s31 :H lVIV t) IV.s I1 IV ilt ).

dn0i

INDEX

Statement of Page

M. Q. Sharp, Kennebeo, South Dakota, and Ralph

H. Case, Washington, D. C., Representing the
Standing Rook Sioux Tribe of Indiana
14
Lewis Sigler, Solicitor's Office, Department of
the Interior 20
 If
:;'4.Ii \W IV.0I 1V. Wtl IV ( 1.1IIOOId.H

H. R. 5608

MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 1956

House of RepresentatiVes
Subcommittee on Indian Affa
of the Committee on Interio
and Insular Affairs,
Washington, D. C.

_The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m.,

in the committee room, New House Office Building, Honorable

James A. Haley (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Haley. The Interior and Insular Affairs Suboommittee

on Indian Affairs will be in order.

SFirst on the agenda this morning is H. R. 5608 by Mr.

Berry. We had a couple days hearings on this during the last

session of Congress.

(H. R. 5608 and the Department report follow:)

 A It. V-- I 0 I1 V.N I41 iv I.-i ,I "
',

Mr. Haley. Mr. Berry, would you like to make any state-

ment at this time?

Mr. Berry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We have had a large number of hearings on this and the

other three bills relating to rehabilitation. It was agreed

and understood fairly well last year that these bills should

go over until after the recess and that during the recess a

committee, or as many members of the committee as possible,

should go out and view the area to be inundated, the damage to

be done, the need for rehabilitation of these people; and then

when that was done, that members of the committee would have a

better idea of what was needed in this legislation.

I am happy to say to the other members of the committee

that our chairman did something that I think Is unique. He

visited a large number of the reservations a.l through the

West, took a month of his time that I know he could have well

spent in his own District, and traveled through the West. Not

only the West, but the Southeast, including North Carolina. I

think he probably did a better job than any other subcommittee

chairman in Congress, and I want to take this opportunity to

express the appreciation, I am sure, of the entire committee

for the very wonderful job he did, the time he spent, the

grueling work he went through in order to keep up with the

jterrifit-schedule handled by him.

It was not the privilege of all of the members of the

 3

committee to accompany the chairman all the time. When he was

in Montana I know the gentleman from Montana and others were

with him, and in South Dakota I was with him, and other member

of the committee. Dr. Miller came up for some of our hearings .

But in my Judgment the chairman of this aubooamittee did

this because, as a matter of fact, he has spent all of his

life in improving the lot of human beings through entertainment

in the entertainment world, and I think it was this same spirit

that motivated this grueling trip he took out through the West

I know that he and others of this committee who have seen

this reservation personally, as he did, and traveled over it

personally as he did, traveled over the area to be covered,

went into the homes of these people -- I know they have a mue

better idea of the need for H. R. 5608 than they did last yaar

It is not our intention to put in any testimony today

other than reviewing the testimony, possibly, that was taken

last year, the testimony that was taken out at these hearings.

I have here the printed report of the five hearings held in

South Dakota for the benefit of the members of the committee.

We have in the committee room this morning a former Goverror

of South Dakota, M. Q. Sha%); . who is serving as attorney for

these Indians. We also hive here Mr. Ralph H. Case of Washington,

D. C., who is an Indian attorney in Washington and who is well

Known to us presentL-n_the room this morning. They are here to

answer such questions as the members of the committee have on

 <(
SA1H:1HV IVS0IIV'1 11 IV tI:.1A(iO~dA I

this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have to say.

The Department has quite a voluminous list of suggested

amendments.

Mr. Aspinall. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Sou

Dakota yield to me?

Mr. Berry. I will be happy to.

Mr. Aspinall. This bill makes provision for two appropri -

t tion; is that correct?

Mr. Berry. Three actually.

Mr. Aspinall. Three appropriations.

Mr. Berry. In answer to the gentleman from Colorado, thee

are three parts of this bill. The first part is for payment

for land and the actual damage that is done by virtue of the

taking of some 48,000 acres, as I recall, of choice bottom

lands in South Dakota.

Mr. Aspinall. If the gentleman will further yield. For

that there is provision for appropriation of $2,799,6637

Mr. Berry. That is correct.

Mr. Aspinall. Which is added to an appropriation for

$7,571,000 for indirect damages sustained by the Indians. Is

that correct?

Mr. Berry. That is correct.

Mr. Aspinall. Then there is an appropriation for $16

Million which is supposed to be an appropriation for rehabilital i

 \t' iV' I VN '4.11,
".ii IV
IV I: -',A,

Is that correct?

Mr. Berry. That is correct.

Mr. Aspinall. Those are the three appropriations to

which the gentleman makes reference?

Mr. Berry. Yes.

Mr. Aspinall. The first appropriation for $10 million-

plus will come out of the construction funds appropriated for

-the building of the Oahe Dam; is that correct?

Mr. Berry. Yes.

Mr. Aspinall. And will be paid out of those funds, and

then will be repaid from revenues which are secured from the

operation of the Missouri Basin Power Program?

Mr. Berry. That is correct.

Mr. Aspinall. The other $16 million is to come out of th

general funds of the Treasury; is that correct?

Mr. Berry. Yes, sir, for a rehabilitation program of the

members of this tribe.

Mr. Aspinall. Thank you.

Mr. Haley. I would like to state to the members of the

commttee that we held extensive hearings, as the distinguished

gentleman fro . )uth Dakota has told you. While I do not know
the value of tne 1"nd to be taken, I might say this for the

committee's guidine: In my opinion, when they flood these

lands the real heart of the Indian lands is ta:i from them. I
see no possibility of lands of similar productivity being
 l
',I.\H MV IV\ol IVN if IV il.i.1o.13N

created, and it is very doubtful in my mind whether they will

be able to sustain life on this reservation if these lands are

taken from the reservation.

Mr. Aspinall. Will the chairman yield to me at that poinl

Mr. Haley. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. Aspinall. There is no question at all about the

damages, direct and indirect, resulting from the construction

of this flood control and reclamation and power project. My

only question is as to the equity concerned in the $16 million

appropriation. What does my chairman have to say in respect

to that?

Mr. Haley. Of course, it is a rather difficult question

to answer. What the value of it is I am not prepared to say.

That is going to be left to the committee first and to the

j-Congrbes if the bill passes.

Mr. Aspinall. I thought since the chairman was present a

the hearings and found out the conditions of the members of th

Strike he would more than likely have an idea on that. That is

the only reason for the query of the chairman. I did not mean

to embarrass my chairman.

Mr. Haley. It is not embarrassing to me. I am sure the

gentleman knows my position in so far as Indians are concerned

jas a whole -- that we have started moving towards termination

Iof our wardship to some extent over the Indians. I say, if we

hat then we are going to have to provide ome way for the
do that, then we are going to have to provide some way for the
 4 -lH.M V IVNO1IiVN. HI IV ltH.,.Ul1>N' l

Indians to sustain themselves and move into the economy of the

community and the state. Whether this is too much or too little
L.
I am not prepared to say.

Mr. Aspinall. That brings up the next question. Does

this have any termination features in the bill?

Mr. Haley. No. The gentleman-is--wll aware of the aotio

of the 83d Congress in moving towards that.

Mr. Berry. Will my chairman yield?

Mr. Haley. Certainly.

Mr. Berry. This bill is copied after to a great extent

the Cheyenne River bill which was passed two years ago, approve

by the tribe in December a year ago, and the appropriation mad

at the first half of this session of Congress.

That bill was broken into three sections the same as this

bill. The tribe makes settlement with the individual Indians

for the lands that are taken. Secondly, section 2 is tribal

money and tribal property to help, or to be used in helping

wherever needed in rehabilitation and relocation. In section

money, we gave to the Cheyenne nearly $4,200,000, I guess, and

they have set that money up under a contract, which is being

signed today or tomorrow, I hope, by the Commissioner, authorize

:the tribe themselves to carry on this rehabilitation program.

And the contract is terminable in 20 years under the terms that

Have been worked out between the Department and the tribe.

The tribe set up a managerial program of their own. The

 i;. \IHWV IV\ NILV t 1J
t V tll.lt'-1ONdA

man who has served as state auditor for the State of South

Dakota for five years resigned his position as state auditor

to go in and manage this program, to serve as a bank clerk, 1i

you would like to call it that, to handle this loan program

and this rehabilitation program.

Now that is what is envisioned in these other three bills

There is no termination provision in this bill, no possib ,

termination, but it does this: I think for the first time in

history it gives the tribe control over their own money, the

right to handle their own money, and the Commissioner of the

Bureau of Indian Affairs has no control over the tribe, only i

the event that there is mismanagement, when they step in,

* straighten it up, and then turn it back.

But it does this: As you will see on page 4, the rehabil

Stion funds have been set up as follows:

- orn education, $3,200,000. That includes not only higher*

:education, but it includes trades training and helping to re-

locate these Indian people after they have learned a trade.

