[House Report 115-1087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-1087
======================================================================
RUFFEY RANCHERIA RESTORATION ACT OF 2018
_______
December 20, 2018.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3535]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 3535) to restore Federal recognition to the
Ruffey Rancheria of California, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act of
2018''.
SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF FEDERAL RECOGNITION, RIGHTS, AND PRIVILEGES.
(a) Federal Recognition.--Federal recognition is hereby restored to
the Tribe. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all laws and
regulations of general application to Indians and nations, tribes, or
bands of Indians that are not inconsistent with any specific provision
of this Act shall be applicable to the Tribe and its members.
(b) Restoration of Rights and Privileges.--Except as provided in
subsection (d), all rights and privileges of the Tribe and its members
under any Federal treaty, Executive order, agreement, or statute, or
under any other authority which were diminished or lost under the Act
of August 18, 1958 (Public Law 85-671; 72 Stat. 619), are hereby
restored, and the provisions of such Act shall be inapplicable to the
Tribe and its members after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such
Federal treaties and other authority shall not include any treaty,
Executive Order, agreement, statute or other authority entered into in
the Territory or State of Oregon or affecting any tribe or band of
Indians whose historical territory was located therein.
(c) Federal Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Without regard to the existence of a
reservation, the Tribe and its members shall be eligible, on
and after the date of the enactment of this Act, for all
Federal services and benefits furnished to federally recognized
Indian Tribes or their members. For the purposes of Federal
services and benefits available to members of federally
recognized Indian tribes residing on a reservation, members of
the Tribe residing in the Tribe's service area shall be deemed
to be residing on a reservation.
(2) Relation to other laws.--The eligibility on the part of
the Tribe and its members for, or receipt of, services and
benefits under paragraph (1) shall not be considered as income,
resources, or otherwise when determining the eligibility for or
computation of any payment or other benefit to such tribe,
individual, or household under--
(A) any financial aid program of the United States,
including grants and contracts subject to the Indian
Self-Determination Act; or
(B) any other benefit to which such tribe, household,
or individual would otherwise be entitled under any
Federal or federally assisted program.
(d) Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Gathering, and Water Rights.--Nothing
in this Act shall expand, reduce, or affect in any manner any hunting,
fishing, trapping, gathering, or water rights of the Tribe and its
members, provided, that any such rights shall not extend into the
Territory or State of Oregon.
(e) Certain Rights Not Altered.--Except as specifically provided in
this Act, nothing in this Act shall alter any property right or
obligation, any contractual right or obligation, or any obligation for
taxes levied.
(f) Rights of the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed as infringing upon or diminishing the
territorial rights or sovereignty of the Quartz Valley Indian
Reservation.
SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF LAND TO BE HELD IN TRUST.
(a) Lands to Be Taken in Trust.--Upon application by the Tribe, the
Secretary shall have the authority under this section to accept into
trust for the benefit of the Tribe real property located in Siskiyou
County, California, after the property is conveyed or otherwise
transferred to the Secretary and if, at the time of such conveyance or
transfer, there are no adverse legal claims to such property, including
outstanding liens, mortgages, or taxes.
(b) Former Trust Lands of the Ruffey Rancheria.--Subject to the
conditions specified in this section, real property eligible for trust
status under this section shall include Indian owned fee land in
Siskiyou County, California, that is held by persons listed as
distributees or dependent members in the distribution plan approved by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 1961, or such distributees' or dependent members' Indian
heirs or successors in interest, provided, that such lands shall not
include any lands located within the boundaries of the State of Oregon.
(c) Lands to Be Part of the Reservation.--Any real property taken
into trust for the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to this Act shall be
part of the Tribe's reservation.
(d) Lands to Be Nontaxable.--Any real property taken into trust for
the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to this section shall be exempt from
all local, State, and Federal taxation as of the date that such land is
transferred to the Secretary.
SEC. 4. MEMBERSHIP ROLLS.
(a) Compilation of Tribal Membership Roll.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, after
consultation with the Tribe, compile a membership roll of the Tribe.
