[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4180-S4184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE SALVAGE LAW AND NATURAL RESOURCES DECISION MAKING

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as part of the negotiations with the 
White House on appropriations for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1996, we 
have agreed to eliminate language designed to make the so-called 
Salvage Rider more workable for the Administration. To my colleagues 
with whom I worked to fashion this language, let me say that I did not 
drop it willingly. I dropped it in the face of a direct and specific 
veto threat by the President. I continue to believe it is sound policy 
and makes many desirable changes to the original salvage law.
  This language would have given the Administration the authority, for 
any reason, to halt for 90 days the green tree sales released under 
Section 2001(k) of the law on which harvesting had not begun by March 
28, 1996. During that 90 day period, the President would have been able 
to negotiate with contract holders to provide replacement timber or a 
cash buy out as a substitute for harvesting the original timber sale. 
Current law restricts the President's ability to enter into such 
agreements.

[[Page S4181]]

  The proposed language would also have lifted the completion deadline 
imposed by current law so that the owners of these sales would not have 
been rushed to harvest their timber before the deadline. By lifting 
that deadline, I sought to provide a longer time frame for parties to 
negotiate with the Administration on mutually agreeable ways to avoid 
operating sales that may have adverse environmental consequences.
  Mr. President, I have always believed that the high road for public 
officials is in solving legitimate policy problems, not in retaining 
issues for some perceived partisan gain. In negotiating improvements to 
the current timber salvage law, it is my view that the Administration 
dropped the former approach for the latter. The President determined, 
for reasons that puzzle me greatly, that he was unable to embrace the 
additional flexibility that we had offered to him under the salvage 
law. I can only assume that the White House has determined that 
retaining the issue as a political cudgel is more valuable during an 
election year than actually solving the problem.
  Recall that when the President signed this measure into law, he 
issued a statement praising Congress for making a number of changes 
that would greatly improve the provision. Soon thereafter, with the 
wrath of the environmental community unleashed upon it, the White House 
changed its tune. The new, and unflattering, message was that the 
President had been duped into signing the Salvage law.
  As someone intimately involved in much of the process, I can say with 
absolute confidence that the White House was aware of every letter in 
this provision. It was negotiated in excruciating detail over a period 
of 6 months.
  Even though I am convinced the White House was fully aware of what 
was included in the current salvage law, I appreciate the controversial 
nature of the subject matter and the need to address genuine problems 
with the law. For this reason, I have attempted in good faith to 
address the President's legitimate concerns. In fact, I share a number 
of the same concerns. Since December, when the White House first 
approached me for assistance in amending this law, my staff and I have 
met repeatedly with the President's staff. I have responded to the 
White House's concerns by proposing effective solutions that are, 
frankly, difficult for supporters of the Salvage Law to accept.
  It now appears to me that the thinking at the White House has again 
changed since we began our meetings last December. Only the President 
and his advisors know the political calculus behind his decision to 
reject this language. Most of the changes to the current salvage law 
were suggested by the White House. It would have given the President 
the unilateral authority to immediately halt the very timber sales he 
has publicly objected to.
  By threatening to veto the entire budget agreement over the inclusion 
of this single provision, the President appears to be willing to 
continue the budget stalemate and furlough thousands of Federal workers 
in order to play politics with the forests of the Northwest.
  I hope the President's advisors will keep this language handy. Later 
this summer, these sales will be rapidly harvested prior to the 
deadline and within weeks of the November election. I am confident the 
President will wish he had the substantial authority the Congress had 
offered to give him and which he had originally requested. He could 
have stopped the very sales he and the environmental community have 
objected to so strongly in the press. Let no one be confused about why 
the President lacks the authority to resolve concerns with these 
sales--the President rejected it.