And in the Cheyenne contract the tribe can go so far as t

loan him the money to buy his tools and equipment after he has

learned his trade. They can go so far as to loan him the money

Si to make a down payment on a home or business on or off the

reservation. In other words, it is a complete rehabilitation

program in itself.

The second is agricultural loans, $3 million. The thought

 AAIWMV 1V 01IVN 11A IV Il-.hO d;N

is that some 20 or 25 percent of the Indians can make a living

in farming on the reservation and to set them up on that basis

But there are only resources on this reservation for probably

35 percent of the Indians who live here, and a program of re-

location, trade training and so forth, is not only important,

it is essential to the welfare of these people.

Page 4 gives the proposal of how the tribe plans to work

under a managerial form, the same as the Cheyennes, to carry o t

their rehabilitation program.

Then, if you will turn over to page 19, we held a hearing

that afternoon on the Cheyenne, and there they set up their

entire plan and program for their rehabilitation, having the

law at that time, but not the contract by which the Secretary

of the Interior could turn over to the tribe this $4 million

for rehabilitation purposes.

Mr. Sisk. Mr. Chairman, could I direct a question to my

colleague, Mr. Berry?

Mr. Haley. Yes.

Mr. Sisk. What is the total population of the Standing

Rock Reservation?

Mr. Berry. I am goin3 to ask Lewis Sigler. Do you have th

figures, Mr. Sigler?

Mr. Sigler. The total population of Standing Rock is

14,324 and the population residing on the reservation is 2,774.

Mr. Sisk. The question I had in mind, Mr. Berry, was

 S- 11) V IVYNOI
i VS 1111 IV <l:l).1 10iNJiH

10

actually how many members would share in the money that will b

appropriated. Is that the latter figure or the total figure

Mr. Berry. That is up to this committee to determine, up11

to the Congress to determine whether all of the enrolled nibe: a

should share or whether just those living on the reservation.

The bill provides, I believe, for those living on the reserva-

tion.

Mr. Sisk. That is 2,774?

Mr. Berry. Yes.

Mr. Sisk. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Aspinall. Mr. Chairman, right along with the inter-

rogation by my colleague, Mr. Sisk, if my figures are correct -

and I assume they are -- in the 83d Congress in Public Law 776

we made provision for per capita investment of $2,250 per memb r

of the tribe.

Mr. Berry. On the Cheyenne.

Mr. Aspinall. Yes, on the Cheyenne. Now in this legila-

tion apparently we are making an investment of $3,700 per member

of the tribe. Could you advise the committee Just it is there

is this difference of approximately $1,500 in favor of the

members of the Standing Rock Tribe?

Mr. Berry. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can.

If you have on your desk Report No. 138 of the MRBI, the

Missouri River Basin Investigation Report, a commission set up

by, I believe, the Secretary of the Interior to make a study of

 11

these seven reservations that would be covered up under this

Missouri River program, you will find on page 24 of the report

a set of figures giving the acreage.

The acreage on Standing Rook is 1,026,000. The aoreage o

Cheyenne is 1,612,000 or thereabouts. They cover up on the

Standing Rook about 56,000, whereas they covered up 104,000 on

SCheyenne.

But I call your attention to the fact that there is vastly

more land on the Cheyenne than there is on the Standing Rook,

and there is a much larger population on the Standing Rook th

there is on the Cheyenne., So that the possibility of rehabili

ing and relocating Indians on the Cheyenne is much greater tha

the possibility of doing the same thing on the Standing Rook.

In other words, after the taking Standing Rook will have

970,000 acres, whereas Cheyenne will have 1,570,000 sores. Not

quite twice as much land.

If you will check up here, you will find there are quite

a few less families on Cheyenne than there actually is on the

Standing Rock.

Mr. Haley. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Shuford. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Haley. The gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Shuford. The $16 million for rehabilitation has nothing

in the world to do with the moving of the Indians off the lands

being covered oy the water, does it?

 S4Ali iV IVNO IVN I LV (l:.(th>IiTdAN

12

Mr. Berry. Let us look at it this way: These people, by

virtue of being moved, are coming back on to the reservation

taking resources that the other Indians on the reservation had<

before, crowding them out. So that actually it is more necessa

than ever that we do something to help get these Indians off ol

this reservation area.

Mr. Shuford. How many are you actually moving?

Mr. Berry. 170 families are being moved out of the takin

area.

Mr. Shuford. How many families are on the entire reserva-

tionT

Mr. Berry. 680.

01 Mr. Shuford. 680?

Mr. Berry. Approximately.

Mr. Shuford. What acreage is in the reservation that will

remain after the taking?

Mr. Berry. 970,000.

Mr. Shuford. 970,000 acres. How close are they going to

!be together after they move them? I Just want to see how

crowded they are going to be.

Mr. Berry. Let me say this: that the resources of the

ireservation today are not nearly enough to take care of the

families.

Mr. Shuford. The point I am getting at: The $16 million

is Just for the rehabilitation of the tribe and really does not
 "A- II. HIV IVSOUIV S 11 1V (1.i 1 HdMAl

13

have too much to do with the flooding. They are two separate

matters.

) Mr. Berry. They are separate matters, except, if we are

ever going to do anything, this is the time to do it.

Mr. Shuford. I mean, in considering it we should really

consider, one, you are compensating for the land that is being

taken, which has been appraised, and then the committee is

looking after the welfare of the tribe separately and distinct

from the project taking the lands. That is my understanding.

Mr. Aspinall. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shuford. Yes.

Mr. Aspinall. What is the value of these lands? You

referred to the fact that the Cheyenne River Tribe has approxi

mately the same number of people, approximately the same effect

as far as percentage is concerned upon the removal program, bu

you say that because there is a third more land to the credit f

the Cheyenne River Tribe than there is to the Standing Rook Tr

that the contribution of the Federal Government for this re-

habilitation program should be approximately a third more, as

I understand it. What is the value of the lands which are beia

considered in this respect -- comparative value?

Mr. Berry. Let us say that the two reservations join.

They follow right down along the river. There really is not

much difference. And you know the prairie out there. It is

 7 4

I. 111HMV IVONI IVN \\ 1 IV H ),(1100N.:I

14

about the same all the way along.

Mr. Aspinall. I have one other question referring back,

Mr. Berry, to my original question about the appropriation. I

understood that the answer to my question about where the firs

$10,370,663 was to come from, that it was to come from the

construction costs of the Oahe project. Yet in section 17 I

find this language: "There is hereby authorized to be

appropriated not to exceed $26,470,663, as provided by section

2, 5, and 13" -- I am sure that means 15 -- "exclusive of the

sums to be charged against the cost of construction of the

Oahe project as provided in sections 3 and 4 hereof." In

other words, apparently that $10 million-plus figure is not to

be taken from the cost of construction.

Mr. Berry. I am going to ask Governor Sharpe. Would you

come up to the witness table, please, with the permission of te

committee?

Mr. Haley. Will you identify yourself for the record.

STATEMENTS OF M. Q. SHARPE, KENNEBEC, SOUTH DAKOTA, ANM

RALPH H. CASE, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE
STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS

Mr. Sharpe. I am M. Q. Sharpe of Kennebec, South Dakota,

Representing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of Indians as

attorney.

Mr. Case. I am Ralph H. Case, National Press Building,

Washington, D. C., co-attorney with M. Q. Sharpe.

 SIA1Wi HV IV\(OIIV Jil 'IV :..110 H

15

Mr. Haley. Did you hear the question of the gentleman fra

South Dakota?

Mr. Sharpe. Yes, I heard it, but if I cannot answer it,

probably Mr. Case can. He had a great deal to do with drawing

up the bill.

It was my understanding that the committee could direct

these appropriations from such funds as it saw fit when it wro

up the bill. That is I assume especially and hope that that

$10 million-plus should be charged against the cost of that

reservoir and paid for fine.ly out of the revenues that accrue

from that reservoir.

The bill does say what the gentleman said, it would look

as though it was Just a general appropriation. This is a

question committee counsel can answer better than I can.

Is it not within the province of the committee to direct

from what funds these appropriations shall come when they mark

jup the bill? That is what I assume should be done. Certainly

all of it except the rehabilitation program, I would think,

would be properly chargeable against the reservoir construction.

Mr. Aspinall. I did not understand your statement. You

say it is not in the province or it is?

Mr. Sharpe. I say, is it not within your province? I

figured you have got a plenary all over control, representing

the Congress, to say where this money comes from. And certainly

there is plenty of argument that this $10 million ought to come

 SAHIMV 1V. J 11M1
n IV (M "AtIOId H t

16

out of the reservoir cost. I can cite plenty of them. Possib y

the Army and the Department of the Interior will object to it,

but the revenue of those dams can pay these construction cost

and could pay some of the rehabilitation program in time to

come.

Mr. Case. Mr. Chairman, the Governor gave me credit for

writing this bill. :i; is right: I wrote the moat of it. But

after a bill has been written for a year or so there are some

things that are in it that you wonder how they got in there, o

why you let them get in to begin with.

