Free Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 1 of 50

S. HRG. 107­648

HOOPA-YUROK SETTLEMENT ACT

HEARING
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SECRETARY'S REPORT ON THE HOOPA YUROK SETTLEMENT ACT

AUGUST 1, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC

(

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81­636 PDF

WASHINGTON

:

2003

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512­1800; DC area (202) 512­1800 Fax: (202) 512­2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402­0001

App. 241

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 2 of 50

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman KENT CONRAD, North Dakota FRANK MURKOWSKI, Alaska HARRY REID, Nevada JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PAUL WELLSTONE, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma MARIA CANTWELL, Washington PATRICIA M. ZELL, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel PAUL MOOREHEAD, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)

App. 242

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 3 of 50

CONTENTS
Page

Statements: Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado, vice chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs .............................................................. Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs ........................................................................................... Jarnaghan, Joseph, tribal councilman, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council .......... Marshall, Sr., Clifford Lyle, chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council .......... Masten, Sue, chairperson, Yurok Tribe .......................................................... McCaleb, Neal, assistant secretary, BIA, Department of the Interior ......... Schlosser, Thomas, counsel, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council ............................ APPENDIX Prepared statements: Jarnaghan, Joseph ........................................................................................... Marshall, Sr., Clifford Lyle (with attachments) ............................................. Masten, Sue (with attachments) ..................................................................... McCaleb, Neal (with attachments) .................................................................. Schlosser, Thomas ............................................................................................ Additional material submitted for the record: Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act Funding History ..............................................

2 1 14 12 20 3 16

29 33 62 82 30 89

(III)

App. 243

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 4 of 50

App. 244

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 5 of 50

HOOPA-YUROK SETTLEMENT ACT
THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2002

COMMITTEE

U.S. SENATE, ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:18 a.m. in room 485, Senate Russell Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Inouye, Campbell, and Reid.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. This is the oversight hearing on the Department of Interior Secretary's report on the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act submitted to the Congress in March 2002 pursuant to Section 14 of Public Law 100­580. As with almost all matters in Indian affairs, there is a long history that preceded enactment of the legislation the Secretary's report addresses. It is a history of deception, I am sad to say, of a Senate that apparently met in secret session in 1852 and rejected the treaties that had been negotiated with California tribes, and didn't disclose their action for another 43 years. In the interim, the California tribes proceeded in good faith, relying upon their contracts with the U.S. Government. In 1864, the Congress enacted legislation to establish four reservations in the State of California with the intent that these reservations would serve as the new homeland for tribes that had no cultural, linguistic, or historical ties to one another. The Hoopa Valley Reservation was one such reservation that was established for ``the Indians of the Reservation.'' Litigation later spawned a series of a series of court rulings, which while resolving the issues before each court, engendered considerable uncertainty into the daily lives of those who resided on the reservation, and soon,, the Congress was called upon to bring some final resolution to the matter. Today, as we receive testimony on the Secretary's report, it is clear that a final resolution was not achieved through the enactment of the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act in 1988, and that the Congress will once again have to act. Accordingly, we look forward to the testimony we will receive today so that the committee and members of Congress may have a strong substantive foundation upon which to construct a final solution. May I call upon the vice chairman.
(1)

App. 245

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 6 of 50

2
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you. I think you have explained very well the situation Mr. Chairman but just a couple of minutes for my opening statement. I'd like to broaden it to something that has always bothered me and many others because I was born and raised in California in the foothills among many of the Me-wok Tribes, a small tribe that has a number of bands in the foothills and valley country around Sacramento. As you alluded, I can tell you that the story of the American Indian in the State of California was one of the most gruesome and bloody chapters in the history of this country. They say before the gold rush, there was about five times more Indian people in California than non-Indian people. It was literally a paradise. The weather was nice in most areas, the production of natural plants, fruits and things was abundant, people ate well, people lived well, they were at harmony with their neighbors and at that time, as I understand there were over 100 tribes in that area. In fact, some estimates say about one-tenth of all American Indians lived in the California area because living was a bit easier. In 1848 when gold was discovered in a little place now called Coloma on the north fork of the American River, it started a wholesale change in their lifestyle. In fact, there have been documented instances of Indian people in those days being hired by gold miners and when payday came, they would shoot them, throw them in a hole and just get some more Indians to do the work again. So they know what real tragedy is, the people who are descendants of the Native Americans who lived in that area before the gold rush. Even before that time if you look at California history, as early as the late 1700's when Father Junipero Serra came north from Mexico and developed what was later called the El Camino Real, or the King's Highway, and the chain of missions from San Diego all the way north of San Francisco, almost all those missions were built with indentured Indian labor, if not slave labor. If you visit some of those missions right now, like the mission in Monterey, if you turn the roofing tile over and look under the old, old roofing tile, you can find the skin imprints of Indian people in that clay where they would take the wet clay and bend it over their leg to make that curved feathered kind of roof structure on all the old missions. They were never paid for that and some of them were kept around the missions for so long, many against their will, that some of the smaller tribes in southern California lost their original identity. I can remember when I was a boy many of them were called mission Indians which was a kind of generic name for people who had lost their identity but had been in the servitude of the missions for so long. There is no question that people who are descendants of the Native peoples of California have a real gripe and a history of mistreatment by both the Federal Government and people that made millions, if not billions of dollars, from the wealth of California. I'm just glad that two of the major tribes are here today, the Hoopa and the Yurok and I know this hearing will focus on their settle-

