify that most
    elections are not--tribal elections are not certified by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs. They are certified by the tribes
    themselves. The only elections that we certify are those that
    are required to be certified within the tribal governing
    document. This is not the type of election that the Secretary
    had the authority or the requirement to certify.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Is the Interior Department committed to
    begin negotiation with the Western Shoshone Nation to establish
    a culturally and economically adequate land base for all
    Federally recognized Western Shoshone tribal governments and
    communities?
        Mr. Olsen. If that is something that the Committee wanted
    to pursue, I am sure that we would be more than happy to
    participate and provide support and assist in that.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Is it accurate to say that--the Federally
    recognized Shoshone tribes in Nevada currently hold a total of
    about 24,000 acres of Indian trust land. This is less than one
    one-hundredth of the Western Shoshone ancestral lands. Is that
    fair to say that?
        Mr. Olsen. I believe that 24,000 acres is the correct
    figure of trust land.
        Mr. Tom Udall. And is it the position of the Interior
    Department that they should have more land to have an
    economically viable land base?
        Mr. Olsen. On that I cannot say that that is the position
    of the Department of the Interior.
        Mr. Tom Udall. And, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Chairman, if I have
    time, I will be happy to yield to you to insert anything in the
    record that you would like to have in there.
        Mr. Gibbons. That is all right, Mr. Udall. I think the
    answer was adequately given before. But I did notice your time
    is up.
        Mr. Baca?
        Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess I have one question. Have the Western Shoshone
    Indians expressed any opposition to this measure?
        Mr. Olsen. Have Western Shoshone people expressed
    opposition?
        Mr. Baca. Yes.
        Mr. Olsen. I am sorry. I am not hearing very well. Yes,
    there have been tribal members, Western Shoshone people, who
    have expressed opposition.
        Mr. Baca. And what do you think the consequences of that
    will be?
        Mr. Olsen. The consequence of their--
        Mr. Baca. The opposition right now. Is there any formal
    agreements that they can--
        Mr. Olsen. I am not aware of any formal agreement. I think
    it depends on what the community decides to do with the
    legislation.
        Mr. Baca. Will the funds improve the economic conditions of
    the Western Shoshone Indians?
        Mr. Olsen. I am assuming that it would. A $30,000 payment
    to each eligible member, I think the feeling is that, yes, it
    would improve the economic condition. That is why I think there
    is a desire for this to move forward. This money has been
    sitting. The Western Shoshone people are entitled to it. It is
    their money. And I think the feeling is that, yes, it would
    improve the economic condition. It is their money, and they
    should receive it.
        Mr. Baca. What are the current conditions right now?
        Mr. Olsen. I can't speak specifically. I have not visited
    the area. But my understanding is the vast--well, a good
    portion of the people are living in poverty, that it is--suffer
    some. It is a desperate situation.
        Mr. Baca. Well, it is something that I would support. I
    believe when you look at sovereign countries and you look at
    Native--we have not given enough, even from what we have done--
    we have always taken, and it seems like we have the right to
    give back not only for sovereignty but to improve conditions in
    education, health, road conditions, tribal pride, tribal
    respect, and give them back a portion of the land. I think it
    is what we have done; we have taken the land away. It is time
    that we give it back as well. And that is toward any Native
    American Indian that we have in this country. Hopefully, if we
    have hearings, we will produce and we begin to identify and to
    give back to Native Americans, because they truly are the first
    people in this country and should be recognized as
    contributors. And I think we have an obligation to improve
    conditions within each of the reservations as well, and we
    should not rely on gaming of others, but also as part of our
    responsibilities to make sure that conditions are improved and
    they have the same rights that anybody else. Because when we
    talk about leave no child behind, that means in our
    reservations and other places as well, from both educational,
    technology, health improvements. So hopefully we will work
    along those areas and that we as individuals can all come
    together in a bipartisan and again support our Native Americans
    who are truly in a lot of these conditions that are very poor
    conditions. And I think it is our responsibility to do whatever
    we can to make conditions a lot better.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Baca. Just for the Committee's
    record, this bill deals only with the distribution of an
    account which was a judgment from a court to the tribes, and
    without this distribution, of course, this money sits in that
    account growing interest, helps no one, has not helped anyone
    for more than 20 years. And the purpose of this bill is not to
    adjudicate the validity of anybody's claim on the land, but to
    distribute the funds that are in this account.
        We all agree with your comments, and we agree with the
    status of our Native Americans and needs of those individuals.
    But this bill does not deal with that.
        Right now, since we have finished discussion and all
    members have questioned this panel, I would like to dismiss
    this panel and call up the second panel.
        Mr. Gibbons. The second panel is Mr. Leon D. Jones,
    Principal Chief, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Cory Matthew
    Blankenship, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Don Barger,
    Senior Regional District Representative, National Parks
    Conservation Association.
        Gentlemen, while we are getting prepared, we have a custom
    in this Committee to swear you in, so if you would all rise and
    raise your right hands?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Gibbons. Let the record reflect that each of the
    individuals testifying before us today has responded in the
    affirmative, and I would turn to my friend, Mr. Jones, for an
    introduction of the witnesses.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of
    Congressman Charles Taylor, I am delighted to introduce Chief
    Leon Jones and Cory Blankenship, and I will be very brief in
    the introduction.
        Chief Jones is the Principal Chief of the Eastern Band of
    Cherokee Indians based in Cherokee, North Carolina. He served
    as tribal court judge and council member before serving as
    chief, the only person to serve in all three branches of
    Eastern Cherokee government. Also, Chief Leon Jones is a 26-
    year veteran of the military, both Air Force and the United
    States Marine Corps. We welcome you, sir.
        Cory Blankenship is a recent graduate of Cherokee High
    School and a product of the Cherokee school system. He will
    attend NC State in Raleigh, North Carolina, on a 4-year
    academic scholarship, and is a long-time advocate of the land
    exchange, and I welcome both these gentlemen to the Committee.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
        We will begin now with the testimony of Chief Leon Jones.
    You are welcome to the Committee. The floor is yours. We look
    forward to your testimony, Chief Jones.

             STATEMENT OF LEON D. JONES, PRINCIPAL CHIEF,
                    EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

        Mr. Leon Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my
    name is Leon Jones. I do have the honor of being the chief of
    the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina.
        Mr. Pombo, Ranking Member Mr. Kildee--I am a little
    nervous, as you can probably understand--members of the
    Resource Committee, and other distinguished Members of
    Congress, thanks for this opportunity to be here.
        I have a prepared statement. However, everything that is in
    my prepared statement has been said. There is no need for me
    going back over things you have already heard and repeating. I
    am going to hit a couple of high points and then talk from my
    heart, if you don't mind, sir.
        This is very important not only to the Eastern Band of
    Cherokee Indians but the entire nation. As has been said by our
    President and by each one of us as we campaigned for office,
    education is our highest priority, to educate our children,
    leave no child behind. Our President says that and so do I. I
    have committed myself to that.
        The land under consideration is tremendously important. It
    is important to the future of my tribe, and it is important to
    the future of the United States because we do want to educate
    every child we have.
        The land under consideration, the Yellow Face, or Waterrock
    Knob, is a piece of property that was pointed out by the park
    as one that they desired, one that would be of benefit for
    them. We reacquired that piece of property, and we are now
    ready to make the exchange.
        We have some pictures. We have pictures of the view of how
    beautiful Waterrock Knob is. You will see them right here. And
    this piece of property is in danger because--has been in danger
    because the properties on both sides of it have been bulldozed
    and house sites have been prepared.
        This is the view from the Blue Ridge Parkway, one that the
    Blue Ridge Parkway was designed to protect, and we want to help
    the Blue Ridge Parkway to protect this property.
        Seventy-five years ago, the property that we are asking for
    was a lumber mill. You can see that on my right. It is not
    pristine property. This property here is 218 acres of very
    pristine property. It has water on it. It has endangered
    species on it, Federally endangered species. Those species need
    to be protected.
        Conversely, the piece there that you see has been disturbed
    greatly. It is the ancestral lands of the Eastern Band of
    Cherokee Indians. That has been proven through archaeological
    studies. We now want to use it for schools to educate our
    children. This piece of property was supposed to be returned to
    my tribe back in 1940 when the Blue Ridge Parkway was built.
    For some reason, when it reached Congress, this piece of
    property was taken out of the legislation and not returned to
    us. The money was given to us to buy it, and then we were not
    allowed to. So we feel that this property is our ancestral
    lands, and we feel that we should have it back. We need it for
    our children. We want to build three schools: an elementary, a
    middle school, and a high school. Having all three schools
    together will help us teach our native language along with a
    modern curriculum.
        We do it in a multi-age, communal setting that is
    consistent with our culture. The vision will replace the
    dilapidated, overcrowded, and dangerous schools that the
    Government built for us years ago and that we still use. You
    have seen some of the pictures of the schools in the poor
    condition that they are in.
        To address the Park Service concerns, we have already spent
    over $1.5 million on environmental and archaeological studies.
    We have designed and redesigned the site plan to minimize any
    impact. We have changed the footprint of this school to miss
    things that were very important. The current site plan
    preserves the views from the Blue Ridge Parkway. It provides a
    buffer around the wetlands next to the exchange tract. It
    avoids any impact on 12 of the 14 archaeological sites found on
    this property. And it calls for approximately $3 million of
    careful research for the two sites in the construction area.
        We have taken all the steps to preserve and to do a fair
    exchange. The land that we want to exchange is the highest
    piece of property owned by a person east of the Mississippi,
    highest piece of pristine land in the United States--or east of
    the Mississippi, I should say. We have purchased it. The option
    on the property was about to run out. We went ahead and
    purchased it so that we could exchange it for this piece of
    property.
        The most important thing for me, ladies and gentlemen, is
    the children and the future of this tribe. The future of this
    tribe, like the future of the United States, depends on
    educating our people in the highest and best way that we know
    how, and that is exactly what we want to do.
        Before I close, I want to thank the National Park Service
    Director Fran Mainella and the people working with her in the
    Interior Department for dealing in good faith with the Eastern
    Band over the last 4 years. Although we have not always found
    agreement on every issue, they have demonstrated a willingness
    to work through the issues, and in many cases, we have become
    friends.
        Chairman Pombo and members of this Committee, the Eastern
    Band of Cherokee Indians has the resources to make this vision
    a reality. You can make it possible. Please help us as we
    strive to leave no child behind. Help us to protect our unique
    culture, our unique heritage, our language, and our identity.
    For the benefit of the Cherokee people and the American public,
    we respectfully ask that you support our land exchange.
        Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
        [The prepared statement of Leon Jones follows:]

                   Statement of Principal Chief Leon Jones,
                 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, on H.R. 1409

        Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, Members of the Resources
    Committee and other distinguished Members of Congress, thank you for
    the opportunity to speak today.
        I come before you to speak about an important issue--perhaps the
    most important issue--facing our two Nations, the United States and the
    Eastern Band of Cherokee. That is the education of our children. Our
    Nations cannot be strong without well-educated members. President Bush
    and this Congress have pledged to ``leave no child behind,'' and I have
    made the same pledge for my people, the Cherokee people.
        The Ravensford-Yellow Face Land Exchange under consideration by
    this Committee today is tremendously important for the future of the
    Eastern Band of Cherokee. But first let me discuss why it is important
    for the National Park Service and the American public.
        With Congress's approval of this exchange, the Yellow Face (or
    Waterrock Knob) tract will be placed under the protection of the
    National Park Service. We asked the Park Service what land they would
    like to acquire, and they selected this property, among other options.
        The views from Waterrock Knob are increasingly threatened by non-
    Indian housing development. The parcel next to the Yellow Face tract,
    and just beyond this view, already has house sites bulldozed on it.
    Yellow Face, and the splendor of this view from Waterrock Knob,
    urgently need protection so they can be enjoyed by the American public
    for years to come. In contrast, the Ravensford tract that we seek for
    schools is a smaller, disturbed, and less valuable piece of land.
    Seventy-five years ago, it was a lumber mill town. We have a picture of
    what it looked like then. You can see that it was anything but
    pristine. We also have pictures of its current uses. It is a road
    corridor for tribal members and visitors traveling between downtown
    Cherokee and the Big Cove Community. It is also the corridor for major
    power, telephone, water and sewer lines serving both Big Cove and the
    National Park Service facilities across the river from Ravensford.
        The Ravensford tract currently splits the Qualla Boundary,
    isolating the Big Cove community from the rest of the Qualla Boundary.
    Archaeological research has confirmed what we already knew--that it is
    part of our ancestral homeland. Sixty-five years ago, we negotiated a
    deal with the United States to exchange the Ravensford tract for the
    Blue Ridge Parkway right-of-way through our land. At the last minute,
    the deal was changed without our knowledge, and Ravensford was removed
    from the legislation. The details of this unfortunate history are
    described in my written testimony.
        But let me get back to the main reason I am here. This exchange
    will provide the Cherokee people with the only suitable location we can
    get to build a new three-school education center. We envision this new
    campus as a ``cultural village'' where Cherokee children can honor
    their past while embracing the future. Having all three schools
    together will help with the teaching of our native language and the
    modern curriculum. And we can do it in a multi-age, communal setting
    that is consistent with our culture. This vision will replace the
    dilapidated, overcrowded and dangerous schools that the Government
    built for us years ago and that we still have to use.
        We plan to build state-of-the-art facilities with all of the modern
    requirements for a school system, and with cultural features like a
    seven sided ``council'' room in the school. The schools are designed
    for geothermal heating to be both safe and comfortable for our
    children, and friendly to the environment.
        Before I close, I want to thank National Park Service Director Fran
    Mainella, and the people working with her in the Interior Department
    for dealing in good faith with the Eastern Band over the last four
    years. Although we have not always found agreement on every issue, they
    have demonstrated a willingness to work through the issues. And in many
    cases, we have become friends.
        Chairman Pombo and members of the Committee, the Eastern Band of
    Cherokee Indians has the resources to make this vision a reality, and
    you can make it possible. Please help us as we strive to ``leave no
    child behind.'' Help us protect our unique culture, heritage, language
    and identity. For the benefit of the Cherokee people--and the American
    public--we respectfully ask you to support this land exchange.

                     Positive Impacts of the Land Exchange

        NPS will acquire the Yellow Face tract from the Eastern Band and
    protect it for the American public:
         Includes 218 acres adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
         In the foreground view from Waterrock Knob Visitor
    Center.
         Area is under rapid development; home sites are now
    available on an adjacent tract.
         Endangered species: Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel,
    Rock Gnome Lichen.
         Seven acres of high-altitude wetland seeps.
         Fair market value exceeds Ravensford value.
        Transfer of Ravensford to the Eastern Band with agreed restrictions
    has many benefits:
         Benefits the Eastern Cherokee and American public by
    helping preserve Cherokee language and culture.
         Cherokee children can be moved from the dilapidated,
    overcrowded, and dangerous elementary school to a safer location with
    less traffic.
         Helps United States meet a high priority goal of
    improving Indian education.
         Reunites two parts of the Cherokee reservation and
    restores Tribal territorial integrity.
         Rectifies an historical injustice to the Eastern Band
    (1940 Act).
         The Eastern Band's agreement to reduce its request from
    168 to 143 acres protects resources.
         Wetlands and alluvial forest adjacent to site remain in
    NPS ownership. EBCI has offered to help restore wetlands and will
    likely create additional wet meadow areas.
         12 of 14 archaeology sites are preserved in place without
    development. Knowledge increased through careful research of the two
    archaeology sites affected by construction.
         Development restrictions protect views from Parkway near
    Ravensford.
         Federal environmental and cultural resource laws will
    continue to apply.
         No Federally-listed threatened or endangered species have
    been found at Ravensford.

            History of Ravensford Tract and Eastern Band of Cherokee

        The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians' seeks to reunite the Big Cove
    Community with the rest of the Qualla Boundary based in part on our
    need for territorial integrity. The Ravensford Tract is the
    transportation, utilities, and geographical link between these
    communities. Reunification of the Boundary through the Ravensford Tract
    is important to the Tribe for significant historical reasons.
        The history of the Cherokee Nation is known to most Americans.
    Between 1700 and 1838, European-Americans settled on the Tribe's
    original territory of over 100,000 square miles. Despite a number of
    treaties over more than a century promising no further incursions on
    the Nation's territory, most Cherokees were forcibly removed from the
    Southeast over the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. The Eastern Band
    consists of descendants of those Cherokees who remained in the
    mountains to avoid the Trail of Tears, and those who returned from
    Oklahoma afterward. Through determination and with some assistance from
    friends like Will Thomas, members of the Eastern Band eventually
    repurchased a small part of the Nation's original territory. They
    fought lawsuits in the late 1800's to keep their land and finally, in
    1925, deeded the repurchased land to the United States to be preserved
    in trust for the Tribe.
        When European-Americans settled in the Cherokee Nation's territory,
    they established themselves firmly in the rich bottomlands like the
    Ravensford Tract. After the Trail of Tears, it was difficult for the
    Eastern Band to repurchase very much of this prime land, so most of the
    present day Qualla Boundary is steep and difficult terrain.
        The Ravensford Tract resonates with the Eastern Band as part of
    that history. Ravensford was also involved in a particular injustice
    the Tribe suffered in the mid-20th Century. In 1933, the Tribe had
    granted a right-of-way to the State of North Carolina for a highway
    from Soco Gap to Cherokee, to assist with transportation and economic
    development. That project was put on hold in 1935 when the United
    States Interior Department proposed to locate the last 12 miles of the
    Blue Ridge Parkway along that route through Soco Valley. When the Tribe
    learned that the Parkway would take valuable bottomland on which many
    enrolled members lived and require a 200 to 800 foot inaccessible
    right-of-way, it soundly rejected that proposed route. Tribal leaders
    and the Interior Department negotiated for several years to find
    another route, despite significant opposition among influential Tribal
    members. In 1939, the Secretary of the Interior proposed legislation
    allowing him to condemn a right of way over the Qualla Boundary. H.R.
    6668, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (1939). The Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs sent a representative to negotiate with the Tribe in North
    Carolina. Over the course of a year, an acceptable compromise was
    negotiated.
        The compromise negotiated with the Senate's representative is laid
    out in a revised Senate Committee version of H.R. 6668. See Senate
    Report No. 1491 at 2 (1940). The compromise had several elements: (1)
    The Tribe agreed to a ridge route over its territory for the Blue Ridge
    Parkway. (2) The State of North Carolina agreed to go back to its
    original plan to build the Soco Valley highway with public access for
    Tribal members and visitors. (3) The State agreed to pay the United
    States, in trust for the Tribe, $40,000 for the Blue Ridge Parkway
    route. (4) With those funds, the Tribe would be permitted to purchase
    replacement lands adjacent to the Tribe's territory in the Great Smoky
    Mountains National Park, including both the Boundary Tree Tract and the
    Ravensford Tract. The Chief and Tribal Council supported this
    agreement, although the Parkway was still opposed by a vocal minority
    in Cherokee.
        The agreement was approved and reported favorably by the Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs. The House sponsor of the original Bill,
    Congressman Weaver, testified at the Senate Committee's hearing on the
    Bill and indicated his support for the negotiated agreement, including
    the transfer of both the Boundary Tree and Ravensford Tracts.
    Transcript of Hearing, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, April 22,
    1940.
        When the Bill came up for consideration on the Senate floor,
    however, a Senator from Oklahoma presented an amendment that deleted
    the Ravensford Tract. Congressional Record, May 28, 1940, at 6989.
    There is no indication in the record of the reason for that change, nor
    that the Tribe was notified. Typical of the United States' treatment of
    the Cherokee, another agreement negotiated in good faith was modified
    without the Tribe's consent, and the Ravensford Tract remained out of
    reach.
        The 1940 legislation removed 1,333 acres from the Tribe's territory
    for the Blue Ridge Parkway, and effectively landlocked an even larger
    portion of the Tribe's high elevation property. It also completely
    severed the Big Cove Community from the rest of the Qualla Boundary
    geographically. In exchange, the Tribe was allowed to purchase 905
    acres of the Boundary Tree Tract, for a net loss of at least 428 acres
    and effective loss of use of many more acres. If the 322-acre
    Ravensford Tract had not been eliminated from the Bill at the last
    minute, then the acreage exchanged would have been closer to equal.
        This history is the source of the belief expressed by some
    Cherokees today that the Ravensford Tract should be given or sold to
    the Tribe. The Tribal leadership, however, recognizes that the NPS
    Director does not have that authority and has offered to enter into a
    fair value-for-value land exchange.
        The Tribe gave up much of its hard-won land in 1940 so the United
    States could complete the Blue Ridge Parkway, and believes the United
    States should live up to the commitment its representatives made to the
    Tribe. The Ravensford Tract should have been sold to the Tribe over 60
    years ago and should be exchanged today so the Tribe can reunite the
    two communities and build its education and culture center.
        Archeological research has confirmed that the Ravensford Tract is
    part of the Eastern Band's ancestral homeland. The Cherokee Nation was
    forced to give up over 100,000 square miles of land in the 18th and
    19th centuries for the benefit of the American public. This land
    exchange would involve returning less than 1/4 of a square mile in
    exchange for a larger, more pristine, and more valuable tract that
    needs protection.