Sections 2 and 4 of this bill correspond to the Cheyenne

River bill.

Let me add, that is all Sioux. There are no Cheyennes

in the Cheyenne River Reservation.

Sections 2 and 5 make appropriations, section 2 for the

direct damage, section 5 for the rehabilitation. In between

are sections 3 and 4, which are not appropriated for. Nor is

any appropriation asked to be authorized. Those are the repla e.

ment of present conditions to endeavor to bring these people at

least to the level they now are, that is as to schools, hospits1

,roads, bridges, culverts, and all other facilities that they

now have because the Government put them there. Now the

Government may have to move them out. I understand that the

agency at Standing Rock will not be inundated. Is that not

correct, Governor?
 iUMV IV0l'i M Vl l . I.,id AH
IV

17

Mr. Sharpe. That is correct.

Mr. Case. They will not be-inundated, and thereby the

United States will save somewhere between three and five milli n

dollars. It would be sheer guesswork to say how much, but it

will save a very substantial sum.

Mr. Berry. Mr. Case.

Mr. Case. Yes, sir.

Mr. Berry. In your drafting of the bill, section 17 pro-

vides, "There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not to

exceed $26,470,663, as provided by seotions2, 5, and 13,

exclusive of the sums to be charged against the cost of con-

struction of the Oahe project."

Mr. Case. Those sums under sections 3 and 4, not having

been provided for in the bill, are those which would normally

come out of the total cost of the Oahe Reservoir project.

Mr. Berry. That is land and severence?

Mr. Case. Land, timber, improvements, severence in seotio

!2. It is rehabilitation --

Mr. Berry. In other words, this section should be amended

to correct that, in your judgment?

5 Mr. Case. I certainly think so. I think that should be

clarified.

Mr. Aspinall. Just what does my colleague mean by "It

should be amended"?

Mr. Case. So it would clearly stand out. Now rehabilitat-

is the prime duty of the United States. That is, it should com
 "*.
A.1V1 4V IV.O()I IV\ I l IV (I .).1HOI.1X

18
II-

out of general funds. It should not necessarily be reimbursa le

to the fund, as you will have a very substantial - you would

have repayment. There has never been one of these dam that

did not pay off. There has never been a toll bridge that has

not paid off. And these funds that are for the replacement o

agency facilities will not be a heavy load under this bill

because that agency is not being flooded out. The Cheyenne

River agency will be under a hundred feet of water. Of course

it will be of very little use except to the skin divers that

have come up here lately.

Section 17, I would just like very much to try to amend

or put in correct form, but leave that to you and your good

clerks, and we will put in language that means what it is in-

tended to mean.

Mr. Haley. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Shuford. Mr, Chairman?

Mr. Haley. Mr. Shuford.

Mr. Shuford. How much money do you say then should be

paid from the general fund-nd h-w much should be reimbursable?

Mr. Case. I would say all of the appropriations under

section 2 would be charged to the Oahe project, and such other

things as public law -- I cannot call the number -- of a previc

Congress that authorized negotiations for settlement. Those

things should be reimbursed, that is, should be charged into th

Qahe appropriations. There is your basis in which you figure

 SiL U V IV011.SVN 111 IV t:.).uI10NIMN

19

what your return for power and irrigation must be in order to e

pay to the Federal Government the cost of the-Oahe project.

Frankly, that would require a little study to break down those

figures. Of course, I am certain that all of section 2

appropriations are and should be charged to the Oahe project.

Mr. Shuford. You think that all of the costs under this

bill except the $16 million should be reimbursable?

Mr. Case. No, sir, we did not intend to say that. No, I

think the rehabilitation program entirely is the duty of the

Federal Government and should be from the general funds Of the

Treasury.

Mr. Shuford. That is what I say -- the $16 million would

be from the general funds and the remainder of the $26 million

here would be from construction costs, reimbursable.

Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would not be wis

to have Rex Lee, who is in the room, give us the thinking of te

Department and their opinion on this.

Mr. Aspinall. (Presiding) I think so.

Dr. Miller. I would like to ask one question first.

Mr. Aspinall. Dr. Miller.

Dr. Miller. Have you read the six pages of suggestions

and amendments in the letter of June 22, 1955 on this bill?

And do you agree with those suggestions?

Mr. Case. I have read them, but I am not in agreement wit

'them. I would be glad indeed --

 i 1V 1 VNI tl 1V Lin.'-

- 20

Dr. Miller. You understand the bill is pretty apt to hav

the amendments in when it comes out of the committee.

Mr. Case. There are some technical amendments suggested

by the Department we are entirely in agreement with. I could

not identify them speaking offhand.

Dr. Miller. It changes materially the bill you are talking

to.

Mr. Case. It does, and I think there are some structural

changes, some legislative language suggested that we would lik

very much indeed to have an opportunity to file a memorandum o.

Mr. Aspinall. Thank you very much. The Chair thinks the

suggestion of our colleague from South Dakota is timely.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Aspinall. The Chair calls to the witness stand Mr.

Lee, representing the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Mr. Lee. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sigler is the Departmental

witness on this. He has followed the bill through and

accompanied the committee.

Mr. Aspinall. Mr. Sigler will make his statement.

STATEMENT OF LEWIS SIOLER, SOLICITOR'S OFFICE,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Sigler. Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer your questir

about where these funds are to be charged by calling your

attention to the fact that on page 2, line 19, the authorization

 s:, iI INV IVOi iVN, 4 i v .;- .' iti.U H

21-24

for the direct and indirect damages specifically says payment

is to be out of funds appropriated for the Oahe project. That

is a direct statement.

Then I think the language you were referring to in seotio

17 was intended to say, and does say, in my Judgment, that the

entire total of $26 million-plus, which is composed of the

$10 million-plus for direct and indirect damages and the

$16 million for rehabilitation funds, that is, the total dollar

figure that is mentioned in the bill -- in addition to that,

there are two other amounts which are not specified, which are

left open. I think all section 17 is intended to say is that

those amounts in section 3 and 4 which are not specified are

to come out of the project fund. But that does not detract

from the fact that section 2 specifically says that the $10

million-plus also comes out of the project fund.

Mr. Aspinall. If I know anything about draftsmanship,

you have duplication of authorization in this bill. That ia

all I am interested in, Mr. Sigler. You cannot have two

authorizations.

Mr. Sigler. I would not quarrel with you on that.

 S.-,illHl)'V IV)OIIVN Ii! IV .iA.hItlo i.A.

25

Mr. Aspinall. In other words, it is your understanding

that this $10,370,663 plus the $100,000 appropriated in seotio

15 are to come out of the Oahe construction fund. Is that

correct?

Mr. Sigler. That is correct. And there are two6ther

additions, those amounts that are ultimately appropriated

under sections 3 and 4, not specified.

Mr. Aspinall. All this committee has to do to keep in

line with that figure is to see that section 17 says what it is

supposed to?

Mr. Sigler. That is my judgment.

Mr. Aspinall. Are there any further questions of Mr.

Sigler?

Dr. Miller. May I ask about the amendments that are

suggested? Do they make material changes? Are you talking

to the amendments now?

Mr. Sigler. I shall be glad to, Mr. Miller, if you

want me to. We went through these amendments once before.

Some of them do make material changes, and the Department urges

all of them. Would you care for me to go through them now?

Dr. Miller. I have them before me. I wondered if they

had been placed on the record.

Mr. Aspinall. They are on the record, as I understand it..1

Thank you very much, Mr. Sigler.

Unless there is an objection, the bill will be considered I

 s:A u:wII' iV oVN1VN ii VI(w.).KIO .I *

26

as read and open for amendment any place in the bill.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman. from South Dakota,

Mr. Berry, to propose the amendments as suggested by the

Department and to propose them in order as set forth in the

Departmental report.

Mr. Berry. I think there is no objection to amendment

No. 1. I would move the amendment.

Mr. Aspinall. You have heard the motion on amendment 1o.

1, which is set forth in full at the bottom of page of the

Departmental report: On pages 1 and 2, revise section to read

in its entirety as follows:

"title to all tribal, allotted, assigned, and inherited

lands or interests therein within the Standing Rook Reserva-

tion in South Dakota and North Dakota that are within the

Taking Area described in section 19 of this Act is hereby

taken by the United States for the purposes of the Oahe Dam

and Reservoir project on the Missouri River in South Dakotas

Provided, That the effective date of this Act shall be the

1
date when the Secretary of the Interior shall by proclamation

declare that the provisions of the Act have been accepted by a

majority of the adult Indians of the Standing Rock Reservation,

as shown by the tribal rolls of the Reservation."

Mr. Sisk. A point of inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Aspinall. What is it, Mr. Sisk?

 27

Mr. Sisk. Do I understand this proposes to strike out all

of section 1 of the bill and insert what you have read here

as being section 1 in its entirety?