  It is my belief that the White House rejected this reasonable 
language because of its fear of being at odds with the environmental 
community. The position of the environmental community is total repeal 
and they oppose anything less.
  I told the President when he was about to announce his forest plan 
for the Pacific Northwest that his advisors were putting him in a box 
in which he would have no choice but to take the extreme position. 
Today, the President has found himself inside that same box.
  The historic timber debates in the Northwest have never been about 
owls or old growth. I have argued for many years that the true agenda 
of many in the environmental community is to eliminate timber harvests 
on Federal lands--zero cut. Now this view is in the mainstream of the 
environmental movement, a movement the President is determined to 
satisfy.
  The Sierra Club voted 2-to-1 this week to back a ban on logging of 
any kind on all Federal land. The adoption of this single-minded 
preservation perspective by one of our Nation's largest environmental 
organizations has finally disrobed the underlying agenda of the 
environmental community--lock-up of our Nation's forests. We can now 
debate the merits of entirely eliminating timber harvest on our 
millions of acres of Federal lands.
  Today, in Oregon, the zero-cut proposition has been put squarely 
before the public in the form of the Enola Hill timber sale.
  This sale is about 40 miles outside Portland on the way to Mount 
Hood. The Forest Service initially prepared this sale in 1987. Since 
then, it has undergone a long and distinguished legal history. It has 
been unsuccessfully challenged in four separate lawsuits. It is now in 
the midst of its fifth legal action and was the focus of hundreds of 
protesters last week.
  With this kind of controversy and divisive legal history, one might 
imagine that the Enola Hill sale involves critical salmon habitat, 
various listed endangered species, miles of new forest road 
construction or huge clearcutting of 1,000-year-old trees. My 
colleagues may be surprised to learn that the Enola Hill sale involves 
none of these controversial things.
  There are no Endangered Species Act concerns with this sale. There 
are no spotted owls, no marbled murrelets, no endangered salmon runs to 
be concerned about in the area.
  The sale is comprised of second growth timber, not old growth.
  The sale is not a clearcut, but rather a 250 acre selective cut which 
will remove about one third of the trees. The entry will hardly be 
visible when the sale is completed.
  The sale involves no new roads to be built. How can this be? Because 
all logs will be removed by helicopter, a fairly expensive, but much 
more common practice in timber management in the Northwest today.
  The sale has the further attribute of addressing a very real forest 
health problem. Laminated root rot is killing these trees that are to 
be harvested. This sale is designed to slow the spread of this disease 
to other forest stands.
  So why all the controversy? The primary challenge to this sale is 
cultural. A number of individual Native American tribal members have 
argued that the Enola Hill area is sacred. However, no Tribe has 
objected to the sale going forward, including the largest Tribe in my 
State and the one in closest proximity to the sale area, the Warm 
Springs Tribe.
  The Courts and the Forest Service have weighed the questions of 
cultural significance of the site and the evidence has been 
inconclusive at best. The Forest Service continues to state its 
willingness to consider adjusting the sale to accommodate any 
identified culturally significant areas, but those individual tribal 
members who object to the sale refuse to identify any particular areas 
as being any more culturally significant than other areas in the Mount 
Hood National Forest. I have chosen to highlight this sale only because 
the environmental community has chosen to highlight it. It is the 
flagship sale for the Northwest environmentalists as they protest 
``lawless logging.''

  I have a difficult time locating any environmental issue on the Enola 
Hill sale that would not be present in any timber sale. We have now 
reached the bottom line debate: Is cutting down trees in our national 
forests to satisfy the public's increasing demand for wood products 
inherently unsound from an environmental perspective?
  In this debate, the environmental community's true agenda comes 
through loud and clear: zero cut, lock up. This position is socially 
and environmentally irresponsible and I reject it in the strongest 
possible terms.
  As I have said before, I do not enjoy seeing trees being cut down. I 
am a former tree farmer. I plant trees. Like many others, however, I 
enjoy having a