App. 246

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 7 of 50

3 ment but I wanted to put that in the record of my own personal experiences in California. The CHAIRMAN. I'm glad that your remarks were made for the record because though it is rather sad, we who are the successors to the Senators two centuries ago must remember that our predecessors were a part of this terrible conspiracy. With that, may I call upon the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Neal McCaleb. It's always good to see you, sir.
STATEMENT OF NEAL A. MCCALEB, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. MCCALEB. Thank you, Chairman Inouye. I am pleased to be here this morning to bring to you a report pursuant to section 14 of the Settlement Act. Although I will not read my introductory background remarks because you did such an excellent job of presenting the history, I would have my entire testimony become a part of the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. MCCALEB. Prior to the Settlement Act, legal controversies arose over the ownership and management of the Square, that being the 12 square miles that were provided by the United States Government for the Indians of California, that ultimately became the Hoopa Reservation and its resources. Although the 1891 Executive order joined the separate reservations into one, the Secretary had generally treated the respective sections of the reservation separately for administrative purposes. A 1958 Solicitor's Opinion also supported this view. In the 1950's and 1960's, the Secretary distributed only the timber revenues generated from the Square to the Hoopa Valley Tribe and its members. All the revenues from the Square were allocated to the Hoopa Valley Tribe. In 1963, Yurok and other Indians, eventually almost 3,800 individuals, challenged this distribution and the U.S. Court of Claims subsequently held that all Indians residing within the 1891 reservation were Indians of the reservation and were entitled to share equally in the timber resources proceeds generated from the Square. Short v. United States was the embodiment of that litigation. Following the decision, the Department began allocating the timber proceeds generated from the Square between the Yurok Tribe, approximately 70 percent, and the Hoopa Valley Tribe, 30 percent. The 70/30 allocation was based upon the number of individual Indians occupying the joint reservation that identified themselves as members of either the Yurok or the Hoopa Valley Tribe respectively. Another lawsuit challenged the authority of the Hoopa Valley Business Council to manage the resources of the Square among other claims. These and related lawsuits had profound impacts relating to the tribal governance and self determination, extensive natural resources that compromised the valuable tribal assets and the lives of thousands of Indians who resided on the reservation. In order to resolve longstanding litigation between the United States, Hoopa Valley, Yurok, and other Indians regarding the own-

App. 247

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 8 of 50

4 ership and management of the Square, Congress passed the HoopaYurok Settlement Act in 1988. This act did not disturb the resolution of the prior issues through the Short litigation. Rather, the act sought to settle disputed issues by recognizing and providing for the organization of the Yurok Tribe by petitioning the 1891 Yurok joint reservation between the Hoopa Valley and the Yurok Tribes and by establishing a settlement fund primarily to distribute moneys generated from the joint reservation's resources between the tribes. Section 2 of the act provided for the petition of the joint reservation. Upon meeting certain conditions of the act, the act recognized and established the Square, the original 12 square miles, as a Hoopa Valley Reservation to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The act recognized and established the original Klamath River Reservation and the connecting strip as the Yurok Reservation to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Yurok Tribe. In accordance with the conditions set in section 2(a), the Hoopa Valley Tribe passed a resolution, No. 88­115 on November 28, 1988 waiving any claims against the United States arising from the act and consenting to the use of the funds identified in the act as part of the settlement fund. The BIA published a notice of the resolution in the Federal Register of December 7, 1988. These actions had the effect of partitioning the joint reservation. As for the settlement fund itself, section 4 of the act established a settlement fund which placed the moneys generated from the joint reservation into an escrow account for later equitable distribution between the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes according to the provisions of the act. The act also authorized $10 million in Federal contribution to the settlement fund primarily to provide lump sum payments to any Indian on the reservation who elected not to become a member of either tribe. It allocated about $15,000 to any individual Indian who elected not to claim tribal membership of either tribe. As listed in section 1(b)(1) of the act, the escrow funds placed in the settlement fund came from moneys generated from the joint reservation and held in trust by the Secretary in seven separate accounts, including the 70 percent Yurok timber proceeds account and the Hoopa 30 percent timber proceeds account. The Secretary deposited the money from these accounts into the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Fund upon the enactment of the act. The settlement fund's original balance was nearly $67 million. At the beginning of fiscal year 2002, the fund contained over $61 million in principle and interest. Even with the previous distributions as described below, appendix I to the report provides the relevant figures from the fund. The act sought to distribute the moneys generated from the joint reservation and placed in the settlement fund on a fair and equitable basis between the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes. The Senate committee report briefly described what was then believed to be a rough distribution estimate of the fund based upon the settlement role, distribution ratios established in the act. Twenty-three million, roughly one-third of the fund would go to the Hoopa Valley Tribe pursuant to Section 4(c); a similar distribution to the Yurok