Mr. Aspinall. Mr. Sigler, you will have to advise us on

that.

Mr. Sigler. The recommendation is that section 1 in its

entirety oe replaced by the language that the chairman read.

Mr. Sisk. That was my understanding.

Mr. Sigler. The reason for that is given in our letter.

It is that the language, in our judgment, should be drafted

in the form of the ordinary statute, taking the title to the

land providing for the payment of compensation rather than

in the form it is now drafted, which is the form of an agreement.

It started out as a contract agreement, but it is ending up as

legislation.

Mr. Berry. I think the only suggestion that the Indians

have made, and the Cheyenne agency was very strong in their

objection to this sort of amendment, was the fact under the

Treaty it requires three-fouths of the adult Indians to amend

the treaty, and this actually takes reservation land that was

given to them under the treaty. Is that not correct?

Mr. Sigler. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Berry. I neglected

saying we do think the present requirement of a three-fourths

vote should be changed to a majority vote. We recommended the

--
 3.1IA ( V 1V. 11V.S (ll IV ^iH. tl1 .UH

28

same thing when you considered the Cheyenne River bill and we

recommend the same thing on all three of these bills you have

up before you this morning.

You are right that the Indians place emphasis upon the

treaty requirements, but I think we pointed out once before you

too, that the treaty requirement is in terms of three-fourths

of all male members of the tribe. Now Congress is departing

from that treaty requirement in any event, because the bill

as drafted requires three-fourths of all members, not Just the

male members. And our suggestion is that it should be a

majority of all members rather than three-fourths of either

all or male.

In my judgment, there is no real problem on departing fro

the treaty because you are not proposing to follow the treaty

in either event. But you are quite right on that.

Mr. Case. Mr. Chairman, may I have a word on that subject)

Mr. Aspinall. Unless there is an objection, we will list+

to Mr. Case. You may proceed.

S Mr. Case. I represented the Chyenne River people when

their bill was pending, and they were very insistent we adhere

to Article 12 of the Treaty of April 29, 1868. That provides

fno cession is valid unless it is reed to in writing by three-

quarters of the adult males of the tribe. We felt that we

should not consent to abrogation of one portion of our basic

treaty. All of our land holdings are based upon the Treaty of
 Si.1HHV IVN0IIVN 11 IV
1H 1').10H11

29

April 29, 1868. We did bring that problem here and we did
assure the committee that we could get three-quarters of all

men and women. In putting the women in we simply followed the

Constitution of the United States that makes them coequal with

the males when it comes to voting. And we felt under the

Constitution we should not depart from the plain language of

the rights of the female to vote, and we should not depart from

the three-quarters regulation provided in that treat for the

males, as set out in Article 12 of that treaty. I have

briefed it a dozen times. It is very familiar. I could almost

quote it but will not bother you with tthat.

Now let's see what our experience was. We made this

definite statement that we could get more three-quarters of

all the voters. We did get more than three-quarters of all the

voters. The fact of the matter is that 93 per cent of the

voters who voted voted for the acceptance of the bill. So the

bill was accepted. The Secretary was informed, and the

Secretary on April 6 proclaimed the law in full face and effect

S Mr. Sigler referred to the fact that this bill started out

as a contract and wound up as legislation. All contracts,

Small agreements between tribes and the United States wind up

as legislation. Witness the Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat.

888. The only citation I can ever remember. That Act was

Ratified by the people.

Dr. Miller. If we are to get through with this legislatic

 t1AI NH
V IVSt)IIVN 0H1 IV (i '.KIOI0,)1

30

we had better get going.

Mr. Aspinall. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are

writing up the bill and only by unanimous consent Mr. Case ae

permitted to talk at this time, and that has been withdrawn.

Dr. Miller. I think that is correct.

Mr. Berry. Do you not think we ought to run through

these amendments first, all of them.

Mr. Haley. Whatever the committee decides will be per-

fectly all right with me. What is your pleasure? Do you

make that as a request, Mr.Berry?

Mr. Berry. I make the request, Mr. Chairman, we take

them all and then put them en bloc.

Mr. Sisk. Do you want to run through them all before

there is any discussion?

Mr. Berry. No; before there is any vote.

Mr. Sisk. I would like to ask a couple of questions on

this particular amendment, with reference to the discussion

we have Just heard here on the recommendations of the Depart-

ment regarding a majority vote as against what I understand to

be the law of their particular treaty.

Is there any legal difficulty or would there be any legal

difficulty in writing a bill providing for one manner of ratify

cation by the tribe as opposed to ratification under the terms

of their treaty? Is there a legal problem at all involved in

that?

I am asking this of you, Mr. Chairman, or anyone.

 SUAlHAm' I'1Ol 1 IV.
1VS l-(.. 1(l1iM H

31

Mr. Haley. I probably would have to refer that to Mr.

Sigler or to counsel. (I ia not a lawyer.

Mr. Sisk. Could I direct that to the counsel?

Mr. Haley, Yeo.

Mr. Sisk. I may say, in explaination of my question,

in view of the fact there are certain basic laws, I understand

on this, and in the wirting of other legislation I think it

would be important to consider whether or not we might call

for something that would be contrary to basic laws established

b
r
the treaty, say, 80 or 90 years ago. I think it would be

importnat to have a determination by counsel.

Mr. Haley. I think the question is quite in order, but

the Chair cannot answer it.

Dr. Miller. I thought Mr. Sigler said in either case we

were sort of departing from the treaty, whether it is a majority

vote or whether it is three-fourths. Is that right, Mr. Sigler?

Mr. Sigler. Yes, that is what I said, Dr. Miller.

S May I make one very brief further comment, if it will

help you any?

Mr. Haley. Yes.

Mr. Sigler. In answer to Mr. Sisk's question, I think

there would be a difference of opinion over whether this

legislation departs or modifies the existing treaty that is

now in effect.

I should like to indicate further that, so far as the

i
 I:DI '
oIVV IV
11AI IIUM V IVOI IV tI..dO

32

Department is concerned, it has no desire to break a treaty or

amend it unilaterally. My comment that I gave that Dr. Miller

referred to is premised on the idea that the legislation in

any event is going to depart from or modify the treaty in some

respects.

If the committee feels that three-fourths vote is more

desirable than a majority vote, I am sure the Department would

have no objection to it. We have given you our only reason

for it. But Mr. Case indicated correctly that in the case of

the Cheyenne River Reservation we did get a much higher voten

than three-fourths, and I suspect there would be no difficulty

here if the dollars figures turn out to be reasonably satis-

factory.

Mr. Abbott. On the overall question of whether or not

'what amounts to a condition precedent to this legislation

taking effect, the committee in legislation in the eighty-third

Congress, for example, Public Law 280, in sections 6 and 7,

which left open-ended the acceptance of certain law and order

provisions by States, modified what is comparable to a treaty.

They modified or permitted modifying the enabling legislation

of the 16 or 18 States, particularly 8 States having consti-

ttutional inhibitions involved.

A treaty is premised, first, on Congressional authority

for entering into a treaty, agreement to that treaty by the

people affected, return to the Congress for confirmation and

 33

acceptance.

Here, assuming that you are departing from or modifying a

treaty, rrom a purely legal standpoint it might be argued that

here again you have a compact or bilateral provision in a form

of condition precedent in section 1 in which Congress says,

even assuming it is a departure from the treaty, a majority of

the people having approved it, it is left open-ended.

I may be wrong on that legal theory, but it is certainly

parallel to what we are now doing on our territorial legis-

lation for Alaska and Hawaii.

That is my observation on it.

Mr. Sisk. I think that concludes my questions. I Just

had in mind whether or not by subterfuge we were amending a

treaty, and I do not think that would be or should be our

intention in the bill.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Haley. You have heard the request of the gentleman

from South Dakota that we consider these amendments for

discussion one by one before we vote on them. Is it the

pleasure of the committee to accede in that request?

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Sigler, will you give us a brief explanation of the

second amendment suggested by the Department on page 2, line 24

and on page 3, line 7?

Mr.Sigler. Mr. Chairman, we could not recommend any dollar
 S'.111111 V IVSOILV.N :11 IV l3l1hlOHEN

34

figure. This is really the heart of the bill -- how such

money is going to be authorized. And we point out to you for

comparison purposes what was done in the case-of Cheyenne Rive

Tribe and how that would, if you followed the same forula,

apply here. But we left it completely up to the committee to

reach a dollar figure for compensation to the tribe.

I have with me, if you care to have it, a dollar figure

that shows how the Cheyenne River formula, which you enacted

into law the last Congress, would relate to this tribe if you

want to use that exact formula. But I aa not offering that as

a suggestion because our Departmental report merely points out

to you that you need to make some kind of adjustment if you

bring it-in line with the Cheyenne River.

Mr. Haley. I think that would be acceptable to oomlittee

in the light of the circumstances here. Have you got suf-

ficient copies?