[[Page S4182]]

roof over my head. I enjoy having furniture to sit on, and I imagine my 
colleagues enjoy these beautiful wooden desks and the wood paneling 
here in the Senate Chamber. The demand for wood products to fulfill our 
Nation's housing and other wood fibre demands is growing, Mr. 
President, not shrinking. Fortunately, our primary resources for 
meeting these demands, wood products, are renewable and are grown from 
free solar energy.
  Moreover, arguably the greatest tree growing region in the world is 
the Pacific Northwest. It troubles me greatly that timber harvesting in 
this very region has been drastically reduced and is now well below 
scientifically sustainable levels.
  With demand continuing to rise, America is now forced to look 
elsewhere to satisfy its needs. I have called this practice 
Environmental Imperialism--lock up our own forests but go to the Third 
World and other countries to satisfy American demand. Unfortunately, 
most, if not all, of these countries do not have comprehensive forest 
practices statutes in place like we do here. Their harvesting is most 
often based on satisfying economic needs without consideration for 
ecological concerns.
  I have seen the detrimental effects of this U.S.-centered policy with 
my own eyes. I traveled to Russia last summer, and I learned of an 
interesting comparison--the timber lands of Siberia are 15 times less 
productive than the timber lands in western Oregon. In other words, it 
takes 1.5 million acres of Siberian timber land to grow the same amount 
of timber we can grow on 100,000 acres in the Northwest. I have also 
recently visited the rain forests of South America and seen the impacts 
that the exporting of our domestic problems has caused in that area.
  These experiences have helped me put the global nature of our timber 
policies in perspective. When we reduce timber production from the 
great timber growing lands of the Pacific Northwest, there is an 
undeniable global impact.
  I believe that the administration wants to be sensitive to the global 
effects of our environmental policies in this country. I want to 
commend Secretary of State Christopher for his commitment to looking at 
environmental issues on a global basis. However, along with this view 
must come the recognition that not only do the practices of other 
nations impact us here in the United States, but that our domestic 
practices and policies also have a great impact on other nations.
  Mr. President, I have always believed that we have a responsibility 
to conserve our natural resources. I have authored nearly 1.5 million 
acres of wilderness legislation in Oregon and added 44 river segments 
to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. At the same time, I 
believe that we have a moral obligation to satisfy the demand of 
Americans with the wise use of American resources, not by going abroad 
to rape the resources of other countries.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, with its latest action to oppose giving 
itself flexibility on the Salvage Rider, the White House has chosen 
political convenience over the best interests of the environment both 
in the Pacific Northwest and throughout the world. The provisions 
stricken from the Omnibus Appropriations package would have given the 
President significant authority to resolve problems with sales released 
under the current Salvage Law. I hope that in the future our 
negotiations will hinge on the resolution of legitimate policy issues, 
rather than clinging to a political issue for perceived partisan 
advantage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rejected language, 
and a letter related to the issues I have raised here be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Salvage Flexibility Language--Dropped