(b) Criteria for Enrollments.--
(1) Preconstitution roll.--Until a tribal constitution is
adopted pursuant to section 6, an individual shall be placed on
the Ruffey Rancheria membership roll if the individual is
living, is not an enrolled member of another federally
recognized Indian tribe, and if--
(A) such individual's name was listed on the Ruffey
Rancheria distribution list compiled by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and approved by the Secretary and
published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1961,
under Public Law 85-671;
(B) such individual was not listed on, but met the
requirements that had to be met to be listed on the
Ruffey Rancheria distribution list; or
(C) the individual is a lineal descendant of an
individual, living or dead, identified in subparagraph
(A) or (B), and has never been an enrolled member of
any other Federally recognized Indian tribe.
(2) Roll after adoption of constitution.--After adoption of a
tribal constitution under section 6, such tribal constitution
shall govern membership in the Tribe.
(c) Conclusive Proof of Ruffey Rancheria Indian Ancestry.--For the
purpose of subsection (b), the Secretary shall accept any available
evidence establishing Ruffey Rancheria Indian ancestry. The Secretary
shall accept as conclusive evidence of Ruffey Rancheria Indian ancestry
information contained in the letter regarding certain lands purchased
for the use of Ruffey and other Indians near Etna, California, sent by
Charles E. Kelsey, Special Agent for the California Indians, to the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs dated June 24, 1913; residence on or
adjacent to lands purchased or leased in Siskiyou County, California,
by Special Agent Charles E. Kelsey, provided that such lands were
occupied by an individual with a bona fide relationship to the Ruffey
Rancheria; and in the Ruffey Rancheria distribution list compiled by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and approved by the Secretary and
published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1961.
SEC. 5. INTERIM GOVERNMENT.
Until a new tribal constitution and bylaws are adopted and become
effective under section 6, the governing body of the Tribe shall be an
Interim Council. The initial membership of the Interim Council shall
consist of the members of the Executive Council of the Tribe on the
date of the enactment of this Act, and the Interim Council shall
continue to operate in the manner prescribed for the Executive Council
under the tribal constitution of the Tribe adopted on December 19,
2014, as amended by Tribal Resolution 18-02, to the extent that such
constitution is not contrary to Federal law. Any new members filling
vacancies on the Interim Council shall meet the enrollment criteria set
forth in section 4(b) and be elected in the same manner as are
Executive Council members under the tribal constitution adopted
December 19, 2014, as amended by Tribal Resolution 18-02.
SEC. 6. TRIBAL CONSTITUTION.
(a) Election; Time; Procedure.--After the compilation of the tribal
membership roll under section 4, upon the written request of the
Interim Tribal Council, the Secretary shall conduct, by secret ballot,
an election for the purpose of ratifying a final constitution for the
Tribe. The election shall be held consistent with sections 16(c)(1) and
16(c)(2)(A) of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the Indian
Reorganization Act; 25 U.S.C. 5123(c)(1) and 5123(c)(2)(A),
respectively). Absentee voting shall be permitted regardless of voter
residence.
(b) Election of Tribal Officials; Procedures.--Not later than 120
days after the Tribe ratifies a final constitution under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall conduct an election by secret ballot for the
purpose of electing tribal officials as provided in such tribal
constitution. Such election shall be conducted consistent with the
procedures specified in subsection (a) except to the extent that such
procedures conflict with the tribal constitution.
SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON INDIAN GAMING ON ACQUIRED LANDS.
In addition to any other requirements under applicable Federal law,
gaming conducted pursuant to an exception under subsection (b)(1)(B) of
section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719) shall
not be conducted on any land taken into trust by the United States for
the benefit of the Tribe unless the Secretary determines, on the date
that the land is taken into trust, that--
(1) the Tribe has received a written determination by the
Secretary that the land is eligible to be used for gaming under
such section; and
(2) the land is located in the county of Siskiyou,
California, 5 miles or less away from lands within such County
taken into trust under section 3 of this Act.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Interim council.--The term ``Interim Council'' means the
governing body of the Tribe specified in section 6.
(2) Member.--The term ``member'' means any person meeting the
enrollment criteria under section 4(b).