         Mitigation Measures Agreed to by the Eastern Band of Cherokee

        The Eastern Band has demonstrated its good faith in negotiations
    with the National Park Service. The Eastern Band has agreed to spend
    over $1.5 million to study the feasibility of an exchange, has reduced
    its acreage request, and has agreed to development restrictions to
    avoid or mitigate impacts on natural and cultural resources. The
    Eastern Band expects to spend more than $3 million on further
    archaeology research if the exchange is approved. Detailed mitigation
    measures will include the following:
                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.005

        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
        Mr. Blankenship, do you have any comments? Please pull the
    mike close to you so everyone can hear.

                STATEMENT OF CORY MATTHEW BLANKENSHIP,
                    EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

        Mr. Blankenship. Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Kildee,
    members of the Resources Committee, and other Members of
    Congress, I, too, would like to express my thanks for being
    allowed to address the Committee this morning.
        I am an enrolled member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee
    Indians and a student at Cherokee High School. I started my
    academic career at Cherokee Elementary School and graduated
    from Cherokee High School last month. Next year I will attend
    North Carolina State University, and when I finish my
    education, I will return to my home, my family, and my people.
    God willing, I will raise my own children in the community 1
    day. As a student at Cherokee schools for nearly 13 years, I
    have seen firsthand the dangerous and dilapidated conditions
    that exist in our school system.
        As Chief Jones has already mentioned, education is
    extremely important to the Eastern Band. We strive for
    excellence in our schools, take pride in our traditions,
    language, and history, and we want our children to have the
    schools they need and deserve. We only want the best for our
    children. Our children need a safe, ample school facility that
    is more conducive to learning--something we do not have now.
        We currently have over 700 students enrolled at Cherokee
    Elementary School, all of which are housing in a facility built
    for 480. Over 35 percent of our elementary school students are
    classified as ``un-housed'' students because they attend
    classes in modular units that have been set up on campus. This
    number comes from the Southern Association of Colleges and
    Schools which accredits the Cherokee Central School System.
    Also, according to the Southern Association of Colleges and
    Schools, our elementary school campus should sit on 17 or more
    acres of land. The elementary school currently sits on nine.
    This small campus is located at the busy intersection of U.S.
    Highways 19 and 441, where millions of visitors to the Great
    Smoky Mountains National Park pass each year.
        Not only are the elementary school buildings overcrowded,
    they have seen the effects of time. The foundation has shifted,
    causing walls floors, and ceilings to crack, allowing for the
    formation of rust and mold. In some places, ceiling tiles have
    disintegrated to nothing, exposing electrical corridors and
    other utilities. Our gymnasium has been condemned for
    structural reasons, but we have to continue using it.
        Cherokee High School has similar problems. The school is
    currently at capacity. Parts of the building have been declared
    unfit for educational purposes, and parts of the structure have
    been condemned. These school facilities are simply inadequate
    for the education of our children.
        But we have the resources and Congress has the power to
    solve this problem. With Congress' approval of this exchange,
    the Eastern Band will have a suitable location in which to
    build three new schools, all part of one multi-generational
    educational village.
        We envision a cultural village where our children can gain
    an understanding of our culture, heritage, language, and our
    history. They will learn traditional ways, customs, language,
    and natural history alongside the modern curriculum of schools
    throughout the Nation. Our children will attend school in
    modern, environmentally friendly facilities in an area that is
    part of our ancestral homeland, close to our homes, and more
    conducive to learning.
        We are a close-knit community and our clan and extended
    family relationships are important. Our language is also
    important to preserve that culture. In this educational
    village, Cherokee language teachers and elder speakers will be
    able to move from students in one school to the next. And older
    students will be able to assist in the education of younger
    ones.
        Our ideal teaching method is language immersion, and it has
    been introduced into the school system, but cannot reach its
    full potential in isolated schools. The basis of immersion is
    that students hear and speak nothing but Cherokee for hours
    each day. They speak with and teach each other and, therefore,
    truly absorb our native language. this new three-school campus
    will allow us to expand the immersion program and increase the
    fluency and numbers of native language speakers. This new
    facility will also allow many Cherokee students who have
    entered the public school system because of poor conditions and
    overcrowding in our schools to return. These public school
    students currently receive virtually no exposure to our
    language and culture while at school.
        This large parcel of land will also rejoin the isolated
    Cherokee community of Big Cove with the rest of the Qualla
    Boundary. Restoring jurisdictional integrity of our land will
    serve not only as a physical connection but also as a spiritual
    one that will allow the coming together of communities of
    people and of traditional ways.
        In the last decade, over 3.5 million acres nationwide have
    been placed under the protection of the National Park Service,
    and we ask only for 143. If this exchange takes place, there
    will still be more acres under Park Service protection, with
    the 218 we are offering at Waterrock Knob. We believe this
    exchange is fair and that our goals are important, and we hope
    you do, too.
        We ask everyone here today to support the Cherokee people,
    help us protect our unique identity, help us to ensure the
    future of our children and our nation as a whole. Please
    support the Ravensford land exchange and do not allow our
    Cherokee children to be left behind.
        Thank you again for allowing me the honor to appear before
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Blankenship follows:]

        Statement of Cory Blankenship, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

        Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, Members of the Resources
    Committee and other members of Congress, I too would like to express my
    thanks for being allowed to address this Committee today.
        I am an enrolled member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians,
    and a student at Cherokee High School. I started my academic career at
    Cherokee Elementary School, and I graduated from Cherokee High School
    last month. Next year I will attend North Carolina State University,
    and when I finish my education, I plan to return to my home, my family,
    and my people. God willing, I will raise my own children in the
    community one day. As a student at Cherokee Schools for nearly 13
    years, I have seen first hand the dangerous and dilapidated conditions
    in our school system.
        As Chief Jones has already mentioned, education is extremely
    important to the Eastern Band. We strive for excellence in our schools,
    take pride in our traditions, language, and history--and we want our
    children to have schools they need and deserve. We only want the best
    for our children. Our children need a safe, ample school facility that
    is more conducive to learning, something we do not have now.
        We currently have over 700 students enrolled at Cherokee Elementary
    School, all of which are housed in a facility built for 480. Over 35%
    of our elementary school students are classified as ``un-housed''
    students because they attend classes in modular units that have been
    set up on campus. This number comes from the Southern Association of
    Colleges and Schools which accredits Cherokee Central Schools. Also,
    according to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Cherokee
    Elementary should sit on 17 or more acres of land'' the elementary
    school currently sits on 9. This small campus is located at the busy
    intersection of U.S. Highways 19 and 441, where millions of visitors to
    the Great Smoky Mountains National Park pass each year.
        Not only are our elementary school buildings overcrowded, they have
    seen the effects of time. The foundation has shifted, causing walls,
    floors, and ceilings to crack allowing for the formation of rust and
    mold. In some places, ceiling tiles have disintegrated to nothing,
    exposing electrical corridors and other utilities. Our gymnasium has
    been condemned for structural reasons, but we have to continue using
    it.
        Cherokee High School has similar problems. The school currently is
    at capacity. Parts of the building have been declared unfit for
    educational purposes and parts of the structure have been condemned.
    These school facilities are simply inadequate for the education of our
    children.
        We have the resources, and Congress has to power to solve this
    problem. With Congress's approval of this exchange, the Eastern Band
    will have a suitable location in which to build three new schools all
    part of one multi-generational, educational village.
        We envision a ``cultural village'' where our children can gain an
    understanding of our culture, heritage, language and our history. They
    will learn traditional ways, customs, language, and natural history
    alongside the modern curriculum of schools throughout the Nation. Our
    children will attend school in modern, environmentally friendly
    facilities in an area that is part of their ancestral homeland, close
    to our homes and more conducive to learning.
        We are a close-knit community and our clan and extended family
    relationships are important. Our language is also important to preserve
    that culture. In this educational village, Cherokee language teachers
    and elder speakers will be able to move from students in one school to
    the next. And older students will be able to assist with the education
    of the younger ones.
        Our ideal teaching method of ``language immersion'' has been
    introduced in the school system, but cannot reach its full potential in
    isolated schools. The basis of immersion is that students hear and
    speak nothing but Cherokee for hours each day, speak with and teach
    each other, and therefore truly absorb their native language. This new
    three-school campus will allow us to expand the immersion program and
    increase the fluency and numbers of native language speakers. This new
    facility will also allow many Cherokee students--who have entered the
    public school system because of poor conditions and overcrowding in our
    schools--to return. These public school students currently receive
    virtually no exposure to our language and culture at school.
        Our ``educational village'' will be on a large parcel of land, in a
    safe location buffered from major highways. It will be a beautiful
    facility designed with nature. We will be able to look out on the
    mountains and forests that we are a part of, and that are a part of us.
    Natural study areas in the forest will surround this campus, where our
    children will learn the scientific and biological make-up of our
    ancestral homeland.
        This large parcel of land will also rejoin the isolated Cherokee
    community of Big Cove with the rest of the Qualla Boundary. Restoring
    jurisdictional integrity of our land will serve not only as a physical
    connection, but also as a spiritual one that will allow the coming
    together of communities, of people and of traditional ways.
        In the last decade, over 3,500,000 acres nationwide have been
    placed under the protection of the National Park Service. We are asking
    only for 143 acres to help us build our schools and preserve our
    culture. And when this land exchange is completed there will still be
    more acres under Park Service protection, with the 218 we are offering
    at Waterrock Knob. We believe this is a fair exchange and that our
    goals are important, and we hope you do too.
        We ask everyone here today to support the Cherokee people, help us
    protect our unique identity, help us insure the future of our children
    and our Nation as a whole. Please support the Ravensford Land Exchange,
    and do not allow our children to be left behind. Thank you again for
    allowing me the honor to appear before you.
    Cherokee Cultural Education Center at Ravensford
        The Eastern Band seeks to develop a three-school elementary, middle
    and high school campus on the Ravensford land exchange site, presently
    located in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. At scoping meetings
    held to prepare for the draft environmental impact statement regarding
    the land exchange, members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee explained
    their cultural and educational reasons for planning a three-school
    campus, and this briefing paper is intended to consolidate and
    summarize those reasons in a single document.
        It is important to note that the Eastern Band has requested the
    Ravensford site both for school construction and to reunite the Big
    Cove Community with the rest of the Qualla Boundary (Cherokee Indian
    Reservation). Big Cove is completely separated from the Boundary by
    National Park Service land, and the access road to Big Cove travels for
    about two miles through the National Park. Even if other land were
    available for the school campus, the Eastern Band would seek the
    Ravensford site to re-establish territorial integrity with Big Cove.
    Cultural Background
        The Eastern Band of Cherokee are the descendants of the Cherokee
    Nation who refused to relocate to Oklahoma, or who returned from
    Oklahoma after the Trail of Tears in the 1830s. The Tribe struggled for
    decades to reacquire and preserve a tiny portion of its original land
    base. The community is a close-knit one, formed by common ancestry and
    the struggle for cultural preservation on its original land base.
    Cherokee culture is clan-based. Extended family plays a much more
    significant role in Cherokee culture than it does in most non-Indian
    cultures.
        Traditional Cherokee cultural norms are also based on a reverence
    for nature and natural life cycles. Along with ceremonial practices
    conducted in the rivers and mountains, the practice of gathering wild
    foods and natural medicinal herbs is still widely practiced. The
    natural environment of the Western North Carolina mountains has
    sustained the Band for many years, and preservation of that environment
    is important to Tribal members.
        At the same time, the Eastern Band of Cherokee has embraced many
    elements of non-Indian culture, and has developed a thriving economy
    based on tourism. Although not without challenges, the Qualla Boundary
    probably has the most developed economy on a per capita basis of any
    Indian Nation. The modern economy has had an impact on Cherokee
    culture, particularly by affecting the number Cherokee language
    speakers.
        Anthropologists recognize the importance of a distinct language as
    perhaps the key element for preservation of traditional cultures. In
    this regard, the Eastern Band is at a critical juncture. While there
    are still many fluent Cherokee speakers, and a smaller number who can
    read and write in Cherokee, many adults and children do not speak
    Cherokee fluently, and some know only a few words.
        The Eastern Band and other Indian Nations face many challenges in
    the modern world. Among other things, diabetes is epidemic among many
    Tribes including the Eastern Band. Recent research has indicated that
    cultural knowledge and self-esteem are key prevention factors in
    helping today's youth combat this spreading disease. Maintaining the
    Tribe's language and culture may indeed be a matter of life or death in
    the future.
        To combat this trend and reverse it, the Eastern Band has
    established a program to teach Cherokee language and culture in the
    elementary school, in addition to the regular academic curriculum. The
    program has been successful, but is difficult to implement in the
    outdated, dilapidated, and overcrowded elementary school, located at a
    busy downtown intersection. Some of the serious challenges faced in the
    current setting are summarized in the attached memorandum by Lee Clauss
    of the Tribal Historic Preservation Program. The Tribe wants to expand
    the language program to the high school level, but with limited numbers
    of fluent Cherokee speakers who also have teaching credentials and
    geographically separated schools, that is not possible at this time.
    Cherokee Cultural Education Center
        The Eastern Band proposes a unique educational center, designed
    with a strong emphasis on nature, and in keeping with the traditions of
    the Cherokee culture. This three-school campus will include elementary,
    middle, and high schools in state-of-the-art facilities built to teach
    both the regular curriculum and Cherokee language and culture. The high
    school will include classrooms and meeting rooms for post-secondary
    education and for adult continuing education, making the facility a
    multigenerational cultural education center.
        The Center's buildings will include elements of the traditional
    Cherokee seven-sided council houses and other references to the seven
    Cherokee clans. The written and spoken Cherokee language will be
    prevalent throughout the Center. Cherokee language teachers and
    traditional tribal elders will be able to circulate through the
    schools, helping classroom teachers incorporate language and culture
    into the classroom. The Center will facilitate mentoring programs,
    pairing older and younger students in collaborative teaching and
    learning experiences.
        Opponents of the land exchange have argued that the schools should
    be separated to comply with current non-Indian education theory. Even
    if that is current theory, the Tribe's need to preserve its language
    and culture is paramount. Without intending any disrespect, we have
    struggled for years in schools that were designed by the Federal
    government based on the mainstream education theories of the time. We
    are ready to design and build our own education center.
        Consistent with Cherokee respect for nature and the mountains, the
    Eastern Band plans outdoor learning settings as well, so that students
    can remain connected with and learn more about the environment as they
    are being educated. The Ravensford site offers several opportunities
    that are not available elsewhere, with the adjacent wetland, riverine,
    and montane alluvial habitats. Ravensford also contains significant
    historic and prehistoric Cherokee archeological features, which could
    offer educational opportunities whether they are preserved in place or
    excavated by professional archeologists working with the schools and
    community.
        The challenge of designing our own Education Center in a way that
    fits with the natural setting and does not interfere with the
    experience of Park visitors is one that the Tribe is happy to accept.
    Like the developers of the Folk Art Center on the Blue Ridge Parkway in
    Asheville, the Eastern Band will work closely with Park Service
    planners and officials to ensure that the schools fit the site,
    minimize any impact on views and other resources, and blend into the
    environment. This is not just something we want to do for the
    environment. We believe that replacing the current aging and
    substandard facilities that we inherited from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs with beautiful schools in a natural setting will greatly
    enhance the self-esteem and educational experience of Cherokee
    children.
        The consolidated Education Center will also promote other
    efficiencies, including the ability to maintain the buildings and
    grounds, full use of school libraries on a multigenerational basis, use
    of athletic facilities, more efficient bus service, providing on-site
    specialists, including counselors, health educators, special education
    teachers, agricultural, environmental, and archeological educators, as
    well as the cultural and language specialists.
        We want to teach our children from the standpoint of history,
    nature, culture and community. The Cherokee Cultural Education Center,
    located in the heart of the Qualla Boundary at Ravensford, will be the
    central core that draws the community together and maintains the
    cohesive nature of our clan- and family-based society. The Education
    Center is needed, both literally and spiritually, to ``bring us
    together.'' It is not just our preference--it is a cultural necessity.

                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.006

        The Chairman. [Presiding.] Thank you.
        Mr. Barger?

           STATEMENT OF DON BARGER, SENIOR REGIONAL DISTRICT
        REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Barger. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good
    morning. I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of
    the National Parks Conservation Association on H.R. 1409. We
    have submitted a written statement that I will summarize.
        I want to be very clear from the outset. The problems are
    real and NPCA completely supports and applauds the Eastern
    Band's commitment to provide their students with the best
    possible schools. At the same time, NPCA must oppose H.R. 1409
    at this time. Our position has not been lightly considered nor
    easily reached.
        NPCA has been joined in opposing the development of this
    site by the Governor-appointed National Park Advisory Councils
    of both North Carolina and Tennessee. Appointed by former
    Governors Don Sundquist and Jim Hunt, both commissions passed
    resolutions in opposition to the proposed exchange, and we have
    attached that to our written testimony.
        For over 2 years, the Park Service has studied the
    potential effects of the proposed exchange. The draft
    Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, has just become
    available, and there has been no opportunity to review or
    comment on it. Consequently, NPCA believes that H.R. 1409 is
    premature as it would short-circuit the ongoing public process
    and require the land exchange and development to proceed before
    the impacts of the proposal have been fully discussed or
    understood.
        I would like to raise just a few of the kind of issues that
    the EIS will unravel over the next few months.
        The site is listed on the National Register of Historic
    Places due to its over 8,000-year archaeological record of
    Euro-American, Cherokee, and pre-Cherokee history. Scientists
    from the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory have identified to
    date 59 species new to science within the area. The Park
    Service's visual analysis of the site from the two overlooks
    along the Blue Ridge Parkway that look down upon the valley
    states, and I quote, ``Parkway visitors consider the Raven Fork
    River Valley view among the most coveted, a rare icon view.''
        Two descending ridges currently separate the noise, lights,
    and congestion of Cherokee from the Oconaluftee Valley in the
    park. If the Ravensford tract is developed as this bill
    proposes, the valley and the grandstand of mountains around it
    will be impacted by three buildings, six athletic fields,
    including some lit for night games, and several parking lots.
    We would oppose the development of this site even if the Park
    Service had proposed it.
        In relation to the Big Cove Road, the Park Service has
    worked with the Eastern Band over the years, and to our
    knowledge, no problems have been identified with either
    services or access along the road. We have been told that the
    two tracts of land proposed for exchange have relatively equal
    values of around half a million dollars. In 1972, the Park
    Service's regional real estate appraiser determined the fair
    market value of the Ravensford tract to be $6,000 per acre. If
    you apply an extremely conservative 3-percent annual increase
    to that value, the Ravensford tract should be worth around $2
    million. At the same time, we visited the Jackson County
    property assessor's office in May and found that the appraisal
    for the Yellow Face tract was $58,400. While these appraisals
    are usually on the low side, it would be quite unusual for them
    to be so by a factor of 10.
        These and many other issues and questions will be vetted in
    the public participation process for the EIS. We believe that
    forum is the proper one for understanding and fully evaluating
    these issues.
        It is important to emphasize that we believe that there are
    alternative locations for the new schools that could be
    developed and used. According to the Cherokee Business District
    Master Plan of February 2001, and I will quote, ``With a large
    amount of flat to rolling land, opportunities exist for
    development of large facilities such as a shopping area or
    hotel as well as a public parking facility.''
        The master plan also states, ``The elementary school
    occupies one of the most prime parcels of real estate in
    Cherokee, as does the BIA office next door...Over the long
    term, the elementary school and BIA sites should become a new
    cohesive anchor attraction. These anchors could be an outlet
    mall, festive retail, or entertainment uses that draw visitors
    to their locations as destination attractions.''
        Mr. Chairman, even a poorly done Education Campus Site
    Evaluation with hand-picked criteria that assured the
    Ravensford tract would be identified, found potential
    alternative sites for the construction of schools. The study
    does not conclude that the Ravensford tract is the only
    potential site for school construction.
        In closing, this is not a case of schools versus scenery.
    The simplest reason for not removing the land from the park is
    that we don't need to. NPCA stands ready to work with the
    Eastern Band, the Resources Committee, the National Park
    Service and the BIA to devise a solution that both protects
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway,
    and provides Cherokee children with the best possible
    educational opportunities. We believe both of these goals can
    be satisfied. Unfortunately, the legislation before you does
    not produce that solution.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be
    pleased to respond to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Barger follows:]

     Statement of Don Barger, Senior Director, Southeast Regional Office,
             National Parks Conservation Association, on H.R. 1409

