38

Voley H. . 5608

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1956

ilouoo of Representatives,
Co Committee on Interior and
r Insular Affairs,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1015 a.m., in the

cormmittoo room, New House Office Building, Honorable Clair

Engle (chairman of the committee) preoiding.

The Chairman. The House Committee on Interior will be in

Order for the consideration of H. R. 5608, by Mr. Berry, and

1H. J. 516, by Mr. Metoalf.

The Chair would like to say several questions were raised

on this legislation when it was last considered by the full

conunmmittee, that is, a to both bills.

For miy own part, I have grave misgivings about the figures

that have been adopted.

Number 1, I think it is a mistake for this committee to

sit as a committee in condemnation of land and figuring values

for land taken as public projects.

Number 2, with reference to H. R. 5608, I believe it is a

mistake to connect a rehabilitation bill and a bill settling a

claim for land, because there is an inevitable tendency to

make the rehabilitation section take up the slack for what the
Indians or the claimants did not get on condemnation, It is

simply inevitable that is the way it works, For that reason

they ought to be separate.

On the other hand, there is a certain amount of history,

I suppose, related to these that we cannot avoid.

I chocked, for instance, into this .natter of a treaty,

and I will say to my colleague that I did not find the inhibi-

tions in the treaty which were expressed here last time with

reference to H. R. 5608; that is, the treaty does not, in my

mind, prevent the Federal Government going to condemnation. It

occurs to me that the treaty would apply where an agreed settle

mont was unde;rtaken and there is no intent to exempt the tribe

from condemnation action.

I felt that our committee ought to settle these two basic

propositions an a matter of principle FPirat, whether or not

we are going to undertake to settle these payment cases as a

matter of principle. Now we ought to divide those between the

ono on which there is an agreement and on which there is a

disagreement.

Number 2, we ought to decide, as a matter of principle,

whether or not we are going to hook bills for the compensation

of Indians for land taken with a rehabilitation settlement.

When we get those two decided, if we decide both in the

affirmative, then it seems to me there is one other question.

That is whether or not we should not have somebody else look at

 40

these amounts.

I called the Comptroller Oaneral, Mr, Campbell, and I

akoed him what he would think of taking a look at each propose

settlement, and he said it fell squarely within the juridioticn

of his agency. I told him what the story was, that we had in

one case the Army Engineers caught over the barrel because they

had gone ahead and built the project without ever getting title

to the land, and therefore dying to settle it no matter what

it coat Uncle Sam in order to save their faces.

With reference to the other, the Bureau of Reclamation

wants to build a project in Montana connected with the Indian

Bureau, which always has to make good and easy and generous

settlement with Indians. And the third party in the picture

was the Indians themaolvos, who have no objection at all to

getting a very generous aottlement from Uncle Sam. So that I

could not see whore the figures presented for the settlement

had been inspected by anybody except a Government agency

interested in it themselves who want a most generous settlement

from the Federal Government,

He agreed he would look at it, and I asked him how long

it would take him because I would not want to put the authors

of this legislation in the position of losing their bills due

to passage of time. He thought he could get at it rather

quickly, that is, within the next six weeks in any case.

So that is the status of the case.

 Vor my own part, if the committee sees fit to vote these
two bills out, it seems to me that we should have some other

appraisal of the correctness of these figures other than those

presented by what I regard as the parties in interest in this

case. The parties in interest -- on the one hand, there is the

agency that wants to build the dam, the Indian Bureau that

represents the Indians, and the Indians themselves.

If the General Accounting Office comes along, for instance

and says with reference to the figures set up in Mr. Berry's

bill that they look like a fair settlement, it seems to me we

would be in a much more defensible position taking this bill

on the Floor of the House. It would assure me, too.

As far as the settlement of that matter, we ought to

decide whether or not it io sound, in the first place, for a'

Congresoional Committee to be setting up these prices in what

amounts to a condemnation proceeding. I could see how it would

Just get uo into lots of trouble.

That is all I have to say about it. The gentleman from

South Dakota no doubt has something to say about it.

I assure both my friend on the right and my friend on the

left that I want to be helpful to them. They have a very

difficult problem I would like to help work out.

Mr. Berry. It is a difficult problem, Mr. Chairman,

because in H. R. 5608 we have about 90 families who are going

to be moved out.
 Firat, with regard to the right of Congress. We have in

these three inotanooo here, this bill and the other two bills

in order to give you a little better picture maybe I should

refer to these maps.

Just to give you an idea of what is being done, the Army

Engineora -- this is the Mississippi. This is the Miasouri.

And the Army Engineers are starting here (indicating). There

is a small dam here, a large dam that io already oonst~,uoted

here, Fort Peck. Here is the Oahe that is about 25, 30 or

40 percent done. Hero io the Garrison Reservoir which is

already complete.

Now thooe five dams will make a clear-water lake out of

the muddy Missouri, a clear-water lake from Yankton in South

Dakota almost to Fort Peck, Montana.

The Chairman, How many miles is that?

Mr. Berry. I have no idea. I would think about 500

would be my guess.

The Chairman. What is it, Mr. McFarland?

Mr. McFarland. I was going to say a thousand. It is

purely a guess.

Mr. Berry. I know from my home down to here (indicating)

it is 400 miles. It is at least 80C miles, maybe 900.

But in order to do that you are covering the bottom land

on these four large reservations. You have already covered

Fort Berthold. These are all Sioux Indians on these reservatio

 43

alonES hero, all of thoin under treaty with the United States in

which we hnve said in the treaty that we will not take any

appreciable land on the reservation without the Indians'

approval by a throo-fourthe vote of the Indians.

We have settled with Port Berthold. We settled with them

on a lump- sum. We have settled with the Cheyenne River people

this reservation right here.

This bill is a settlement with the Standing Rook, which

ia this reservation right here.

The two bills pending besides this settle with these two

tribes right here under the Oaho Dam.

Here i what Congroes did on the Ynnkton Reservation.

We did nothing on that reservation, but the Army Engineers

came in and condemned the land the same as the chairman is

indicating should be done. Then Congress appropriated

$106,500 to add to the amount to help relocate and re-eatablish

the 16 families. But understand that the Yanktons are not

under treaty. For that reason, Congress did nothing about it

except after the settlement had been made by the Army Engineert

and they had gone into court as the chairman suggests should

be done. Then Congress came in and appropriated $106,500,

and that was done three years ago. But these reservations are

all under treaty. That reservation was not. We have made

settlement with these two treaty reservations. We have to

make settlement with these other three treaty reservations.

 This give you a better ido of why wo need some sort of

irehabilitation program. Probably I should say this first,

though, that Public Law 870, which was passed in 1950, sets

up the procedure of how settlement on those treaty reservations

shall be made. It directs the Army Engineers, the Bureau of

Indian Affairs or the Secretary of the Interior to contract

with the Indiana themaolves and to try to effect a settlement

with the Indians. It says that in the event you are suooessful

in arriving at an agreeable amount, you must then come back to

Congress for approval, and at the same time you must get

approval of three-fourths of the Indiana. In other words,

Public Law 870, which %as amended two years later to extend the

time, directed exactly what the Congress and the Bureau should

do.

The second thing, it said, in the event you are unable

to,mako settlement, you shall come back to Congress, as H, R.

5608 does, and Congress shall establish the amount that shall

be paid.

Mr. Dawoon. May I ask a question there?

Mr. Berry. Yes.

Mr. Dawson. Then are not we compelled to decide this

question now? Ao I understand what you are saying, the 1950

law provides that if they are unable to arrive at a settlement,

thon they muot come back to Congress.

Mr. Berry. That is exactly right.

 Mr, Dawoon. And that is what you are doing now.

Mr. Uorry. That in what this bill doea, yeas

Mr. Dawoon. Do we have any other alternative but to take

thiu question and settle it?

Mr. Berry. Unless we repeal Publio Law 870.

The Chairman. We can settle it by referring it to court

in condemnation.

Mr. Berry. You are going to have to repeal or in some

way change Public Law 80O, which io the law on the books and

has boon for six years.

The Chairman. I know, but one Congress cannot bind a

subsequent Congress to do anything in particular, and to the

oxtont that the preceding law directs the succeeding Congressme

who were elected independently of those fellows, to do any

particular thing, that law is not worth the paper it is written

on. They cannot tell the next Congress what to do. What they

did is shoved the thing back here to us. We say, "All right"

and send it to court if we want to. I am not saying we should.

Mr. Dawson. They passed us a hot potato, and if it is

too hot for us, we toss it to the court. If the Congress in

1950 directed us to do this, are we not under an obligation to

go ahead? Of course, we can change the law, that is true, but

it seems to me we do have some obligation.

The Chairman. If you recognize the right of Congress in

1950 to tell the Congress in 1956 what it is going to do, then,

all right, you havo a mandato. But I do not reoognizo any

such right,

Mr. Berry. I think probably the chairman is correct, and

I think probably we have no mandate to pay any attention to

this treaty either.