(3) Reservation.--The term ``reservation'' means those lands
acquired and held in trust by the Secretary for the benefit of
the Tribe pursuant to section 3.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Interior.
(5) Service area.--The term ``service area'' means Siskiyou
County in the State of California. Neither the Tribe's service
area nor its near-reservation area shall be extended into or
located within the State of Oregon for any Federal or State
program or service.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of California.
(7) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Ruffey Rancheria of
California.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 3535 is to restore federal recognition
to the Ruffey Rancheria of California.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Overview of the Ruffey Rancheria Recognition Claims
The Ruffey Rancheria is a group from Siskiyou, California,
seeking federal recognition as an Indian tribe. The entity has
provided testimony and other information reporting the
following about its history:
The Ruffey group reports that it consists of Indian people
who have historical connections to the vicinity of Etna,
California. According to the group, the tribal entity has
strong social bonds in Siskiyou County at Etna, Salmon River,
Ager, and Bogus, and whose families intermarried. They shared
the cultural, spiritual, and political leadership of elders
such as Moffett Creek Jake and Old Man Ruffey. The group's
ancestors participated in the negotiations for California's
unratified ``Treaty R'' in 1851.\1\ The California State
legislature petitioned Congress to provide the group with a
reservation in 1874.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Treaty R'' in The Eighteen Unratified Treaties of 1851-1852
Between the California Indians and the United States Government. Robert
F. Heizer (Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Research
Facility, 1972), 97-101.
\2\U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Mis. Doc. No. 177, 43d.
Cong. 1st.Sess. (1874).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1907, Special Agent for California Indians C. E. Kelsey
purchased 441 acres of land for the ``Etna Band of Indians,''
as the group was then known, pursuant to the Act of June 21,
1906.\3\ By 1915, a census of the group had enumerated some 56
individuals as part of the Ruffeys.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Public Law 59-258.
\4\Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of
the Interior. June 1915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination of Rancherias
During the termination policy era of the 1950s, Congress
terminated the Ruffey Rancheria, along with others, under the
Rancheria Act of 1958.\5\ The termination of the Ruffey
Rancheria proceeded in 1959 with the involvement of only the
three surviving descendants. The termination went into effect
in April 1961 and was published in the Federal Register.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Public Law 85-671, 72 Stat. 619.
\6\26 Fed. Reg. 3073.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1980s, aided by California Indian Legal Services, an
Indian named Tillie Hardwick filed a lawsuit against the Bureau
of Indian Affairs challenging the Congressional termination of
her Rancheria and others. In 1983, the U.S. District Court for
Northern California approved a Stipulated Settlement negotiated
between the government and several terminated Rancherias under
which the government would recognize the Rancherias as tribes.
The settlement provided that the Ruffey Rancheria claims were
dismissed without prejudice.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Tillie Hardwich et al. v. U.S. et al. No. C-79-1710-SW.
Stipulation for Entry of Judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of H.R. 3535
H.R. 3535 would provide for the federal recognition of the
Ruffey Rancheria of California located in Siskiyou County,
California. The bill would allow the Tribe to apply to have
approximately 441 acres placed into trust to be made part of
its reservation. The bill sets forth a process by which the
Secretary of the Interior would determine Tribal membership
rolls prior to the interim Tribal Council's compilation and
adoption of a Tribal constitution. The Tribe would be eligible
to game on lands that meet the restored lands exemption under
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; \8\ however, the Tribe must
satisfy two criteria under the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECTED SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF BILL AS REPORTED
Section 2. Restoration of Federal Recognition, Rights, And
Privileges. This section provides that the Rancheria would be
given many of the same powers and benefits as other federally-
recognized tribes. Due to the absence of an initial
reservation, members located within the Tribe's service area
will be available for federal services furnished to federally-
recognized tribes.
Section 3. Transfer of Land to be Held in Trust. This
section provides that after the Tribe submits a trust
application, approximately 441 acres of land in Siskiyou
County, California, shall be placed into trust to be part of
the Tribe's reservation. Former trust lands of the Tribe may be
eligible for trust status. Any lands taken into trust for the
Tribe as part of the reservation shall be exempt from federal,
State and local taxation.