Mr. Sigler. I do not have it written out. I will have to

read it to you.

Mr. Haley. Will you do that.

Mr. Sigler. In the Cheyenne River Act, which has already

been enacted -- I should say the MRBI, which is the phrase we

* use for the Missouri River Basin Investigation staff, which is

a part of the Department of the Interior - that staff

recommended a figure for the direct damages which, for shorthand

'purposes, I will call the appraised value of the land and the
'>
 S .11A1HIV iV OI
. IV :H1 IV (l).IOHH

35

improvements. That figure was $2,953,117. This is for Cheyee

River, which you have already handled. Congress actually

allowed $2,250,000.which is 109.589 percent of what the

appraised value was. That is, Congress upped the figure from

the appraisal by 9-plus percent.

Mr. Shuford. One hundred plus what

Mr. Sigler. 109.589. Congress allowed 109.589 percent

of the appraised value.

In the case of Standing Rook, the appraised value by

MRBI was $1,613,454. If you applied the 109-plus percent to

that figure, it is $1,768,168. Thoseare the direct damages

which are referred to.

The indirect damages in the case of Cheyenne River, which

you have already handled, allowed by Congress were 97.47 pero*nk

of the MRBI appraisal. In the case of Standing Rock, if you

use that percentage, 97.47 percent of the appraisal, the

figure is-3,087,375.
Now thos are the two figures that are referred to, Mr.

Chairman, in this second amendment on page 3 of our report.

Mr. Aspinall. If I understand what you are saying, it is

this: that instead of the figure $10,370,663, the figure that

has been suggested by the Department is $4,056,543?

Mr. Sigler. Mr. Aspinall, it is not a figure that is

suggested by the Department, it is a figure derived by applying

the formula that your committee devised in the case of the
Ithe formla that your cott ee dvisd in the case of the
 SA.11FH:'iV IVNO IV.N Itl IV 0l.),ih.1(10 tlI

36

Cheyenne River.

Mr. Aspinall. We will not quarrel over the use of my

word "suggestion." That is what the figure would come to under

that formula?

Mr. Sigler. Yes, it is.

Mr. Haley. Are there any futher questions?

Mr. Berry. I would like to ask the committee's indulgen

to have an explaination from Mr. Sharpeas to the difference in

the bounties as asked by the Standing Rock and received by the

Cheyenne.

Mr. Aspinall. You have heard the request of the gentles

from South Dakota. Is there objection?

Mr. Aspinall. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. Haley. The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Aspinall. I want to understand what the gentleman's

request is, because the the answer of the gentleman from

South Dakota to may question relative to the value of the lands

I understood they were practically the same in each instance.

Is the gentleman from Colorado wrong in his interpretation of

:the answer of the gentleman from South Dakota?

Mr. Berry. Partially. In the past two years, let us say,

a number of cases of deeded land have gone to the Federal Court

and Mr. Sharpe has taken probably 25 of those to the Federal

Court, and the overall average that the court has allowed has

been about $50 an acre. Now that is quite a lot more than we,
 SAI:)HHV IYNOI IV 11 I Y 3. HV3H

37

as a committee, allowed the Cheyennes. I think it was $38

approximately. But the Federal Court has tried a number of

these cases and has raised the average in the past two years.

I think it might be well to hear from one of the men who has

been trying a lot of these oases.

Mr. Aspinall. I will withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Haley. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.

Mr. Shuford. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Berry. Yes.

Mr. Shuford. Have these cases been tried, judgment made,

or are they pending?

Mr. Berry. Mr. Sharpe, the cases you and other lawyers

have been trying in Federal Court, have they been adjudicated

or are they pending?

Mr. Sharpe. These are all adjudicated by a judgment of

the court, and the first six or seven of them have gone up to

the Circuit Court of Appeals and have been affirmed.

Mr. Shuford. Thank you.

Mr. Berry. What is the average, Mr. Sharpe, of the cases

that have gone into court that the court has been allowing?

Mr. Sharpe. Without elaborating, I will say by and large

- the appraisements put upon all of these lands by the United

States Army Engineer Corps, what they claimed was the average

value, have been raised. I would say the general average is

40 to 45 percent. And there is now or should be, I think, in

 38

the files of the olerk of this committee certified transoripts

of Judgments showing this to be the case.

- I have gone beyond the bounds of your question. I do not

want to use up the time of the oomittee. 't

Mr. Shuford. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. Berry. Yes.

Mr. Shuford. Is there a distinction or a difference

between the MRBI appraisal and the appraisal by the Army

Engineers?

Mr. Berry. Yes. The MRBI is quite a little higher. Do

you have those figures there, Mr. Sharpe?

There was the original appraisal, then the Army appraisal

and then the MRBI. In a period of about four years -- I thin

this is correct -- the first appraisal was made by some outfit

that they hired, the Indian Bureau hired to make the appraisal

That was lower than the Army appraisal made a year later. The

the MRBI about a year later appraised it again, and they were

still higher. Then the tribe in the last year have had another

appraisal made, which is still higher and comes very close to

being in line with what they are asking.

The point I was making is that the amounts that have been

allowed by the Federal Court are more than even the MRBI apprai

Mr. Shuford. Were they jury trials in the courts of

South Dakota?

Mr. Berry. They are before a commission, are they not,

 S.i I
It.MV V'IIV.J "IHJI LV -t . .Il( N-)

39

Governor?

Mr. Sharpe. Some of them are juries and some of them are

commissions, and there was not much, if s a, disparity between

the juries and the commissions. In some case the juries uppe

it a way more and in other cases the opposite. But generally

it is 40 percent.

Could I have permission to elaborate just a little on the

question?

Mr. Shuford. Nay I ask the gentleman if some of the

judgments were less than the MRBI appraisals?

Mr. Sharps. I can answer the question. So far, out of

the cases that have been tried, there has never been one that

was less that has come to my knowledge.

Mr. Haley. Are there any other questions on suggested

amendment No. 2?

If not, we will go to page 3, line 15, change the period

to a colon and add:

"Provided further, That the balance of said sum shall be

consolidated with the appropriations made pursuant to section

5 of this Act and shall be expended in accordance with the pro-

visions of said section 5."

Are there any questions on that?

Mr. Berry. What does that do, Mr. Sigler?

Mr. Sigler. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of that recommenda-

tion is to provide that the indirect damages, funds over and

 SIt
,IV III IV) I.VN 11 tV dA.)A\It),d3)i

40

above the land costs, will be added to the rehabilitation fund

provided for in section 5 so that the indirect damages and the

rehabilitation money will be pooled and used for the aame

purposes and under the same regulations.

Mr. Haley. Are there any further questions?

If not, the next one is page 4, line 9, insert after

"all" the word "essential."

Are there any questions on that?

If not, we will go to amendment No. 5. On page 4, delete

lines 15 through page 5, line 7. Additional time is needed to

determine the exact location and price of roads to be con-

structed.

* Is there any discussion?

Mr. Berry. The purpose of that, Mr. Sigler, is to delay

the proposed highway construction under this bill until more

study is made?

Mr. Sigler. Yes, it is. Not necessarily delay construct

but delay a determination of what is to be reconstructed since

we do not know what the actual need is going to be. This bill

specifies in detail Just what roads are to be moved and rebuilt

and we-are not in a position to say whether that is a correct

* conclusion or not.

Mr. Berry. The only trouble is I believe we will end up

ith a bill without a road provision. That is my only comment

pn that.
 i
i. I
Y11H NlV 11 1
, IV <ii' .itHA.i:i

41

Mr. Haley. The next suggested amendment is No. 6. The

clerk will read the amendment.

Miss Olavey. (Reading) On page 5, lines 10 and 11, the

figure $14000,000 should be modified to reflect a Congressiona

determination of the appropriate amount for rehabilitation

purposes. For purposes of comparison, your attention is diree

to the fact that Public Law 776, 83d Congress (68 Stat. 1191)4

authorized an appropriation of $5,160,000 for the rehabilitation

of members of the Cheyenne River Tribe who resided within the

reservation, which amounted to approximately $2,250 per person

The pending bill authorizes an appropriation of $16,000,000 fol

the rehabilitation of members of the Standing Rook Sioux Tribe

who reside either on or off the reservation, which amounts to

2 approximately $3,700 per person (for 4,324 persons). Both sua

are in addition to the sums authorized to be appropriated for

indirect damages and for the value of tribal lands.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

Dr. Miller. What is the amendment proposed at that point'

Mr. Sigler. Dr. Miller, we refrained from recommending a

dollar figure for this sum, Just as we did in the previous sum.

We merely point out that --

Dr. Miller. How should this $16 million be modified --

astrike it from the bill? (Laughter)

Mr. Aspinall. Will the gentleman yield?

Dr. Miller. Yqs.

 ;4-iAl,U >IV IV\:.t)IIVN IIIl IV I *'.'t.0 ,I

42

Mr. Aspinall. What is the figure that you have and we

would have if we used the formula to which you refer?