Mr. Dawoon. Is that the situation in the Montana case,

too? Do we have a law passed similar to the one he is

referring to in the Montana case, Mr. Metoelf?

Mr. Motoalf. In the Montana case, I will say to the

gentleman, we have very grave doubts as to the power of the

Federal Government to condemn. A Solicitor's opinion was

issued previously that said there was no power to condemn under

oxioting statute. That has been reversed by the present

Solicitor of the Bureau o' Reclamation, who said there is a

power to condemn.

Senator Wheeler and counsel for the tribe sat before this

committee and testified that they were going to resist con-

domnation and carry it to the United States Supreme Court,

which in any event would mean a delay of several years in

starting construction of the project.

Mr. Dawoon. You have a different situation there then?

Mr. Metcalf. It is completely different than the treaty

situation involved here, but it is analogous in the sense there

is grave doubt as to the power of the Department of the Interio

to request the Department of Justice to institute condemnation.

 Mr. Dowoon. Could we not clear that up by giving them the

power to go into court?

Mr. Matoalf, There hoo to be oome sort of specific legisla"

tion in this matter.

Mr. Dawson. I think there is some merit to what the

chairman says about us usurping the powers of the court and

taking on the responsibility for deciding how much money is due.

But,in the South Dakota case I can see where we are under some

obligation by reason of the 1950 law.

The Chairman. What they did in the 1950 law was authorize

them to try to negotiate and if they got at odds on this, come

back, which ia what has happened. But that does not mean that

Congrosa could not adopt an alternate solution by telling these

people to go to court and then handle the rehabilitation features

separately.

Mr. Borry, Let mo suggest this to my chairman, if I may:

Dy direction of Public Law 870 thousands and .thousands of

dollars have already been spent, thousands of man-houra have

already been put in on this very thing. The Army Engineers

hired an appraisal firm from Denver to make an appraisal. The

Army Enginoern themselves made an appraisal. And the Secretary

of the Interior, separate and apart but in cooperation somewhat

with the Bureau of Indian Affaira, appointed a commission known

as the Missouri BDoin Investigating Commission, the MRBIC, and

they made a very complete ntuiy. They spent a couple of years

 S4dt

at it and have come up with figures that should be good. And

if you o downtown here and have somebody oheok our figures

on this, they certainly are going to have to go by the MRBIC

figure anyway. Here is a group of men that have counted the

troo that are growing out there, they walked through the

gullieo. They have done everything there is to do, and they

have come up with thin appraisal.

The Chairman. Of couroo, the Army Engineers got in there

and built the dam.

Mr. Borry. They have not built this dam. They have got

it about 25 or 30 proocnt built.

The Chairnmn. They have got it up and got it on somebody'

olae' land, and they are under terrible proosure to get some

kind of a settlement, not only because they are trespassers at

presentnt on the Indian lands, but because additionally they bre

nutffering th embarrassment of having to admit that they did a

fool thing. So anything those Indiana want they give them.

Mr. Berry. Lot ua remember this that they have not

made settlement with the White people, the deeded land, only

iion about ten percent of it yet. Probably not that much.

jlProbably not more than five percent. So they are in no different

position with the Indian people than they are with the White

people.

The Chairman. I have no objection to that. What I say is

that I mistrust these figures. I would feel much more comfortas

about it if I felt the prioo wao right. The oame thing is

S true with the situation in Montana.

S Mr. Pillion. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Berry. I yield.

SMr. Pillion. I am just wondering about section' 15 of this

final disposition
bill, whether or not we will arrive at any

of this matter evon by act of Congress. Section 15 provides

that, if an individual member does not like the appraisal, there

the matter is referred to condemnation court anyway.

Mr. Borry. Any allottee who is dissatisfied with the

appraisal may go into court. We cannot take that right from him

That is guaranteed to him by the Constitution, and he may go

into court anyway. The money ho gets would be over and above

,what is allowed by Congrena.

May I say, in the Cheyenne case there are five or six

members who aro going into court Who are not willing to accept

the amount that Congress allowed in that case.

Mr. Billion. Thefagain you are facing a proposition of

tri
tails I win and heads you lose situation, where the Indian

first want to come in and get the highest possible price here

then, if they are disantiofied they go into court. So there

seems to be no real reason for coming hero first. Why do we

not let the court decide it finally without the preliminary

step of coining before the Congress and taking their choice,

whatever price will be the highest, wherever they can get the
boot bargain, oil at tho xponuo of the Foderal Government?

Mr. Dawoon. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr, Berry, Yes.

Mr. Dnwson, Is it not absolutely necessary to have this

sooction in here because we could not legally deprive an

individual of his right to go to court if he so demanded under

the Conatitutlon?

Mr. Berry. We cannot take his land and arbitrarily give

him figuroo you arrive at. He has the right to go to court,

I do not think you can legally bind an individual to terms of

tha kind.

Mr. Dowoon. If that is so, why not let him go to court

in the firtt place Why give him two chances here?

Mr. Berry. I think the answer to that is this committee

when Public Law 870 was passed figured this: On the last 20 pa

of the bill are descriptions of land, and if you count them I

think there are 932 separate descriptions, bearing in mind mos

of this is allotted land and that it has been allotted for 75

years, that the original allottees, many of them are dead, that

there is probably a hundred heirs, and a lot of that stuff.

They can go into court. The Government can do this job.for

them. The Government has to do this job for them if they go

into court, as the guardian, but you have a tremendous job of

determining who the heirs are.

Mr. Pillion. May I ask this: Is it not true, if we do

pnou tho bill, it becomes an irrevocable offer on the part of

the Goverrnment but an option on the part of the people concerned

here? In other words, they can take the option of agreeing to

tho Government's offer or the offer of the Congrsos or not

agreeing to it; whereas we are stuck. If the condemnation

court comes in and says the land is valued at $100,000 instead

of a million, we still pay the million. But the tribe, if they

do not like the million dollars, can go into court and say they

want more.

Mr. Derry. The tribe cannot. The individual members can.

If the tribu accepts by a throe-fourths vote.

The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Derry. Yes.

The Chairman. A reading of the bill itself shows how far

apart these figures are that are bouncing around. For instance,

on page 3, $10,370,663, which has been reduced to $5,575,00,

and over hero in another place it has been cut from $26 millior

down to $14 million. When you are tossing millions of dollars

like that around it seems to me there is a wide spread between

what some people think is right and what other people think is

right. I assume when the bill was introduced that the author

thought the $10 million and the $26 million figures were right

The subcommittee looked at it and practically cut them in half

How did that happen?

Mr. Berry. You cannot get more than you ask for in Corgrs
 The Chairman. Something like suing for a judgment, I

suppose.

I know, but there ought to be a basis for the figures.

Mr. Aspinall. If my chairman will yield, those figures

have boon cut down to bring this bill in harmony with the

Cheyenne River bill. We used practically the same percentages

Mr. Hoomer. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Derry. Yes.

Mr. Hoamer. In the cutting down of the figures, was it

out down in accordance with the estimates of the Indian Bureau

and the Department and the Army Engineers that the chairman

mentioned or just arbitrarily out down to coincide with some

othor bill?

Mr. Aspinall. I did not hear the gentleman's question.

Mr. lHoomer. I want to know if the original figures in th

bill weor based on the estimates by the Army Engineers and the

Indian Bureau to which the chairman referred earlier or whether

the new figures in the bill are thoe.

Mr. Aspinall. I think you will have to ask the sponsor of

Sthe bill the first question. As far as the answer to the

second question, the amounts finally arrived at are in harmony

with the percentages used by the 83d Congress in determining

the amount for the Cheyenne River Reservation.

Mr. Hoomer. In other words, the estimates that were made

downtown were reduced to coincide with the other acquisitions

 53

in the 83d CongreoB?

... , ll, I do not know whnt the amountO roferrod to

doWnltown y-,u are talking a bout aro. Maybe Mr. Berry can tell

'you wherto he got the original amount. All I am saying is

they woro finally cut down to oorreopond to the percentages

that the figure downtown in light of the Cheyenne River bill

dictated for this bill.

Mr. Borry. This committee decided upon the amount for the

Choyenne osttlement, When we did that we took the MRBIC

~appraial which wao made in 1951. We figured that the value of

tho land had probably increased about nine or ton percent. So

we settled on 9.6 percent increase over the MRBIC figures to

cover the increase in value of the land between 1951 when the

appraisal was made and the settlement,

Mr. Hosmer. Does that give you the struck-out figures

or the figures in italics in this bill?

Mr. Berry, The figures in italics are the MRBIC appraisal

plus 9.6 percent.

The Chairman. Where do the 26 million and the 10 million

come from?

Mr. Berry. You mean in the original bill?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Berry. In the original bill these guys made a survey

of the reservation, asked the head of every family what he

wanted to do. They said: "If you want to go into the livestock
butinoe3, If you want to go to school, if you want to send your
kids to collogo, what do you want to do to improve your positi n

to be ablo to place yourself in a position where you can make

living and will not be dependent upon the Federal Government

and whore your children will be in a position to do the same

in the next generation?" And every poroon on the reservation

indicated what they wanted to do.