App. 248

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 9 of 50

5 Tribe under Section 4(d) as described below assuming roughly 50 percent of those on the settlement roll would accept Yurok tribal membership; and the remainder to the Yurok Tribe after individual payments discussed below. Substantial distributions have already been made from the settlement fund in accordance with the act. The Department disbursed to the Hoopa Valley Tribe just over $34 million between passage of the act and April 1991. The total amount determined by the BIA to be the tribe's share under 4(c) of the act. The Department also distributed $15,000 to each person on the settlement roll who elected not to become a member of either tribe under the act. Approximately 708 persons chose the lump sum payment option for a total distribution for this purpose in the amount of approximately $10.6 million, exceeding the $10 million Federal contribution authorized by the act for this payment. Section 4(d) of the act provided the Yurok Tribe's share of the settlement fund similar to the determination of the Hoopa Valley share under section 4(c). Section 7(a) further provided the Yurok Tribe would receive the remaining moneys in the settlement fund after distributions were made to individuals in accordance with the settlement membership options under section 6 and to successful appellants left off the original settlement roll under section 5(d). Under section 1(1)(4), the condition that the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Yurok Tribe received these moneys requiring the tribes adopt a resolution waiving any claim against the United States arising from the act. The Hoopa Valley Tribe adopted such a resolution but the Yurok Tribe did not. In November 1993, the Yurok Tribe passed Resolution 93­61 which purported to waive its claims against the United States in accordance with section 2(c)(4). The tribe, however, also brought a suit alleging that the act affected a constitutionally prohibited taking of its property rights as described below. In effect, the tribe sought to protect its rights under section 2 of the act to its share of the settlement fund and other benefits while still litigating the claims as contemplated in section 14 of the Act. By a letter dated April 4, 1994, the Department informed the tribe that the Department did not consider the tribe's conditional waiver to satisfy the requirements of the act because the waiver acted to preserve rather than waive its claims. Instead of waiving its claims as the Hoopa Valley Tribe did, the Yurok Tribe as well as the Karuk Tribe and other individual Indians brought suit against the United States alleging the act constituted a taking of their vested property rights in the lands and resources of the Hoopa Valley Reservation contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In general, the complaints argued that the 1864 Act authorizing Indian reservations in California and other acts of Congress vested their ancestors with compensable rights in the Square. Alternatively, plaintiffs argued that their continuous occupation of the lands incorporated into the reservation created compensable interest. Potential exposure to the U.S. Treasury was once estimated at close to $2 billion. This litigation began in the early 1990's and was only recently ended.

App. 249

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 10 of 50

6 The U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the positions of the Yurok and other plaintiffs. The Federal courts generally followed the reasoning provided in the committee reports of the bills ultimately enacted as the Settlement Act. Unless recognized as vested by some Act of Congress:
Tribal rights of occupancy and enjoyment, whether established by Executive order or statute may be extinguished, abridged or curtailed by the United States at any time without payment of just compensation.

The courts concluded that no act of Congress established vested property rights and the plaintiffs or their ancestors in the Square. Rather the statutes and Executive orders creating the reservation allowed permissive, not permanent occupation. Thus, the courts held the act did not violate the takings clause. Plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the lower court decision and on March 26, 2001, the Court denied certiorari thereby concluding the litigation. On the Department's report, section 14 of the act provides:
The Department shall submit to Congress a report describing the final decision that an illegal claim challenging the act as affecting a taking of property rights contrary to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or as otherwise providing inadequate compensation.