Mr. Sigler. Mr. Aspinall, 4f you apply the Cheyenne Riv{

formula, you would restrict this rehabilitation fund to the

Indians who are residents on the reservation. That is what y

did at Cheyenne River. If you pro rate it on a per capita

basis, it would be $2,257 per person resident on the reservation

If you use that same figure for Standing Rock applied to their

population resident on the reservation, the figure would be

$6,290,818. I should like to point out that in the case of

Cheyenne River the Indians were unhappy about restricting the

rehabilitation fund to residents of the reservation, and this

bill, as it is now drawn, is not so restricted. It is applioatl

ito all enrolled members of the tribe. So I think your committee

Needs to decide whether you are going to make all enrolled

Indians eligible or only those who live on the reservation, and

you must decide that before you can use the proper figure to

get the total,

Mr. Aspinall. If the gentleman will yield further. What

has been done to help those unhappy Indians of the Cheyenne Tri'

Mr. Sigler. Who are off the reservation?

9 Mr. Aspinall. Yes.

Mr. Sigler. They are not eligible to participate in the

rehabilitation program.

Mr. Aspinall. They are still unhappy; is that it?

 <5.I.III 'MV Oi V
IV 11I iv .It..it .~dN

43

Mr. Sigler. I believe that is right.

Mr. Haley. Counsel has a question.

Mr. Abbott. If I may, Mr. Chairman. If, prior to final

action on this bill, that is, the House approval or disapproval,

this were modified to limit it to reservation Indians, is theie

any thought that that might encourage nonresidents to hurry

back to the reservation so that they might qualify? Or could

they do that under enrolling-provisions?

Mr. Sigler. Your first question, Mr. Abbott. I have no

information about people coming back to the reservation in ord r

to qualify. That point would be met, I think, in large degree

by fixing a date in the Act,as was done in the Cheyenne River

case, that those residing on the reservation as of the date of

this Act.

Mr. Abbott. If this action is taken, would there be, in

opinion, any validity to the assertion you would be penalizing

those Indians who had the drive or desire or ingenuity to get

off the reservation and try to better themselves economically

:even though they had an undivided interest in or an interest in

that tribal property?

Mr. Sigler. I would rather not express my own opinion on

the subject. I could indicate that I think you can argue it

both ways. Your conclusion, I think, is an arguable one.

The other side is that those Indians who have left the

reservation and have established themselves somewhere else are

 S .\1 V IV.NOI 1V 1HI! IV tl..liltONA.AM

44

no longer in need or may no longer be in need of rehabilitation

and, therefore, the funds should be used for those who remain

on the reservation and need it.

Bear in mind I am not recommending that. I am saying the:-

are two aides to the argument.

Mr. Abbott. How did the legislation providing for the

long-range Navaho rehabilitation operate with respect to non-

reservation Indians? That was $88 million as I recall.

Mr. Sigler. I do not have those figures.

Mr. Abbott. Did it apply to nonreservation IndiansT

Mr. Sigler. I am sorry. I do not remember.

Mr. Udall. Maybe I can throw some light on that. In tha

Slong-term program almost the entire program is one of road

building and other activities, and there was no problem of

individual Indians receiving money under that legislation be-

cause there was no money earmarked for individuals.

Mr. Sisk. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Aspinall. (Presiding) Yes.

Mr. Sisk. I would like to ask Mr. Sigler one question th*

'If you applied the formula to thesepeople that you applied wit

reference to Cheyenne and included both those on the reservatich

Sand those off the reservation, what would the figure be? Do y u

have that?

Mr. Sigler. Yes, I have that. You would then be applying

the per capita figure of $1,198 per person to the entire enrol:

'Imembership, and that figure --

 s.AAU U H\ 1VN n nnV
tl IV tl:..).ji lt),I ' "*'

45
I
Sj
Mr. Berry. If my colleague will yield there, is not the

figure $1,250 instead of $1,198? Was it not intended by Con-

SI) gress to be $1,250?

Mr. Sigler. I do not know what you intended when you

reported the bill. It figures out to $1,198.

Mr. Berry. I know we spent a lot of time working on it

over here on the basis of a program that they had. We had

provided, I think, $6,800,000 on the House side. We got over

to the Senate side and-S nator Watkins said, "I helped put thi

Navaho bill through, and there we rehabilitated the Navahos fo

$1,250 per head. It does not cost any more to rehabilitate

I the Sioux than it does the Navaho. So let us use the figure

$1,250." And all the work we had done was tossed out the

window on the Senate side. So I think actually this is based

on that figure.
 INA.111114-V 'IVOIIV% 'Ifill

Mr. Sigler. I do not have that multiplication. I can do

it rapidly if you would like to have it.

Mr. Sisk. Will you finish your answer with reference

to the Cheyenne?

Mr. Sigler. What I had done was take the rehabilitation

appropriation for the Cheyenne River figure of $5,160,000

and divide it by the total enrolled membership, which is

4307, and that gives 1198. Now, if you use that aa the per

capital figure and apply it to the total Standing Rook members

which is 4324, you get a figure of $5,180,152.

Mr. Sisk. Just a moment now. If you apply it on the

other basis --

Mr. Sigler. It is a larger figure.

Mr. Sisk. To only those members who live on the reserva-

tion you come up with a larger figure than you do if you use

the other formula and apply it to all members whether on or

off the reservation.

Mr. Sigler. Yes. That is because the percentage of those

who live off the reservation is not thesame at Cheyenne River

and at Standing Rock. As I explained, if you take the total

appropriation for Cheyenne River, 5,160,000 and divide that

by the group that is entitled to it, that is the reservation

Indians, it figures out at a per capita of $2257. But if

you apply that total figure of $5,160,000 to the entire

enrolled membership, then it is a smaller figure. But then

 SA1111W i 1V1O1.'
il IV (3.).1Ut)xd:1

-47 -

hen you take that figure and apply it to a different reserva-

ion, with different percentages on and off the reservation,

ou get this discrepancy.

Let me go a little further in pursuing this. Do you

ave a figure in front of you using the $2250 per person for

11 members of the reservation both on and off? What would

our figure be?

Mr. Sigler. I have not multiplied that out. It would

e 2257 multtied by 4324.

Mr. Sisk. That would run about -- I guess 10 or 11.

Mr. Sigler. It would more than double it.

Mr. Sisk. Yes. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Haley. Are there any further questions?

If not, we will go to suggested amendment No. 7. The

lerk will read.

Miss Olavey (reading). On page 5, line 14, delete

rehabilitation for" and insert in lieu thereof "developing

individual and family plans, relocating, re-establishing, and

providing other assistance designed to help improve the

economic and social status of." This change and the following

one will more adequately state the purpose for which the re-

4abilitation fund may be used.

Mr. Haley. Are there any questions?

Mr. Shuford. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Haley. The gentleman from North Carolina.
 48

Mr. Shuford. What is the purpose of that?

Mr. Sigler. The purpose is to state a little more specl-

fically the purposes for which the rehabilitation fund ay be

used.

Mr. Shuford. If you do not have it approved for the

members of the tribe that are off the reservation, would you

need this additional wording?

Mr. Sigler. Yes, sir, I think the change would be de-

sirable regardless.

Dr. Miller. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Shford. Surely.

Dr. Miller. I am not quite sure what you mean by these

words -- "and providing ether assistance designed to help

improve the economic and social status of." That is pretty

broad.

Mr. Sigler. It is very broad.

Dr. Miller. What do you plan to do under this "other

assistance"?

Mr. Sigler. Dr. Miller, we do not have a rehabilitation

plan prepared, and I think it was one your members of the

ommittee, perhaps Mr. Berry, that pointed out the bill places

9 the responsibility on the tribe for preparing vuch a plan, and

he Department will help to the extent it can.

I Dr. Miller. I am wondering if the Congress will want to

pprove something that we are not sure Just what it is going to

 S:i.1H: IV "V uI IV 1 i IV tt.)AWltON.
t1

49

be. I am rather reluctant about it. I do not know those

words are necessary and they might cover a multitude of things

we might not approve.

I will not accept that amendment, Mr. Chairman. It is

entirely too broad and leaves it wide open for the Department

to do a thousand things that might not be approved by the

Congress. The word "rehabilitation" has heretofore covered

all of it in other bills we have had before. I have never *s

that language in any bills we have had before.

Mr. Haley. Dr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor. Dr. Miller, when the Superintendent of the

Standing Rock Reservation was here last spring he went into

quite some detail on what the plan would be, and he left with

us a graph and a very conclusive group of figures on how this

sum would be used. I have it back here.

Dr. Miller. I would like to ask Mr. Sigler: If we leave

those vague words out and leave "rehabilitation for" in, why

:does not that cover the thing we want to do?

Mr. Sigler. I think it wold probably come very close

to covering what you want. I do not recall now the reasons for

this precise language. I believe it was picked from other

provisions in the bill as it was introduced, and this was a

rearrangement of the order. But I cannot be sure of that.