They took thoae figures, and it amounted to whatever is

in that bill. In other words, to completely rehabilitate the

reservation it would take about this much money, the amount

they originally naked for.

The Chairman. You mean to lot every Indian do what he

want to do would coat$26 million?

Mr. Derry. No. tn order to do for each of the Indian

families what they wanted to do in order to rehabilitate them-

Delvoo.

The Chairman. That is what I mean.

Mr. Berry. Let us put it that way.

The Chairman. In other words, they sat down and dreamed

up what would be nice to rehabilitate them, and that was the

figure put in. Who engineered that survey? Who was it?

Mr. Berry. The Tribal Council.

The Chairman. That would be a very nice way to handle

compensation.

Mr. Berry. There is nothing here involved here in the

condemnation,

Mr. Aupinall, I can aloo understand Why my colleague

introduced the bill.

The Chairman. I am not bolng critical He took the

figuroo his own people presented to him.

Mr. Berry. That has nothing to do with condemnation.

That is purely rehabilitation. It in a separate and distinct

part of the bill itself. It is the $106,000 that Congress three

years ago gave to the Yanktona.

The Chairman. I understand that, but I say that the

matter of rehabilitation inevitably gets tied into the question

of land values.

Mr. Berry. Do you not think it should? Now here. You

are taking the 90 families. Here is the Standing Rock Reserva

tion, the part you are covering up. And bear this in mind:

This ai low land that has been laid down through millions

of years. It iu the moat valuable land in the world outside

of possibly the River Nile. It is absolutely the most valuable

land. You have got timber, you have got everything that the

Indians have ever used to build their homes, corrals, fences,

everything. You are taking these 90 families -- let me say

this: 90 percent of the Indians live within ten miles of

either the Missouri Rive ror else these tributaries. You are

taking 90 families up out of this bottom land, people who are

now pretty well making a living because they have good shelter
and good ovrythings taking them up and putting them on the
up linda whero they have got to build their shelter.

The Chairman. What would you do with 90 paleface familiar

under similar circumatancen?

Mr. tBery. Do you know what they did with the town --
I cannot think of the name,

Tho Chairman. I know what you are talking about.

Mr. Borry. It site right over here.

The Chairman. They moved it up top.

Mr. Berry. Lock, took and barrel. They moved every

aragte on Main Stroot and everything, and built a new town on

the hill. That i. what they did with the palefaooo.

Mr. Pillion. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Berry. Yea.

Mr. Pillion. Do I understand this $26 million for re-

habilitation is to rehabilitate 90 Indian families?

Mr. Berry. No. You are taking 90 Indian families and

moving them back onto the rest of the reservation, and by doing

so you are disrupting the economy not only of these 90 familie

but everybody on the reservation because the guy that now is

Bitting out there with a nice little herd of cattle io going

to have to be crowded in.

Mr. Pillion. Are we to understand that the removal of

90 farnilies from one location to a relocated site will so dis-

locate the economy of that area that the loss per family is
$260,000, making roughly $26 million?

Mr. Borry. The 90 families has nothing to do with it,

my dear air. You are taking 90 famniliou and putting them out.
Hero you have 90 familioo living in this much of reservation
(indicating) and the root of thom are out here making a living

now. You take thio 90 families and ahovo them into here and yo

have got to make room from somowhoro for these 90 families, and

you ar dirupting the economy

the
nom f he people already established

Mr. Billion. All right. Ten thousand dollar a family

io only something like nine hundred thousand dollars. We are

being aoked to appropriate $26 million.

Ordinarily a community when people move into it find it

a a benefit to them rather than a harm or damage to them.

Mr, Berry. If you had a ranch out here and were running

cattle, do you think it would help you much if they cut off

two-thlrda of your range area?

Mr. Pillion. For 260,000 it would certainly not bother

me any. That is a lot of money,

The Chairman. Even the $14 million adds up to $150,000.

That does not count the payment for the land.

Mr. Pillion. That ia right. That is over and above what

you pay for the actual damage.

The Chairman. I would like to be rehabilitated at that

figure.

Mr. Berry. It amounts to $22,200 per capita.

 Mr. Dawoon, What, if any, reforonoo was made in the 1950

law for rouhbilitation?

Mr. Berry. It provided for a rehabilitation program.

Mr. Shuford. Will the gentleman yi d?

Mr. worry. YoD.

Mr. Shuford. Dooo the law provide for Just rehabilitotior

or to be rehabilitated do you have to be tied in with a progra

for flood control or something eole?

Mr. Taylor. If I can answer the question of Mr. Shuford.

The Act of 1950 provided, among other things
"(a) Just componoation for land and improvements,, (b) Coot

of relocating the tribe so that its economy, social, religious

and community life may be protected, (c) Final and complete

oottlement of all claims of the Indians arising out of the

construction of the Oahe Dam, (d) Any other provisions deemed

beneficial to the Indians."

So it covered a good many things.

Mr. Shuford. But it does not give the other Indians of

the United States the right to rehabilitation. I guess we

could introduce a bill for rehabilitation and try to get it

by, but by reason of the erection of the dam they do have a

little special privilege of being rehabilitated?

Mr. Taylor. Yea, Public Law 870 applied only to those

areas.

Mr. Pillion. Under the provisions of the bill, if I

undoratand it rightly, first, the families are paid on a
eottlomont bnuia for the actual lono of the property taken. I

that corroot?

Mr. Taylor. Yes.

Mr. Billion. Then after they got full compensation over

and above even a condemnation court price on a settlement bait,

million
the bill provide further that they shall receive $14
be
for additional damages way beyond anything that they would

entitled to in a componontion court. $14 million is roughly

$150,000 per family. Is that correct?

Mr. Taylor. Right.

Mr. Billion. Then after that additional element, you

got a third element where those folks then may go back, pick

up their house, cut the timber off the land that the Governmert
Is thet
has bought, and then have that additional compensation.

correct?

Mr. Tiylor. Yes. They were allowed to take from the land

in the taking area timber up to the time when the area was to

be flooded.

Mr. Berry. They did not do that at Fort Peck. They just

put it up in piles -- and I have got a pile of pictures this

of
high (indicating) -- they took the timber, dumped it on top

the buildings and burned the whole thing. So the Indians asked

that inatoad of just burning it, "Please, won't you just let us

use it?" I do not see anything too wrong about that.

 Mr. Motoalf. Will the gentle an yield?
Mr. B'ery. Yoo,

Mr. Meotnlf. I will say to the gentleman, at Hungry

HIorso where there wan no provision for taking the timber off,
the timber wao also burned because it was cheaper to burn it
than it was to remove it and salvage it.

Mr. Berry. Lot me remind the committee of this These

bills are not the firot rehabilitation bills. As all of you

know, about eight years ago this Congresa passed a law for the

rehabilitation of the Navaho and Hopi Tribes. $88 million was

what we established for rehabilitation of the Navaho and Hopi

Indinna, and that wan on the basis of Just about $1,500 per

!capita. When we ont thin amount for the Cheyonno we took the

Navaho-Hopi Rehabilitation Aot and followed it in establishing

tho dollar amount for the rehabilitation of the Cheyonne.

When the uboonmmittee was considering this bill we took the

figureso allowed on the Cheyenne. So that actually what you

ajoro doing In taking exactly the same figures that were allowed

for rehabilitation on the Havaho-Hopi Reservation. That is,

exactly what you are doing.

We are getting no precedent. We are doing nothing except

what hau been done several tioms, and I think it is the only

way you are going to solvo this Indian problem.

I have put in front of each place here the rehabilitation

program an worked out by the Cheyenne Indians, and I just ask

 61

you to loo0; through it. It hn boon worked out by the Tribal

tCoun.ll witth approval of the Dopnrtmont 'of the Interior,

7 Ind I think it is a tremendous job,

I might add, further, that in order to help carry out the

program t)he Tribal Council have hired the State Auditor of the

Stfte of outh Dakota, who has resigned his position and gone

out there to do this job of helping those Indian-people.

I have sitting back hero a man who is attempting to

incorporate to tako over the town of Pickstown which is down

below here where they built the Fort Randall Dam. They built

o town there.

Thooo people have in conjunction with the State of South

Dakota -- the State of South Dakota io planning on establishing

a tradou training school there at Piokatown through our State

Colloge to do a job of giving trades training to these people

under this rehabilitation program. The State is cooperating,

the church group are cooperating. There are about 700 homes

thoro where these people can go and live and learn how to run

water out of a tap instead of having to carry it from the river

before they are taken to Chicago or wherever you want to take

them to give them a job or find work for them. This program

is working in with the program of relocation, only it goes one

step further, it gives them an opportunity to learn how to live

in a White society before they are planted in Chicago or some

place. That is ill there is to this rehabilitation program.