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Don Barger, Senior
    Director of the southeast regional office of the National Parks
    Conservation Association (NPCA). NPCA is America's only private,
    nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated solely to protecting,
    preserving, and enhancing the National Park System. NPCA was founded in
    1919 and today has approximately 300,000 members who care deeply about
    the well being of our national parks.
        NPCA appreciates the opportunity to express our views about H.R.
    1409, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Land Exchange Act of 2003.
    This proposed exchange has enormous implications for two of our most
    visited national park units--Great Smoky Mountains National Park and
    the Blue Ridge Parkway--and should not be entered into lightly. NPCA,
    along with others in the environmental community, applauds the Eastern
    Band of Cherokee Indians' (EBCI) commitment to provide their students
    with the best possible schools. The proposed Ravensford land exchange
    is so controversial because it combines two extremely important and
    emotional public policy issues: protecting our national parks, and
    providing young people with the best possible schools. Fortunately in
    this case, both of these important goals can be satisfied because of
    the presence of alternative locations for schools outside the boundary
    of our Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
        As you know, the National Park Service (NPS) is analyzing a
    proposal for Great Smoky Mountains National Park to relinquish 144
    acres, commonly referred to as the Ravensford tract, to the Eastern
    Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI), in exchange for adding a parcel of
    land to the Blue Ridge Parkway many miles away. The exchange is
    extremely controversial with many national, regional and state
    organizations, including the North Carolina National Park, Parkway and
    Forest Development Council and Tennessee Park Commission, expressing
    their opposition. 1 NPS is developing an Environmental
    Impact Statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA); a draft EIS is slated for publication this month.
    Consequently, NPCA believes that H.R. 1409 is premature, as it would
    short-circuit the ongoing public process and require the land exchange
    to proceed before the impacts of the proposed land exchange have yet to
    be fully debated or understood.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Park Commissions' Resolutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ravensford
        The proposed exchange will have far reaching impacts on the
    integrity of the National Park System and will significantly impair the
    resources of both Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Blue
    Ridge Parkway. The beauty, natural history, and human history of the
    Ravensford tract make it of great educational value as a natural
    classroom. Scientists from the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory have
    recently identified approximately 59 species that are new to science
    located within the Ravensford tract. Ravensford is also home to an
    unbroken archeological record of Euro-American, Cherokee and pre-
    Cherokee history, including historic and prehistoric artifacts dating
    back more than 8,000 years. The discovery of these cultural resources
    supports the site's 1982 placement on the National Register of Historic
    Places.
        Part of the Ravensford tract includes alluvial floodplain, a
    globally rare ecological community described as imperiled by the Nature
    Conservancy. Because they're flat and near water, most such areas have
    been developed over the course of history, making the preservation of
    Ravensford in an undeveloped state even more important. In fact, the
    Ravensford tract was flooded during the recent severe rains during the
    week of May 5, 2003. 2 The Ravensford tract affords
    beautiful vistas from the Oconaluftee Valley, with a foreground of open
    fields from which hills and mountains of Great Smoky Mountains National
    Park rise abruptly. The topography of the park is such that vistas like
    these are extremely limited. The recently updated Blue Ridge Parkway
    (BLRI) visual analysis survey of the Ravensford tract published by the
    Department of Interior states, ``Parkway visitors consider the Raven
    Fork River Valley view among the most coveted, a rare icon view.''
    Parkway management has concluded that the views to the tract should be
    preserved.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Personal communication with GRSM staff.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The ridges of the Great Smoky Mountains form a natural gateway that
    separate the noise and congestion of the town of Cherokee from the
    Oconaluftee Valley in the national park. The proposed school complex
    would sit at the primary North Carolina entrance to the park as well as
    the southern terminus of the Blue Ridge Parkway. If the Ravensford
    tract is developed into a school campus, that grandstand of mountains
    will include night lighting, six athletic fields, three parking areas
    and traffic congestion, as school buses would have to navigate the
    principal North Carolina entrance to our nation's most visited national
    park.
    Alternative Locations for School Construction
        It is important to emphasize that there are alternative locations
    for new schools both inside and outside the Cherokee Reservation. Two
    documents produced by EBCI, the Cherokee Business District Master Plan
    and Education Campus Site Evaluation, state explicitly that alternative
    sites are available.
        EBCI received the Cherokee Business District Master Plan in
    February 2001. The stated purpose of the document is to ``serve as a
    guide for the orderly growth and development of Cherokee's CBD [Central
    Business District].'' 3 The development of the master plan
    began with an inventory and analysis of the natural and man-made
    features and conditions within the reservation. Based on that inventory
    the master plan states:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Cherokee Business District Master Plan, February 2001, pg. 1.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Opportunities for commercial developments, parking facilities,
            and cultural attractions also exist throughout the area. The
            north end of the CBD is currently experiencing retail growth.
            With a large amount of flat to rolling land, opportunities
            exist for development of large facilities such as a shopping
            area or hotel as well as a public parking facility. (emphasis
            added).

            Another large area of potential development lies across the
            river where several large buildings stand unused on Acquoni
            Road. These large flat and paved areas could be used for a
            number of public or private ventures that do not require direct
            tourist visibility. 4 (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Cherokee Business District Master Plan, February 2001, pg. 4.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The master plan states that the long-term plan includes possible
    acquisition of alternative sites for schools. The master plan states:
            The elementary school occupies one of the most prime parcels of
            real estate in Cherokee, as does the BIA office next door. The
            school and the BIA are not the ``highest and best use'' of
            these prime parcels. Over the long term, the elementary school
            and BIA sites should become a new, cohesive anchor attraction.
            . . . These anchors could be an outlet mall, festive retail, or
            entertainment uses that draw visitors to their locations as
            destination attractions. The size of these parcels makes it
            possible to develop them cohesively, which is of primary
            importance in the development of an anchor destination.
            5 (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Cherokee Business District Master Plan, February 2001, pg.
    5.20.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Even the poorly done Education Campus Site Evaluation, with EBCI's
    hand-picked criteria that assured the Ravensford tract would be
    identified, found potential alternative sites for the construction of
    schools. The study included a number of limiting criteria, including:
        Commuting distance for students (maximum 15-mile bus commute for
    all students on the Qualla Boundary). 6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Education Campus Site Evaluation, Joel L. Starrow, P.E., Dale
    E. Pennell, P.E., P.L.S., McGill Associates, October, 2002, p. 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Topography and soils analysis, based on a threshold of 8
    degrees slope and less. 7
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Education Campus Site Evaluation, p. 5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A map showing low-slope land in and around the Qualla Boundary
    indicates large tracts of land with slope of no more than 8% within a
    ten-mile radius of the Ravensford tract.
        EBCI have identified a need for 73 acres to accommodate a three-
    school complex with necessary parking and athletic facilities. The
    Education Campus Site Evaluation identifies 10 potential sites for
    school construction.
        Following the site selection process, each site was evaluated based
    on a more detailed examination under the technical criteria. A lower
    ranking score of ``4'' was provided to sites that, among other factors,
    have ``wetland and/or flood issues adversely impact full use.''
    8 The study also states that it is important to note that
    many of the tracts are ``located outside reservation boundaries and are
    comprised of individual tracts with multiple owners'' concluding that
    these sites ``will prove difficult, if not impossible, to acquire.''
    9 The study neglects to point out that the Ravensford tract
    is among those sites outside the reservation boundary.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Education Campus Site Evaluation, p. 11.
        \9\ Education Campus Site Evaluation, p. 12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Ravensford tract is outside the reservation boundary, within
    the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and as parkland is owned by
    and for the enjoyment of every American, including the Cherokee. The
    tract includes approximately 7 acres of wetland. 10 As
    stated earlier in the testimony, the Ravensford tract was flooded
    during the recent severe rains during the week of May 5, 2003.
    11 Nonetheless, the Ravensford tract was determined to be
    the ``best suited to accommodate a consolidated school campus.''
    12 The study does not conclude that the Ravensford tract is
    the only potential site for school construction. Also, the study
    neglects to consider the current locations of the schools as suitable
    locations for schools.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Draft Statement of Findings for Wetlands for a Proposed Land
    Exchange between the National Park Service and the Eastern Band of
    Cherokee Indians at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park/Draft Land
    Exchange EIS, pg. 12.
        \11\ Personal communication with GRSM staff.
        \12\ Education Campus Site Evaluation, p. 13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a letter from NPS Director Roger Kennedy to Senator Jesse Helms,
    dated June 13, 1994 Mr. Kennedy noted that construction of either a
    golf course or school complex ``would be totally contrary to the
    purpose for which the land was placed within the park, i.e., to
    preserve its scenic, natural and cultural resources.'' The letter
    continues:
            Construction of a school complex along with the attendant
            parking, athletic field and 2 other facilities would require
            extensive clearing, grading and construction in an area where
            native grasses and forests now exist. The resultant disturbance
            would be totally incompatible with the archeological district
            and historic appearance now protected by national park status.

            Visually, the proposed school complex would have a dramatic
            impact on the view from the last two overlooks on the Blue
            Ridge Parkway which currently provide unimpaired vistas of the
            pastoral Oconaluftee River valley and the Oconaluftee Pioneer
            Farmstead which is part of the park's Oconaluftee Visitor
            Center Complex.

            Finally, the National Park Service is concerned that carving
            into the park for this project would lead to proposals for
            development in the park by other entrance communities, all of
            which are nearing the limits of the developable land. A few
            years ago, for example, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, requested
            permission to build flood control facilities inside the park's
            northern entrance. This request was rejected as well.
            13
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ NPS letter dated June 13, 1994. To Senator Jesse Helms, from
    Director NPS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NPS published another GRSM Briefing Statement regarding the EBCI
    requests for special park use of land for development on January 20,
    1998. The Briefing Statement includes the NPS official position; ``The
    National Park Service continues to oppose cutting into the Park to
    construct facilities such as the golf course or school complex which
    are not compatible with Park purposes.'' 14
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ NPS GRSM Briefing Statement re. Eastern Band of Cherokee
    Requests for Special Park Use of Land for Development, dated January
    20, 1998.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On June 14, 2000 NPS broke with their long-standing policy of
    rejecting EBCI's request for land within GRSM. Robert Stanton, former
    Director of NPS, entered into an agreement with the EBCI, to ``create a
    framework within which the parties may explore the feasibility of a
    land exchange involving the Ravensford tract.'' The agreement includes
    a list of steps to be taken by both NPS and EBCI to determine whether
    it is feasible to exchange the land. One of the NPS action items listed
    in the agreement reads as follows:
              5. Make final determination in good faith, after the
            completion of the required surveys and studies, to enter into
            the proposed land exchange or not to enter into the proposed
            land exchange. 15 (emphasis added)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ General Agreement (Agreement No. GA-GRSM-01-FY00) Between
    National Park Service and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, June 14,
    2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thus the agreement does not contain a guarantee that the exchange
    would take place.
    History of the Ravensford Tract
        The Ravensford tract was part of the land ceded by the Cherokees at
    the Treaty of Tellico in 1798. 16 Euro-American settlers had
    begun to enter the area at that time and by the early 1800s the
    Ravensford tract and surrounding area was settled by the Mingus, Enloe
    and Hughes families. 17 Descendants of these three families
    continued to control the private holdings in the area into the 1920s.
    18
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Paul A. Webb, et al., Cultural and Historical Resources
    Investigations of the Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky
    Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina (ARPA Permit GRSM
    99-001, Amendment 1 SEAC Accession No. 1580, June 2002), 37.
        \17\ Webb, Cultural and Historical Resources Investigations, 38.
        \18\ Webb, Cultural and Historical Resources Investigations, 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            During that period leading up to the creation of the Great
            Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) in 1934, the states of
            Tennessee and North Carolina bought the land in preparation for
            turning it over to the Federal government. Timber interests
            owned and were harvesting the vast majority of the land that
            became GRSM. Such was the case with the Ravensford tract. The
            Whitimer-Parsons Pulp & Lumber Company had purchased the land
            that was to become the lumber town of Ravensford in the early
            1900s. 19 The land in turn was acquired by
            condemnation from the lumber company by the State of North
            Carolina in 1933 and subsequently became part of the national
            park. Following the establishment of GRSM the Federal
            government began the process of developing the Blue Ridge
            Parkway, an ambitious vision for a unit of the park system to
            connect Shenandoah National Park in northern Virginia to the
            Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Margaret Lynn Brown, The Wild East: A Biography of the Great
    Smoky Mountains (University Press of Florida, 2000), 52.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Blue Ridge Parkway Negotiations (1937--1940)
        In 1937 the Cherokee declined an offer by NPS for the Ravensford
    tract as well as the Boundary Tree tract, Tight Run tract and cash in
    exchange for right-of-way across the Qualla Boundary to be used for the
    preferred, westward route for the Blue Ridge Parkway down from Soco
    Gap. The Cherokee's refusal of that offer set into motion a complex set
    of negotiations that eventually led to acceptance of an offer for cash
    and the construction of U.S. Highway 19 in exchange of right-of-way for
    the current eastward route of the Parkway.
        One of the key issues faced by Parkway planners was acquiring
    right-of-way through the Qualla Boundary to GRSM to construct the
    southern terminus of the road. Negotiations began between the Federal
    government, North Carolina and EBCI with the original plan to route the
    Parkway through Soco Gap west along Soco Creek down into the town of
    Cherokee. 20 When the Cherokee discovered that NPS wanted a
    one-thousand-foot right-of-way and that the road would be for
    restricted use, the EBCI opposed the project. 21 The
    Cherokee were concerned that the wider right-of-way would take valuable
    farmland in the Soco Valley and negatively impact commercial
    possibilities on the main street in Cherokee. 22
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Harley E. Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway (University of Tennessee
    Press, 1983), 93.
        \21\ Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, 93.
        \22\ John R. Finger, Cherokee Americans: The Eastern Band of
    Cherokees in the Twentieth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
    Press, 1991), 78.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Negotiations for the preferred Blue Ridge Parkway route along Soco
    Creek evolved with the Secretary of Interior offering the following
    exchange of park land for EBCI land: the EBCI would receive the
    Ravensford, Boundary Tree, and Tight Run tracts (all within GRSM) plus
    reasonable cash compensation; the NPS would receive the 1,102 acre
    Towstring tract and a right-of-way for the Parkway through the Qualla
    Boundary from Soco Gap west along Soco Creek. 23 This
    exchange was explicitly made contingent upon consent of EBCI through a
    secret ballot in a general election within sixty days of the bill's
    passage. 24 The bill was approved by Congress on August 19,
    1937.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ 75th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 5472, pg. 699.
        \24\ 75th Congress, H.R. 5472
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This proposal was clearly controversial among the Cherokee as
    reflected in an article from the Sylva Herald dated September 9, 1937.
    The headline read ``Council Vote Reflects Opposition to Soco Route.''
    According to the article, a general election resulted in an EBCI Tribal
    Council consisting of eight opponents of the exchange plan and four
    proponents of the plan. The Sylva Herald reported on October 14, 1937
    under the headline ``Indians Will Not Vote on Parkway,'' that the new
    council had chosen to adjourn without voting on the Parkway plan. Thus
    the offer of the Ravensford tract was rejected by EBCI in 1937.
        Secretary of the Interior Ickes was thus caught between his
    attempts to procure a suitable route for the Blue Ridge Parkway and his
    obligation to protect the interests of the Cherokee. He composed a
    letter to the EBCI in which he plainly stated that DOI would not coerce
    the Cherokee into providing the right-of-way: ``If you do not want the
    road to be built where the National Park Service desires it to go, it
    will not be built.'' The Cherokee were advised that if they did not
    approve of the current proposals for the Parkway, either a new route
    avoiding the reservation would have to be found or else the road would
    have to terminate at Soco Gap. 25
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, 97.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The State of North Carolina, working through EBCI Principal Chief
    Jarret Blythe and the Superintendent of the Cherokee Indian Agency,
    abandoned the original proposal to go down Soco Creek. 26
    The new plan called for a completely different route eastward from Soco
    Gap, along the existing ridge-top route of the parkway. Given the
    complex of cuts, fills and tunnels NPS had realized that with this
    route it was going to cost significantly more to build the parkway into
    GRSM. This offer required that the State of North Carolina build a new
    highway through Soco Gap that would leave EBCI tourist business intact
    and allow economic expansion. This offer did not include any exchange
    of parkland. EBCI rejected this proposal. 27
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, 100.
        \27\ John R. Finger, Cherokee Americans, 93.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, in 1940 Congress passed legislation that would provide NPS
    with a right-of-way across the Qualla Boundary along the existing route
    of the Parkway. That route takes the Parkway from Soco Gap along the
    ridgeline and finally connects with U.S. Highway 441 (Newfound Gap
    Road) within GRSM immediately adjacent to the Ravensford tract.
    28 In exchange the State of North Carolina agreed to build a
    highway from Soco Gap to Cherokee (now U.S. Highway 19), and the
    Cherokee received $40,000 or $30 an acre (whichever amount was greater)
    for the right-of-way and an option to acquire the Boundary Tree tract.
    29 EBCI did acquire the Boundary Tree tract in 1943.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ 76th Congress, 3d Session, H.R. 6668, pg. 299.
        \29\ 76th Congress, H.R. 6668.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thus the boundaries of the Parkway and GRSM overlap along the
    southern most mile of the Parkway, with the Parkway passing immediately
    southeast of the Ravensford tract and running parallel to Big Cove
    Road. In other words, the Ravensford tract is completely surrounded by
    GRSM and bounded on the southeast side by the Parkway. The Ravensford
    tract is situated with both the Parkway and over one-half mile of GRSM
    land separating it from the Qualla Boundary to the southeast. Removing
    the tract from the park would create a private in holding almost
    completely surrounded by national park land.
        For that reason the route of the Parkway became a significant
    factor in NPS removing the Ravensford tract from the negotiating table.
    With the original proposal, the Parkway would have come down the west
    side of the ridge along Soco Creek, following a path that did not
    overlap with GRSM. Writing in 1940, GRSM Superintendent J.R. Eakin
    discussed, in pertinent part, the original rationale for the land
    exchange in the 1937 offer and how the NPS position had to change with
    the alternative route of the Blue Ridge Parkway:
            I initiated the exchange that was offered to the Indians in
            1937. The idea was to get a better administrative boundary for
            the park and to secure a right-of-way for the Parkway down Soco
            Creek, where construction costs would have been very much less
            than the location selected. We offered the Indians a value of
            about four-to-one, predicated upon the Soco Creek location. The
            Indians did not accept, and we here considered the matter
            ended. At the time the exchange was offered the site of the
            Secondary Administration Building [at Oconaluftee] had not been
            selected''. We are going to have a very fine layout there and I
            did state to Mr. Zimmerman [Acting

        Commissioner of the Indian Service] that in my opinion it would be
    unwise to complicate the situation by letting the Indians have the
    Ravensford tract. This is still my opinion and is the opinion of our
    entire staff. We believe the Parkway location has changed the whole
    picture.

        Mr. Zimmerman appears to be of the opinion that we are withholding
    something that rightfully belongs to the Indians. The North Carolina
    Parks Commission purchased the lands under discussion for park
    purposes.

        The present Cherokee entrance is not impressive and we proposed to
    exchange the Boundary Tree Tract, the northern boundary of which will
    make a more impressive entrance, unless the present deplorable
    development along the road in the Reservation continues on the Boundary
    Tree Tract if acquired by the Indians.

        In conclusion, I desire to state that I have made no misleading
    statements, but on the contrary, Mr. Zimmerman is badly confused.
    30
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Memorandum dated August 8, 1940 from Superintendent J. R.
    Eakin to Acting Director NPS Demaray.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recent History (1970--Present)
        Since 1971, leaders of EBCI have periodically approached NPS
    requesting that up to 200 acres of the Ravensford tract be made
    available to the tribe. NPS consistently rejected EBCI's request for a
    land exchange. For many years EBCI requested the land to build an 18-
    hole golf course. Writing to Noah Powell, Principal Chief EBCI, in 1972
    GRSM Superintendent Vincent Ellis explained the NPS position. Ellis
    pointed to a set of reasons for the denial including:
        1. LPolicies for the administration of natural areas of the
    National Park System. Moving the developed area into the natural area
    in effect diminishes the attraction, which brings the visitors here. It
    would also reduce the perimeter of the Great Smoky Mountains natural
    and historic area and open the door to further such requests at other
    entrances to the park. These requests usually originate in response to
    needs generated by inadequate land use planning adjacent to the park.
        2. LVisual impact from Blue Ridge Parkway.
        Immediately above the proposed golf course area two scenic
    overlooks have been established on the Blue Ridge Parkway specifically
    to provide the visitor views of the pastoral scene including the open
    meadows, the natural river environment, and the Oconaluftee historic
    farmstead in the background. I do not think that a golf course in this
    location is compatible with the historic and pastoral scene we are
    attempting to maintain in the Ravensford-Oconaluftee area.
    31
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Letter dated February 22, 1972 from Superintendent Vincent
    Ellis to the Honorable Noah Powell, Principal Chief.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Cherokee continued to request the Ravensford tract for a golf
    course. A memorandum to George Hertzog, Jr., Director NPS, from David
    Thompson, Director SE Regional Office NPS on November 16, 1972 sets out
    his recommendation that NPS not support a land exchange with EBCI.
    Thompson provides a list of reasons for this denial:
            The land within the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains
            National Park have been set aside for all the people to use and
            still preserve the natural, historical and cultural values.
            Certain of these Ravensford lands are classed as cultural and
            historical. Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and
            Executive Order 11593 apply to portions of this land.
            32
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ Memorandum dated November 16, 1972. To Director, NPS, from
    Director Southeast Region.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In reaction to a subsequent EBCI request for the land, NPS
    requested that the park's historian, Edward Trout, analyze the
    feasibility of conducting a land exchange involving the Ravensford
    tract. A memorandum produced by Trout in 1991 explains his
    determination that NPS cannot conduct the land exchange and includes
    the following:
            It should be noted that the land in question lies within the
            Oconaluftee Archeological District, which was placed on the
            National Register of Historic Places on February 19, 1982. It
            was placed thereon because of the valuable store of Cherokee
            and pre-Cherokee archeological resources contained within the
            District. 33
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Memorandum dated March 4, 1991. To Chief Resource Management
    and Science, from Historian, GRSM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A Great Smoky Mountains National Park Briefing Statement on the
    Ravensford land exchange followed that memo. NPS's stated position is
    ``The National Park Service strongly opposes cutting into the Park to
    construct a golf course.'' 34
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ GRSM Briefing Statement re. Proposed Transfer of Park Lands to
    Cherokee Indian Reservation, dated March 5, 1991.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EBCI established a Harrah's Casino in Cherokee, NC, in the early
    1990s. It is assumed that with this revenue stream, EBCI shifted its
    priority to improving its school system. In 1994, the tribe requested a
    land transfer for the construction of new schools.
        NPS officials have made it clear that no pre-decision on the land
    exchange has been made. This issue came to the forefront when Yosemite
    Superintendent David Mihalic chose to retire rather than take the
    Superintendent position at GRSM. Mihalic spoke to the press explaining
    that he was getting pressure from NPS officials. Quoted in the
    Asheville Citizen-Times Mihalic stated:
            ``I was told that one of the reasons that (Michael) Tollefson
            (current Smokies superintendent) was being moved was that he
            hadn't done it (the land swap), and it was my job to get it
            done,'' Yosemite Superintendent David Mihalic said Friday. ``My
            charge in going to the Smokies wasn't to go in there and fight
            that direction.''