The Court's denial of the certiorari triggered this provision. The Department solicited the views of the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes regarding future actions of the Department with respect to the settlement fund as required under the act. The report briefly describes issues both leading up to the subsequent act, attaches the written positions of the tribes and provides recommendations of the Department for further action with respect to the settlement fund. In July 2001, the Hoopa Valley Tribe submitted its proposed draft report for consideration by the Department. After describing the history of the disputes, the Settlement Act and subsequent actions, the Hoopa Valley Tribe provided various recommendations and observations. The Hoopa submission noted that the separate lawsuit determined that only 1.26 percent of the settlement fund moneys were derived from the Yurok Reservation, with the remainder of the moneys derived from the Hoopa Reservation. The Hoopa Valley Tribe has continued to assert its right to a portion of the benefits offered to and rejected by the Yurok Tribe. Prior to its July submission, the tribe previously requested the Department recommend the remaining funds from the Hoopa Square be returned to the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The Hoopa submission ultimately suggested the following recommendations. First, the suspended benefits under the act, including the land transfer and land acquisition provisions for the Yurok Tribe and the remaining moneys in the settlement fund be valued and divided equally between the two tribes. Second, the economic self-sufficiency plan of the Yurok Tribe be carried forward, including any feasibility study concerning the cost of the road from U.S. Highway 101 to California Highway 96 and other objectives of the self sufficiency plan. Third, that additional Federal lands adjacent to or near the Yurok and Hoopa Valley Reservation be conveyed to and managed by the respective tribes.

App. 250

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 11 of 50

7 The Yurok position. In August 2001, Counsel for the Yurok Tribe submitted the tribe's position and proposed a draft report. The Yurok Tribe submission similarly outlined the history of the dispute and other considerations in its recommendations for the Department to consider. In general, the Yurok Tribe takes the position, among others, that its conditional waiver was valid and became effective upon the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in the taking litigation. The Yurok submission discusses the tribe's concern with the process leading up to and ultimately resulting in the passage of the Settlement Act. In the tribe's view, the act nullified a large part which allowed all Indians of the reservation to share equally in the revenues and resources of the joint reservation. ``The tribe, not formally organized at the time, was not asked and did not participate in this legislative process'' and had the act imposed on the Yurok who were left with a small fraction of their former land resources. In its view, the act divested the Yurok Tribe of its communal ownership in the joint reservation lands and resources and relegated that much larger tribe to a few thousand acres left in trust along the Klamath River with a decimated fishery, while granting to the Hoopa Tribe nearly 90,000 acres of unallotted trust land and resources including the valuable timber resources thereon. With respect to the waiver issue, the Yurok submission considers the Department's view discussed above as erroneous. The tribe references a March 1995 letter from the Department in which the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs indicated the tribe could cure the perceived deficiencies with its conditional waiver by ``subsequent tribal action or final resolution of the tribes lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.'' The tribe takes the position that it made a reasonable settlement offer and would have dismissed its claim with prejudice but the Department never meaningfully responded. Now the tribe considers the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari as a final resolution suggested as curing the waiver. As a support for its position, the tribe states, ``The text of the Act and the intent of Congress make clear that filing a constitutional claim and receiving the benefits of that act are not mutually exclusive.'' The tribe suggests that principles of statutory construction, including the canon ambiguities be resolved in favor of the tribes and that the provisions within the statute should be read so as not to conflict or be inconsistent requires that a broader reading of the waiver provision in section 2(c)(4) in light of the act's provision allowing a taking claim to be brought under section 14. The tribe considers the Department's reading of the statute to be unfair and unjust. For these and other reasons, the tribe is of the view that it is now entitled to its benefits under the act. Because the Yurok Tribe litigated its claims against the United States based on the passage of the Act rather than waiving those claims, the Department is of the view that the Yurok Tribe did not meet the conditions precedent to the establishment of section 2(c)(4) of the act for the tribe to receive its share of the settlement fund or other benefits. The Department is also of the view that the Hoopa Valley Tribe has already received its portion of the benefits under the act and

App. 251

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 12 of 50

8 is not entitled to further distributions from settlement funds under the provisions of the act. Ultimately, this situation presents a quandary for the Department and for the tribes. We believe the act did not contemplate such a result. The moneys remaining in the settlement fund originated from seven trust accounts which held revenues generated from the joint reservation. Thus, the moneys remaining in the settlement fund should be distributed to one or both tribes in some form. Moreover, the Department recognizes that substantial financial and economic needs currently exist within both tribes and their respective reservations. Given the current situation, the report outlines five recommendations of the Department to address these issues. First, no additional funds need be added to the settlement fund to realize the purpose of the Act. Second, the remaining moneys in the settlement fund should be retained in a trust account status by the Department pending further considerations and not revert to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Third, the settlement fund should be administered for the mutual benefit of both tribes and their respective reservations taking into consideration prior distributions to each tribe from the fund. It is our position that it would be inappropriate for the Department to make any general distribution from the fund without further action of Congress. Fourth, Congress should fashion a mechanism for the further administration of the settlement fund in coordination with the Department and in consultation with the tribes. Fifth, Congress should consider the need for further legislation to establish a separate permanent fund for each tribe from the remaining balances of the settlement fund in order to address any issue regarding entitlement of the moneys and fulfill the intent and spirit of the Settlement Act in full. This concludes my testimony and I will be happy to respond to any questions at the appropriate time. We have attached a schematic for the committee with a flow chart of the funds and the dates funds were disbursed pursuant to the short litigation in the 1988 Act. [Prepared statement of Mr. McCaleb appears in appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. The chart you speak of, entitled ``Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act Funding History,'' received by the committee yesterday will be made a part of the record. [The information appears in appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. At this juncture, there will be a recess for 10 minutes. [Recess.] The CHAIRMAN. We will resume our hearings. The vice chairman of the committee has a very urgent matter to work on this afternoon, so he will have to be leaving us in about 10 minutes, so may I call upon him for his questions. Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you. I apologize for having to leave, we have some terrible wildfires out west and some of them are in Colorado, so I'm doing a joint event with some of the other Colo-