       Sec. 325. Section 2001(k) of Public Law 104-19 is amended 
     by striking ``in fiscal years 1995 and 1996'' in paragraph 
     (1), and by striking paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``(3) Timing and Conditions of Alternative Volume.--For any 
     sale subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the 
     Secretary concerned shall, and for any other sale subject to 
     this subsection, the Secretary concerned may, within 7 days 
     of enactment of this paragraph notify the affected purchaser 
     of his desire to provide alternative volume, and within 90 
     days of the date of enactment of this paragraph, reach 
     agreement with the purchaser to identify and provide, by a 
     date agreed by the purchaser, a volume, value and kind of 
     timber satisfactory to the purchaser to substitute for all or 
     a portion of the timber subject to the sale, which shall be 
     subject to the original terms of the contract except as 
     otherwise agreed, and shall be subject to paragraph (1). Upon 
     notification by the Secretary, the affected purchaser shall 
     suspend harvesting and related operations for 90 days, except 
     for sale units where harvesting and related activities have 
     commenced before March 28, 1996. Except for sale units 
     subject to paragraph (2), the purchaser may operate the 
     original sale under the terms of paragraph (1) if no 
     agreement is reached within 90 days, or after the agreed date 
     for providing alternative timber until the Secretary 
     concerned designates and releases to the purchaser the 
     alternative timber volume in the agreement. The purchaser may 
     not harvest a volume of timber from the alternative sale and 
     from the portion of the original sale to be replaced which 
     has greater contract value than the contract value of the 
     alternative sale agreement. Any sale subject to this 
     subsection shall be awarded, released and completed pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) for a period equal to the length of the 
     original contract, and shall not count against current 
     allowable sale quantities or timber sales to be offered under 
     subsections (b) and (d). A purchaser may enforce the rights 
     established in this paragraph to obtain substitute timber 
     within the required or agreed upon time frame in federal 
     district court.
       ``(4) Buy-Out Authorization.--The Secretary concerned is 
     authorized to permit a requesting purchaser of any sale 
     subject to this subsection to return to the Government all or 
     a specific volume of timber under the sale contract, and 
     shall pay to such purchaser upon tender of such volume a buy-
     out payment for such volume from any funds available to the 
     Secretary concerned except from any permanent appropriation 
     of trust fund, subject to the approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations. Such volume and such 
     payment shall be mutually agreed by the Secretary and the 
     purchaser. Any agreement between the purchaser and the 
     Secretary shall be reached within 90 days from the date on 
     which the negotiation was initiated by the purchaser. The 
     total sum paid for all such buy-out payments shall not exceed 
     $20,000,000 by each Secretary and $40,000,000 in total. No 
     less than half of the funds used by the Secretary concerned 
     must come from funds otherwise available to fund Oregon and 
     Washington programs of the Forest Service and the Bureau of 
     Land Management. The Secretary is authorized to offset any 
     portion of a buy-out payment agreed under the provisions of 
     this paragraph with an amount necessary to retire fully a 
     purchaser's obligation on a government guaranteed loan.''
       Section 325. Deletes language regarding the redefinition of 
     the marbled murrelet nesting area and inserts a new provision 
     that amends subsection 2001(k) of Public Law 104-19 to 
     provide alternative timber options or buy-out payments to 
     timber purchasers for both Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
     Management sales offered or sold originally in units of the 
     National Forest System or districts of the Bureau of Land 
     Management subject to section 318 of Public Law 101-121. The 
     new language neither expands nor reduces the sales to be 
     released under subsection 2001(k). The managers do not intend 
     to interdict or affect prior or pending judicial decisions 
     with this language.
       The provision increases the Administration's flexibility by 
     allowing the Secretary concerned to notify a purchaser within 
     7 days, and agree with a purchaser within 90 days of the date 
     of enactment, to provide alternative volume for part or all 
     of any sale subject to subsection 2001(k) in a volume, value, 
     and kind satisfactory to the purchaser, by a date agreed by 
     the purchaser. The precise designation of alternative timber 
     need not occur within the initial 90-day period. Upon 
     notification by the Secretary, the purchaser shall suspend 
     harvesting and related operations for 90 days, except for 
     sale units where harvesting and related activities have 
     commenced before March 28, 1996. For any sale that cannot be 
     released due to threatened or endangered bird nesting within 
     the sale unit, the amendment requires the agreement for 
     alternative volume, in quantity, value, and kind satisfactory 
     to the purchaser, and by a date agreed by the purchaser, to 
     be reached within 90 days of the date of enactment of this 
     section.
       The Administration has delayed implementing subsection 
     2001(k) well beyond the original 45-day time limit set by 
     Congress, and still has not released all the sales required 
     under the statute. Therefore, except for sale units affected 
     by paragraph (2) of subsection 2001(k), the purchaser may 
     operate the original sale under subsection 2001(k) if: 1) the 
     Secretary has not designated and released timber by the date 
     agreed or 2) if no agreement has been reached 90 days after 
     notification. Also, a purchaser may enforce the rights 
     established in this paragraph to obtain substitute timber 
     within the required or agreed time frame in Federal district 
     court. The managers continue to endorse the statement of the 
     managers language accompanying the conference report on the 
     1995 Rescissions Act (House Report 104-124; Public Law 104-
     19) relating to section 2001(k).
       A purchaser may not be compelled to accept alternative 
     volume over the purchaser's