            Mihalic says he also was asked to tackle the controversial
            North Shore Road--a project the park historically has opposed.
            He announced this week he would retire Jan. 3 rather than take
            on the tasks. 35
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ Asheville Citizen-Times, Man turns back on park job and its
    controversies, October 5, 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also quoted in that October 5, 2002 Asheville Citizen-Times article
    was National Park Service Spokesman David Barna.
            National Park Service spokesman David Barna said there has been
            no ``pre-decision'' on either the North Shore Road or the
            Ravensford land swap.
        It is our understanding that EBCI have yet to purchase the non-
    Federal land that is proposed for the land exchange. According to
    Jackson County, North Carolina records the property is still owned by
    Jay Schenck of Florida. 36 According to Jackson County
    records the land value is assessed at $58,400. 37 This is in
    sharp contrast to the NPS appraisal value cited by EBCI in a letter to
    the editor of the Washington Post that states ``The land the Park
    Service would receive in exchange, the 218-acre Yellow Face site, was
    appraised at $590,000. 38
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ Warranty Deed, Book Number 758, Page 132, Jackson County
    Register of Deeds. Registered June 25, 1990.
        \37\ Real Property Identity Results, Jackson County Maps
    Department, May 19, 2003.
        \38\ The Washington Post, Good for the Cherokee, Good for the Park
    Service, letter to the editor from Principal Chief Leon Jones, October
    21, 2002, pg. A 24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Access Between Big Cove and Qualla Boundary
        Another of the reasons that EBCI have stated for their request for
    the Ravensford tract is to reconnect the community of Big Cove with the
    rest of the Qualla Boundary communities. The mountainous topography in
    western North Carolina provides a limited number of suitable routes for
    roads through the area. By the 1960s the road system in and around the
    Qualla Boundary included the paved Big Cove Road, approximately one
    mile of which runs through GRSM. NPS has worked with EBCI providing the
    tribe with the authority to maintain Big Cove Road and providing right-
    of-way through the park for water, sewer, cable TV and electricity
    along the Big Cove Road corridor to service the community of Big Cove.
    EBCI have not articulated any problems with access to Big Cove as a
    result of the stretch of Big Cove Road that passes through the park.
    Conclusion
        NPCA stands ready to work with the Resources Committee, the
    National Park Service and EBCI to devise a solution that both protects
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway and
    provides Cherokee children with the best possible educational
    opportunities. Both of these goals can be satisfied. Unfortunately, the
    legislation before you does not produce such a solution.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify about this important
    issue. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you. Thank the panel for their
    testimony. As I am sure you are aware, we have a vote that has
    been called on the House floor. We are going to recess the
    Committee temporarily to allow the members to go over and vote,
    and then we will reconvene as soon as the votes re complete. So
    it will probably be about 25 minutes that we are over there,
    but we will be back as soon as we can.
        I will tell the members that I know a number of you have
    questions for this panel, so if you can hurry back, it would
    help in moving this along.
        The Committee will stand in recess.
        [Recess.]
        The Chairman. I want to thank the panel for their patience.
        Chief Jones, what are the plans that the tribe has for the
    use of this land? We have heard about the building of an
    educational facility on the land. Are there any other plans
    that you have or that you envision for the future on this land?
        Mr. Leon Jones. There is only one other use that we have
    discussed, sir, and that is the corridor for transportation
    back and forth between the Big Cove community, which has been
    cutoff from the reservation by this piece of property. I have
    personally told the parties involved that I would sign any
    document needed to say that this piece of property will be used
    for educational purposes only, sir, no other use except
    transportation through to go to the Big Cove area, sir.
        The Chairman. What if at sometimes in the future there is
    economic activity? I understand that the bill specifically says
    that there could be no gaming, but what if at sometime in the
    future there is some other type of economic development that
    could occur on this land? Would that be a possibility?
        Mr. Leon Jones. No, sir. I have expressed that I would sign
    the document saying that it is to be used for educational
    purposes only, sir. The Cherokee are honorable people. We will
    keep our word, sir.
        The Chairman. I want to ask you about the environmental
    questions that have come up. I don't know if you are familiar
    with it, but there is a group called the Sierra Club that has
    come out in opposition to this. They sent out a letter talking
    about this. Does your tribe have a history of environmental
    degradation? Do you have a long history of destroying the
    environment around you?
        Mr. Leon Jones. Sir, we have a Cultural and Heritage
    Department. The employees of this department, some of them have
    doctor degrees, others have master's degrees. Their specialty
    is preserving the lands and the archaeological sites, not only
    on the reservation. They have been called, when they were going
    to expand the Marine Corps base in South Carolina, that far
    away, up into Kentucky, for their advice and their counsel on
    how to preserve cultural and archaeological sites. No, sir. To
    answer your question, the answer is no, we do not have a
    history of doing destruction to the land, but only preserving
    the land, sir.
        The Chairman. On the culturally significant sites, the
    archaeological sites, it is my understanding from your answer
    that you don't have a long history of destroying those sites
    either?
        Mr. Leon Jones. That is correct, sir.
        The Chairman. That is interesting.
        Mr. Blankenship, can you tell the Committee what current
    educational opportunities exist for students on the reservation
    or nearly the reservation?
        Mr. Blankenship. There is a public school system in the
    county schools, which some of our students are forced to attend
    because of the overcrowding and conditions at Cherokee Central
    Schools, but as far as education goes, Cherokee schools strive
    for excellence in their school system. We have a number of
    students with us today who are going off to college to pursue
    their own academic careers, so the support is there, but the
    facilities that we have now are not conducive to learning and
    conducive to supporting these students at the facility.
        And also if I may, I would like to make a comment on the
    land. We, as Cherokee people, have lived off that land for
    thousands of years, and to say that we go and destroy that land
    is far from the truth.
        The Chairman. Well, let me ask you then. Do you have any
    attachment to the land? Do you care about it at all? do you
    have any history in the area? Have your people been there for a
    number of years and tried to protect this land?
        Mr. Blankenship. My people have been there for thousands of
    years and because of our commitment to the United States we
    were willing to give up that land for the Blue Ridge Parkway to
    come through, because of our commitment to the United States
    and being United States citizens. I mean we haven't even been
    citizens of the United States for a number of years now. To say
    that we would go and destroy something that is sacred to us,
    something that we have lived off of for thousands of years,
    goes against everything that Native American Indians and
    Cherokee people stand for.
        The Chairman. Does that include the riparian areas along
    the river, any sites that may be environmentally sensitive?
        Mr. Blankenship. There are currently 14 archaeological
    sites on the Ravensford tract, 12 of which will not be touched
    at all. The two that will be disturbed are Cherokee sites and
    you can be assured that we will take every precaution necessary
    to observe those remains because those are our people.
        The Chairman. So the two sites that would be disturbed are
    historically Cherokee sites?
        Mr. Blankenship. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. And I would assume from your answer that you
    do have some interest in preserving and protecting those areas?
        Mr. Blankenship. Absolutely. I mean, this serves not only
    for our tribe as a whole, but also allows our students to be
    involved in our history and participating in things like
    archaeological digs and things of that nature. The tribe has
    committed itself to spending the money and taking the time to
    preserve these sites and ensure that none of these remains are
    lost.
        The Chairman. So it would be part of the educational
    opportunities?
        Mr. Blankenship. Absolutely.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Kildee?
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to
    ask unanimous consent to submit a document replying to the
    National Park Conservation Association's testimony from the
    Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation.
        The Chairman. Excuse me. Who is it from?
        Mr. Kildee. It is from the Eastern Band Cherokee.
        The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                        The Truth about NPCA's Testimony
                       from the eastern band of cherokee

                                 JUNE 18, 2003

        NPCA makes false claims in its testimony.
        Let's examine the facts:
        NPCA Myth: If the proposed schools are built, among other things,
    ``school busses would have to navigate the principal North Carolina
    entrance to our nation's most visited national park.''
            FACT: Our education center would be built across the river on a
            road that is physically separated from the main entrance to the
            Park. There would be no busses navigating that entrance, nor
            any impact on the views from the Park entrance.
        NPCA Myth: There are large parcels of land suitable for school
    facilities on the Cherokee Reservation.
            FACT: It takes more than 70 open acres of land to adequately
            site the school complex we need. NPCA has identified no such
            parcel available in or near Cherokee. The sites discussed in
            the Tribe's Business District Master Plan are not large enough
            to build the school complex, or even a single school. The one
            large parcel we have located to the south of the Reservation is
            not available for us to purchase, despite repeated contacts
            with the many owners of that land.
        NPCA Myth: ``The [Ravensford] tract includes approximately 7 acres
    of wetland.''
            FACT: We have worked carefully with NPS to exclude all 7 acres
            of wetland, along with a buffer, from the exchange site. That
            wetland will remain in NPS ownership and protection. We have
            offered to help NPS restore this long neglected and disturbed
            wetland. The Yellow Face Tract also has approximately 7 acres
            of high elevation wetland seeps that will be preserved under
            NPS protection upon approval of the land exchange.
        NPCA Myth: ``The Ravensford tract was flooded during the recent
    severe rains during the week of May 5, 2003.''
            FACT: We did have a flood on the Oconaluftee River during the
            week of May 5, 2003 but flood waters did not even reach the
            Ravensford fields, much less the proposed school building site,
            which is located above the 100-year flood plain.
        NPCA Myth: The Education Campus Site Evaluation was ``poorly done''
    based on ``hand-picked'' criteria.
            FACT: The site evaluation was done by independent professional
            engineers based on objective criteria.
        NPCA Myth: The Park Service has, until recently, opposed the
    Ravensford land exchange.
            FACT: In 1940, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs sent a
            representative to negotiate with the Tribe, and he reached an
            agreement, including exchange of the Ravensford tract, that was
            satisfactory to the Tribe and the National Park Service, among
            other parties. Sen. Report No. 1491, p. 2 (1940). Without
            notice to the Tribe, that agreement was changed on the floor of
            the Senate.
        NPCA Myth: NPCA implies that the Eastern Band has a hidden agenda,
    based on past efforts to acquire the property.
            FACT: The Tribe has negotiated in good faith to restrict the
            development of the Ravensford tract to educational purposes, in
            a manner that will protect the environment. As noted in the
            Administration's testimony, those carefully negotiated
            restrictions are included in H.R. 1409.
        NPCA Myth: The Yellow Face Tract is owned by a resident of Florida.
            FACT: For almost two years, the Eastern Band has had an option
            to purchase the Yellow Face Tract from its former owner, hoping
            to complete the study process before having to exercise that
            option. The option was due to expire this Spring, so the Tribe
            exercised the option, and closed on the purchase.
        NPCA Myth: The Yellow Face Tract is worth less than the Eastern
    Band claims.
            FACT: An appraiser selected from a list provided by the
            National Park Service has appraised the Yellow Face Tract at
            $590,000, using applicable Federal appraisal standards. He
            considered a number of relevant factors, including recent sales
            of similar tracts near the Parkway, and did not rely on the
            county tax value cited simplistically by NPCA. Using those same
            appraisal standards, the Ravensford tract has a significantly
            lower fair market value.
        NPCA Myth: The Tribe does not need to reunify its boundary; it has
    access to the Big Cove Community.
            FACT: Access is not the only issue at stake in jurisdictional
            integrity. For purposes of maintaining a Tribal community, it
            is important for the Eastern Band to reestablish the connection
            to Big Cove that was taken when it was severed by the Blue
            Ridge Parkway. For the same fundamental reason, the Eastern
            Band needs to build an education center in the heart of its
            territory on the Ravensford tract.
        NPCA Myth: H.R. 1409 will ``short circuit'' the Environmental
    Impact Statement process.
            FACT: The Draft EIS has been published and it finds no
            impairment of NPS resources from the land exchange. The Eastern
            Band has made a commitment with NPS to complete the EIS
            process, has spent $1.5 million to date on the process, and
            will honor its commitment.
                                     ______