Section 4. Membership Rolls. Section 4 sets forth
enrollment criteria for the Tribe. Until a Tribal constitution
is adopted, the Secretary of the Interior shall list an
individual on the Tribal membership roll if an individual is:
not a member of another federally-recognized tribe; whose name
can be traced to a Bureau of Indian Affairs distribution list
published April 11, 1961; was not listed but met requirements
of the list; or an individual is a lineal descendant of a
person who meets the previous criteria. The Secretary shall
accept any available evidence establishing tribal ancestry.
Conclusive evidence shall be contained in the Ruffey Rancheria
distribution list published in 1961. The Tribal constitution
shall govern Tribal membership after its adoption.
Section 5. Interim Government. Prior to adoption of a
Tribal constitution, an interim Tribal Council is to be
established consisting of the Executive Council of the Tribe as
it exists on the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 6. Tribal Constitution. After the compilation of
the Tribal membership roll under section 4 and at the request
of the interim Tribal Council, the Secretary shall conduct an
election to ratify a final constitution for the Tribe. The
election shall be consistent with provisions of the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934 relating to tribal constitutions. No
later than 120 days after the Tribe ratifies the Tribal
constitution, the Secretary will conduct a secret ballot to
elect Tribal officials.
Section 7. Limitations on Indian Gaming on Acquired Lands.
Section 7 provides that gaming may be conducted on lands
acquired by the Tribe if the Tribe meets the restored lands
exception under section 20 of Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
However, the gaming must be in Siskiyou County and be 5 miles
or less from the land placed into trust under Section 3.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 3535 was introduced on July 28, 2017, by Congressman
Doug LaMalfa (R-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources and within the Committee to the Subcommittee
on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. On September 26,
2017, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation. On
May 8, 2018, the Committee on Natural Resources met to consider
the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent.
Congress LaMalfa offered an amendment in the nature of a
substitute designated 051. No amendments were offered to it,
and the amendment in the nature of a substitute was adopted by
voice vote. The bill, as amended, was ordered favorably
reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of
19 ayes to 18 noes, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
sections 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for the
bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 8, 2018.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3535, the Ruffey
Rancheria Restoration Act of 2018.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Hadley
(For Keith Hall, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3535--Ruffey Rancheria Restoration Act of 2018
Summary: H.R. 3535 would restore federal recognition to the
Ruffey Rancheria Indian tribe in California. Federal
recognition would make the tribe and individual members
eligible to receive benefits from various federal programs. The
bill also would allow the Department of the Interior (DOI) to
take into trust property currently owned by the tribe which
could permit certain types of gaming on those lands if DOI
determines that the land is eligible to be used for such
purposes under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3535 would cost $5
million over the 2019-2023 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts.
Enacting H.R. 3535 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3535 would not increase
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029.
H.R. 3535 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of H.R. 3535 is shown in the following table.
The costs of the legislation fall within budget function 450
(community and regional development) and 550 (health).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019-2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level............ 0 1 1 1 1 1 5
Estimated Outlays........................ 0 1 1 1 1 1 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R.
3535 will be enacted near the end of 2018 and that the
necessary amounts will be appropriated each year beginning in
2019. Estimated outlays follow historical patterns for similar
assistance to other tribes.
H.R. 3535 would provide federal recognition to the Ruffey
Rancheria of California. Federal recognition would allow the
tribe and about 350 tribal members to receive benefits from
various programs administered by DOI and the Indian Health
Service (IHS). DOI, primarily through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, provides funding to federally recognized tribes for
various purposes, including child welfare services, adult care,
community development, and other general assistance. IHS
provides health services to federally recognized Indian tribes.
Using information provided by DOI, IHS, and the tribe and
accounting for anticipated inflation, CBO estimates that
providing services to the tribe under the bill would cost $5
million over the 2019-2023 period. About 60 percent of those
costs would be for health care services.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting H.R. 3535 would not increase net direct
spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2029.
Mandates: H.R. 3535 contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Robert Reese
(Department of the Interior) and Robert Stewart (Indian Health
Service); Mandates: Zach Byrum.