[[Page S4183]]

     objection, as he cannot be under present law. The purchaser 
     may not operate on both the portion of the original sale to 
     be replaced, and the alternative timber such that the 
     combined contract value harvested exceeds the contract value 
     of the alternative timber in the agreement. Sales with 
     alternative volume under the amendment are subject to the 
     original terms of the contract unless the parties agree 
     otherwise and are subject to paragraph (1) of subsection (k). 
     Any alternative volume under paragraph (3) shall not count 
     against current allowable sales quantities or timber sales to 
     be offered under subsections (b) and (d) of section 2001 of 
     Public Law 104-19. Alternative volume may, at the Secretary's 
     discretion, come from areas not otherwise contemplated for 
     harvesting.
       To avoid forcing purchasers to operate sales hastily before 
     environmental considerations can be taken into account, the 
     limitation in paragraph (1) to fiscal years 1995 and 1996 is 
     deleted, and all sales awarded or released under subsection 
     2001(k) are now subject to the legal protections in paragraph 
     (1) for a period equal to the length of the original contract 
     (including any term adjustment or extensions permitted under 
     the original contract or agreed by the Secretary and the 
     purchaser). The period of legal protection for each sale 
     begins when the sale is awarded or released under subsection 
     2001(k), or when alternative volume is provided under this 
     statute.
       The provision also gives the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, upon request of a sale owner, 
     the authority to purchase all or a specific volume of timber 
     under the sale contract covered under this subsection. 
     Payment may be made directly to the purchaser, or to agents 
     or creditors to retire fully the purchaser's obligation on a 
     government guaranteed loan. The volume and payment must be 
     mutually agreed by the Secretary and the purchaser. The 
     payments would come from any funds available to the Secretary 
     concerned, except for any permanent appropriation or trust 
     funds, such as the timber salvage sale funds and the Knudsen-
     Vandenburg fund. In order to relieve partially the burden on 
     programs in the rest of the nation, no less than half of the 
     funds used for the payments must come from accounts which 
     otherwise would be available to the Secretaries for Oregon 
     and Washington programs of the Forest Service and the Bureau 
     of Land Management. The Secretaries shall follow established 
     reprogramming procedures when seeking the approval of the 
     House and Senate appropriations committees to designate funds 
     for the buy-out payments. Each Secretary may use up to $20 
     million for such payments. Any agreement between a purchaser 
     and the Secretary concerned shall be reached within 90 days 
     of the date on which a negotiation was initiated by the 
     purchaser.
                                                                    ____