        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief Jones, in your testimony you reference a situation
    about 60 years ago where the tribe tried to acquire this land
    but Congress changed the legislation at the last minute. What
    exactly happened there? You had been told that that land would
    be yours?
        Mr. Leon Jones. At the time the Blue Ridge Parkway was
    going to be built through our reservation. The tribe and U.S.
    Government made an agreement, after much time and haggling.
    There was a right-of-way planned and given. Along with that
    right-of-way, the Cherokee were to be given the right to
    purchase Ravensford. It was in the bill when it came to
    Washington. When the bill came to be heard, a Senator, I
    believe it was, from Oklahoma, asked that that part,
    Ravensford, be deleted from the bill. So the legislation
    passed. The Blue Ridge Parkway was built. We were allowed to
    buy the Boundary Tree tract, which was the other part that we
    were going to be able to have, but they took the Ravensford
    Tract out of the legislation. That was the second time it was
    taken from us.
        The first time was many years before, 1938, at the time of
    the Trail of Tears. This property has belonged to us for many,
    many years, sir.
        Mr. Kildee. You mentioned 1938. I make it part of my job to
    read treaties. I remember several years ago reading the Treaty
    of Detroit, how they treated the Michigan Indians and how very
    often they made the Indians follow the treaty but the U.S.
    Government did not always follow the treaty.
        You have been really more than patient in this whole
    situation. I think you have been long suffering on this. Can
    you go into more detail as to how you plan to mitigate
    environmental concerns on that land?
        Mr. Leon Jones. The tribe has already spent $1.5 million on
    mitigation of these sites, on exploring them. We have also
    committed to another $3 million to expand on the sites that
    remain and the ones that will be disturbed. So our commitment
    is firm. Our commitment will be honored and all of the sites on
    this property will be taken care of in the manner and the
    dignity that they should be treated, sir.
        Mr. Kildee. Mr. Blankenship, if you were a Michigan Indian,
    belonged to a Michigan tribe, under a bill which I introduced
    probably 37 years ago in Michigan, which is still a law in
    Michigan, the Ottawa, the Chippewa, the Potawatomi can go to a
    public college in Michigan and the State pays the tuition. So
    maybe you can get that done in your State some day down there.
        Mr. Blankenship. Absolutely. I mean our tribe does an
    excellent job at getting us the funding to go to school, but.
        Mr. Kildee. Let me ask you, Mr. Blankenship, you seem to
    feel that it will be helpful to have all the schools situated
    on the same educational campus. Could you tell us why you think
    that might be helpful?
        Mr. Blankenship. Well, in all ties and aspects of our
    Cherokee culture and multigenerational and familial society and
    ways of the Cherokee people, so it is more or less a way for us
    to protect our identity by protecting our language and our
    culture by keeping it all in one area. Language is key to this
    culture, so we bring in native language speakers, like I
    mentioned in my testimony, where they are able to travel from
    students in one school to the next. We also have a situation
    set up where older students will be able to assist in the
    education of younger ones.
        Mr. Kildee. I always carry with me the Constitution of the
    United States, and Article I, Section 8 says, ``Congress shall
    have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and
    among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.'' That
    lists the three sovereignties right there in the Constitution,
    which is very, very important.
        I think two of the great anchors for sovereignty, one is
    land, that is a great anchor for your sovereignty. The other is
    language. Many of the tribes in my State have lost their
    language. Some are trying to recreate it, but I think you are
    on the right track, and you should get involved in Government
    some day yourself.
        Mr. Blankenship. Thank you.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Jones?
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, Thank you very
    much.
        Chief, let me ask you a question. The land that you propose
    swapping or exchanging with the Federal Government, you own
    that land, the Cherokees own that land; is that correct?
        Mr. Leon Jones. The Cherokee recently bought that land
    because the option we had on it was about to run out, and we
    thought it was so important that we keep this land available to
    make this exchange, that we went ahead and bought it, sir.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Barger was saying that
    there are other sites that possibly the school could be built
    on. Do you know if there are other sites that could even be
    considered that would be satisfactory?
        Mr. Leon Jones. There was a study done by an independent
    organization, sir, to see if there were other sites available.
    They came up with two sites that would be likely candidates for
    schools like we want to build. One of them was off the
    reservation, very close to the reservation. We inquired of the
    owners, and there were multiple owners. They were not
    interested in selling, sir, so that was not an option. The
    other property they said was suitable was the Ravensford
    property, sir. Those were the only two sites available.
    Anything else would have been miles away and too far to
    transport our children.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Let me ask you, how long have
    the Cherokee Indians been trying to get the Federal Government
    to work with them so that this new school could be built?
        Mr. Leon Jones. I can only speak for myself, sir. I have
    been in office 4 years. I came up in the first 6 months of my
    administration, and have been working very diligently since
    that time.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Let me ask you one other
    question. I want to pick up on what Ms. Christensen was asking
    earlier with the first panel. Once you get the go ahead how
    long would it take to construct the school?
        Mr. Leon Jones. If we were to get the go ahead in the very
    near future, we could probably build an elementary school in
    the next 3 years or so, and then it would take a little longer
    to build the middle school and high school, sir.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say
    to Mr. Blankenship, as you go to NC State, home of the
    Wolfpack, I wish you well. I know you will do extremely well in
    the classroom.
        And thank you, all three, for being here today. Thank you.
        Mr. Blankenship. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Pallone?
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just wanted to say to the Chairman of Eastern Band that I
    am a cosponsor of the bill and I support the bill and am
    prepared to vote for the bill when the Committee considers it,
    but I wanted to mention a couple of things and then ask two
    brief questions.
        One is, my feeling very strongly is that you have a bit of
    a crisis here in the sense that you have overcrowding, you have
    an old and dilapidated school. You need to move quickly to get
    this done, and I feel very strongly that we should do whatever
    we can to move the process forward for those reasons, not to
    mention what Mr. Kildee said about the issue of sovereignty. I
    feel kind of strange even sitting here and sort of presiding
    over the issue about whether or not you should be able to build
    the school on traditional Cherokee lands. I know that we are
    authorized to rule on that as Members of Congress, but it seems
    to me that every should be made to give the benefit of the
    doubt to you and what you feel is best.
        Two questions I have, and one of them, Mr. Barger, talked
    about alternative sites, but my understanding is that none of
    the alternative sites that have been identified are really
    suitable in terms of the amount of land, and so there really
    isn't an alternative at this point. Would you just comment on
    that briefly?
        Mr. Leon Jones. Yes, sir. The present elementary school is
    on a 9-acre site. To be an accredited school the Southern
    Association of Schools and Colleges requires that elementary
    schools the size that we need, has to be on 15 acres of more,
    sir. So even if we were to level the school that we have, we
    could not build new schools on it and be accredited because it
    is only a 9-acre site, sir, and besides it being in a very
    dangerous place, downtown Cherokee with much traffic going by
    it.
        So it would take a piece of property the size of Ravensford
    to meet the criteria of the Southern Schools and Colleges, so
    like is aid a few minutes ago, the only other sites available
    are off the reservation, and we would have been willing to
    purchase them had they been available. The one site that was
    close enough and suitable was not for sale, sir.
        Mr. Pallone. Then the second question, again briefly I will
    ask it, I understand that, again, Mr. Barger was making the
    point that this process should proceed administratively and
    suggests that there is no need for a bill. I assume the reason
    why you want this bill passed is because of the need to act
    quickly, that if you don't pass the bill it is going to take
    too long, and the problems that you have with overcrowding and
    bad conditions will just continue. But if you would just
    address that, the reason we need the bill versus just moving
    administratively.
        Mr. Leon Jones. You are exactly right, sir. The
    administrative way is an option and might be successful in the
    long run and it is a long arduous process. After that, sir, if
    it were, then the people who oppose this land exchange could
    take it to court then and tie it up for many more years, so
    we're talking at a minimum 10 to 12 years to get through the
    objections. My children don't deserve that, sir. The people who
    are opposing us, I am sure that most of them may not be
    wealthy, but affluent, they send their children to the finest
    schools available to them, to their children, the best that
    they can afford. That is what I am asking for my children, sir,
    the best that we can afford. Why they oppose my children going
    to the best schools they can afford, I do not understand, sir.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Ms. Christensen.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to welcome the Chief and Mr. Blankenship for
    being here, as well as Mr. Barger from the NPCA.
        Chief, I would like to ask you the first question just to
    follow up on the issue of alternative schools. Could you
    address the issue that has been raised in other testimony that
    maybe there were some areas identified in the Cherokee business
    development plan that might have been available for schools?
    Could you address that, the alternatives?
        Mr. Leon Jones. Yes, ma'am. As I just stated, it takes many
    acres to build schools. It takes very small acreage to do
    business, ma'am. If you build a restaurant you may only need
    one acre or an acre and a half. If you want to build a motel,
    you might only need an acre, an acre and a half or two acres.
    Yes, there are such available for business, and I agree
    wholeheartedly, but I do not agree that there are sites that
    are suitable for schools. The size is the limitation.
        Mrs. Christensen. The size, thank you. And as you have
    planned and done some studies around the possibility of putting
    a school there, do you believe that you can build a structure
    that would not be extremely intrusive on the park, that would
    blend in and maybe even enhance the park in some way?
        Mr. Leon Jones. Yes, ma'am. There is a long arduous plan,
    and I have parts of it here. I will not take the time of this
    Committee. But it talks about buildings being very low
    structures, being of toned-down colors to match the area, to
    the roofs not being of the metal type where they reflect light,
    being of the asphalt type where they will not be seen.
        Also the parts of this piece of property that are visible
    from the Blue Ridge Parkway--this chart, ma'am, the use of the
    Blue Ridge Parkway here, the trees and the terrain will not
    allow the schools to be seen from this portion. The other site,
    this is visible, this part is visible from Blue Ridge Parkway,
    and we have agreed not to build anything on that part where it
    can be seen. So these buildings will be of low tone, low
    buildings. There are only about 8 football games played a year,
    and someone has mentioned the light from them. The Blue Ridge
    Parkway closes for part of that time. The winters come on,
    snows are on them, so the lights have been toned down and only
    will be used about 8 times a year to where they might be seen
    from the Parkway. And most of those are during the wintertime
    when the Parkway is closed.
        Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Barger, one of the concerns--and you
    have said that the exchange is controversial. One of the
    concerns that brings us to the point of doing legislation
    around this is the concern that the NPCA and other groups might
    sue once the report is out. Is that a mistaken belief or is
    that a real possibility?
        Mr. Barger. Our position is that the exchange bill is
    premature because we want to have the administrative process,
    that is, the examination of the facts and the environmental
    impact statement move forward. We in fact agree with Assistant
    Director Jones, who spoke earlier, that probably if something
    is to be effectuated, legislation is the best way to do it in
    the long run, and that would eliminate in fact any lawsuits.
        Mrs. Christensen. I don't think I have any further
    questions, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Inslee.
        Mr. Inslee. Chief Jones, I first got involved in politics
    trying to build a high school on kind of a rocky, slopey area,
    so I'm real sensitive to your desires to try to get a new
    school built, but it sounds like one of the important issues
    here is what alternatives may exist, and so I want to ask you
    about that. Would the tribe have a realistic alternative of
    building three separate schools as it has now? Do you have that
    alternative available to you, do you think? But realizing that
    is not your desire. I understand that.
        Mr. Leon Jones. You have to have pretty good size pieces of
    land even to build an individual school. The sites of both of
    our schools--the middle school and the high school are
    combined--are not large enough. There are not sites--have you
    ever visited on our property, sir, may I ask you?
        Mr. Inslee. I haven't. I am sorry about that. I want to
    come.
        Mr. Leon Jones. We live in very small valleys in very
    steep--most of our land stands on its side, and that is not
    conducive to building schools. One of the reasons we live in
    that is because back in the days that we acquired this land, no
    one else wanted it. It was too steep for any use, so
    consequently we were in very narrow valleys, and in those very
    narrow valleys our people live. Our businesses are built there
    and they are crowded. To acquire land large enough to build
    schools would be very difficult, sir, it not impossible.
        Mr. Inslee. Was that option evaluated? You referred to this
    study of an outside organization? Was that option evaluated?
        Mr. Leon Jones. I believe it was, sir. I won't give you a
    definite yes because I might not be telling the truth.
        Mr. Inslee. I think it would be helpful, at least to me, if
    you could share that study. We could look at it.
        Mr. Leon Jones. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Inslee. And then we might also ask Mr. Blankenship's
    organization to comment on that, specifically just to look at
    what alternatives exist, and I will tell you, to me this really
    is a difficult issue because we have two loves here, one for
    your children and two, our parks. And at least I am very
    cognizant of the dangers of a death by a thousand cuts to our
    park system because there are many sort of gateway communities
    that are growing up around our parks now because of the
    tremendous desire to go to the parks. And I can just see this
    coming from other communities as well who live in similar
    geographically constrained areas as yours. So I think this is a
    really important issue. And if you could perhaps provide us
    with that alternative study. Then we can ask Mr. Blankenship's
    group to comment on that. I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Blankenship, do you have any comments about--Mr.
    Barger, I am sorry.
        Mr. Barger. Yes. We would be happy to give you an analysis
    and comment on the alternatives analysis. We do believe that it
    was very, very limited in scope. It did not look at, and in
    fact, the entire process that the National Park Service
    initiated limited its ability to look at what are the best
    options for making sure that the Cherokee schools are the best
    they can be. Their options were wrapped around assuming that we
    do the exchange. We have a no-action alternative, don't so it,
    and then we have two proposals for doing it in two different
    ways. So the analysis that the Park Service did sprang out of
    there. The alternative site study that was done by the
    consulting firm that Chief Jones mentioned was very limited in
    scope, and we would be happy to give you the information that
    we have on it.
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Mr. Udall?
        Mr. Tom Udall. I would just thank the panel members. I
    don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Baca?
        Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am one of
    the cosponsors of the legislation. I think it is good
    legislation, and I appreciate the tribal chair's comment in
    terms of leaving no child behind. I think it is important that
    we create an atmosphere that is positive for a lot of the
    students. When you look at schools that are dilapidated, that
    puts kids in a very negative environment, and I think we have
    to put our kids in a positive environment where the schools are
    modernized. When we can deal with technology, we can deal with
    modernization. We can deal with conduit and others that need to
    be. If the children want to be competitive in the 21st century,
    it is important that our reservations have the same kind of
    schools that are being built outside of that area, and I think
    it is important that every one of children go into a position
    attitude, and positive attitudes are created when you have good
    schools and they feel good about that environment, and I think
    that is positive in building it, and I commend you in terms of
    that effort. I think having the three sites in that area is
    positive when you look at elementary, intermediate and then
    your high school too as well. I think it is positive in that
    area and I support this concept, especially as well look at
    self sufficiency in terms of Native Americans that have worked
    so hard to do this. And you have invested already $1.5 million
    in terms of the study that has already been conducted.
        When I look at alternatives sites and I look at the delay,
    now it will take 3 years. We are talking about 3 years to build
    the first elementary school. If another site was selected, what
    would be the time length of that, and has any money been
    invested at this point and who would invest that money then?
    Mr. Barger, my question is to you because you are the one that
    came up with the alternative site. There is already a site.
    There is already money that has been invested. Are you going to
    put up the money? Who is going to put up the additional money?
        Mr. Barger. The money that has been invested is a result of
    an agreement between the National Park Service and the Eastern
    Bank of Cherokee that they both entered into, what, 2 years
    ago, about 2 years ago, to do the investigation of the
    Ravensford site. So that money is essentially part of that
    agreement and not part of necessarily the search for a piece of
    land. This exchange would in fact, as I think has properly been
    characterized, would exchange one piece of land for another,
    and that would be the value that the Eastern Band would be
    essentially putting forth for the Ravensford site.
        If they were to choose an alternative site, they would be
    expected to put the money forth for that one instead.
        Mr. Baca. They would be, right?
        Mr. Barger. Certainly.
        Mr. Baca. They would. Not you or anyone else, so there is
    already money that has already been invested in this particular
    one site right now with an agreement. So it seems like all of a
    sudden we are talking about alternative sites that somebody
    else has to pay when yet money has been invested, and money is
    hard to come by, and yet we are saying because now Native
    Americans are self sufficient. They have gaming. All of a
    sudden we are saying, well, gee, they should be able to provide
    additional monies for additional sites. I don't know where the
    other sites are at. I don't know who is going to pick up the
    cost out there. We already know that money has already been
    invested.
        It seems that is the area that we should go in right now
    since the research has been done, the money has been invested.
    It is a positive site, and there is an agreement right now in
    terms of this particular site in exchange. I find it very
    difficult.
        Then your comments about let the administrative process,
    well, the administrative process, we don't know how long it is
    going to even take, when another school will be built, or is
    that another delay tactic of not allowing them to build a site
    right now? To me that is prolonging it, which means then a
    child then loses. And every child that grows in age loses from
    the time that that child is in an educational environment, and
    we should make sure that that child has that opportunity,
    because every year I keep getting older, and the same thing
    with a child. A child gets older every year, and every year
    that child loses an opportunity to be in a positive environment
    with self esteem, self motivation, and aspirations to be what
    he or she wants to be. We have got to create that kind of an
    atmosphere, not create the negative one.
        So it is difficult to say, we are overcrowded. Now, they
    have 800 and some students going to a school that only has
    capacity for 450 I believe.
        Mr. Leon Jones. 480, I believe.
        Mr. Baca. Somewhere in that neighborhood. But it seems like
    we should try to expedite this process and move the
    legislation. Legislation is the way to do it. Other than that,
    it is just another delay tactic, and we wait forever, and a
    child then is out of school, and before we know it, they are
    not competitive for the 21st century.
        Mr. Barger. I completely agree with the need to try to move
    forward and with what happens to generations of people. I think
    that the manner in which the United States of America has dealt
    with at least these schools--they are the only one with which I
    am familiar--is shameful. There is money to fix and renovate
    those schools that has not been spent for some time--
        Mr. Baca. But it becomes difficult because you cannot even
    lay the conduit in a lot of these schools right now. I have
    dealt with a lot of the school. Yet, when you can't put the
    conduit that means that you can't have technology, which means
    then that they can't be as competitive, which means they have
    to have it at home or somewhere else, and you are not creating
    that kind of an atmosphere where a lot of them can't afford
    that.
        Mr. Barger. Yes, sir, I completely understand. Our point in
    wanting to have the administrative process move forward is that
    2 years has been spent developing a very detailed environmental
    impact statement which contains a number of studies, and I am
    told, although I have not had a chance to see it yet, it is
    about an inch and a half thick. The delay has already happened.
    We have basically got the studies that are out there. The only
    time that is necessary in order to allow that process to play
    out, is just review those documents, receive public comment on
    those, and finalize the documents. So I think that it would be
    a mistake not to examine that information before we took the
    action, and that is the basis for our position.
        Mr. Baca. Let us go forward with the project.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I just had a couple of more questions, and then I will
    excuse the panel.
        Chief Jones, it was brought up in Mr. Barger's testimony, a
    question about the appraisal, and I believe that--and correct
    me if I am wrong--I believe that he said that the property that
    you were trying to get for the school was worth 6 million and
    what you purchased to trade was worth 58,000. I believe that is
    what he said. That is contrary to information that the
    Committee has received. Can you clear that up?
        Mr. Leon Jones. Yes, sir. In the first place, I am a real
    estate appraiser, sir. I let my license die, but I was a real
    estate appraiser before. We have certain standards that we had
    to meet, Federal standards. We went to school and met those
    standards, and one of those standards was honesty and
    integrity. The appraisals were done. They were done by a person
    in the last several years. He did it the way that we were
    taught in school. He got comparables that were sold in the area
    to show what it was worth on both properties. I resent the fact
    that an appraiser's integrity has been questioned. If those
    appraisals in the past were made--and I am sure they were, he
    would not have said not--maybe that was before we had the
    Federal regulation of appraisers.
        Today's market is not the same as yesterday's market. The
    appraisal was made recently, not in the past.
        The Chairman. It is your testimony then that the appraisals
    on the two pieces of property are equal or close to each other?
        Mr. Leon Jones. The Ravensford property was appraised at
    less value than the Yellow-Face property is, sir, and it is a
    larger piece of property.
        The Chairman. So it was less value?
        Mr. Leon Jones. The Ravensford is less than the piece we
    were proposing to give to the park.
        The Chairman. Can you tell me, and you may have told me
    this before and I forgot, but how old are those appraisals that
    were done?
        Mr. Leon Jones. They were updated within the last year,
    sir.
        The Chairman. So they are current.
        Mr. Leon Jones. Current by a competent appraiser.
        The Chairman. Mr. Barger, I understand from your testimony,
    from reviewing you testimony, that your opposition to this is
    taking the land out of the park, and without going through the
    process, the EIRs and all of that. Is that accurate? Is that
    the basis for the opposition?
        Mr. Barger. I would say that it would probably be more
    accurately characterized that we are opposed to the development
    of the site.
        The Chairman. No matter what?
        Mr. Barger. Yes, sir. It is the proposed development that
    we have before us and the impacts that we believe that would
    have on the national park, not just the site itself but on the
    surrounding national park, that lead us to oppose the bill that
    we have in front of us.
        The Chairman. So regardless of how the EIR or EIS, doctors
    checkup, no matter how they all come out, you are going to
    oppose it anyway.
        Mr. Barger. Not necessarily.
        The Chairman. Well, wait a minute. You just said that you
    opposed the development of the site.
        Mr. Barger. Right, and the reason is because we do
    believe--and this is from--I have also personally driven
    through the Qualla Boundary and the areas around and looked at
    the alternative sites. We do believe that there are in fact
    some alternatives that could and should be looked at thoroughly
    as part of the EIS examination process. I will tell you that if
    as a result of that process we became convinced that the
    Ravensford site is the only way to property provide for the
    schools that the Cherokee need, we would revisit our position
    immediately.
        The Chairman. Is it your position or the group that you
    represent's position to oppose this Committee taking
    legislative action?
        Mr. Barger. It is our suggestion that the bill before you
    now is premature. We do believe that if a land exchange of some
    type is the appropriate action, is determined to be the
    appropriate action, that legislative action would be the
    appropriate way to go.
        The Chairman. I am just trying to follow along with your
    position or your thinking on this, because it has been my
    experience that both in dealing with the Park Service and in
    dealing with the BIA, that we are not talking about months or a
    couple of years in order to get something done. It is multiple
    years that it takes.
        Mr. Barger. Yes, sir, and those years are behind us. We
    have, apparently, as I say, I haven't had a chance to see it
    yet, but we have the draft environmental impact statement
    supposedly being published. The Federal Register notice is
    supposed to go in the day after tomorrow I was informed.
        The Chairman. But that doesn't end the process.
        Mr. Barger. It does not end the process.
        The Chairman. We go through the comment period and the
    threatened lawsuits and--I mean you are looking at years before
    this thing gets done, and the Chief is concerned about his kids
    and his grandkids. I am more concerned about Mr. Blankenship's
    grandkids going to school.
        Mr. Barger. I think that concern is well placed. However,
    in this process we are close to the end of this process, and as
    I said, if in fact a--
        The Chairman. We are not anywhere near the end of this
    process. You know that.
        Mr. Barger. The process under NEPA, after a draft
    environmental impact statement is published, is to take public
    comment and then publish the final environmental impact
    statement and record of decision.
        What we would be looking at is the examination of the
    information that we get to do during the draft environmental
    impact statement. Then at that point this Committee and
    Congress can make a decision based on the information that is
    there, and that is literally all we are asking for.
        The Chairman. I thank you for your testimony. I thank the
    panel for their testimony, and I again apologize for the delay,
    and I appreciate your patience in sticking with us. Thank you
    all very much.
        I am going to excuse this panel. I will remind you that
    there will be written questions that several members had that
    will be submitted to you, and if you could answer those in a
    timely manner so that they can be included in the Committee
    record, I would appreciate it.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. I would like to call up our third panel to
    testify on H.R. 884, Mr. Felix Ike, Ms. Laura Piffero, and Mr.
    Raymond Yowell.
        If I could have you stand and I will administer the oath,
    and then we can start.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        The Chairman. To begin with, I want to thank this panel for
    your patience. I know this has been a long time and you have
    all been patiently waiting for your opportunity to testify, so
    I want to thank you for doing that. We are going to begin with
    Chairman Ike. In front of you we have the lights. The green
    light is a go, the yellow light is to sum up, and the red light
    is to stop. If you would try to keep your oral testimony to the
    5 minutes, your entire written testimony or other material that
    you would like to submit to the Committee will be included in
    the Committee record, but if you would try to maintain your
    oral testimony to the 5 minutes.
        Chairman Ike, we will begin with you.

      STATEMENT OF FELIX IKE, CHAIRMAN, TE-MOAK TRIBE OF WESTERN
                       SHOSHONE INDIANS OF NEVADA

        Mr. Ike. First of all, I want to thank the Committee for
    inviting me to do the testimony. This is an honor to come
    before the Resources Committee on a matter of great importance
    to the Western Shoshone people.
        I am Felix Ike, Chairman of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western
    Shoshone Indians of Nevada. Te-Moak represents the four Te-Moak
    communities of Elko, Battle Mountain, South Fork and Wells. Our
    tribal council represents over 2,500 enrolled members which is
    more than 65 percent of the nearly 3,700 identified people who
    are one-quarter or more Western Shoshone blood. Te-Moak is four
    bands, and under Federally recognized tribes at Fallon,
    Duckwater, Ely, Yomba, Duckvalley. All have legitimately
    elected and recognized councils. The people overwhelmingly
    voted in favor of the distribution of the trust funds.
        Te-Moak was the named claimant before the Indian Claims
    Commission. Thus this will be different than what the Western
    Shoshone National Council will say before this Committee. The
    Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada want the Committee to know
    that group has no legitimate authority to speak on behalf of
    Western Shoshone Indians except for a few individuals involved
    in that organization. They have no formal existence as a
    Shoshone Government within the recognized Western Shoshone
    communities. Nor are they recognized by the Federal Government
    as an American Indian tribe.
        The Western Shoshones once occupied a large area of the
    western part of the United States including parts of Nevada,
    Idaho, California and Utah. Our traditional way of life was
    closely connected with nature. Our land was abundant in
    resources including springs, streams and rivers, snow-covered
    mountains and valleys. Even the desert areas were full of plant
    and animal life.
        When the non-Indians came into our land, they depleted our
    natural resources, destroyed our way of life, and forced us to
    adopt their ways. Of the vast territory that was once our
    homeland, only a few small colonies, branches and reservations
    have been set aside for us. In the interest of our future
    generations we need to expand our land base to support our
    tribal population and provide a base for which we can develop
    greater self sufficiency. It is our understanding that this
    legislation will not prevent us from expanding our land base in
    the future. The Western Shoshones have always had a strong
    attachment to our land, which encompassed many millions of
    acres as described in Article V of the Treaty of Ruby Valley.
    Our people traditionally knew every valley and spring in our
    vast territory. Our land has always been at the center of our
    culture identity and way of life. Expanding our meager land
    base is essential for the health and vitality of our
    communities and for the survival of our culture.
        We ask Congress to consider the expansion of our land base
    to establish a permanent homeland for the Western Shoshone. We
    believe it was never the intent of Congress to leave the
    Western Shoshones homeless. Subsistence, hunting, fishing and
    gathering rights are of great importance to the Western
    Shoshone people. Our people hunt, fish and gather traditional
    food sources to supplement their diet. It is very important
    that Western Shoshones continue to have access to the
    traditional hunting, fishing and gathering areas, and that we
    continue to be able to hunt, fish and gather those traditional
    food sources which are part of our culture, our diet, a part of
    who we are.
        Many tribal members rely on these traditional food sources
    on a subsistence basis. Traditional medicines are made from
    native plants, and plant sources gathered throughout out
    aboriginal territory. These are also important to our people
    for health, culture and religious reasons.
        Our aboriginal lands were destroyed and poisoned by mining
    and toxic waste and other forms of abuse. The native animals
    and plants are disappearing from our lands that have suffered
    so much. Shoshones are the guardians of our environment. We
    traditionally practice a way of life that was in harmony with
    the earth. It is a part of our religion and a way of life to
    respect all forms of life. The land, the air, the water and
    animals, the birds and plants, are all interconnected and all
    depend upon each other for existence. We want our important
    hunting, fishing and gathering and spiritual areas to be set
    aside for us so that we can preserve them.
        In accepting the claims money, we are not giving up any
    hunting, fishing and gathering rights. Northeastern Nevada's
    economy is in a period of decline. With unemployment rising in
    and near the Te-Moak communities, economic development to
    increase our self sufficiency is very important to our
    communities. But our opportunities are very limited. Our need
    for Federally funded services will continue in the areas of
    education, health, housing, community development, social
    services, judicial services, law enforcement, environmental
    protection and other services necessary for a viable community.
    It is our understanding that this legislation to compensate the
    Western Shoshone for past wrong will in no way diminish the
    United States Government's obligation to continue to provide
    these services as needed for the health and well being of our
    people.
        I now ask you to support the Western Shoshone Claims
    Distribution Act, to distribute the claims awarded through
    Docket 326 K, 326A-1 and 326A-3, with the same language
    contained in S. 958 referred to House submitted during the
    107th Congress. That would maximize the chance of rapid passage
    by both houses of Congress.
        The Western Shoshones voted on three questions: whether or
    not to accept the claims money from Docket 326 K, whether
    tribal members of at least one-quarter degree Western Shoshone
    blood should be able to participate in the settlement, and
    whether or not 326A-1 and A-3 should be placed in an
    educational trust fund. The vote was 1,647 to 156 in favor of
    distribution; 1,601 to 196 in favor of tribal members with at
    least one-quarter degree of Western Shoshone blood
    participating; and 1,020 to 769 in favor of an educational
    trust fund. The majority of Western Shoshone voters clearly
    support distribution as described in the Western Shoshone
    Claims Distribution Act. It is the mandate of the people that
    we move forward in this process.
        This money was awarded so many years ago in an attempt to
    compensate the people for some of the wrongs that had been done
    to us. Too many of our tribal member have passed away without
    benefiting from the money that was set aside for them. Although
    it cannot fully compensate us for the loss of our land and way
    of life, the claims money may help to make life better for the
    trial members who receive a share. Te-Moak and the other
    Western Shoshone communities overwhelmingly voted for the
    distribution claims dollars. I believe they have waited long
    enough for this distribution.
        I thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ike follows:]