App. 252

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 13 of 50

9 rado delegation on our fire problem. It just closed Mesa Area in our part of the State which is a big tourist attraction, so I probably won't be able to ask the representatives from the two tribes questions. I'll submit those in writing if they can get those back to me. This is a very tough one for me because to me this is like refereeing a fight among family. Some folks on both sides of this issue I've known for years and years and am real close to from my old California days. Let me ask you just a couple. We have two reservations, one allotted, one not allotted, and this is certainly a sad history but the Yurok land and resources were allotted and dissipated. The Hoopa lands and resources remain in tact. Why were they treated so differently when they are so geographically close in our history? Do you happen to know that? Mr. MCCALEB. I don't have personal knowledge of that, Senator. Let me get that information and respond in writing to you. I have an impression but I don't have a real factual answer to that. Senator CAMPBELL. Let me ask another general question. We've been through a lot of disagreements between tribes and it seems to me those that can settle their issues without intervention from the courts are a lot better off than the ones who are not. I have no problem with the legal profession but let me tell you, the attorneys end up getting paid very well from the Indians that are fighting with each other. In keeping with the spirit of the settlement in 1988, shouldn't we try to bring this to a conclusion that both tribes can live with without fighting it out in courts? Mr. MCCALEB. That would certainly be my desire, Senator Campbell. Senator CAMPBELL. Have you personally tried to impress on both sides your sentiments? Mr. MCCALEB. I have met with representatives of both sides, yes, and made those kinds of suggestions. Senator CAMPBELL. I understand there is a lot of money involved. Let me ask about the account balance. What is the balance of revenues of the settlement fund and can you trace where the moneys from the fund came from? Mr. MCCALEB. Aside from interest that had accrued over time, the source of all the funds was timber sale proceeds. Senator CAMPBELL. Did they come primarily from Hoopa or Yurok lands or both? Mr. MCCALEB. I'm advised a little over 98 percent of the funds derived from the Square, are on Hoopa land. Senator CAMPBELL. Before they were put in the settlement fund, was there any audit performed to verify the accuracy of the transactions? Mr. MCCALEB. I'm not aware of that but I will investigate that and reply in writing to you. Senator CAMPBELL. In the Secretary's report, I read part of it and the staff read all of it, but they make two key findings, that the Hoopas have been made whole and have no claims against the United States and that because the Yuroks failed to provide necessary waivers, they are not entitled to benefits under the act. My question is, with a multimillion dollar fund sitting in the Treasury, how should it be divided?

App. 253

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 14 of 50

10 Mr. MCCALEB. Senator, I was hoping you'd have some suggestion for me on that. I don't mean to be flip about it but it is a very difficult answer. The two extreme positions of the tribes are the Hoopas want half of all the proceeds and the Yuroks think they should have all of the funds. Senator CAMPBELL. Would you recommend some kind of development fund for both tribes be established? Mr. MCCALEB. I think that would be a good solution. As opposed to per capita payments, you mean? Senator CAMPBELL. Yes. Mr. MCCALEB. Yes; I almost always favor that kind of investment as opposed to per capita payments. Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. I appreciate you giving me that time. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I have a few questions for clarification. Do the funds in the settlement fund represent revenues derived from the sale of timber located on the Square? Mr. MCCALEB. Over 98 percent. According to the facts furnished to me, only about 1.26 percent were not derived from timber on the Square. The CHAIRMAN. Were those revenues generated from the Square while members of the Yurok and Karuk Tribes were still considered ``Indians of the reservation''? Mr. MCCALEB. The money in the settlement fund is there pursuant to the Short litigation that was resolved in 1974 and the subsequent timber cuttings. Would you restate your question so I can make sure I understand it? The CHAIRMAN. Were those revenues generated from the Square while members of the Yurok and Karuk Tribes were still considered ``Indians of the reservation''? That is the phrase in the statute. Mr. MCCALEB. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. So they were Indians in the reservation at the time the revenues were generated in the Square? Mr. MCCALEB. Yes; that's my understanding. The CHAIRMAN. Because the Short case instructs us that if there is to be a distribution of revenues, the distribution must be made to all Indians of the reservation. Would that mean Hoopa, Yurok, Karuk? Mr. MCCALEB. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The Hoopa Valley Tribe contends it is the only tribe entitled to the funds in the settlement fund, so your response does not agree with that? Mr. MCCALEB. No; for the reasons you just said. The Short case is, I think, specific on that point. The CHAIRMAN. So it seems it may be critical to the resolution of the competing claims of entitlement to funds in the settlement fund to know whether the timber revenues that were placed in the fund were generated after the reservation was partitioned or whether they were generated while there were three tribal groups making up the ``Indians of the reservation,'' isn't that correct? Mr. MCCALEB. The revenues that make up the original amount, almost $17 million in the chart, were generated prior to the partitioning of the reservation, while other revenues were generated