But my specific answer to your question, Dr. Miller, is I

think "rehabilitation" is reasonably broad.

 s.1'n
IiqV IV.OI IV. t Iv :i:.i(oH4

50 .

Mr. Shuford. Will the gentleman yield?

Dr. Miller. Yes.

Mr. Shuford. I would like to ask Mr. Sigler itfthe

Department has a construction of the word "rehabilitation"?

Mr. Sigler. No, we have not.

Mr. Shuford. Do you have defined what could cooe in unde

"rehabilitation" and who would be rehabilitated?

tht
Mr. Sigler. Who will be rehabilitated is controlled by/bill

the members of the tribe.

Mr. Shuford. But you have no definition of rehabilitation

Mr. Sigler. We have no definition.

Mr. Shuford. So actually the word "rehabilitation" is

just as broad as your words of limitation in the amendment?

Mr. Sigler. I must confess I think you are right. It

is a slightly longer phrase and was designed to suggest the

idea of family plans, for example, rather than an individual

approach. But I think we or the tribe could do substantially

what is planned under the one word "rehabilitation".

Mr. Shuford. In the final analysis, it is a very loose

phrase we are using even at the best?

Mr. Sigler. I think so.

Mr. Shuford. Thank you.
Mr. Haley. Do you have a question, Mr. Abbott?
Mr. Abbott. In Public Law 776, the comparable language
 3.AlHIV SV OI lV.N l IV <ln.).1ll, ,.4lH

51

,appeared in section 5, and the clause "expended for the purpose

of complete rehabilitation.' Following that, in section 5,

"and for relating and re-establishing...." just as it appears

on lines 18 to 23 in the bill on page 5, and which I believe

Mr. Sigler has suggested might be stricken. Is that correct,

Mr. Sigler? The clause which appears on page 5, section 5,

line 18, following the"Oahe project" down to and including all

language on line 23 preceding the colon was the language used

in Public Law 776?

Mr. Sigler. I do not have it before me. I think that is

right.

Dr. Miller. I will renew my objection. I think it is too

broad. I think it ii a phrase designed to let some social

worker come in every hut if they want to and do a lot of

things the Indians do not want and do not need, do not know

about, and could not support it if they had it.

Mr. Haley. Is there further discussion?

Mr. Berry. I would like to suggest these funds will be

administered by the tribe through their own business manager.

'So I do not believe we will have to worry to much about what

the Department does.

Dr. Miller. The money will be in Federal controll, has

been all along for the Indians.

Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion on No. 71

The clerk will read No. 8.

 S:.11H;)V IV.SOlIV. 1.l IV l:4..1tlON JNi

52

Miss Olavey (reading). On page 5, line 18, delete the

comma and the remainder of the sentence that precedes the color

in line 23.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Shuford. I would like to know Just exactly what it

does delete.

Mr. Sisk. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Haley. Just a moment.

Mr. Shuford. I think I see it now. I would like to ask

Mr. Sigler what is the reason for the amendment.

Mr. Sigler. Congressman Shuford, that suggestion is tied

very closely to the preceding one which we were talking about,

and the purpose is to take out of the bill the statement now

in it that the Indians' social and economic and religious life

is to be brought to a condition more advantageous to them than

the one they now have, and substitute for that the language

'we were Just talking about, rehabilitation, and the development

of family plans and re-establishing their economic and social

status, without saying to what degree.

Mr. Shuford. That is all.

Mr. Haley. Are there further questions?

Mr. Sisk. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Haley. The gentleman from California.

Mr. Sisk. I understand from counsel this is identical

language that occurred in Public Law 776 and was passed at

that
 tI V IV O I V. '11 IV <-i
'WIllA .iio .N:

53

time and is now part of the law. I do not quite see the point

in taking it out.

Mr. Sigler. Were you asking me, Congressman?

SMrea Sisk. Yes. I was just wondering, in view of the fet

in many cases there has been some effort to try to make

these laws comparable, and I do not quite find where you have

a specific objection to that language from your previous

statement, Mr. Sigler.

Mr. Sigler. In so far as consistency with the prior Act,

we had no opportunity to collaborate in the drafting of that

language, and although it was enacted we are merely offering

alternative language which at this time we think is better.

* I do not attach any great significance to the change if that

is the point your getting to.

Mr. Haley. Are there any further questions?

The clerk will read.

Miss Olavey (reading). No. 9. On page 6, line 4,

change "fifteen" to "ten" in order to be consistent with

Public Law 776, 83d Congress, for the Cheyenne River Sioux

Tribe.

Mr. Haley. Are there any questions?

Mr. Berry. What is the purpose of that, Mr. Sigler?

Mr. Sigler. Congressman Berry, that provision in the

pheyenne River Act was inserted in one of your committee

meetings, and I am not aware of the reason for putting it in.

 ;A!I:W V IV%011V. IHI I VI

51

But it does provide in the law, as it now reads for the

Cheyenne River, for a 10-year period for the availability of

appropriation authorization, and all we are suggesting is that

whatever--reason applied to Cheyenne River it ought to be the

same here.

Mr. Berry. Actually in the contract that was set up with

the Cheyenne was it not 20 years?

Mr. Sigler. No, sir. This provision is a provision for

appropriation authorization, and I frnakly do not think it has

much of a purpose in the bill at all, but it was put in by

either your committee or the Senate committee. I cannot

remember which. It does nothing more than limit the time within

Which the appropriation may be made. But in the case of the

Cheyenne the entire appropriation was made this year or last

year, I forget which. So I do not know why it was put there.

But, in any event, if you are going to have that limitation,

I see no reason for it to be 10 years at Cheyenne River and 15

at Standing Rock.

Mr. Berry. Dr. Taylor suggests it was put in because of

some such provision in the Havaho bill.

Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Olavey (reading). No. 10. On page 6, lines 5 to

9, the proviso should be clarified, and the size of the fund

for educational grants should be evaluated in the light of the

~1. -.!.II I.j ~i

 A.IH')IV 1\I IVN1" HI IV tiH .iilH

55

needs of the Standing Rock Tribe. It is not clear whether

both principal and interest are to be used for educational

grants, or whether-the principal is to be kept intact and the

interest only is to be used for grants. Since the Federal,

State, and local units of government are already responsible

for elementary, grade, and high school education, it is

assumed the funds are intended for higher or advanced educate,

and the language of the bill should so indicate.

The interest on $3,200,000 at 4 percent would amount to

$128,000 annually and would provide for a maximum of 90 to 100

grants per year. This is a reasonable amount for the Standing

Rock Sioux Tribe. However, based on the 1950 census percentage

of Indians entering college and the present population of the

Standing Rock Tribe, there is a potatial of 144 Sioux youth

who should be pursuing higher education.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Berry. If I might, Mr. Chairman. On page 4 of

these hearings you have, the Standing Rock people have set up

a desire for $3,200,000 for educational purposes. It is not

Just for higher education or for high school, but the principa

thing they want to use it for is trades training and that sort
;of thing to help fit these people to fit themselves to make

!a living either on or off the reservation in trades.

Actually, it is my understanding that it has no specific

reference to higher education or high school education either

one.

44
 A I iLH.)IV 1V'0II \' IV 11 iItlM N

I think the desire of the tribe is to have this money so

they can use it -- probably keep some of it on deposit until

needed -- but have it available so that they can make these

grants for trades training.

Mr. Udall. Does the gentleman have reference to a tribal

funds program or to a program such as supervised by the Indian

Bureau?

Mr. Berry. It is a tribal sponsored program.

Mr. Udall. So the tribal council itself determines where

the money will be spent?

Mr. Berry. That is right. All the spending of this

rehabilitation money will be determined by the manager and

tribal council, the same as on the Cheyenne. If you have ever

had any experience trying to get educational funds for some

of these kids going to college, you know what this means to

them.

I have one deal right now that the kid has not gotten

his money yet for the second semester and it starts today. I

have been wiring and phoning and everything else. I think by

another week or two he will probably get his money.

Mr. Udall. The gentleman might be interested to know

the Navaho Tribe in my own State are spending this year out of

tribal funds over $100,000 to properly clothe children at the

grammar school level. So I know there are other related

problems which the tribe might be faced with.

i

-,
C1---D ;' r;. i. '
 SAi.M1HIV IVNO IV.N ill IV !:..).,IONiAN
t

57

1 Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Siak. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Haley. The gentleman from California.

Mr. Sisk. Mr. Berry, do you feel this language is broad

enough to permit the use of it, say, for adult education or

adult training? Or is it your idea the interpretation of that

would grant almost unlimited use of the money?

Mr. Berry. I was hopeful it would. "that 20 percent of

the funds appropriated for rehabilitation shall be devoted to

educational grants." That includes trades training and all

sorts of rehabilitation education.

S Mr. Metcalf. Will the gentleman yield?

j Mr. Sisk. Yes.