      Statement of Felix Ike, Chairman, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone
                         Indians of Nevada, on H.R. 884

        This is an honor to come before the Resource Committee on a matter
    of great importance to the Western Shoshone people. I am Felix Ike,
    Chairman of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada.
    Te-Moak represents the four Te-Moak Band communities of Elko, Battle
    Mountain, South Fork, and Wells.
        Our Tribal Council represents over 2500 enrolled members which is
    more than 65% of the nearly 3700 identified people who are 1/4 or more
    of Western Shoshone blood. Te-Moak, its four bands, and the other
    Federally recognized tribes at Duckwater, Ely, Yomba and Duckvalley all
    have legitimately elected and recognized councils. The people
    overwhelmingly voted in favor of distribution of the trust funds.
        Te-Moak was the named claimant before the Indian Claims Commission,
    thus this will be different than what the Western Shoshone National
    Council (says or said) before this Committee. The Western Shoshone
    Indians of Nevada want the Committee to know that group has no
    legitimate authority to speak on behalf of Western Shoshone Indians
    except for the few individuals involved in that organization. They have
    no formal existence as a Shoshone Government within the recognized
    Western Shoshone communities, nor are they recognized by the Federal
    government as an American Indian Tribe.
        The Western Shoshone Nation once occupied a large area of the
    western part of the United States, including parts of Nevada, Idaho,
    California and Utah. Our traditional way of life was closely connected
    with nature. Our land was abundant in resources, including springs,
    streams and rivers, snow-covered mountains and rich valleys, and even
    the desert areas which were full of plant and animal life. When the
    non-Indians came into our land, they depleted the natural resources,
    destroyed our way of life, and forced us to adopt their ways. Of the
    vast territory that was once our homeland, only a few small colonies,
    ranches and reservations have been set aside for our use. In the
    interests of our future generations, we need to expand our land base to
    support our tribal population and provide a base from which we can
    develop greater self-sufficiency. It is our understanding that this
    legislation will not prevent us from expanding our land base in the
    future.
        The Western Shoshone have always had a strong attachment to our
    land, which encompassed many millions of acres as described in Article
    V of the Treaty of Ruby Valley. Our people traditionally knew every
    valley and spring in our vast territory, and our land has always been
    at the center of our cultural identity and way of life. Expanding our
    meager land base is essential for the health and vitality of our
    communities and for the survival of our culture. We ask Congress to
    consider the expansion of our land base to establish a permanent
    homeland for the Western Shoshone. We believe it was never the intent
    of Congress to leave the Western Shoshones homeless.
        Subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering rights are of great
    importance to the Western Shoshone people. Our people hunt, fish and
    gather traditional food sources to supplement their diet. It is very
    important that Western Shoshones continue to have access to traditional
    hunting, fishing, and gathering areas, and that we continue to be able
    to hunt, fish and gather those traditional food sources which are part
    of our culture and our diet, a part of who we are. Many tribal members
    rely on these traditional food sources on a subsistence basis.
    Traditional medicines are made from native plant sources gathered
    throughout our aboriginal territory, and these are also important to
    our people for health, cultural, and religious reasons.
        Our aboriginal lands were destroyed and poisoned by mining, toxic
    waste, and other forms of abuse. The native animals and plants are
    disappearing from lands that have suffered from so much abuse.
    Shoshones are the guardians of our environment. We traditionally
    practiced a way of life that was in harmony with the earth. It is a
    part of our religion and way of life to respect all forms of life. The
    land, the air, the water, the animals, the birds and plants are all
    interconnected and all depend upon each other for existence. We want
    our important hunting, fishing, gathering, and spiritual areas to be
    set aside for us so that we can preserve them. In accepting the claims
    money, we are not giving up any hunting, fishing or gathering rights.
        Northeastern Nevada's economy is in a period of decline, with
    unemployment rising in and near the Te-Moak Tribal communities.
    Economic development to increase our self-sufficiency is very important
    for our communities, but our opportunities are very limited. Our need
    for Federally funded services will continue in the areas of education,
    health, housing, community development, social services, judicial
    services, law enforcement, environmental protection, and other services
    necessary for a viable community. It is our understanding that this
    legislation to compensate the Western Shoshone for past wrongs will in
    no way diminish the United States government's obligation to continue
    to provide all these services as needed for the health and well-being
    of our people.
        I now ask you to support the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution
    Act to distribute the claims awarded through Docket 326 K, 326 A-1 and
    326 A-3 with the same language contained in S958 RFH submitted during
    the 107th Congress. That would maximize the chance of rapid passage by
    both houses of the Congress.
        The Western Shoshone voted on three questions- whether or not to
    accept the claims money from docket 326K, whether tribal members of at
    least 1/4 degree of Western Shoshone blood should be able to
    participate in the settlement, and whether or not 326A-1 and A-3 should
    be placed in an educational trust fund. The vote was 1647 to 156 in
    favor of distribution, 1601 to 196 in favor of tribal members with at
    least 1/4 degree of Western Shoshone blood participating, and 1020 to
    769 in favor of the educational trust fund. The majority of Western
    Shoshone voters clearly support distribution as described in Western
    Shoshone claims distribution Act. It is the mandate of the people that
    we move forward on this process.
        This money was awarded so many years ago in an attempt to
    compensate the people for some of the wrongs that have been done to us.
    Too many of our tribal members have passed away without benefiting from
    money that was set aside for them. Although it cannot fully compensate
    us for the loss of our land and way of life, the claims money may help
    to make life better for the tribal members who receive a share. The Te-
    Moak Tribe and other Western Shoshone communities overwhelmingly voted
    to support the distribution of the claims money. I believe they have
    waited long enough for it to be distributed.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.015

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Piffero?

           STATEMENT OF LAURA L, PIFFERO, LEAD CO-CHAIRMAN,
        WESTERN SHOSHONE CLAIMS DISTRIBUTION STEERING COMMITTEE

        Ms. Piffero. Good afternoon. I am grateful to the Resource
    Committee for authorizing this hearing and for the support of
    our Nevada Congressmen, Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Porter, thank you.
        I am Laura Piffero, Lead Co-Chairman of the Western
    Shoshone Claims Steering Committee. We support H.R. 884 and
    represent the majority opinion. 91 percent of the Shoshones
    voted on 7 reservations to distribute their 1977 court award,
    the last of 5 Shoshone Treaty claims in the United States and
    the last major tribe in Nevada to be compensated for losses
    sustained.
        The Senate, after markup of a companion bill passed in the
    107th, created differences. We would like to propose minor
    amendments as specified in the written testimony Section 2(2),
    certain individuals ineligible, to add the words, ``Based upon
    aboriginal land claim.'' Section 3 on the Administrative
    Committee, (2)(A) and (2)(B) and (2)(B)(v) to be comprised
    exclusively of Western Shoshone's, due to its tribes, and to
    add Section 5 on regulations.
        I will speak about the factors that have led to the
    majority support of this bill, the good, the bad and the ugly.
    It is a brief overview about the Shoshones, their years of
    involvement in the Federal courts, their political and cultural
    distinctiveness, and how they were impacted by the 1863 Treaty
    of Ruby Valley.
        Despite a period of suffering during U.S. land expansion,
    the Shoshones are loyal to this country and fought for America
    in foreign wars. Culturally the Shoshones were a peaceful
    people and struggled to adapt to a changing world and to
    cooperate with their new neighbors. Western Shoshone aboriginal
    territories covered two-thirds of Nevada. They became a captive
    tribe due to no major battle with encroaching immigrants. The
    Shoshones feel the 1863 Treaty had too many concessions and
    placed the people in a downward spiral of poverty. In 1863 the
    Shoshones group in the west signed treaties of peace, of
    friendship, giving the U.S. the right to engage in multiple
    uses of Shoshone land. The Shoshone Treaty signed in Ruby
    Valley was two pages in length.
        It has been argued there were treaties of succession, as
    Article II through IV gave the land for military post,
    telegraph, railways, mining, agricultural settlement and
    timbering. Article VI changed the Shoshone's historical use of
    the land. The reservations, whenever the President of the
    United States deemed it expedient, reservations were to be
    established within the country above described. One was the
    Carbon Farms, later moved to Duckvalley outside of the country
    designated. Severe hardship and starvation fell upon Shoshones
    during this period of displacement and adaptation. Article VII
    promised as full compensation $5,000 for 20 years for the
    inconvenience resulting from the occupation of others,
    privileges conceded and adherence to the treaty.
        Article VIII acknowledged the receipt of provisions and
    clothing upon signing. Although the Supreme Court determined
    the award had been accepted by the Secretary of the Interior on
    behalf of the Western Shoshone over 26 years ago, payment has
    never been distributed.
        Sixty-seven years ago, 1951, Article V became the vehicle
    of injustice by which the Shoshones entered 26 years of
    litigation under the 1946 Indian Claims Commission Act. Final
    judgment was reached in 1977 and determined the Shoshones lost
    their land by gradual encroachment.
        Had the Shoshones not filed this case in 1951, there would
    be no court award today. 11 years after the claim was filed,
    minority dissidents attempted to halt the proceedings.
    Unsuccessful, they tried to stop the 1979 appropriation. Due to
    political instability no common distribution plan was developed
    in 1981 as required under the 1973 Indian Judgment Funds Act.
        In 1974 the dissidents supported Danns' cattle trespass
    case as the defense project to the Supreme Court. It lasted 15
    years. Minority cattlemen and supporters established nonprofit
    corporations, collecting Internet donations. Preposterous
    misleading newspaper remarks said they represented the Shoshone
    Nation. The public thought they were an elected body. Their
    unpaid trespass fees amounted to over a million dollars. Their
    press touted it is still Shoshone land as the people do not
    want the money, they want the land, or refuse to take the
    money. In truth, the majority wanted their award disbursed. In
    1985 the United States Supreme Court in Cattleman Danns case
    concluded that payment of the claims to trust for the Shoshones
    effectuated full settlement of all claims against the United
    States.
        The minority received over a million dollars in ANA and BIA
    grants to resolve land issues. Federal land negotiations at the
    highest level failed in 1994. A promised plan for the WSNC in
    Vucanovich's 1990 House hearing never materialized. The
    Shoshone people felt their leaders did not negotiate in good
    faith and discussed the beneficiaries of the award via the
    Steering Committee. Given their civil right to band together
    and take action or to submit a bill, a 1998 referendum revealed
    the true collective interest. 96 percent favor distribution in
    2002. Senator Reid requested another vote. 65 percent of the
    eligible enrolled Shoshones participated. 91 percent favored
    distribution.
        At two meetings when a division of the House was called,
    where only 3 people stood in opposition to the bill, they were
    loudly booed when speaking. The minority's pursuit to claim
    two-thirds of Nevada is unrealistic. The international report
    for the Dann case before a United Nations Commission since
    1993, was rejected by the United States in its entirety. The
    report noted that the Danns' be afforded resort to the courts
    for the protection of their property rights. Apparently the
    commission viewed their 15 years of litigation to the Supreme
    Court as insufficient, and that subsequently, 1991 case
    abandonment to pursue allowable individual aboriginal title as
    unimportant.
        This endless legal debate is a delaying tactic that
    benefits a small minority culturally as more elders pass on,
    their hopes never realized. It angers many. The manipulation of
    some tribal chairmen to suppress the majority opinion, illegal
    council meetings and resolutions, minority promotion of non-
    Shoshones interference in the claims, has ruined the
    credibility of some elected leaders and destroyed faith in
    their ability to act in a fair and forthright manner in
    representing the majority's mandate.
        Most Shoshones do not want the monetary award held hostage
    any longer. Needed lands should be handled by individual tribes
    with the relevant stakeholders and separated from the
    distribution.
        Finally, the Shoshones have endured much in their quest for
    justice. It was the intent of Congress, when it passed the
    Indian Claims Commission Act in 1946 to bring finality to
    Indian claims, not to leave claims hanging in limbo for over 25
    years. As Congress said, no one should be allowed to litigate a
    claim forever. It is time to effectuate this distribution to
    the Western Shoshone. We now rely on Congress to resolve this
    longstanding court award and distribute it to the beneficiaries
    as intended under the law.
        In conclusion, the matter here before us today is not
    whether an award is due to Western Shoshone. The issue is to
    determine the procedural means by which Dockets 326 K, 326A-1
    and 326A-3 will be distributed. It is a matter of process. This
    bill lays out that process. The Steering Committee on behalf of
    the majority respectfully requests that the Resource Committee
    pass H.R. 884 back to the full floor of the House for
    consideration in the interest of the long-sought closure of my
    people.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Piffero follows:]

     Statement of Laura Piffero, Lead Co-Chairman, Western Shoshone Claims
                  Distribution Steering Committee, on H.R. 884

        Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, I am Laura Piffero, Lead Co-
    Chairman of the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Steering
    Committee. Our group is a grass roots volunteer Committee. We represent
    the 1998 and 2002 referendum where 91% of the Shoshone people voted on
    seven reservations to have their court award distributed. The Western
    Shoshone Claims in the last of five Shoshone treaty claims to be paid
    in the United States and the last of the major tribes in Nevada to be
    disbursed. We are grateful to the Resource Committee for authorizing
    this hearing and for the support of Nevada's Congressional Delegation
    in the House, Congressman Jim Gibbons and Congressman Jon Porter and in
    the Senate, Senator Harry Reid and Senator John Ensign. The companion
    Bill in the Senate was passed last year in the 107th.
        I am here to present testimony for the Steering Committee in favor
    of H.R. 884, the ``Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act''. The
    Shoshone people are aware that the Resource Committee will have ``mark-
    up'' on the Bill. The Steering Committee would like to propose AMENDING
    the following Sections:
         Under Section 2, (2) Certain Individuals Ineligible.
    After the words ``'' a per capita payment from any other judgment
    fund'' add the words ``based upon an aboriginal land claim.'' (Note:
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Services concurs with this change.)
         Under Section 3, (2)(A): after the words ``An
    Administrative Committee'' to add the words, ``exclusively comprised of
    Western Shoshon...e''
         Under Section 3, (2)(B): at the beginning after the word
    ``The'' add the words ``Western Shoshone'' to read--The Western
    Shoshone Administrative Committee...''
         Under Section 3, (2)(B),(v) to be revised from ``The
    Western Shoshone Business Council of the Duck Valley Reservation'' to
    read ``The Western Shoshone Committee of the Duck Valley Reservation''.
        As others will address various issues--I will speak about that
    which is not always so apparent to people on the fringes of a problem,
    the subtle factors that has lead to the people's support of this Bill
    and factors in the past that have acted to delay support for
    distribution--the good, the bad, and the ugly. I hope this will give
    you some insight about the people for whom you are about to make a very
    important decision--either to vote in favor of S. 958 as is, or to
    change, or to allow to die in Committee.
        First, THE GOOD:
         THE SHOSHONES ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. Despite
    ``minority'' news reports to the contrary that draws attention to
    issues of discrimination 1, the Shoshone people are thankful
    that they live in this country and are proud of their participation in
    various global military conflicts to promote and preserve the nation's
    security, freedom and peace. Yes, there does exist a dark period in the
    history of the displacement of the Shoshones to reservation in the late
    1800's, as part of Indian removal acts across the United States that
    were repeated 53 times by 1868. Unfortunately, in a conflict of
    cultures the five 1863 Shoshone treaties of ``Peace and Friendship''
    were eventually and gradually taken advantage of by unscrupulous
    individuals, both non-governmental and governmental. In regard to
    Indian title to the land, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that ``such
    extinguishments raise political, not justiciable, issues.''
    2 Likewise, in another case, it was further stated that
    ``... its justness is not open to inquiry in the courts'', that ``the
    exclusive right of the United States to extinguish'' Indian title has
    never been doubted'' 3. Concerning ``recognized title'', in
    the Sac and Fox Tribe v. United States the court stated, ``...
    Congress, acting through a treaty...must grant legal rights of
    permanent occupancy within a sufficiently defined territory. Mere
    executive ``recognition'' is insufficient as is a simple acknowledgment
    that Indians physically lived in a certain region'', such as in the
    Western Shoshones treaty of 1863. In some treaties, the United States
    recognized title by relinquishing its claim to a specific area and
    promised to protect the Indians within the borders of their land, such
    as the Sioux treaty. This was not stated in the ``Treaty of Ruby
    Valley'' under ``Article V''. 4 In 1974, when a group of
    Shoshone people attempting to stop the court proceedings filed a motion
    for rehearing on the findings of title by the ICC (1962), according to
    a 30 day time limit under the ``Rules of Procedure'', they were 11
    years to late 5. In the end, Congressional action is the
    only way to restore tribal title. With the passage of time,
    assimilation, reorganization, and relocation the vast ``majority'' of
    Western Shoshone people have laid their feelings to rest. The outcome
    of the 1998 and 2002 referendums for distribution is symbolic of the
    peace, closure and restitution they desire.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Las Vegas Review Journal, ``Indians Ask U.N. to Protect
    Rights'' Las Vegas, Nevada. 2000.
        \2\ United States V. Santa Fe Pacific Ry., 314 U.S. 339, 347 (1947)
        \3\ Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517, 515.
        \4\ 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, Article V: It is understood that
    the boundaries of the country claimed and occupied by said bands are
    defined and described by them as follows:
        \5\ ... TeMoak Bands of Western Shoshone Indians, Nevada, and
    Western Shoshone Legal Defense and Education Association'' v. United
    States, decided 2/20/75.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         THE SHOSHONES VIEW THE CLAIMS AWARD AS AN APOLOGY OF
    SUBSTANCE offered by the United States via the U.S. Indian Claims
    Commission established after the injustices to the American Indian
    became more widely known to principled contemporary politicians
    following World War I. The Shoshones enthusiastically filed their case
    for the wrongs done in 1951. It was fraught with numerous attempts by
    some ``minority'' dissidents to change the litigation strategy in the
    judicial process. Had a withdrawal been successful, there would be no
    court awarded claims today.
         THE CONTINUING HOPE OF THE SHOSHONE PEOPLE,'' Now the
    Shoshone people look to Congress to conclude the claims after 41 years
    of litigation (1951-77 & 1974-89), 52 years of debate, and 99
    6 years of faith of the elders that the claims would be
    finalized. Now they are placing their trust in an extremely difficult
    course to traverse--the Congressional legislative process--with the
    hope it will not let them down and H.R. 884 will be passed within the
    allotted time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Johnny, Ike. Enrolled member of the Fallon Paiute Shoshone
    Tribe. 99 years old.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         DEMOCRACY IN ACTION. The Shoshone people were pleased to
    finally get the opportunity to be heard at the ballot box through a
    straw poll. Tribal voter eligibility lists and required individual
    identification was employed to determine Shoshone affiliation. Those
    unable to attend their reservation's polling site were allowed with
    proof of tribal enrollment to request an absentee ballot. A few
    Shoshones who chose not to enroll in an IRA tribe but wanted to vote
    were allowed to complete a ``Letter for the Record'' after certifying
    that they had not received any other claims award, offered a photo I.D.
    and stated their degree of blood. In 1998, 96% favored distribution.
    The results were 1,230 voted ``yes'' and 53 voted ``no''. 7
    In 2002, 91% favored distribution with 1647 ``yes'' and 156 ``no''. It
    was estimated that approximately 65% of the eligible enrolled adult
    Shoshones participated in the straw poll. Of the seven reservations /
    colonies, NONE has ever put the question of distribution on their
    annual election as an advisory question in the last 26 years after the
    award was confirmed. Therefore, the Steering Committee felt the
    question needed to be answered to determine the direction of the
    Committee on distribution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Official Tally, ``Referendum for the Western Shoshone Claims
    Distribution Act'', 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         A REALISTIC OUTLOOK. It is time to put behind the
    disappointment in the failure of the tribal system of government and
    their inability after 26 years to coordinate their inter-tribal efforts
    to produce a comprehensive plan for distribution to settle this issue.
    It was the instability and manipulation of tribal politics by those
    opposed and their lawyers, that gave impetus to the formation of a
    ``people's committee'' or the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution
    Steering Committee in 1997. It is the CIVIL RIGHT of a descendent group
    to submit a Bill to congress, to band together and take action. At a
    publicly held meeting concerning the legislation in Elko, NV, (8/21/99)
    with half of the gymnasium and the center filled in a ``division of the
    house'' a vote of confidence in the Bill and in the Steering Committee
    was called for. Three people stood opposing the legislation and the
    Committee. In Fallon NV, (9/12/99) no one in a gym half full stood
    against the Bill or Committee.
        Second, THE BAD:
         THE DEATH OF ELDERLY BENEFICIARIES who had basic needs
    and were forgotten in the never-ending controversial litigation. Their
    dreams and hopes for a better future were never realized. It was their
    generation that was fraught with a multitude of social and economic
    problems in an era of little opportunity. A distribution could have
    provided something as simple as a new mattress. The growing resentment
    against those who oppose the claims distribution was obvious when at
    the public meeting on the Bill the three who opposed the Bill were
    loudly booed when speaking.
         TRIBAL ELECTIONS ARE BASED ON KINSHIP NOT ON ISSUES,''
    issues such as the ``Claims''. Unemployment remains high on isolated
    reservations (Yomba, Duckwater, South Fork, Duck Valley). Jobs are
    scarce with the exception of tribal jobs and having a tribal job means
    voting family members to office. Therefore, much time and energy is
    spent on electing relatives to council seats, not on a representative's
    stance on issues.
         THE CHANGING FACES OF DEMOCRACY. Elections cause change--
    in leadership, objectives, and claims negotiation's progress in the
    government-to-government process. Democracy is good in one sense, but
    has its weaknesses also. Constant change in tribal leadership means the
    end to long range goals and partially why no one comprehensive
    distribution plan ever materialized. When given a deadline to develop a
    plan under the 1973 Indian Judgment Funds Act in 1980, they failed.
    This tribal political instability was to the advantage of the stable
    core ``minority''. More recently (1997), it was also to the advantage
    of the Steering Committee's ability to move the claims issue forward,
    to obtain the consensus of the Shoshone people and to promote
    resolutions of support from the majority of tribal governments--some
    resolutions have vacillated with new councils the last seven years.
    However, the people's desire to have their court award distributed on
    all reservations never changed. Where a tribal government ``for, by and
    of the people'' did not exist in representing the distribution of the
    claims, the people organized petition drives so that they might be
    heard over their councils. Where a petition was necessary to support
    distributing the claims, endorsement ranged on two reservations at 85%
    and 90% (Yomba and South Fork councils has never supported the claims
    distribution due to councilmen's cattle interests).
         COUNCILMEN OR LEADERS THAT REPRESENT SPECIAL INTEREST
    GROUPS OR HAVE A SELF INTEREST. Some leaders / councilmen opposed to
    the claims distribution have BLM cattle trespass charges amounting to a
    million dollars or more. 8 They work through their lawyers
    and the news media to defeat distribution of the award as a reason to
    continue to use the land by claiming it is still ``Shoshone land'' as
    ``the people do not want the money'' or ``refuse to take the money''--
    --in total disregard of the of the U.S. Supreme Court decision
    9 and the decision of the Shoshone people per the two straw
    poll referendums. Information is power and the control of information
    coming through tribal offices is tightly guarded as to what is told or
    not told to the people. When information is kept from the Shoshone
    people or twisted it limits their ability to make well informed
    decisions and retards the decision making process. Telling the
    Shoshones they still own the land is a shameful deceit and only causes
    confusion and creates controversy. Of course, some will say there is
    money to be made in an atmosphere of controversy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ http:// www.alphacdc.com/wsdp/[W.S. Land Rights and Grazing]
    W.S. Defense Project. No date.
        \9\ Nordwall, Wayne. BIA Area Director. Memorandum: ``W.S. Claims
    Distribution''. Phoenix, AZ, 1998.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CONTROL OF THE FOUR CHAIRMEN OF THE ``SUCCESSOR
    TRIBES''...controls the government-to-government relationship in
    negotiation, a subtle mechanism. The ``minority'' leadership and their
    lawyer(s) have utilized this process over the years. It resulted in the
    ``majority'' opinion being suppressed, 10 the people being
    put on the ``back burner''. This political manipulation and maneuvering
    was evidenced most recently after the August 2, 2002, Senate hearing.
    In an illegal meeting of the four Te-Moak band chairs, several
    resolutions were passed against the people's voice or straw poll.
    11 Once the people heard about this outrage in the largest
    band, Elko, the Elko council passed a resolution to not recognize the
    ``illegal'' resolutions. 12Even today, this is not widely
    known due to the control of information to the people by four leaders
    involved. An added drawback, is the lack of a tribal newspaper on
    various reservations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Elko, NV. Te-Moak Council Meetin. Flyer mailed to Fallon
    Committee: ``Cattle Over People, WSNC'', 1999.
        \11\ Letter to Senator Inouye, Senator Campbell, and Committee on
    Indian Affairs by Felix Ike, Te-Moak tribe chairman. 8/29/02. 2pp.
        \12\ Elko Band Council. Resolution N. 2002-ECB-28. Elko, NV 8/28/
    02. 3 pp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, THE UGLY:
         THE LACK OF FAITH IN TRIBAL ACCOUNTABILITY due to
    questionable accounting/ budgeting procedure and little to no public
    reporting mechanism 13'' one reason people do not want any
    hold-back for tribal programming. The Steering Committee has received
    numerous comments on how if a hold-back on funds was implemented in the
    Bill with no restrictions, such as interest only to be expended plus
    categories for use, the capitalization to the tribes will not be able
    to be found in seven to nine years as has happened with other Indian
    nations' court awards.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Reno Gazette Journal (Reno, NV), ``25 Month Prison Sentence
    for Embezzling Tribal Officer'' (Duckwater). 1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         PRETENTIOUS DECLARATIONS BY THOSE OPPOSING DISTRIBUTION
    OF THE CLAIMS. Federally recognized IRA tribes have their own
    Constitution and By-Laws. They are independent of each other. For an
    organization to declare that they are part of a ``nation'' of people is
    questionable. No one single entity is a sole representative of the
    various Shoshones around the state. Yet, the Western Shoshone National
    Council (WSNC) 14 has made such preposterous claims of
    ``representation''. The majority of Shoshones see this organization(s)
    with limited numbers attempting to assert themselves into the
    governmental process on negotiations or into the news media on behalf
    of the ``Western Shoshones'', in a sense displacing the officially
    recognized IRA governments. The WSNC goes on to use the ``Western
    Shoshone--name in international forums. Their term ``traditional
    government of the Shoshone nation'' or ``Western Shoshone nation'' is
    misleading. Most non-Indians or institutions will interpret this to
    mean an ``elected'' government, which is quite different than being a
    registered Nevada non-profit corporation. In addition, donations
    (money, gifts of real property, clothes, trucks, night vision goggles,
    etc.) being requested over the internet in the name of the ``Western
    Shoshones'' is debatable when most Shoshones are unaware of the
    contribution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Information on Those Opposed to Distribution--Who are They and
    What do They Represent?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         THE LITIGANTS OPPOSING DISTRIBUTION, unlike the changing
    faces of elected official, these faces never change'' They were at the
    Interior Department negotiation meetings in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986,
    1994, and former Congressman Vucanovich's House hearings in 1990 and
    1992--all of which failed. Some are still here today in opposition,
    probably not with a ``good faith plan'', but to undermine the
    ``majority'' opinion and as always to stop distribution.
         NEWSPAPER PROPAGANDA BY SPECIAL INTERESTS that tout the
    Shoshones are opposed to this or that 15 when in fact the
    average Shoshones know nothing about nor have they agreed to what is
    published. This same propaganda was used in the past to say, ``the
    Shoshones don't want the money they want their land''. This is why a
    straw poll had to be completed to reveal the truth about the interest
    of the Shoshone people, descendants and beneficiaries of ``The Western
    Shoshone Identifiable Group'' court award 326-K.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Reno Gazette Journal (Reno, NV), ``W.S. Oppose F-22 Fighter''.
    1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         THE UNENDING DEBATE BY MINORITY OPPONENTS over land
    title, mineral rights, religion, air, etc'' has kept the Shoshones'
    right to their court award or a tribal plan in limbo. The latest
    development is the presentation to staff members of the Indian Affairs
    Committee (7/26/02) of a 2001 international report by the Inter-
    American Commission on Human Right (Case No. 11.140--Mary and Carrie
    Dann), which the United States rejected ``in its entirety''. The case
    that has been before the U. N. Commission since 1993. The U.S. Supreme
    Court (1985), after deciding that payment into trust for the Shoshone
    people effectuated full settlement of all claims and the
    extinguishments of aboriginal title, left the door open for
    ``individual aboriginal title''. The Danns could have pursued this
    avenue, but the lawyers for the Danns withdrew their case from the U.S.
    court system in 1991. Now the deficiencies mentioned in the
    Commission's report, partly that the Danns ``be afforded resort to the
    courts for the protection of their property rights'', reiterates what
    probably should have continued to be litigated in 1991. Given the past
    history and the years of prior suit by the Danns (1974-1989), the
    Federally financed opportunities for land settlement negotiations
    amounting to over a million Federal dollars, and the Indian title
    issues before the U.S. courts in past case law'' it is best to separate
    the land issue ( reservation by reservation ) from the monetary
    distribution and, in following the people's wishes, distribute 326-K,
    326--A-1 and 326--A--3.
        FINALLY, the aforementioned factors both negative and positive have
    contributed to the present status of the Western Shoshone Claims. The
    Shoshones have endured much in their quest for justice and finality.
    The 1946 Indian Claim Commission Act passed by Congress gave the Indian
    people their day in court to air grievance suffered. The limitation was
    ``no one should be allowed to litigate a claim forever.'' It was not
    the intent of Congress to leave claims hanging in limbo for over 52
    years. We now rely on the judgment of Congress, where 100% agreement is
    a rarity, to end this long standing Claim. The Steering Committee on
    behalf of the ``majority opinion'' respectfully requests that the
    Resource Committee pass H.R. 884, as soon as possible back to the full
    floor of the House for consideration in the interest of the long sought
    judgment and closure our people deserve. Thank you.
                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.012

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Chief Yowell?

                  STATEMENT OF RAYMOND YOWELL, CHIEF,
                   WESTERN SHOSHONE NATIONAL COUNCIL

        Mr. Yowell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, although it is
    afternoon now, and Committee members.
        My name is Raymond D. Yowell, a citizen of the Western
    Shoshone Nation. I presently hold the office of Chief of the
    Western Shoshone National Council, which is the government of
    the Western Shoshone Nation.
        Due to the limited time set for this testimony, the Western
    Shoshone Government has prepared this supplemental to its main
    opposition testimony for presentation at this hearing.
        In accordance with the rules of this Committee, the
    required number of copies of this supplement and our opposition
    main testimony has been filed with the clerk of this Committee.
        All the elements of our main opposition testimony are
    reaffirmed. We stand opposed to H.R. 884. This supplemental
    testimony will address and point out the events that have
    transpired recently in connection to the Western Shoshone
    territorial rights issue.
        ICC Docket 326 K. The last event to happen in the overall
    U.S. Indian Claims Commission process is a hearing of record
    that was held in the territory of the Western Shoshone Nation.
    This hearing took place in July 1980 at Elko, Nevada. At this
    hearing of record the Western Shoshone asked the Federal
    hearing officer, ``By what U.S. law did the United States
    acquire the territory of the Western Shoshone Nation?'' Because
    the hearing officer could not answer the question, the Western
    Shoshone rejected the monetary award from the ICC, Docket 326
    K, stating, ``Keep your money until you [meaning the United
    States] can show us how you acquired our territory.''
        I testified at the hearing of record, and I also asked the
    exact same question of the hearing officer. Again, when the
    hearing officer could not answer my question, I also rejected
    the monetary award from ICC Docket 326-K. Today, 23 years
    later, the United States has not answered the question put to
    it by the Western Shoshone.
        Since the hearing officer could not show how the United
    States acquired the territory of the Western Shoshone Nation,
    and since the Western Shoshone, myself included, rejected the
    monetary award from Docket 326 K, the Western Shoshone
    territory remains in the property of the Western Shoshone
    Nation, rightfully under Western Shoshone control and
    jurisdiction.
        Based on this fact, Western Shoshone cattlemen, myself
    included, and in compliance with Article VI of the 1863 Treaty
    of Peace and Friendship made with the United States, stopped
    paying the U.S. Government for grazing our cattle on our own
    Western Shoshone lands. We withheld grazing fees to show the
    United States that there was a problem with its claimed
    ownership of the territory of Western Shoshone Nation. From the
    very start of our nonpayment for grazing our cattle on our own
    Western Shoshone land, the Western Shoshone stated to the U.S.
    Government that if it could not answer the question of how it
    acquired the territory of the Western Shoshone Nation, then the
    best way to move toward a solution would be through negotiation
    between our two Nations.
        Confiscation of Western Shoshone Cattle. In May 2002, armed
    agents of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management came in the early
    morning hours and confiscated cattle belonging to me and to Mr.
    Myron Tybo. The BLM did this without answering the question
    first put to the Federal hearing officer at the 1980 hearing of
    record, ``By what U.S. law did the United States acquired the
    territory of the Western Shoshone Nation?'' In September of
    2002 armed agents of the BLM came in the early morning hours
    and confiscated the cattle of Mary and Carrie Dann, and did so
    without answering the above question.
        In 1924 Congress declared Indians to be citizens of the
    United States. If from the point of view of the U.S. Congress
    we are U.S. citizens, then this means that our property cannot
    be taken from us without a court order. But when the BLM agents
    were taking our cattle, we asked them if they had a court
    order. They said they did not have a court order and took our
    cattle anyway. The BLM theft of our property is a gross
    violation of our civil and human rights and robs us of our
    livelihood. It is also a violation of our 1863 Treaty vested
    right to be agriculturists and herdsmen.
        U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on U.S. v. Dann, 1985. In 1974
    the United States sued two Western Shoshone sisters, Mary and
    Carrie Dann for trespass, the allegation being made that they
    were grazing their cattle on Federal public land. After going
    back and forth in U.S. Federal Appeals Court several times, the
    case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984. The Supreme Court
    ruled that because the U.S. Secretary of the Interior had
    accepted the monetary award from ICC on Docket 326 K as a
    trustee for the Western Shoshone, the Dann sisters could not
    defend on the grounds of original Western Shoshone title. The
    U.S. Supreme Court specifically based its decision on an
    erroneous assumption that the ICC had filed its final report
    with Congress.
        OSA Investigation, Docket 326 K.. In 1992 the Dann sisters
    petitioned the Organization of American States, OAS, to look
    into their treatment by the United States. The Danns were
    joined in the petition by the Western Shoshone IRA Reservation
    Tribal Councils and by the Western Shoshone National Council.
    In December of 2002 the OAS released its report, stating that
    United States, through its U.S. Indian Claims Commission
    process had violated the human rights of the Western Shoshone,
    that the ICC process lacked due process of law, and that the
    property rights of Western Shoshone had been ignored. The
    United States has to this date failed to remedy the violation
    put forth in the OAS report though asked by the OAS to do so.
        Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985, ruling on the case,
    U.S. v. Dann, used an Indian Claims Commission process against
    the Danns that has been found to be in violation of Western
    Shoshone human rights.
        The Indigenous Law Institute's Finding on the ICC's Failure
    to File a Final Report with Congress on the Western Shoshone
    Case. In January of 2203 the Indigenous Law Institute issued
    its finding that the U.S. Indian Claims Commission failed to
    file a final report with Congress regarding the Western
    Shoshone case. Docket 326 K, Section 21 of the ICCA, Report of
    Commission to Congress, requires such a report in order to
    provide Congress with the information it needs to make an
    informed judgment in every case. The ILI report reveals that
    the Indian Commission did not complete its work as required by
    law. The Indian Claims Commission failed to fulfill a legally
    required ingredient of finality in Section 22(a) of the ICC
    Act. Therefore, an essential part of the statutory basis that
    Congress has set up for a distribution of the monies in Docket
    326 K remains unfulfilled.
        The Amnesty International Report. In May of 2003, Amnesty
    International issued its report on the Western Shoshone case,
    and found that violations occurred in the ICC process
    concerning Western Shoshone human rights. The violations were
    lack of due process of law, violations of Western Shoshone
    human rights, and violations of Western Shoshone property
    rights. This report gives added credibility to what the OAS and
    ILI reports reveal about the ICC Docket 326 K.
        Recommendation. A distribution bill came before this
    Committee on Docket 326 K. The Committee at that time wisely
    rejected taking action on it by nor bringing it out of
    Committee. With the above referenced reports now bringing to
    light the major problems with the ICC process as it pertains to
    the Western Shoshone territorial rights issue, we request that
    this Committee not take action on bill H.R. 884, but to let it
    die the death it deserves in Committee.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Yowell follows:]

                    Statement of Raymond D. Yowell, Chief,
                 Western Shoshone National Council, on H.R. 884

        Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Committee Members,
        My name is Raymond D. Yowell, a citizen of the Western Shoshone
    Nation. I presently hold the office of Chief of the Western Shoshone
    National Council, which is the Government of the Western Shoshone
    Nation.
        Due to the limited time set for this testimony, the Western
    Shoshone Government has prepared this supplement to its Main Opposition
    Testimony for presentation at this hearing.
        In accordance with the rules of this Committee, the required number
    of copies of this Supplement and our Main Opposition Testimony has been
    filed with the Chief Clerk of this Committee.
        All the elements of our Main Testimony are reaffirmed. We stand
    opposed to H.R. 884. This Supplemental Testimony will address and point
    out events that have transpired recently in connection with the Western
    Shoshone Territorial issue.
    I.C.C. Docket 326-K
        The last event to happen in the overall U.S. Indian Claims
    Commission process is a hearing of record that was held in the
    Territory of the Western Shoshone Nation. This hearing took place in
    July of 1980 at ``Elko, Nevada.'' At this hearing of record, the
    Western Shoshone asked the Federal hearing officer, ``By what U.S. law
    did the United States acquire the Territory of the Western Shoshone
    Nation?'' Because the hearing officer could not answer the question,
    the Western Shoshone rejected the monetary award from the I.C.C.,
    Docket 326-K, stating, ``Keep your money until you [meaning, the United
    States] can show us how you acquired our Territory.''
        I testified at the hearing of record, and I also asked the exact
    same question of the hearing officer. Again, when the hearing officer
    could not answer my question, I also rejected the monetary award from
    I.C.C. Docket 326-K. Today, twenty three years later, the United States
    has not answered the question put to it by the Western Shoshone.
        Since the hearing officer could not show how the United States
    acquired the Territory of the Western Shoshone Nation, and since the
    Western Shoshone, myself included, rejected the monetary award from
    Docket 326-K, the Western Shoshone Territory remains the property of
    the Western Shoshone Nation, rightfully under Western Shoshone control
    and jurisdiction.
        Based on this fact, Western Shoshone cattlemen, myself included,
    and in compliance with Article 6 of the 1863 Treaty of Peace and
    Friendship made with the United States, stopped paying the United
    States Government for grazing our cattle on Western Shoshone lands. We
    withheld grazing fees to show the United States that there was a
    problem with its claimed ownership to the Territory of the Western
    Shoshone Nation. From the very start of our non-payment for grazing our
    cattle on our own Western Shoshone land, the Western Shoshone stated to
    the United States Government that if it could not answer the question
    of how it acquired the Territory of the Western Shoshone Nation, then
    the best way to move towards a solution would be through negotiations
    between our two Nations.
    Confiscation of Western Shoshone Cattle
        In May 2002, armed agents of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
    came in the early morning hours and confiscated cattle belonging to me,
    and Mr. Myron Tybo. The BLM did this without answering the question
    first put to the Federal hearing officer at the 1980 hearing of record,
    ``By what U.S. law did the United States acquire the Territory of the
    Western Shoshone Nation?'' In September 2002, armed agents of the BLM
    came in the early morning hours and confiscated the cattle of Mary and
    Carrie Dann, and did so without answering the above question.
        In 1924, Congress declared Indians to be citizens of the United
    States. If, from the point of view of Congress we are U.S. citizens,
    then this means that our property cannot be taken from us without a
    court order. But when the BLM agents were taking our cattle we asked
    them if they had a court order. They said that they did not have a
    court order and took our cattle anyway. The BLM theft of our property
    is a gross violation of our civil and human rights, and robs us of our
    livelihood. It is also a violation of our 1863 Treaty vested right to
    be agriculturalists and herdsmen.
    U.S. Supreme Ruling On U.S. v. Dann (1985)
        In 1974, the United States sued two Western Shoshone sisters, Mary
    and Carrie Dann, for trespass, the allegation being made that they were
    grazing their cattle on Federal ``public land.'' After going back and
    forth in the U.S. Federal Appeals Courts several times, the case
    reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984. The Supreme Court ruled that
    because the U.S. Secretary of the Interior had accepted the monetary
    award from the I.C.C. on Docket 326-K as the ``trustee'' for the
    Western Shoshone, the Dann sisters could not defend on the grounds of
    original Western Shoshone Title. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically
    based its decision on an erroneous assumption that the I.C.C. had filed
    its final report with Congress.
    OAS Investigation of Docket 326-K
        In 1992, the Dann sisters petitioned the Organization of American
    States (O.A.S.) to look into their treatment by the United States. The
    Danns were joined in their petition by Western Shoshone I.R.A.
    Reservation Tribal Councils, and by the Western Shoshone National
    Council. In December of 2002, the O.A.S. released its report, stating
    that the United States--through the U.S. Indian Claims Commission
    process--had violated the human right of the Western Shoshone, that the
    I.C.C. process lacked due process of law, and that the property rights
    of the Western Shoshone have been ignored. The United States Government
    has to this date failed to remedy the violations put forth in the
    O.A.S. report, though asked by the O.A.S. to do so.
        Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985, ruling on the case, U.S. v.
    Dann, used an Indian Claims Commission process against the Danns that
    has been found to be in violation of Western Shoshone human rights.
    The Indigenous Law Institute's Finding on the I.C.C.'s Failure to File
            A Final Report With Congress in the Western Shoshone Case
        In January of 2003, the Indigenous Law Institute, issued its
    finding that the U.S. Indian Claims Commission failed to file a final
    report with Congress regarding the Western Shoshone case, Docket 326-K.
    Section 21 of the I.C.C.A, ``Report of Commission to Congress''
    requires such a report in order to provide Congress with the
    information it needs to make an informed judgment in every case. The
    I.L.I. report reveals that the Indian Commission did not complete its
    work as required by law. The Indian Claims Commission failed to fulfill
    a legally required ingredient of finality in Section 22(a) of the
    I.C.C. Act. Therefore, an essential part of the statutory basis that
    Congress set up for a distribution of the monies in Docket 326-K
    remains unfulfilled.
    The Amnesty International Report
        In May of 2003, Amnesty International issued its report on the
    Western Shoshone case, and, found that violations occurred in the
    I.C.C. process concerning Western Shoshone human rights. The violations
    were lack of due process of law, violations of Western Shoshone human
    rights, and violations of Western Shoshone property rights. This report
    gives added credibility to what the O.A.S. and I.L.I. reports reveal
    about the I.C.C. Docket 326-K.
    Recommendation
        A distribution bill came before this Committee on Docket 326-K. The
    Committee at that time wisely rejected taking action on it by not
    bringing it out of Committee. With the above referenced reports now
    bringing to light the major problems with the I.C.C. process as it
    pertains to the Western Shoshone Territorial rights issue, we request
    that this Committee not take action on bill H.R. 884, but let it die
    the death it deserves in Committee.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gibbons.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again,
    I have submitted a formal statement for the record on Bill 884
    that we have before us today, and I apologize to my witnesses
    here for being absent, but other duties kept me away at the
    time I could have introduced you. And I wanted to welcome you
    and the other Nevadans that are here today to Washington, D.C.
    to witness and partake in this Committee hearing, and it is
    certainly a pleasure to have you before us, and I certainly am
    very proud to see such great representation here before us
    today.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record of the
    Committee, several petitions that have been signed by a number
    of Shoshone Indians, Western Shoshone Indians, that would have
    been here, but they have submitted their petition in support of
    884, and I would like copies of these petitions to be admitted
    into the record if I could.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7772.009