It i what there is to the Navaho-lHopi. I think it is the onl

way thio job can be done.

I do believe we are going to be able to help with this

on-tho-job training bill we have in hero and so forth. Those

thing aro going to help, but there is only one way you are

going to rehabilitatu thaeo Indians, and that in through

oduca tion,

In thio bill, if you will read it, they have asked that

25 or 30 percent, whatever it is, be taken and set aside Just

for education, not used for anything elso. The subcommittee

thought that should be struck out. They thought that the

Department or the Secretary of the Interior in building his

contract with them should not up the amount that should be

used for education. These people are going to do a good job.

The Chairman. May I ask this question?

Mr. Eorry. Yes.

The Chairman. This rehabilitation business, I take it,

is applied to the whole tribe?

Mr. Berry. That is right.

The Chairman. Actually there are only 90 families being

moved out?

Mr. Berry. That is right.

The Chairman. That have to be relocated?

Mr. Berry. That is right.

The Chairman. Mr. Pillion'o figures are correct.

_____ _~~ _~T _ __~~_ 11_1 __1

Mr. litrby. If thoy aro, then that io what you did on

the Navaho-H.opi. It io exactly the name

Th Chairimn. No, it oame.

lnot not the The rehabilitation

figure that ca m out of the subooimmittoo in about $8,500,000,

and that oori.i, out around $75,00 per family if you confine it

to thosc 90 ramilion being moved off.

Mr. Derry. That in right, If you take only the Chairman

of the Tribal Council, for instance, if you are going to out

it down and rehabilitate him, you would have $8 million for

him.
The Chairiiman. That in the reason I have raised the

question about the intelligence of hooking a rehabilitation

program with a bill that really operates as a condemnation

basis, because you inevitably get the two mixed together and

you do not got a fair appraisal of what the problem is, The

problem with reference to rehabilitation of thi tribe should

be taken up independently of the question of the removal of

those Indians from tho area to be condemned.

Mr. Borry. Where are you going to put them?

The Chairman. And we will proceed with that just as if we

had 90 White families and do it exactly the same way, according

the Indiana precisely the same rights, no greater and no lass,

than any other American citizen. Then we get that out of the

way, sit down and aay, "What do we have to do by way of

rehabilitation for the whole tribe?" So you do not get your

condemnation, that is, the taking of property for public works

angled up with the question of rehabilitating the people.

Mr. Berry. Will the chairman yield there?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Berry. I would go along with you if you had not had

the bitter experience of this: During the war the Army went i

and took a county in my Distriot, a whole unorganized county,

the County of Washington, They took it and made a gunnery rang

out of it. They took 125 familion and kicked them off. They

bought thoir land, no you said they should, under condemnation.

We have in the O;tato of South Dakota a provision that if

anybody 1- ~setting old age asuiatnce that is a lien on their

property. Some of these old people got practically nothing

out' of their land because It war, taken for old ago assistance

and all that sort of thing. 125 families were booted out and

put on the rtoot of the Pine Ridge Roservation. I have fought

for six youra Jinoc coming to Congroos to get this committee

ito do exactly the thing you are saying with regard to those

people that were kicked off the gunnery range. We have not

seen fit to do it. You and I are not going to live long enough

if ;s do it the way you any, to see these people really re-

habilitat d.

S Mr. Weotland. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Berry. Yes.

Mr. Weotland. Was not that the case where most of the

1
tontimony from the Indians said they would like to get that
land back
Mr. BVorry. If they could, but tho Oovernment is using it,
They are uaing it for a gunnery range evory day, and the Air
Poroe say they have to have it.

Mr. Wetland. I think thero wao tootimony that showed

the Air Force could have used othor places than this particular

rango you mentioned. I was very much in favor, as you may

recall, of returning that land to the Indians, and they would

have boon happy to got it back.

Mr. Borry. Thoy would be tickled to death, but they

cannot do it.

Mr. Rogers. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Berry. Yea,

 Mr. Rogoro. Is not the history that you outlined aa

to what happened to 125 families on the gunnery range the same

history of all people whose land was taken away from them durtin

the warj I mean for any kind of installation by the Defense

Department?

Mr. Berry. Of course I do notknow.

Mr. Rogorn. What I mean is simply this They do not

have at the present time the right to reacquire the lands

taken away from them under condemnation proceedings, do they?

Mr. Berry. That is right; but we could rehabilitate those

people,

Mr. Rogers. Your thought, it seems, is this: Whether

that happened in one case or a hundred cases, if there was a

wrong committed, we ought to correct?

Mr. Borry. What I am trying to point out is this On

the Pine Ridge Reservation we had already a congested reserva-

tion area. We took 125 families and dumped them onto that

already congested reservation and disrupted the economy of thos

people that much more. Now we spent last year $1 million for

relief on the Pine Ridge Rodorvation -- $1 million, and it has

gone for nothing. What have we made out of the people that got

that relief? Nothing except another generation of paupers. That

in the thing I am trying to get away from.

Mr. Shuford. Will the gentleman yeild? '

Mr. Berry. I yield.

 Mr, Shuford, You wore speaking of the Old Age Assistance

Law in your State creating a lion for the amounts paid on

those lands, That applies also in the State of North Carolina.

In a condemnation for right-of-way, for example, sometimes the

individual does not get the sum they hope to get for it because

of the payments heretofore made constituting a lion, It applie

to whites as well.

Mr. Berry. That is right, but there were a number of

Indians who got practically nothing, if anything at all, out

of the land. It is unfortunate but it is the law.

Mr. Shuford. It is the law of the State.

Mr. Berry. Yes. But the thing I wanted to use Pine Ridge

as an illustration of% When the committee was out there this

fall, as tho gentleman from Florida knows, we flow over the

gunnery range area, and the grass was pretty well burned off

where they had been practicing bombing rune, and they use it

all the time for air-to-air and air-to-ground bombing practice.

Mr. Westland. The gentleman will recall wn had the

testimony of one woman who uaid she was running cattle on that

gunnery range at a grazing fee of 20 percent lose than normally

would be charged because some of her cattle might be killed by

these bombs; and upon questioning, oho replied thatshe had

never lost a cow because of this bombing.

Therefore I would support any legislation that the gentleman

from South Dakota would offer to return that particular gunnery

range to the tribe that was put off of it.

Ao I recall, they received about a half a million dollars

originally, and the gentleman from South Dakota has intro-

duced legislation to pay about a million and a quarter.
Mr. Berry. Yes, $125 per family.

Mr. Westland. The Indiana would have preferred to have

their land back.

Mr. Berry. The Indians would prefer not to have this

taken, too. They would greatly prefer it. ,

But I nay to you, Mr. Chairman, I hate to see this thing

drag along for another 10 years. We have in the record here -

how many cases are there? -- certified copies of cases that

have gone into Federal Court where the Federal Court has

raised all the way from 50 to 125 percent the appraisal of the

Army Engineers. And I think that probably is an illustration c

what these people could get if they went into Federal Court

under condemnation. But it is going to take 10 years. You car

not do it in much loss than 10 years.

We have already wasted six years by Congress messing

around here and telling these Indians that we recognize your

treaty, and we are going to provide for a settlement this way.

Now I do not know. It is up to the committee to decide.

The Chairman. I would like to tell the gentleman I could

support the bill in its present form, but I cannot.

What is the pleasure of the committee?

 Mr. Rhodes. I would like to ask a question if I may.

The Chairman. The gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Rhodes. Dr. Taylor, what is the appraised value of

this land that io being taken?

Mr. Haloy. I might say to the gentleman, if he will yield,

I believe there are about throoe appraisals.

Mr. Taylor. There are three appraisals, The Army hired

the Gerald T. Hart firm of Denver, Colorado, to make an

appraisal in 1950. That appraisal was $1,320,000. The Army

Engineers oet the figure at $1,575,000, and the MRBI staff

named by the Department of the Interior appraised the land at

$1,613,454 in 1951.
Now it is anticipated that land values have gone up 8 or

9 or 10 percent, and that is the figure we are using at the

preuont time.

Mr. Rhodes. Do you know whether the appraisal took into

account surface damages?

Mr. Taylor. No.

Mr. Rhodes. For any improvements?

Mr. Taylor. No. The Army said that was not part of their

work to concern itself with anything excepting the taking of th

land.

Mr. Shuford. If the gentleman means by improvements

structures on the land, they did. The normal appraisal doed

take into account any improvements on the land.

 Mr. Taylor. I mieundorstood the question. That is right,
The Chairman. The Chair observes the presence in the root

of our colleague from Pennsylvania who, I believe, has with

him a 'umber of his constituents. We are glad to welcome his

constituents here and say to them that Mr. Saylor is a very

active, vigorous member of our committee, and we are glad he

brought his friend and constituents over here.