         The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Spring Reservation of 
           Oregon, Natural Resource Department,
                                   Warm Spring, OR, April 3, 1996.
     Kathleen McGinty,
     Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chair McGinty: The April 10, 1996 correspondence to 
     President Clinton from Richard Moe, president of the National 
     Trust for Historic Preservation, regarding Enola Hill and its 
     potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic 
     Places and related issues is extremely dismaying. During the 
     past 10 years the Mount Hood National Forest administrators 
     and technical staff have consulted at both the government to 
     government and technical levels regarding resource issues at 
     Enola Hill.
       The destruction issue raised by the opponents of the Enola 
     Hill timber sale is debatable. It is our understanding 
     through direct coordination and consultation with the Mount 
     Hood National Forest staff and administrators that the sale 
     is being implemented to insure the forest health on Enola 
     Hill. The existing timber stand is approximately 80 to 100 
     years old and represents a monoculture of Douglas fir which 
     is being affected by laminated root rot. This affliction is 
     endemic, yet can be controlled through stand manipulation. 
     The proposed treatments through harvest and introduction of 
     fire and pathogen control will mimic the natural stand 
     regimes present in the region prior to Euro-American 
     settlement. The timber sale will thus add to the quality of 
     the natural and cultural landscape.
       The planning process for the Enola Hill timber sale has to 
     our satisfaction attempted to document the tangible and 
     intangible values associated with the area. It is also our 
     understanding that the C6.24 clause of the award contract is 
     to insure that upon discovery of any properties potentially 
     eligible to the National Register of Historic Places all work 
     will cease and mitigation measures developed in conjunction 
     with professional staff and in consultation and coordination 
     with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs and public.
       Ongoing claims and concerns regarding Native American 
     traditional use and cultural resources at the Enola Hill area 
     has created an air of controversy within the Native American 
     community, the Forest Service, non-native people and the 
     judicial system. Our tribal government adopted the ``Warm 
     Springs Tribal Council Position Paper Regarding Enola Hill'' 
     through Resolution 8607 on January 19, 1993 in the interest 
     of the Tribe and its members. This position paper firmly 
     expresses that the Warm Springs elders and religious leaders 
     are the only Indian people with the sovereign authority to 
     speak about the cultural significance of Enola Hill as well 
     as the entire area surrounding Mount Hood. The proposed 
     timber sale opposition to Enola Hill are voices of those 
     individuals not from our tribes who claim the right to speak 
     as Indian people about cultural significance, traditional 
     uses and sacred sites.
       We are currently unaware of any tribal government request 
     to consider Enola Hill as a ``traditional cultural property'' 
     eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic 
     Places. A true traditional Indian interpretation of cultural 
     significance of any part of Mount Hood whether within the 
     ceded or traditional lands is based on a special relationship 
     of Warm Springs tribal members and their ancestors since time 
     immemorial with Wy'east or Mount Hood. Consent for use has 
     and is still based on ancestral courtesy and custom with 
     regard to exercising aboriginal and treaty rights within the 
     ceded or traditional use lands.
       In addition it is the Tribal Council position that ``the 
     Federal Government, the State of Oregon, the Federal Court, 
     and the non-Indian public, look to our people for the answers 
     to their questions about what Mount Hood, including Enola 
     Hill, means to the traditional people of this area. We are 
     those people and we should be the only ones to answer those 
     questions.''
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Charles R. Calica,
                                                  General Manager.

                               Resolution

       Whereas, The Tribal Council has determined that the 
     controversy over management of the area of Mount Hood 
     National Forest called ``Enola Hill'' is of great concern to 
     the Tribe; and
       Whereas, Non-Indians and Indians from other tribes have 
     made many public claims about the cultural and spiritual 
     significance of Enola Hill; and
       Whereas, The Tribal Council believes that our tribe has 
     primary rights in the Mount Hood area and that we are the 
     only Indian people with the sovereign authority to speak 
     about the importance of Enola Hill to Indian people; and
       Whereas, The Tribal Council has reviewed the ``Warm Springs 
     Tribal Council Position Paper Regarding Enola Hill'' attached 
     to this resolution as Exhibit ``A'', and believes that the 
     approval of this position paper is in the best interest of 
     the Tribe and its members; now, therefore
       Be it Resolved, By the Tribal Council of the Confederated 
     Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon pursuant to 
     Article V, Section 1 (1) and (u) of the Constitution and By-
     Laws that the ``Warm Springs Tribal Council Position Paper 
     Regarding Enola Hill'' attached to this resolution as Exhibit 
     ``A'', is hereby approved and adopted.


                             certification

       The undersigned, as Secretary-Treasurer of the Confederated 
     Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, hereby 
     certifies that the Nineteenth Tribal Council is composed of 
     11 members of whom 7, constituting a quorum, where present at 
     a meeting thereof, duly and regularly called, noticed, 
     convened and held this 19th day of January 1993; and that the 
     foregoing resolution was passed by the affirmative vote of 6 
     members, the Chairman not voting; and that said resolution 
     has not been rescinded or amended in any way.