App. 254

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 15 of 50

11 from the timber fund after 1988, the partitioning actually occurred in 1988 by act of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. There are two time periods? Mr. MCCALEB. Yes; there are. The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell the committee what disbursements have been made from the settlement fund, when the disbursements were made and to whom these disbursements were made? Mr. MCCALEB. From the settlement fund, $15 million was disbursed to individual Indians who elected to become Yurok. There was another $10.6 million distributed to individual Indians who elected to buy out. That $10.6 million was offset by a $10-million direct appropriation of Congress. There has been another $1.5 million distributed to the Yurok Tribe since 1991 given they were provided about $500,000 a year for 3 years to help them in the process of establishing their tribal government. The CHAIRMAN. Anything distributed to the Karuk Tribe? Mr. MCCALEB. None directly to the Karuk to my knowledge. There was another $34 million distributed to the Hoopa Tribe, $34,651,000 pursuant to their signing their waiver in keeping with the act. The CHAIRMAN. Given the Department's position as set forth in the Secretary's report that neither the Hoopa Valley Tribe nor the Yurok Tribe is entitled to the balance of the funds remaining in the HYSA fund, what benefits of the act or activities authorized in the act does the Department envision should be carried out and funded by the recommended two separate permanent funds to fulfill the intent of the original Act in full measure? Mr. MCCALEB. I think all the funds should be distributed that are in the settlement fund. I don't think there is much debate over that. I think the issue is over the distribution, how the money should be distributed. The CHAIRMAN. How shall the distribution be made? Mr. MCCALEB. I guess if you go to our third recommendation, it touches as closely as anything on that:
The settlement fund should be administered for the mutual benefit of both tribes and the reservations taking into consideration prior distributions to each tribe from the fund.

If you assume that 30­70 percent distribution was appropriate originally and take into consideration the prior distribution of the funds, that would provide some guidance in that area. The CHAIRMAN. In your opinion, were all the provisions of the Act benefiting the Hoopa Valley Tribe implemented? Mr. MCCALEB. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Would you say the same of the act benefiting the Yurok Tribe implemented? Mr. MCCALEB. No; that's not correct. The CHAIRMAN. So the Hoopa Valley got all the benefits, Yurok did not? Mr. MCCALEB. One of the provisions was the partitioning of the tribal lands. That was done, that was accomplished but the Yuroks got none of the money except for the $1.5 million I indicated. There were other provisions for economic development that were supposed to be carried out pursuant to an economic development plan submitted by the Yuroks. The plan was never submitted, so it was

App. 255

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 16 of 50

12 never implemented. For example, there was some roadbuilding to be done pursuant to that economic development plan that has never been done. The Yurok only received a partitioning of tribal lands plus the $1.5 million. The CHAIRMAN. Because of the obvious complexities, may we submit to you questions of some technicality that you and your staff can look over and give us a response? Mr. MCCALEB. I would appreciate that because I really need to rely on the historical and technical views of the staff to answer the meaningful questions that are attendant to this really sticky issue. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. MCCALEB. May I be excused at this point? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and thank you very much, sir. The second panel consists of the chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council of Hoopa, California, Clifford Lyle Marshall, Sr., accompanied by Joseph Jarnaghan, tribal councilman, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council and Thomas Schlosser, counsel, Hoopa Valley Tribal Council and Sue Masten, chairperson, Yurok Tribe, Klamath, CA.
STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD LYLE MARSHALL, SR., CHAIRMAN, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH JARNAGHAN, TRIBAL COUNCILMAN, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL AND THOMAS SCHLOSSER, COUNSEL