Mr. Saylor. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, just to let the members of

this committee know that the group of people that are here in

the room from my District today are all members of the 010 back

home. They are a group that I think has done an outstanding Jo

because they hao taken up a study of government. They have

taken up the study of government back home from a local, county,

stato and nation basis, and an a part of the program they have

come here today to just see how Congress works. They are under

thcdiretion of Mr. Kenneth Bender, who is the gentleman standing

at the back of the room, and he has done a very good job for

them. I appreciate the opportunity of having these boys over

here juut seeing how Congress and the committee works.

The Charman. We are delighted to have them here, Mr.

Saylor. We assume they left before the snow storm because we

are advised the President is snowed in at Gettyaburgh.

Mr. Saylor. They left yesterday in plenty of time to be

here this morning.

The Chairman. We are dealing this morning with a problem

 75

on Indian Affair% and no more thorny problem ever gets before

this committee, one of the toughest ones that gets before

the Congress. We have our difficulties acting as a city council

for Indian Tribeo all over America. That is about what it boil

down to.

We are glad to have you here and glad our colleague brough

you.
The gentleman from Arizona has the time.

Mr. Rhodes. I would like to ask a question of the gentle-

man from South Dakota, if I may.

I am wondering why the $8,500,000 provided in section 5

draw interest at 4 percentum per annum. Or, I might say, at

any rate, until it is expended. If I understood the gentleman'

testimony correctly, the $8,500,000 is for rehabilitation of

the tribe and not in settlement of any claim against these

tribes.

Mr. Berry. That is right.

'The thought there is that this money is to be used primari

for education, and those who are not now ready for higher

education -- that money can be set aside and accumulate interee

n the Federal Troasury until these young people are ready for

school. The funds will increase by virtue of the interest.

Mr. Rhodes. This is an endowment set up, then, for the

future educational needs for the children of this tribe. Is

that a fair statement?

 76

Mr. Derry. Part of it is. Thoy asked in the original bil

that 25 per cent be Bet aside by Congreoo for education only.

The subcommittee took that out, saying they felt it was the

Job or a job of administration rather than for Congress to

decide what part should be used for that purpose.

Mr. Rhodes. I note in section 2 the only amount to

be paid out immediately is $1,769,168 out of $5,575,000, which

would leave roughly $ million from that item alone in the

Federal Treasury at interest at 4 percentum, and apparently

then, adding that $8,500,000, you would have approximately

12,500,000 loft at interest in the Treasury at the call of

this tribe, and the income from this money to be used for

rehabilitation purposes. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Berry. Part of the money, of course, will be taken

out at once. The Cheyenne people have already drawn about

a million dollar of their rohabilitatbn money and are starting

a rehabilitation program with those funds. They are drawing

them only as they have use for them and on application tothe

Department showing they hae use for them.

Mr. Rhodes. I might say to the gentleman I am in perfect

accord and sympathy with his objective. I am wondering if a

bill setting up a trust fund or endowment in really the beet

way to rehabilitate these people. If they need these moneys

now for the purpose of developing their reservation or educatin

their children, then I ask the gentlemen if it would not be

bettor if we dotormino the need for rehabilitation and

authorize appropriation of ouch sumn of money and not set up

a figure like this as an endowment.

Mr. Berry. Tho subcommittee thought we should not

determine that, that we should authorize a certain amount,

and that that should be worked out between the Council and the

Indian Department.

Mr. Rhodeo. That is al, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Are there any further question?

What is the pleasure of the committee?

Mr. Metcalf. A parliamentary inquiry. We are just

acting on H. R. 5608?

The Chairman. We are just acting on H. R. 5608 and next

will be iH. . Res. 516, which is something the same pattern.

The Chair might say there are three following this. Is

that right, Mr. Berry -- of the same type?

Mr. Berry. There are two other reservation bills similar

to this, yes.

The Chairman. In other words, this bill not only takes

care of itself, but for all practical purposes should establia

a precedent with reference to committee action on the two bill

to follow. In that right?

Mr. Shuford. I think the Chair is correct on that point.

But would not this also throw the doors open for all the other

tribes in the country that want to be rehabilitated rather

rapidly? DoeB the Chair feel that in true?

The Chairman. I suppose so.

Mr. Dorry. It could, but lot us remember that this does

not set any precedent. The precedent was set in the Ohoyenne

bill. We are doing exactly the same thing, using exactly the

same figures in thin that we did in the Cheyenne bill two years

ago. We are not setting any precedent,

Mr. Shuford. I appreciate that fact -- that you did pass th

Cheyenne bill. But it occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, that we are

carrying on a precedent that should not be carried on in this

particular type of legislation.

I think there are Indian triuoe throughout the United

States that need rehabilitation, and I would like to see re-

habilitation accomplished for the Indian tribes, but I do not

think thin in the proper method to do it. The other tribes 'in

tho United States do not have or at last have not been die-

ruptod by reason of a dam where they can tie in a rehabilitation

problem. I think if we are going to do something for these

Indians we ought to do something for all of the Indians instead

of Just one particular tribe.

Though it in true we did have the Cheyenne problem there

two years ago and we voted for rehabilitation, I do not think

it is necessary that it should be continued for other legia-

lation unless you are going to make it pretty general.

Mr. Berry. Will the gentleman yield?

 Mr. Shuford. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. Borry. The Cheyonno bill did not set any precedent

because all we did was follow the Navaho bill which was paaed

about 8 years ago. The Cheyenne bill simply followed the pattern

not up in the Navaho bill. The Navaho bill appropriated

$88 million, $1500 per capita, for rehabilitation, and that

program in providing education and trades training and all

that sort of thing for the Navahos.

Mr. Shuford. I have no objection to a rehabilitation

program of all Indians. I have no objection to that at all,

I think this in the wrong method to go about it, to take a

condemnation bill where you are compensating for land taken

and tiring on to it a provisions for the rehabilitation of the

entire tribe.

Now you say you have 90 families here that were dis-

possessed and arc going to be pushed back on the reservation

of -- is it 100,000 acres of land?

that
Mr. Berry. There is not/much left.

Mr. 3huford. I do not think 90 families pushed on to

100,000 or 50,000 acro of land or 75,000 acres of land is goig

to upset the economy too much.

I think you should have these things separately. You

should have your rehabilitation in one bill, if you want to

do that, and your condemnation in the other. I do not par-

ticularly see, as a pure question of law or method, why this

Oongroou and thio committoo should bo aoked to establish the
value of this land when you have adequate remedy at law where
you can establish the value. As Mr. Pillion said, you are juet

giving them a chance to sort of traffic in trade so that they

can find out which is of greater value and take that. If they

do not like what we do then the individual can go into court

and still maintain his action to determine what value he is

to got out of the land.

I think e are going at it the wrong way. I think we ought

to let the courts establish the fact of the amount of damages

for this land that it taken and take into consideration the

value of the property, the value of the improvements thereon,

and the timber that they have got, and decide that point; and

then the Indians can determine in the courts what is proper for

them to receive. Then,if we want to, take up rehabilitation,

I think the gentleman is doing a wonderful job in looking

after his Indiano, and I compliment him for it extremely. I

think it lu splendid. But the others of us who have Indians

in our particular section have not the disruption of their

tribe by a river or dam, that is being put in. We cannot tie

anything on to ours in order to rehabilitate our Indians, and

they need it,

Mr. Berry. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shuford. Yes, I will be glad to.

Mr Berry. I am glad you used that word "disruption" of

 81

the tribo, booause that io exactly what we are doing -- dis-

rupting thio tribe, putting the 90 families on the rest of the

area and saying, "Root hog or die."

Mr. Shuford. I think with 100,000 acres of land they have

got a pretty good area in which they root. But the point I am

making to the gentleman, I do not think this io the proper

vehicle to carry this rehabilitation measure, and that is the

point I am making.

Mr. Aspinall. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shuford. I will be delighted to yield.

Mr. Aupinall. For one observation. We have argument pro

and con, but the reason the Cheyenne bill came before us and tb

reason the Standing Rock and the other two bills that are to

follow are before uo in this particular procedure is the belief

that, if you have hooked together the funds that are said to be

I direct damage plus the funds for rehabilitation, the funds

for rehabilitation will be large enough in their entirety to pu

into execu:'.on come kind of a rehabilitation program which

will be required. Whether or not the amount is all right, I

do not know, I have gone ahead with the precedent established

in the previous legislation. But there is nothing unusual or

there is nothing unfair or inequitable about this procedure being

used here. It has cleared all the way from the tribal council

all the way up here to Congress.

I understand the gentlemen from North Carolina's position

 82

as far a hin Indiana are concerned or any other Member of

Congronu who has this difficult problem to take care of. My

thought is that you will never have a very aatisfaotory program

if you try to do it on a general overall rehabilitation program

for all the tribeu. We muot do it for individual tribes.

Now the gentleman from North Carolina may have a bill in

hero and he may not. I do not know. But most certainly I kno

iomothing about his Indiana, and I would be for any program

he bring in here to help out the rehabilitation processes for

that tribe.