    Warm Springs Tribal Council Position Paper Regarding Enola Hill

       This paper represents the official position of the Tribal 
     Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 
     Reservation of Oregon regarding the controversy over logging 
     and other activities in the area of Mount Hood National 
     Forest known as ``Enola Hill.''
       Enola Hill is part of Zig Zag Mountain and is located north 
     of U.S. Highway 26 on the lower slopes of Mount Hood near the 
     community of Rhododendron, Oregon. The entire area 
     surrounding Mount Hood, including the headwaters of the 
     Sandy, Zig Zag, and Salmon Rivers where Enola Hill is 
     located, is very familiar to our people. The seven bands and 
     tribes of Wasco and Sahaptin-speaking Indians who signed the 
     Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon of June 25, 1855, all 
     lived within close proximity to Mount Hood. The mountain 
     itself, the trees and berries and plants that grow on its 
     slopes, the deer and elk and other wildlife that call the 
     mountain home, and the rivers, springs and other waters that 
     originate on Mount Hood, and the fish and other creatures 
     that live in these waters, all occupy a special place in the 
     cultural, spiritual and historical life of our people.
       There is no federally recognized Indian tribal government 
     in existence today with closer ties to Mount Hood than the 
     Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of 
     Oregon. In pre-treaty times, Mount Hood rose high into the 
     sky above our traditional homes along the Columbia River and 
     its Oregon tributaries. Today, the mountain is located mostly 
     within our treaty-reserved ceded area and just outside of the 
     Northwest boundary of our present reservation. In short, we 
     regard Mount Hood as our mountain.
       Based on our special relationship with Mount Hood, which 
     has existed since time immemorial, we believe that no other 
     tribe, band or group of Indian people has a right greater 
     than or equal to the natural sovereign right of the 
     Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 
     to speak about the importance of Mount Hood

[[Page S4184]]

     from an Indian point of view. Our historic, cultural and 
     spiritual attachment to Mount Hood has caused us to be 
     involved in many public policy, administrative and legal 
     proceedings involving use and development of the mountain. 
     Currently, we are party to several legal proceedings 
     involving land management decisions of the Mount Hood 
     National Forest. We are concerned about these decisions 
     because of the potential impacts of these developments on our 
     treaty fishing rights, and other legally protected interests. 
     We are, for example, the only tribes involved in the Mount 
     Hood Meadows Ski Area expansion proceedings. We believe that 
     Mount Hood National Forest should consult only with our tribe 
     on issues relating to proposed developments on public lands 
     in the vicinity of Mount Hood.
       With regard to the area called ``Enola Hill,'' our people 
     are familiar with this place. Many of our elders camped with 
     their families in this area, fished for salmon and picked 
     huckleberries in the general vicinity of Enola Hill. Whether 
     there is special cultural significance to Enola Hill as a 
     whole, and whether there are special religious and spiritual 
     places there, is not something we wish to speak about in a 
     position paper or put down in writing. In the past, our 
     tribal elders have provided such information to appropriate 
     officials once they have been assured of confidentiality and 
     convinced of the serious need for the information. However, 
     we are concerned that culturally sensitive information our 
     elders have disclosed concerning Enola Hill could be 
     exploited and used for improper purposes. Unwarranted public 
     access to such information through the courts or the media 
     only makes our job of protecting our people's sacred sites 
     more difficult. We hope that the cure does not become worse 
     than the affliction.
       We believe very strongly that only Warm Springs tribal 
     elders and religious leaders should be questioned on this 
     issue. Certain individuals who are not from our tribe, and 
     indeed some of them are not even Indian, have spoken out 
     frequently and loudly about what they believe is the 
     desecration of sacred Indian religious places at Enola Hill. 
     Mount Hood, including Enola Hill, is not theirs--it is ours. 
     It is not for them to talk about the traditional Indian 
     cultural and religious significance of any part of Mount 
     Hood. It is the mountain of our people and we believe that we 
     should be the only ones asked to give the true traditional 
     Indian interpretation of the significance of any part of the 
     Mount Hood region. For this reason, we oppose the voices of 
     those individuals about the importance of Enola Hill. 
     Furthermore, we ask that the Federal Government, the State of 
     Oregon, the Federal Court, and the non-Indian public, look to 
     our people for the answers to their questions about what 
     Mount Hood, including Enola Hill, means to the traditional 
     Indian people of this area. We are those people, and we 
     should be the only ones to answer those questions.
       Dated: January 20, 1993.

                          ____________________