Mr. Metcalf. It seems to me the point is not clear

whether only the interest shall be used or whether the principle

land interest can both be used for educational grants. I would

like to ask what is the intent here -- to just use the income

from this fund?

Mr. Berry. It would not be sufficient.

Mr. Metcalf. It would not?

Mr. Berry. I do not think so. I think this wording shoul

jbe changed a little bit when it is finally worked out, because

lo
I not think that the interest is sufficient to do the Job.

Mr. Sisk. Mr. Chairman, if I might continue a little

further. Of course, I items to me the language we have here,

 S:3 li:MV IVnOlV.s i111 IV (13..IONAN.

58

"shall remain on deposit in the Treasury of the United States

at four percent interest for a period of twenty-five years,

could cause a little difficult interpretation. I think perhaps,

that language should be reconstructed, based upon what you

feel to be the intent of the tribe, Mr. Berry.

Mr. Berry. I think you are right. Probably some place

between the Department's recommendation here and our general

feeling there is a halfway point that we could strike on this

language.

Mr. Sigler. Our recommendation is just to clarify and

state clearly which it is you want.

Mr. Berry. Yes.

Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Olavey. (Reading). No. 11. On page 6, line 9, chan *

the period to a colon and add a new proviso as follows: "And

provided further, That no part of such fund shall be used for

per capita payments."

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, I would say it is all right, th:

would be no objection to it, and we can add that no part of thi

$16 million can be per capita payment. I do not want any of it

to be.

Mr. Aspinall. That is what the proviso does.

Mr. Sigler. Yes.

 S:IA.1111 V lYNO t%iN II iV <i:4.1thd1

59

Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion?

If not, the clerk will read.

Miss Olavey. (Reading). No. 12. On page 6, line 23,

change the colon to a period and delete the proviso which exte 6

to page 7, line 4. Congress should not declare that Federal

trust responsibilities with respect to the property of the

tribe and its members will never be terminated without a reque t

from the Indians, regardless of their ability to handle their

own affairs at some future date.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

If not, the clerk will read.

Miss Olavey. (Reading). No. 13. On page 7, lines 12 and

13, delete "Superintendent of Standing Rock Reservation" and

insert "Secretary of the Interior."

Mr. Berry. I have no objection to that.

Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Olavey. (Reading). No. 14. On page 8, lines 12 to

17 should be clarified. They are inconsistent with the

preceding sentence.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Sigler what the

thought is there, what is intended to be corrected by the

:!proposed amendment?

Mr. Sigler. Mr. Berry, I am sorry. I will have to have a

little t;i;- to creck.

Mr. - rry. Let us check that for the next hearing.

Mr. Sigler. All right.

Mr. iialey. Is there any further discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Glavey. (Reading). No. 15. On page 9, line 6, delete

"and the Tribal Council." The Tribal Council should not be

given control of acts of the Federal Government in the develop*

ment of the project after title to the lands has been vested

in the United States. Changes that may be necessary in the

schedule will depend primarily upon factors affecting the wate*

level in the reservoir.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

If not, the clerk will read.

Miss Glavey.(Reading). No. 16. Onpage 9, line 14,

following the word "thereof" delete the rest of the section and

substitute "shall have the rignt to graze stock on the land

between the water r level of t.ie reservoir and the Taking Area

described in section 19. Tnh; rad triball Council and the members
of said Indian crib - n:;*.;_;Whiout cost the right of free

access t- ch snorcllrn of th reservoir,

' including the right to

hunt and fish in and on the aforesaid shoreline and reservoir,

subject, however, to r?.3lations governing the corresponding

use cy other citizens cf he United States."

':Ths substitute is similar to section 10 of Public Law 776,

23d Congress, for the Cheyenne River Sioux Indians. After tit e

has been acquired by the United States the Indians should not

have the right to control the use of the area by permits and

licenses, without limitation.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Sigler, in this bill there is no intent to take away

the fishing and hunting rights of these Indians?

Mr. Sigler. No, not to take away their rights, but the

question is whether the Indians, after the United States has

acquired the title to the land, will have the right to control.

access by others to the area. That is, could they prohibit th4

construction of fishing docks or that sort of thing under

license from the federall Government, the Army Engineers

The cuggeatlon here is that the Indians ought to have

completely free right to use the water themselves for hunting

and fishing, use the shoreline, but they should not have the

right to exclude others who arc permitted to go there under the

Army regulations.

That, aai:, i p:'Laec o:: the thought that the Federal

i:.
rr.r.t :'opert.'y <nd paying full value for it.
 62

1 Berry.
e. What ;,as the wording in the Cheyenne bill?

Mr. Sigler. Substantial the way we have it in the

recommendation. The Standing Rock provision in your bill is

different and much broader than the Cheyenne River one.

Mr. Berry. I think, Mr. Chairman, if we follow the

Cheyenne River provisions it will be satisfactory. We spent

a lot of time on the Cheyenne bill, and I think we had it

satisfactory to theIndians and to the Army Engineers, too --

at least fairly satisfactory to both.

Mr. Sigler. I feel that way, too, Congressman Berry. This

;language which we have quoted to you is I would almost say

identical, but there may be a few changes to fit it into this

format.

Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Glavey (reading). No. 17. On page 9, line 24, delete

the language beginning with the word "land" and ending at the

end of the paragraph on page 1C, line 10, and insert in lieu

thereof 'o'her land tho title to which h shall be taken in the

rjname of the rUnited Stat es tr. *uar for s;ich individual, except

2 ot.:e .ise )prov:.e'. i t.iG aectio. Any such trust may be

terminated when in t.;e judgment of the Secretary of the Interior

the Indian bereficiary i3 no longer in need of special assis-

tance in handlin- his affairs.'

A:s a procedural natter, there is no need for the United

 63

2 States to purchase land and then reconvey it to the Indians.

Moreover, any reconveyance should be made by a trust deed

rather than by a trust patent. Definite and clear provisions

should be made for the termination of any trust created

pursuant to the act.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Berry. Is that similar to the Cheyenne bill, Mr.

Sigler?

Mr. Sigler. I shall have to check. I do not recall. The

reasons, though, are the ones that were just read. This is a

question of taking title to new land. It is a new trust set

up and there ought not to be a double conveyance, for one thing,

and there ought to be some provision for terminating the trust

ultimately.

Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Olavey. (reading). No. 18. On page 10, line 13,

de3le "and reconveyance as herein described."

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Glavey (reading). :o. 19. On page 10, line 22,

change the proviso to read:

"Provided, that unrestricted title to any lands so pur-

chased that are outside and not adjacent to the Standing Rock

Reservation shall be taken in the name of the Indian purchaser."

3 The United States srouli not take a trust title to land

that is located in commdnitie outside the present reservation

area.

Mr. Haley. is there any discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Olavey (reading). No. 20. On page 11, line 3, chan e

the period to a colon and insert a ney proviso as follows

"Provided further, That for the purposes of this section

tribally owned land may oe sold to and purchased by or for

individual members whose lands are within the Taking Area."

Most of the lands within the reservation are owned by

Indians, and unless authority is given to sell tribal land to

dispossessed members of the tribe it may be difficult for

such members to acquire other lands within the reservation are<.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Glavey (reading). No. 21. On page 11, lines 4 to

9, delete section 13 in its entirety. This section does not

give holders of inherited lands any rights or privileges not

already possessed under present laws.

Mr. l[aley. I& tnere any discussion?

Mr. Berry. -ouldlixe

- to asK Mr. Sigler for Just a little

more explanation on this.

Mr. Siglor. Section 13 provides that the holders of

inherited lands may consolidate their interests. They can do

 I a

65

4 that now. All they have to do is agree.

Then it says that the total proceeds in the hands of any

individual held by such consolidation of interest may be used

by the individual holder for the purpose of substitute lands.

That is already covered in the bill.

Section 13, in our Judgment, is just surplus.

Mr. Berry. All right.

Mr. Haley. Is there any further discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Olavey (reading). No. 22. On page 13, line 10,

delete "and thereupon title shall vest in the United States."

Title is vested by the provisions of section 1.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Olavey (reading). No. 23. On page 13, line 12, the

sum of money specified should be modified to conform to other

changes in the bill.

Mr. Haley. Is there any discussion?

The clerk will read.

Miss Glavey readingc.) o. ?.. n page 13, beginning

wi- lieiC 1., ielo t .: o ectio.-; extending to and in-

ct.ding pare 1-t, line . The transfer of title to submarginal

lands should oe ccisicered separately. It ij not related to

the suoject matter of the bill, and the policy with respect to

subnarginal lan.: ir. the Sta;dJizig Rock Reservation should oe

 66

considered in the light of the policy to be adopted with respect

to submarginal lands in other reservations.

Mr. Haley. The House is now in session, and we will

postpone any further action until we reconvene Wednesday.

The subcommittee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to

reconvene at 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 1, 1956.)