Mr. Shuford. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman

from Colorado.

Mr. Borry. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shuford. I will be delighted to yield to the gentlemen

Mr. Berry. There is one other point that has not been

brought out on the rights of the court. The court probably has

no right to dotormine these intangible values, In other words,

the timber has a value to the Indians as a group. The court

has no jurisdiction in ouch a thing, and yet to those people

that in a very tangible damage -- the timber they have always

used to build their homes and their corrals, the wild fruits

and vogetabloo that they got from this land, their rights to

hunt and fish. The court has no jurisdiction over these things

and yet it is something that we, as Americans, guaranteed to

those people at one time.

 Mr. Shuford. I upprouato tho condition the gontleman
opoaka of very much. I still feel --

Mr. Billion. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shuford, I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Pillion. My understanding of the situation Is that

the timber would certainly be an element of damage in the

original condemnation proceedings, Not only that, but having

paid for the timoor once under the original condemnation pro-

coadingo, the bill provides that they shall then be given the

timber on top of being paid for it in the firat place.

Mr. Dorry. That in to ave burning it up.

Mr. Pil.lion. So the element of damage certainly io

thoro and it it paid fo and compensated for by the Government.

Mr. Berry. We are doing that to save the cost of matches.

Lot'n not forget this These people are being put off of

this land forever. This timber that they used for their homes

under communal ownership in gone forever, not Just this batch

standing now.

Mr. Shuford. I appreciate what the gentleman has to say,

I am like the gentleman from New York -- I think that is all

taken into consideration in the condemnation, the value of the

timber. Now, if there are some intangibles that we cannot

imagine ouch as someone in the future may uoe certain lands,

maybe that has not been cared for, but I think it is the wrong

method.
 84

Mr. Berry. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shuford. Yeo,

Mr. Berry. I would like to ask Mr. Sigler if this is an

element that can betaken into consideration by the law.

Mr. Siglor. If I may answer Mr. Berry's question to me?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Sigler. The b.111 provides for the payment of the direct

damagos to the Indians because of taking their land and improve

montu. That is the type of damage that would ordinarily be

determined by a court. Thero is no substantial dispute about

that vulue. 3o that going to court would not make any appreoia)l1

difference in the amount awarded.

The Chairman. Lot us examine that a minute. What do you

mean by "no appreciable dispute?" Do you mean the Army

who
Enlnoors/are over a barrol, pluu the Indian Agency which wants

to got a good deal for tho Indians, plus the Indians who are

most happy to get some of the taxpayers' money, are all agreed

this is the right amount? Is that it?

Mr. Sigler. No, Mr. Chairman. These appraisals were made

by an independent commercial organization hire for the purpose.

The Chairman. Hired by whom?

Mr. Sigler, The Engineeru, as I recall it.

The Chairman. The Engineers being a direct party in

interest, out on a limb so far they could not get back to the
trunk of the tree to save their souls, having built a dam on
 85

property they did not own.

Mr. Siglor. I appreciate the comments you made. The

point Mr. Dorry asked me about, though, is to point out that

the quoution of land values is one thing which the court would

determine or which this committee may determine if it wishes

to do so, but the more significant point which Mr. Pillion

was talking about earlier is that the Indians have some peculia

values that they attach to these lands that are not values

that a court would recognize. And the illustration that was

3ivon was they depend to a very substantial extent on the

wildlife and wild fruits and berries, they live on those

things; and the court wald normally not give any substantial

value in condemnation action. That is what we have been callin

the indirect damages, which Congress may or may not, as it

wiohoa, allow because of the peculiar values the Indians attach

to those lands. And that is also what you referred to, Mr.

Pillion, when referring to timber. There is no double payment

in the bill. The courts would allow or the appraisal allowed

for the commercial value of the timber. But these peculiar

values to thb Indians are not included, and that is in this

second category.

Mr. Billion. The appraisal value here is roughly $1-1/2

million dollars.

Mr. Sigler. Yes.

Mr. Pillion. These intangible values, such as the right

to fish and the right to grow timber, are not those values

pretty lwll taken into consideration by the amount provided

for in the bill, which is more than three times the appraised

value of the land, the five million come dollars?

Mr. Sigler. Yea, that figure of five million something

represents theo coot of the land plus these intangible values.

Mr. Billion. Yoo.

Mr. Sigler. But I want to make clear to the committee

that there is that special intangible value that would not be

included in any condemnation action if that were the only

recourse open to the Indiana.

Mr. Rogero. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shuford. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. Rogers. I wou2.d like to know who decided that the

court cannot take into consideration those intangible values.

It seem to me someone is laying down a rule that the Supreme

Court has not heard about, because they do take into considera-

tion those values in condemnation proceedings, take them into

coheideration oven in regard to the ability of a man to operate

his own farm, the type of machinery shed he has on there, and

what that means to him as n intangible value in the open

competitive market. That has been held time and again in

cases involving the taking of property for the Government.

Mr. Berry. Individuals, not as a group.

Mr. Rogers. It would apply the same. If a court can

take it into consideration for an individual, it can take it

into conolderation with regards to u group of individuals or

an association,
Mr. Lorry. You wold have to bring an action as a group

in addition to the 921 separate aotion.o

Mr. Roger. Not necessarily that.

Hereo i what we arc getting into, Mr. Berry, that I am

afraid of. I am afraid we are getting into a position where

we are going to try to separate intangible values under a

false theory that they are not taken into consideration in

condemnation proceedings, and the Government in going to end

up oubooquently not only paying for thoos intangible values

once but paying for them under a difforont name later on.

Mr. Haley. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shuford. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. Haloey I might inform my good friend from Texas

when ho talks about rules and so forth in so far as the Supreme

Court is concerned, do not worry, they will find a way out of

it regardless of what rules you may lay down.

Mr. Rogers. I did not have in mind that court. I was

thinking of the Federal District Court.

The Chairman. What is the pleasure?

Without objection, the bill be considered as road and

open for amendment at any point.

Mr. Pillion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that all

 88

portion of lho bill reluwins to rehabilitation b3 stricken fro

tho bill.

Tho Chairman. The gentleman movos to strike those portions

which relate to rehabilitation as diatinguishod from direct

damaaon. Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Aspinall. A parliamentary inquiry, I wish to know

if the motion of the gentleman io in proper order. If the

Chair reoognizoo it, I will not have anything more to say about

it. In that kind of a motion in order at this time?

The Chairman. Technically the motion should state the

pages and lines and pargrapha to be stricken.

Mr. Pillion. Mr. Taylor, give me the pages and paragraphs

and sections.

The Chairman. Unless somebody presses that point, it is

an understandable motion. It is a motion which is clear enough in

its purpose so that members can vote on it without being misled

I believe as to the main point of the motion. If somebody want

to insist that the pages and lines to which the motion speci-

fically pertains be sot forth and the motion be made more certa n,

that may be done.

Mr. Sisk. Mr. Chairman, roserving the right to object.

The Chairman, The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. Siok. Does the gentleman's motion simply apply to

that,portion of the bill dealing with the $8,500,000 or does

he propose to throw into that also the certain intangibles

which are included in section 2?

 89

The Chairman. The gontlonan'o anondmont would strike from

the bill thono portion which provide payment to the Indians

for rehabilitation, The amounto in ooection 2 are for the direo

value of the land and intangibles.

Mr. Borry. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,

and I shall object. If you want to kill the bill, just kill th

bill. That is all there is to it. That takes out the heart

of the bill, which in the thing that the Bureau of Indian

Affaire ia trying to do, the thing that Congress is trying to do

and that iu to relocate, rehabilitate and establish the Indian

people of the United States.

Mr. Rogors, Will the gentleman yield?

Tho Chairman. Wait a minute. There ia a motion pending

before the committee. The motion will be put unless objection

is made that the motion iu not sufficiently opeoifio.

Mr. HogoerL. Henerving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Ir. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Berry, do you not think it would be bett r

to pay these people the price as part of the value of the land

rather than to not up a separate program?

Mr. Berry. It cannot get us into any trouble. We have

done it and done it.

Mr. Rogers. You have a very trusting soul if you think

it cannot get uo into trouble.

Mr. Berry. It hasn't got us into trouble.

 r The Chairmntn, :n ithove objctlion?

It' rn.- , .. Cu, k*

rv of th i orIon made by the gentleman

irons Now Yok, will oay "'Ayo"

Those oppouod will aay "No."

The Chair is in doubt.

Thooo in favor aioo their right hands. The olork will

help the Chair count. Fivo in the affirmative,

Thooo in the negative raiuo their right hands. 9 in the

negative The motion is not agreed to.

The bill iu open at any point for amendment. What is your

ploauure?

Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, there are two or three correoctin

amendments to the bill which were handed to me by Mr. Sigler.

Pirst, on pago 2, line 22, delete the words "or interests

thoroin."

Second, on page 2, line 23, after the words "North Dakota"

inoor't the wordo "in which Indians have a trust or restricted

interest and".