        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, this is indeed an issue which is
    long overdue, as I said earlier. And these witnesses--and I
    think the eloquence of Laura Piffero is certainly to be
    commended because she put in very clear perspective historical
    presentation of the whole process the that this thing has gone
    through over the last two decades, and certainly it is one
    which I think is timely. It is one which we have to deal with.
    If we don't deal with it, the money will serve no one. It will
    sit in an account, a trust fund, and do no good for anyone. I
    apologize for the double negatives. It will not do anyone any
    good. We want the bill.
        Ms. Piffero, let me say that I have looked over your
    technical suggestions for the language. I have no problem with
    working on the bill between now and when it is submitted to the
    Committee to make those technical corrections that you
    addressed in your opening statement as well. We will work with
    you on that to make sure that we take them into consideration.
        Ms. Piffero. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibbons. I guess I don't know what else to ask, because
    I think everything that has been said needed to have been said,
    and I think the record is clear.
        I would only turn basically to Chief Yowell and maybe ask
    him a question. It relates to the Western Shoshone National
    Council that you represent. My question is, is that an elected
    body by the Shoshone Nation?
        Mr. Yowell. No, it is not. It is the entity that signed the
    Treaty of 1963 that has continued from that time down to
    today's times.
        Mr. Gibbons. So what you are saying is that the rest of the
    Shoshone Nation over the years has had no elected effect on the
    membership of this national council?
        Mr. Yowell. Elections came to be the way that tribal
    councils were appointed based upon the Indian Organization Act
    entities that were established in Shoshone territory in 1938.
    From that time forward--
        Mr. Gibbons. I am not trying to undermine you in any way,
    but I want to just get some clarity out here. The Western
    Shoshone National Council, is it a registered nonprofit
    organization in the State of Nevada?
        Mr. Yowell. It is not.
        Mr. Gibbons. It is not?
        Mr. Yowell. No.
        Mr. Gibbons. Is it an IRA sanctioned council as contrasted
    to a reservation council?
        Mr. Yowell. It is not. It represents a nation based upon
    the treaty that it signed with United States.
        Mr. Gibbons. And how many members of the Shoshone tribes
    that are in Nevada, whether you consider the Te-Moak, the
    Fallon Western Shoshones, Duckvalley, how many of all of those
    members do you have in your organization?
        Mr. Yowell. None of the ones you mentioned. The Ely tribe
    belongs. The Tempe Nation belong, the traditional cattlemen
    from South Fork Reservation belongs, the Dann family belongs,
    the Great Basin Western Shoshone belong.
        Mr. Gibbons. And how many members would that be total?
        Mr. Yowell. We haven't computed the membership of those
    entities.
        Mr. Gibbons. Could you guess?
        Mr. Yowell. Not at this time. I couldn't give an accurate
    figure.
        Mr. Gibbons. Would either Mr. Ike or Ms. Piffero have an
    answer to that? Would you have an estimate?
        Mr. Ike. I don't have any privilege to their membership.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired,
    and I will certainly hope that members look at this carefully.
    It does not waive any rights under any treaty organization or
    treaties that were established, and certainly I think it is
    time to look favorably upon this part of our cultural history
    and reward these people with the judgment that the courts have
    set out for many, many years ago, and it is time to put that
    money to good use and benefit these people, and I would hope
    that every member could support this bill.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Pallone?
        Mr. Pallone. I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman. I don't
    really have a position on the bill at this point, but I have to
    say that, you know, I am--two things are sort of weighing on
    me. One is the fact that I really don't like the idea of
    Nations having to give up land and, you know, getting some kind
    of payment in lieu of whatever land claims they might have. So
    that weighs very strongly on--you know, on the one hand, not
    being supportive of this type of a settlement.
        On the other hand, because of the fact that Nations are
    sovereign, they should be able to do what they please. In other
    words, if you have a vote and it is legitimate, there is no
    reason why you shouldn't be able to do what you think is best.
    That is the process.
        I guess my concern is, and I have heard some of the
    testimony and read some of the testimony--I wasn't here for the
    whole panel--everyone seems to be--on the one hand, Mr. Gibbons
    and, I guess, the chairman are suggesting that if this land
    settlement goes through and the bill is approved, that you
    could still claim title to certain lands. On the other hand,
    Chief Yowell seems to suggest that that is not the case, you
    know, that somehow the settlement, if it is granted, will be a
    contributing factor, if not total factor, toward extinguishing
    any rights to the land.
        So I guess I am a little confused. If either of you could
    just respond to that--what makes you think that this settlement
    does or does not preclude you from making claims to the land,
    and how successful you could be if this settlement and this
    legislation went through? If I could just ask the chairman and
    the chief that, quickly. I know you have probably answered
    already, but just to give me a little more information.
        You believe that, if this bill goes through, that
    essentially the land claims are extinguished, which is why you
    are not in favor of it in part. Is that true?
        Mr. Yowell. Yes, basically that is true. You have to go
    back to the rejection of the claim to begin with, in 1980, when
    the question was asked of the hearing officer, by what law did
    the United States acquire the territory of Western Shoshone.
    And these laws are explained fully in the main testimony that
    we have submitted to the clerk of this Committee. That question
    still remains unanswered to this day. And the very fact that
    the Indian Claims Commission award contains the wording ``per
    acre'' means that the land is, you know--that is payment for
    the land. And so that is why we take the position that, if we
    take this award, then we have been paid for the land.
        Mr. Pallone. OK, then let me ask the chairman, now, you
    seem to feel that that is not the case, right? That you could
    still exert certain claims successfully?
        Mr. Ike. I believe that, because I was in opposition to
    Kantovich's introduction of a bill in early 1990, and it was
    suggested at that particular time by Senator Inouye, to the
    Western Shoshone leadership, to go back to Western Shoshone
    country and to develop a land package. And we wanted to deal
    with the highest level of Government. And at that particular
    time, there was Secretary Babbitt who we were dealing with. We
    met with him in Denver, Colorado. Ample money was given to the
    Western Shoshone National Council for the Duckwater Tribe to
    initiate this process. This process only lasted about four or 5
    years. It fizzled right quick. The Western Shoshones could not
    get together on a land issue in regard to the expansion of the
    Reservations. I still believe that if the Western Shoshones
    themselves, through their Governments, through their Tribal
    councils, can ask for and will receive additional land base for
    an expansion of their existing land base that they now have.
    And that is the hope that we have coming before this Committee,
    so that we can get that language once more introduced.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gibbons. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Pallone. Yes, sure. I don't have time, but--
        Mr. Gibbons. I appreciate the gentleman yielding his time.
    The bill only deals with the distribution of a settlement from
    a court award. In there, in Section 2(D)(9), it says that there
    is no waiver of any treaty rights in the bill. So that these
    Tribal Nations that are subject to this settlement still retain
    their treaty rights as pursuant to the treaty rights of Ruby
    Valley that was established. So there is no waiver of any of
    the rights that are inclusive of Article 1 through Article 8 of
    that treaty.
        Mr. Pallone. And I gather there are some that would argue
    that the treaty rights were extinguished long ago anyway,
    right? I mean, I guess none of us agree with that, but that is
    another argument that is out there. I thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. Udall?
        Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Yowell, let
    me--just following up on this same question--let me read you
    part of this bill. In Section 2, paragraph A, it says--and this
    is not a waiver of treaty rights. It says, ``Receipt of a share
    of the judgment funds under this section shall not be construed
    as a waiver of any existing treaty rights pursuant to the 1863
    Treaty of Ruby Valley, inclusive of all Articles 1 through
    Article 8, and shall not prevent any Western Shoshone Tribe or
    band or individual Shoshone Indian from pursuing other rights
    guaranteed by law.''
        How do you interpret this? If this bill doesn't preclude
    claims under the treaty or on other grounds, what is
    objectionable about the bill?
        Mr. Yowell. The very fact that this is referring to Docket
    326-K that came out of the Indian Claims Commission, when that
    commission, which now I have stated is--that the law is
    incomplete--that the commission failed to file the final report
    with Congress. The final thing that happens in that, when the
    finality is achieved--you know, had this report been issued,
    the finality would have been achieved--is that Section 22(a) of
    this Indian Claims Commission Act kicks in and that bars any
    further--since this is based on a land issue--any further land
    claims to be brought forward.
        Mr. Tom Udall. So as I understand your position, you
    believe the ruling and the money, if that is taken, will
    actually extinguish the claims and that you feel that to
    proceed in that manner would extinguish the claims and there is
    no guarantee of any future land settlement?
        Mr. Yowell. Yes. It would make it very difficult for, you
    know, Western Shoshone to bring that issue forward again.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Now, one of the parts to this that is a
    little bit troubling to me--and I think there is a history out
    there when we do these ballots, and everybody talks about the
    ballots. The options that were laid before people in terms of
    the ballot was basically saying here is a big pot of money, do
    each of you want 30,000 of these dollars? I mean, there was no
    mention of a land settlement, there was no mention that this--
    is that correct in terms of characterizing the way the ballot
    was phrased? I mean, was there any mention one way or another
    about the history, anything like that?
        Mr. Yowell. That is my understanding. I did not partake in
    that ballot or that voting process, so I didn't get to see the
    ballot itself. But it is my general understanding that it is
    only for money--you know, the choice is given only for money.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Ms. Piffero, I would like to ask you the
    question, because I have a copy of one of the ballots here and
    it says the ballot presents the following two options: Yes, I
    am in favor of 100 percent per capita claims payment to persons
    who have at least one-quarter degree of Western Shoshone blood;
    No, I am not in favor of receiving any claims payment. Is that
    basically what the ballot was?
        Ms. Piffero. Yes, it was.
        Mr. Tom Udall. So when people were balloting, the issue
    before them was, You have a big pot of money and do you want
    it? There was never any discussion about land claims or land
    settlements or the history that this has had over the last 25
    years and how that might impact on the tribe. Is that correct?
        Ms. Piffero. Right. And I would agree with that statement.
    However, that has been--the lack of communication between our
    people and the truth is making amends. That is true. There has
    been a lot of miscommunication, I believe. But in these last
    few years, that is closing. They are being told the correct
    information by the correct people. And so, yes, that was in
    fact a valid statement in the beginning; however, that is
    progressing, going forward in a positive manner so that they
    are aware.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Chairman Ike, do you foresee a process that
    is in place today and that is moving along for having a land
    settlement take place and you receiving a larger share of land?
    I mean, several administrations--the first Bush administration,
    I know, had negotiations going, the Clinton administration had
    negotiations going. My understanding Bush 2, there are no
    negotiations. I mean, what are--because you mentioned in your
    statement, you know, this doesn't preclude a settlement, what
    is the process you see reaching some kind of land settlement?
        Mr. Ike. That was the beginning of the process which you
    had just asked in regard to the monetary distribution. Because
    initially, when the Western Shoshone Tribal Governments were
    asked to participate in planning for the expansion of their
    reservations, those negotiations fell apart.
        With that being done and that not proceeding, the Western
    Shoshones claim committee that was developed initiated a
    different distribution package. And these things were discussed
    in many meetings in regard to the overall package and the
    procedure. And there were three questions on that ballot, and
    the ballot was very straightforward in regard to exactly what
    this process was going to be all about.
        I still do believe that there is a process available for
    the Western Shoshones, through Congress, to expand our land
    base. Those plans are still in place. All we have to do is go
    back, regenerate those plans, introduce them, and the we can
    move forward.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is
    out. If possible, I would like to ask the sponsor just an issue
    about this land settlement, but I can do it--
        Mr. Gibbons, I am just--I am puzzled by the two positions
    we have here with the-- You know, I understand the good intent
    of your bill in terms of getting this money out there and
    getting it to people. And yet at the same time, you see this
    tortured history of trying to negotiate a settlement and
    linking the two together and there being a lot of fear that if
    the settlement takes place, Congress will never pick up this
    issue again.
        And I was just wondering what your perspective was on this
    in terms of--and the chairman's, for that matter. I mean is
    there a sense of coming back to this issue later on? Are we
    going to give some directive to the Administration to try to
    reach a settlement? You know, where are we on that?
        Mr. Gibbons. I think, Mr. Udall, first of all, the old
    saying, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' And what we are
    trying to do with this bill is to allow for the justice to meet
    the needs of Western Shoshone people in the State of Nevada.
    And that is because the judgment that the Court ruled said that
    X number of dollars were to be paid to this Tribe for the
    taking of their land in the 1850's. There will always be the
    opportunity for extensions, additions, and acquisitions of new
    lands to be added to the existing holdings right now by the
    Shoshone Nations throughout Nevada.
        That is a process which is ongoing, which is not the
    subject of this bill. It is simply one--this bill, as I said
    earlier, is to ensure that the money does not remain in a trust
    account for another 20 or 30 years while senior members of the
    Shoshone Nation pass away without ever receiving the benefit of
    what this Government took from them decades and centuries ago.
        So the point is not--this bill is not the point to be the
    end-all solution to their needs. This bill is only directed to
    require the distribution of those funds which the Court had
    said was an award to be given to the Shoshone Nation for that
    taking. It has nothing to do with later rights of individual
    reservations or Tribes to request additional land, to negotiate
    with the Federal Government for extensions and trust lands to
    be added to that. This would make this bill so immensely
    complicated and delay it so long, that I would venture to say
    that everyone sitting in this room will not be here by the time
    that was ever negotiated and agreed upon at some point in the
    future.
        What we are trying to do is require justice to be delivered
    to these people today--not tomorrow, not a decade from now, not
    20 years from now. That is all this bill does. And it does not
    restrict any of the treaty rights, as you have said by reading
    and quoting that part of the bill.
         So the purpose, of course, is just to get the monies
    released and distributed, and it has nothing to do--and does
    not prevent later or even concurrent negotiations for
    additional lands for the Shoshone people.
        Mr. Tom Udall. If we can just for a second continue this
    colloquy. I mean, when Senator Reed--he asked that when the
    ballots were voted on in one of these elections, that a fact
    sheet be handed out. And the fact sheet said the following--and
    my understanding, it was handed out. ``The United States
    Supreme Court has ruled that claims to tribal aboriginal land
    title were extinguished upon the payment into the U.S. Treasury
    of judgment funds awarded under Docket Numbers 326-K, 326-A1,
    326-A1-3 by the Indian Lands Claims Commission. Accordingly,
    the distribution of these funds neither revives any
    extinguished claims nor extinguishes any existing future claims
    against the U.S. Government.''
        So if this statement is accurate, that the judgment by the
    claims commission and then further approved by the Supreme
    Court extinguished all claims--
        Mr. Gibbons. That was, as you've read, the aboriginal
    lands. But it did not, as it said in the last statement of that
    paragraph, extinguish any future claims that may be brought.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Yes. No, I understand.
        Mr. Gibbons. I don't understand where you are coming from.
    We are looking at an historic area that has been taken by the
    United States. And this bill only pays them $142 million for
    that, which has been sent out by the Court to be distributed.
        Mr. Tom Udall. I think where--I am trying to understand
    where the other side is coming from. And I think where they are
    coming from is saying since this has extinguished all these
    claims in the past and there isn't anything going on in the
    future in terms of existing claims or future claims, why don't
    we try to settle this in one package? I think that has been the
    basic position that has come up. Why can't we resolve this all
    at once? And I think there will be--it just, you know, it is
    just my opinion, I think there will be a strong movement that,
    once the funds have been paid out, that the Congress is done
    with this and will never come back to it. And so if there is an
    issue out there, it seems like there might be an argument for
    packaging it in one.
        But you are very close to this issue and spent a lot more
    time with it than I have, and I just wanted to raise this with
    you and the chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for
    allowing me to carry on this colloquy with my colleague here.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I have no problem and I would be
    more than happy to work with Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Porter and the
    Tribe in trying to come up with some kind of an equitable
    expansion in terms of what reservation lands should be there.
    And as Mr. Gibbons knows, I don't think there is any reason for
    the Federal Government to own 90 percent of his State or more.
    And anything that could help rectify that situation, I am in
    favor of doing. And if there is a way to put this together and
    do that, I am all for doing that.
        But having said that, I think it is crazy to have $140
    million sitting in an account somewhere that belongs to these
    people and not give it to them. I think that we are dealing
    with two separate issues here. And the one issue I think we
    should take care of immediately; the second issue I believe
    is--we are going to need a lot of help from you folks to do
    this and come up with an equitable solution for that. And as
    I've said, I am more than happy to work with you in order to
    make that happen.
        I think most of these issues have been dragging on for way
    too many years. And, you know, to hear Mr. Yarrow talk about
    this court case and how far it goes back and all this, I mean,
    you realize that this started 10 years before I was born, this
    whole thing. And that is just, to me, is unacceptable. So we
    need to get the money to the people it rightfully belongs to.
    We need to come up with a solution in terms of what lands
    should be tribal lands and get that done with. And I think that
    would, I think, help satisfy some of the concerns that are out
    there. I think they are legitimate. We do need to take care of
    that, and I support you in that. But at the same time, I do
    believe that we need to deal with this money that is in this
    judgment fund. It is not doing anybody any good where it is
    right now. We all know that. So I think we just need to deal
    with that. But I am more than happy to work with all of you to
    help solve this problem in as short a period of time as we
    possibly can.
        But I thank you very much for your testimony. I think is
    was very valuable to the members of the Committee to have you
    in, and I know it is not easy for you to come back. But I do
    appreciate you doing this.
        The members of the Committee will have additional
    questions. Several of them were unable to stay because of the
    late hour, but those questions will be submitted to you in
    writing. If you could answer those in a timely manner so that
    they can be included in the hearing record, I would appreciate
    that.
        If there is no further business before the Committee, I
    again thank the members of the Committee and our witnesses for
    this hearing. The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:54 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]