Estimate reviewed by: Kim P. Cawley, Chief, Natural and
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to restore federal recognition of the
Ruffey Rancheria of California.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any
directed rule makings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
We are strong believers in tribal sovereignty, self-
governance, and self-determination. As such, we strongly
support the right of Congress to restore wrongfully terminated
tribes.
However, Congress must also ensure that any restoration or
recognition legislation does not have unresolved issues before
enactment. This is to protect the rights of the restored tribe
as much as it is to protect the rights of existing tribes and
local municipalities. H.R. 3535 fails in this regard.
Four individual tribes--the Karuk Tribe, the Quartz Valley
Indian Community, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians,
and the Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon--have all expressed
serious concerns regarding H.R. 3535. Collectively, these
tribes represent over 12,000 individual tribal members across
California and Oregon.
Coalitions representing over 70 California tribal
organizations have also voiced their concerns. These include
the Northern California Tribal Chairman's Association, the
Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association, and the
California Nations Indian Gaming Commission. Issues with the
bill have also been raised by non-tribal stakeholders, such as
the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations and
Stand up for California.
The legislative creation of water, fishing, hunting,
trapping and gathering rights for Ruffey is problematic. The
existence and extent of these rights remain unknown.
Specifically, the sudden re-creation of unspecified tribal
fishing rights could disrupt and destabilize the current
federal, state and tribal salmon allocation systems for the
entire Klamath Basin and much of the west coast. Tribal water
rights have frequently been determined by federal and state
courts to be the most senior existing water rights. Re-creating
a new, but undefined, set of tribal water rights in the middle
of Siskiyou County could seriously disrupt the current State
water rights allocation system.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\H.R. 3535 allows the restored reservation land to be sited on
the Sacramento or Klamath rivers, even though their original
reservation was located in Etna. This could impact the local
communities existing water rights, as well as commercial and sport
fishermen and local irrigators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3535 also dictates that the Secretary take land into
trust for the Ruffey Rancheria, and mandates that it become
part of the Ruffey reservation. The bill originally limited the
land acquisition to 441 acres, which was the size of the
original rancheria. The adopted Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute (ANS) removes this size stipulation, thereby
permitting unlimited, mandatory land acquisition in perpetuity
anywhere within Siskiyou County, CA. Subsequently, Ruffey would
be allowed to take the aforementioned unknown water, fishing,
hunting, trapping and gathering rights and transfer them to
these lands. Since the rights that would be restored originate
from the ``Tribe and its members,'' Congress has no idea what
rights would actually be restored. Assessing this impact
becomes all the more difficult because the exact location of
the Ruffey Rancheria's land could ultimately be located nearly
anywhere within Siskiyou County, CA.
Typically, a congressional restoration of an Indian tribe
limits membership to the descendants of the actual tribe that
was terminated. H.R. 3535 deviates from this precedent. The
bill opens membership up to the descendants of anyone that may
have been eligible to be part of the original Ruffey Rancheria,
whether they were enrolled or not, as long as they had a ``bona
fide relationship'' to the Rancheria. This is quite vague, as
``bona fide'' is undefined in the bill, but could possibly
include non-Indians like spouses or in-laws.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\This is the definition of ``bona-fide relationship'' in other
legal documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, both the Karuk Tribe and Quartz Valley Indian
Reservation have expressed concerns that this bill would
preempt their service areas, which would impact both themselves
and tribes with whom they have fund-shifting agreements. The
ANS removes the state of Oregon and Shasta County, CA from the
proposed Ruffey service area, but does not address the issue
within Siskiyou County, CA.
Prior to the markup, Ranking Member Raul M. Grijalva, along
with Subcommittee Ranking Members, Norma Torres and Jared
Huffman, officially requested that the Committee hold an
additional legislative hearing on H.R. 3535 to allow the area
tribes to voice their concerns. The request was denied by the
Chair.
Even with the changes incorporated in the ANS, many
lingering unanswered questions and serious concerns still
remain. Until these issues are addressed, we cannot support
H.R. 3535.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources
Jared Huffman.
[all]