Those are clarifying amendments.

The Chairman. Without objection the amendments will be

adopted. Isthere any objection?

Hearing none, the amendments are adopted.

The next amendment.

Mr. Derry. On page 5, line 1, following the word

facilitieso," insert the words "as determined by the Secretary

 91

of the Interior and including".

Thio, I should say, is not Mr. Sigler's amendment but

roquootod by the Council,

In other word, the sootion as it now is does not say

who shall determine what buildings, what hospitals, what

bridge, what roads and so forth shall be established. This
would simply uot some agoncy for doing that as determined by

the Secrotary of the Interior.

The Chairman. Is there objection?

Without objection, the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Aapinall. Mr. Chairman, unless there is an objection,

I shall ask that the amendments proposed by the subcommittee

will be considered on bloc.

The Chairman. The Chair doon not have before him the

subcommitteo amendments.

Mr. Aspinall. They are in italics in the Committee Print.

The Chairman. The Chair calls attention to the committee

the Committee Print No. 9, with the amendments to H. R. 5608

proposed by the Subcommittee 'pn Indian Affairs. The gentleman

from Colorado has requested unanimous consent that the subcom-

mittee amendments which appear in italics in the Committee Print

No. 9 and by striko-out be considered en bloc. Is there any

objection?

If not, they will be considered and voted en bloc.

Those in favor will say "Aye".

 ...... 92

Thou, opposed will say "No."

The uuboominttoo amendmontu al' adopted.

Mr. iorry. I have some more amondments.

On page 6, line 11, strike the word "reside on the reserve

tion"and inert in lieu thereof beginning with the word "who"

on line 10, the word "are enrolled mombors of the Standing

Rock Sioux Tribe."

Tho Chairman. 1o there objection?

Mr. Wetland. Reerving the right to object. This, I

beliovo iL one of the oubjecto diucuoued to quite oome length

in ouboommitteoo If this particular amendment of the gentleman

from South Dakota were to prevail it would mean any member of

thin tribe, regardless of whore he lives, would come in under

jthi rehabilitation program.

I do nrot know just what they mean by rehabilitation, but

it could well be come Indian member of this tribe living out

Ln Loa Angoio; with a home ho did not like could go to the

Bureau of Indian Affair and get a bettor home.

We have heard the figure of $150,000 per family bandied

around here in committee, and I have heard no denial of that

pum of money, for this tribe. I would like to say pretty nearly

anybody in the United States would like to have $150,000 depoo-

ited to their account where it might draw 5 percent and thereby

receivee an annual income of $7500 a year.

If this bill is going to rehabilitate every enrolled

member of this tribo rogardlso of w.hethor he needs it or not,

irogardlone of iwhthr ho livco on the re ervation, I certainly

oxpoct to oppose tho bill ao trongl;y no I an.

Mr, Uorry. Will the gentleman yiold?

Mr. Wootland. I am all through,

The Chairman. The Chair rooognizos the gentleman from

South Dakota,
il

Mr,. Brry. The purpose of thiu amendment io tht we have

a largo number of member of the tribe who have been relocated

and who have relocated themselves, probably 1,000 or 1,200,

who are living in Rapid City. They are able pretty well to

make a living for themselves and they are going to be able to

food their children, but they are not making sufficient amount

that thuy can send these kids to oshool.

The purpose of thin amendment is to permit the tribe to

loan the funds out of this rehabilitation fund to those ohildre

in the ovont that they neod loans to attend college. Under the

law as it iu at tho present time they would not be able to make

a loan to them or to help them in any way. And that is the

purpose.

Mr. Sick. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Borry. Yes.

Mr. Sisk. As I understood your amendment, Mr. Berry, it

actually is to strike the amendment which we just accepted as

part of the amendments on bloc and to restore to the original

wording of the bill prior to the subcommittee amendment.

Mr. Burry. No. All it doos in make the rohatdlitation

provlaiono applicable to enrolled members instead of only

thouo who are residing on the reservation.

Mr. lHo1mer. Will tho gentleman yiold?

Mr. Dcrry. Yeo.

Mr. Hoomer. Did you not explain the purpose of this was

when you moved some families back from elsewhere on the reser-

vation to take care of the difficulties the reservation would

encounter? Now by your current amendment you are going back

off the recorvation again down to Rapid City for some eleomooin ry

purpose that is not connected with either the operation of the

dam or the displacement of individuals because of the dam.

Is that ribht?

Mr. Berry. That is partially right, yea.

The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Berry. Yes.

The Chairman. The plain fact is the way the bill is

written now you have set up a magnet to bring all the Indians

of thin tribe wherever located and wherever making a living

for themselves, scurrying back to the reservation to get in

on the pie cut.

Mr. Pillion. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Berry. Y s.

Mr. Pillion. In fairness to every other Indian in this

country -- I would liko to be correotod if I am wrong, the

gontloman from South Dakota -- tho United States Government is

appropriating a certain fund for the rehabilitation of those

Indiana, antany member of the tribe no matter where they may

livo can now under this bill come in and ask for a loan or

part of thoue fund regardless of whether he needs rehabilitati)

or not; and, an a reult, you are setting up a certain olaso,

a ,mall group of Indian who will have a preference over and

above anybody else. That leaves the balance of the Indiana

without that benefit of thin type of rehabilitation and this

type of ability to borrow money actually from the United States

Government. Is that the purpose of the bill?

Mr. Berry. No. Au I said before, the Tribal Council aoko

me to offer thin amendment, If the committee does not feel

it should be a part of the bill, I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Rhodoa. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Berry. Yeso

Mr. Rhodes. I think the Chairman's point ia very well

taken. If thin amendment does pass, you are going to have all

the Indiana back on the reservation. On one hand we are trying

to get them to go off the reservation and be relocated in other

communities. If you make it available to all enrolled members,

you immediately undo the work on another program.

Mr. Berry. You have that feature.

 The Chairman. Dooe the gentleman desire a vote on the

amondlmnt?

Mr. worry . Yea.

The Chairman. Thouo in favor of the amendment will aay

IAye".

Thosn opposed will say "No."

In the opinion of the Chair the noes have it. The noes

have it and the amendment is loat.

Mr. Berry. I have one more amendment, Mr, Chairman.

In section 11, page 10, line 20, following the word "the"
insert the word "continued" and following the word "to" strike

tho words "graze took on" and inert in lieu ,thereof the

ordo "gonoral uoo of".

In other word, in thiu taking area until it is used by

the Army ,nglneern it will give the Indian of the uIribe the

right to oontinuod uuo of this taking area until ouch time

io the Army Engtlnreuir

need it for -ater purposes.

Mr. Wotland. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. B.Ury. You.

Mr. Wetland. That i quite a bit different from what is

.n the bill, it would aoom to me. You tay they would have the

)ontinuod right to do what? Uos this land, is it, for general

Urpoaeo?
Mr. Berry. Until it io flooded

Mr.. Wetland. Where doeu it say until it is flooded?

This amendment says between the wdur level and the

 97

delineation o' the Taking Area. To my mind that would mean the
oould movo their topooa or houeuo there or could live on that
land forever. They have already boon paid for that area once.
Then aro you going to lot them move back, maybe move in there
uo thoy could take over thio entire area and prevent the genera
uue of it for fishing or hunting or any recreational facilities

Mr. Borry. Lot's say this: The thing that brought it up

in the fact there arc along thio area a number of alfalfa fields

and so forth. Under the provision now they cannot use those

alfalfa fields between now and time the water backs up.
Mr. Billion. Will the gentleman yield?
M:,. Bor'ry. Yes.

Mr. Pillion. Why iu not the amendment limited then to

one year' time or' two years' putting of alfalfa? Why is it
in perpeultulty?

MN.. Borry. Section 11 says, "After the Oaho Dam gates are

cloed and the waters of the Missouri River impounded, the said

Indian trinu and the memboor thereof... ohall have the right

to graze..."

Mr. Billion. Is not that perpetuity? There is no limi-

tation.
not
Mr. Berry. An long as it is/being used, it just gives
them the right to use it. What the Government does now is they
sell it to someone else.
Mr. Hosmer. Will the gentleman yield?
 Mr. Borry. Yoo.

4Mr. IHonomr, Your amendmont would pupooo additional com--

ponoation to the Indiana, Io thore any reason why at the preoeit

timo the Oovornmont cannot enter into uomo kind of a reasonable

loauo arranmomont with the Indiana after it buyo their property

uo longi au 'oatuon)ably convenient to do so rather than to write

into logislation uomothing hoer that io liable to cause them

to come around with another bill to componate the Indians for

uomothing oloe done on the property between now and the time

the water lovel roachoe? IE there anything that would prevent

the Dopartment of the Interior or the Engineers or whoever has

cognizance of thouo land from making reasonable leaoes with

the Indian?

Mr. Dorry. Thore i not, no.

The Chairman. Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Hoamor. I would propose to amond the amendment,

which would uo on page 10, to strike out beginning at line

12 through to the period after "17" on line 22, including the

period.

SThe Chairman. That lo hardly an amendment to the amendment;

it iu a ubstituto for tho amendment.

Mr. Pillion. Will the gentleman yield for mo to offer

a oubstitute to the amendment?

Mr. Hoomer. I aui unanimouu content to withdraw my

proposed amendment so that Mr. Pillion can offer a substitute,

Mr. PillZ~on. I would like to offer a substitute to this

mnondmont by striking out all of notion 11.
The roauon for that is that it contains also a right to th sa
Indian tribe to fish, which again is a right that sometime or

another the U. S. Government will have to buy off,

Now It iu stated hero that rights to fish were one of the

intangible factors that wont into boosting the price of the

appraised value of $1,500,000, roughly, to $5 million. They

are being paid for it, than they retain those rights in sootion

11, and uometino or another the U. S. Government will again hav

to buy off thoo rights to fish and the rights to graze above

the impounded waters. So what you are doing is paying them

once and giving the rights right back again, which you will

have to acquire again at some later date.

As Mr. IHoimer said, there is no reason why the departments

hero cannot enter into a temporary leasing arrangement with

regard to both these rights instead of putting it in the bill

and r'tainrng ittas a perpetual right that will have to be

bought off uaain at some later date.

Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. Derry. The purpose of this section was to prevent

what has happened at Fort Borthold from happening. There

no provision was made for the handling of this land between

the Taking Area and the water level, and I think the Senate

paeood the bill the other day. At least there is a bill

 100

pending before this oommittoo to do just exactly what this does

because they got into such a haaolo up there. I think I have

the news story on it right here, They have got in such a

hassle up there on Berthold that we were trying to avoid that

by putting this provision in.

The Chairman. Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Dawson. A parliamentary inquiry. What is the question i

The Chairman. The vote occurs first on the substitute

offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Pillion, to the

amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota. Mr.

Pillion'u oubutitute would strike all of the language of aeotio

11. Tho vote ocuuro first on the substitute,

Those in favor of striking all of section 11 will say "Aye'.

'Thouc oppooed will say "No."

In tho opinion of the Chair the ayes have it and the

aubstituto J. adopted.

Without objection., the bill will be appropriately renumber d

so that section 11 being stricken the numbers of the section will

appear consecutively. Without objection, that is the order of

the committee. Does the gentleman move the bill?

Mr. Borry. Yes, I move the bill.

Mr. Rogors. Don't we have to vote on the amendment as

amended?

The Chairman. The substitute struck down the amendment.

In other words, the substitute struck out the whole seotion.

Mr. Berry had an amendment to the section. The substitute

motion truck down the whole oeotion; oo it in all out.

There iS nothing to do except renumber the oeotions now.

Are you ready for action here?

Mr. Rhodes. I have one amendment I would like to offer.

On pjago 6, line 5, strike out the words "to draw interest

on those principal thereof at those rate of 4 per centum until

expended." Lineu five and nix.

I cannot uoe any good roason why we should pay interest

on monoy we have appropriated for rehabilitation.

The Chairman. Does the gentleman from South Dakota wish

to peak to that?

Mr. Berry. Au I said before, Mr. Chairman, the thought

is that a lot of thin money is to be used for educational

purpoeoo and uued au a truot fund. The thought is that if

this money io uot auido for the benefit of the education of

the o children, when they are ready for it thore will be more

money thore if they got 4 per cent interest between now and

then.

The Chairman. Are you ready for the question?

Those in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from

Arizona, which is on page 6, line 5, to strike the words "to

draw interest on the principal thereof at the rate of 4 per

centum until expended", will say "Aye".

Thooo opposed will say "No."

IX the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. The ayes
 102

have it and the amendnont in adopted.

Mr. Borry. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move the bill.

Mr. Roger. In a motion to recommit this bill in ordoe

at this time?

The Chairman. A motion to recommit is in order at this tin!

Mr. Rogera. I move it be recommitted to the Subcommittee

on Indian Affairs for further study.

The Chairman. The question is not debatable. Those in

favor of the motion to recommitt will say "Aye."

Those oppoood will say "No."

Mr. Borry. I ask for the yeas and nayes.

The Chairman. The gontleman requests the yeas and nayes.

Tho clerk will call tho roll.

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Aspinall?

Mr. Aspinall. No.
Mru. Arnold. Mr. Borry?

Mr. Berry. No.

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Budgo?

(No response.)
Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Chenowoth?

Mr. Chenoweth. No.

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Christopher?

Mr. Christopher. No.

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Dawson?

Mr. Dawoon. No.

 103

Mrss Amnold, Mr. Digr'?

(No 'oe13ponce.)
Mru, Arnold. 4r, Edmroncdson

(No rvoponie.)

Mru. Anold. Mrai Green?

INo rouporinoe)
Mro. Arnold Mr. Haley?

Mr. Haley. Aye.

Mro. Arnold. Mr. Honmer?

Mr. Hoomer. *ao.

Mrs. Apnold, Mv. Motoalt?

M4. MatcalC. No.

Mru. Arnold. Mr. Millor?

(No roapoxnso)

Mra, Arnold Mr. O'Brien?

(No responee)

Mra. Arnold. Mrs. Prost?

Mrs. Pfoot. Aye.

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Billion?

Mr. Pillion. Ayo.

Mtm. Arnold. Mr. Powell?

(No response.)

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Rhodeoo?

Mr. Rhodes, No.

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Rogeor?

Mr. Roera. Aye.

 104

Mr', Arnold. Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Rutherford. No.

Mra. Arnold. Mr. Saylor?

(No roupono.)
MvO. Arnold, Mr. Ohuford?

Mr. 3huford. Aye.

Mro. Arnold. Mr. Siak?

Mr. Siok. No.

Mrn. Arnold. Mr. Udall?

(No reoponoo.)
Mra. Arnold. Mr. Utt?

Mr. Utt. No.

Mtsro Arnold. Mr. Westland?

Mr. eootland. Aye.

Mi,. Arnold. Mr. Wharton?

Mr. Wharton. No.

Mro. Arnold. Mr, Young?

(No rosponuo.)
The Chairman. 7 having voted in the affirmative and

11 in the negative, the motion to recommit is lost.

Mr. Borry. I renew my motion.

The Chairman. The matter before the committee is now

bhe motion of the gentleman from South Dakota that the bill

ae favorably reported to the House as amended.

All thooo in favor will say "Aye".

I .
 105
'Thoooppoood will say "No."
Thu Chair io in doubt. The cloric will oall the roll.
Mro. Arnold. Mr. Aupinall?
Mr. Aspinall, Aye,

Mro. Arnold, Mr. Berry?

Mr, Derry. Aye.

Mrs. Arnold. Mt. Budge?

(No reoponoo.)

Mrs. ,rnold, Mr. Chonowoth?

Mr. Chonoweth. Ayo.

Mro, Arnold. Mr. Christophor?

Mr. Christopher. Aye.

Mru. Arnold. Mr. Dawson?

Mr. Dawoon. Aye,

Mru. Arnold. Mr. Diggu?

(No ronponue,)
Mro. Arnold. Mrs. Green?

(No rooponoe.)
Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Haley?

Mr. Haloy. No.

Mrc Arnold. Mr. Hosmor?

Mr. Hobnor. Preoont.

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Metcalf?

Mr. Metcalf. Aye.

Mrs. Arnold. Mr. Miller?

(No response.)
 106

14xo. Arnold.. O'IviOn?

(No rooponuo,.

Mro . Am'old. Mra. Pfoot?

r'out 1 N(
lo.

Mru, A!rold,b Mr. Pillion?

Pillion.I No.

Arnold. mv. 1'OWo).J.'

(No

Arnold. Mr. R1hodos1?

ML'1 lhtdeo. A,yeo

Arnold.

fiogevaL3.Nc100

Mr. Arnold. fRuthorrord?

Mr'z3. futhevf rd. Aye.

Arnold. t

Maley. 1No by Shuyl ord?

Arnold. VMr.
proxj,
Mr. Shiford.

Arnold. VMir.

Mr. Stok. Aye.

Mve. Arnold. Mr. Udal)?

(No vouponso.)

Mrs.. Avnold. Mr. Utt?

14r. Utt. Aye.

firs. Arnold. Mv. Westland?

Mr. Westland, No.

 107

t'Pu,. Arnold. Mr, Wharton?

Mr. Wharton Ayo.

Mru. Arnold. Mr. Young?

(No rooponoo.)
The Chairman. On thio motion, 11 having votod in tho

affirmative and 7 in the negative, tho bill, ao amended, io

favorably rported to the House and the Chair designatoo the

gontloinan from Colorado to report the bill.

The mooting time having expired, the committee stands

adj.,rned until 10:30 in the morning,

(Wheroupon, at 12:01 p.m., the committee adjourned, to

reconveno at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 20, 1956,)