Mr. MARSHALL. I am Clifford Lyle Marshall, chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. At this time, I ask that our written testimony be included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you for this opportunity to present the Hoopa Tribe's position on the Interior Report on the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act. I am here today with council member Joseph Jarnaghan and attorney Tom Schlosser. First, let me express the Hoopa Tribe's deepest gratitude to Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Campbell and the other members of this committee for the leadership in achieving passage of the landmark Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act. We also acknowledge and appreciate the hard work of your dedicated staff. This act could not have occurred without your decision to resolve the complex problems that had crippled our reservation and tribal government for more than 20 years. The years since its passage have demonstrated the outstanding success of the Settlement Act. It resolved the complex issues of the longstanding Jesse Short case, the act vested rights and established clear legal ownership in each of the tribes to the respective reservations. It also preserved the political integrity of the Hoopa Tribe by confirming the enforceability of our tribal constitution. The Hoopa Tribe waived its claims against the United States and accepted the benefits provided in the act and since then we have accomplished a number of tribal objectives. We immediately embarked on a strategy to reestablish control of our small Indian nation and were one of the self-governance tribes. We believe that tribal self-governance is the true path to trust reform. Although the Yurok Tribe rejected the settlement offer provided in the act, it nevertheless provided a means for organization of the

App. 256

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 17 of 50

13 Yurok Tribe, use of Federal properties for establishment of tribal government offices and the ability to obtain Federal grants and contracts. The act ultimately enabled the Yurok Tribe to join the ranks of self-governance tribes. The Yurok Tribal Council could not stand before you today as tribal government officials without this act. The Settlement Act called for an end to litigation. It provided benefits to the Hoopa Tribe and the Yurok Tribe on the condition that they waive all claims which they might assert against the United States as arising from the act. The Hoopa Tribe accepted that offer. The Yurok Tribe rejected that offer and sued the United States and so the act as applied did not authorize payments to them. As a result, the Yurok Tribe is now clearly prohibited by the act from receiving a portion of the settlement fund. Congress should not now conclude that the act was unfair due to the fact the Yurok Tribe did not receive the benefits of the act. The Yurok Tribe made a conscious decision to sue and thereby chose to forego nearly 13 years of potential development and economic opportunity. The Hoopa Tribal Council would be remiss in our duties to our members if we did not see return of the timber revenues derived exclusively from the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Over 98 percent of the settlement fund balance comes from Hoopa escrow accounts derived from logging on Hoopa lands. I must respectfully disagree with Secretary McCaleb's referring to this fund as the Yurok account. The act refers to the money as Hoopa escrow moneys. In 1988, the Hoopa Tribe enacted a resolution authorizing the use of these Hoopa escrow moneys as a settlement offer to end the effects of the litigation leading to the act. That consent was required in the act. The Hoopa Tribe's resolution, however, does not authorize use of these moneys for purposes not provided in the act. The Hoopa Tribe's agreement that the act provided a settlement offer of Hoopa moneys to the Yurok Tribe was withdraw by operation of law when the Yurok Tribe sued the United States. The answer to the question what happens now to the settlement fund must be found outside the act. Federal law provides for payment of proceeds from logging on tribal lands to the tribe whose reservation was logged. It is clear that the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation belongs to the Hoopa Tribe and that the Hoopa Tribe is the only governing body concerned with the sale of timber on the unalloted trust land of the Hoopa Reservation. It simply follows that to the extent money remaining in the settlement fund came from the Hoopa Tribe's Reservation, the Hoopa Tribe is the only tribe entitled to those proceeds. Certainly a party to any other legal dispute which rejected the settlement offer, sued instead and lost could not come back and claim the previously made settlement offer. The Hoopa Tribe should not now be forced to pay for prior injustices that resulted during the allotment era or from the Yurok Tribe's decision to sue. Using the settlement fund remainder for such purposes forces the Hoopa Tribe to be liable for the Federal Government's actions. Moreover, it would force the Hoopa Tribe to pay for the poor judgment of the Yurok Tribe's decision to litigate. We know of no other situation where Congress has taken resources and resource reve-

App. 257

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 18 of 50

14 nues derived from one reservation and simply given it to another reservation. Congress was thorough in developing the Settlement Act. Congress considered history, aboriginal territory, demographics and equity. Likewise, Federal courts have held that the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation was historically the homeland of the Hoopa Tribe as a matter of history and as a matter of law. We know today that the Yurok Tribe would attempt to claim otherwise. These are not new issues and after 40 years of litigation, the courts have heard and determined this issue and every other possible issue to be raised in regard to this piece of legislation. The litigation is now over. We ask Congress now to respect these judicial decisions and move forward. In conclusion, the Interior report to Congress is disappointing. Interior concludes that neither tribe is entitled to the fund under the act but recommends that they administer the fund for the benefit of both the Hoopa and Yurok Tribes. This is clearly contradictory. We have long and hard experience with such administration during the Short v. United States era. As another witness will testify, Interior lacks the legal authority and the competence to carryout such responsibilities fairly. We believe the issues now before Congress should be resolved through considered thought and hard work over some period of time, not necessarily years but long enough to ground any new legislation on substance and reason rather than emotion. We have attempted to negotiate and remain open to negotiation. Thank you for your time. [Prepared statement of Mr. Marshall appears in appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would your councilman and the counsel wish to say something? Mr. MARSHALL. Yes.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH JARNAGHAN, COUNCIL MEMBER, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE

Mr. JARNAGHAN. My name is Joseph Jarnaghan. I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. I consider it a great honor. I am a council member of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. Before being elected to the council, I worked for the tribe's timber industry for many years. I have a written statement and request that it be included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. JARNAGHAN. Our forests are invaluable to our tribe. I want to tell you with the use of some slides why the return of the Hoopa escrow moneys to the Hoopa Valley Tribe is particularly appropriate in this case now that the payment provisions of the act have been exhausted. The first slide is a map of the roads built on the Hoopa Valley Reservation beginning in the 1940's. There are 550 miles of road on the reservation. These roads are a major source of sediment production and contamination of our waters because the Bureau of Indian Affairs' maintenance of these roads was grossly inadequate. When the BIA clearcut our forests, which ultimately generated the settlement fund, the BIA was more interested in the volume of

App. 258

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 19 of 50

15 timber going to the mill to create the settlement fund account than it was in the environmental state of our reservation. Today, the Hoopa Tribe is still faced with the forest resource management and rehabilitation costs that were left undone. As a result, we have been spending $200,000 to $400,000 per year from tribal revenues to fix this road system. This year in the Pine Em Timber Sale, we have over 100 culverts that need to be installed as a result of the job not being done when the BIA harvested our timber between 1972 and 1988. That was 424 million board feet of timber. The road construction standards the BIA used when harvesting our timber were deplorable and created ongoing problems that we continue to deal with today. The road erosion is devastating to our fisheries, water quality and riparian organisms. As you can see by this slide which shows a log jam that blocks fish passage, you will also notice the unit went right into the creek itself. The BIA logged 33,000 acres of tribal timber before the Settlement Act was passed. Most of the rest of our reservation is difficult to log because of steep slopes and in many cases, it is impossible to log because of ESA and National Marine Fisheries Service restrictions. Most of the easy units were logged to create the settlement fund. These slides show that the BIA simply clearcut our reservation. This degraded cultural resources and created large areas for the tribe to now rehabilitate. Assistant Secretary McCaleb said Tuesday at the trust reform hearing that most tribes would not clearcut their land and that is a fact but unfortunately, the BIA did clearcut our forest. Timber stand improvements cost us over $500 per acre to treat. At 2 to 3 years old, we grub around trees for conifer release; 10 to 15 years after the harvesting, these clearcuts are invaded by brush and must be brushed by hand because we don't allow herbicide spraying. We do this at increased cost to promote tree growth as well as to ensure water quality. We have suffered terrible forest fires. The Megram fire of 1999 shown here destroyed 4,500 acres of our reservation, mostly 30 year old stands that had been previously treated at the cost of $1,000 per acre. Our tribe must not be forced to withstand losing escrow moneys that came from timber cuts on our reservation and having to finance the forest restoration and rehabilitation costs resulting from forest fires or poor BIA timber mismanagement. The settlement fund remainder was generated almost exclusively from timber from our reservation. Our forest has been ravaged by the BIA, our money has been taken from our people to create this fund and we have been forced to fight clear to the Supreme Court to defend our reservation, costing the Hoopa Tribe much money, time and lost opportunity. Now the Yurok Tribe wants the settlement fund anyway. Is that fair? The fund that was left on the table by the Yurok Tribe's refusal to waive its claim should be returned to us so we can rehabilitate our aboriginal territory and our forests after the damage that was done to them by the BIA clearcutting. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Jarnaghan appears in appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

App. 259

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 20 of 50

16 Mr. Schlosser.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS SCHLOSSER

Mr. SCHLOSSER. My name is Thomas Schlosser. I thank the committee for the opportunity of submitting testimony on the Secretary's report. I have been honored to serve as the litigation counsel for the Hoopa Valley Tribe for over 20 years. During that time, I have represented the Tribe in the Short litigation and in the litigation concerning the Settlement Act. I have several points I would like to make. First, the Secretary's report threatens a return to the situation the tribes were in prior to passage of the Settlement Act. The Settlement Act was necessitated by complex litigation among the United States, the Hoopa Valley Tribe and a large number of individual Indians, most of whom but not all, have become members of the Yurok Tribe. The chairman mentioned the Karuk Tribe and there are a few members of the Karuk Tribe who were involved in the Short litigation and were held to be Indians of the reservation. It is a very small fraction of the Karuk Tribe, I would guess less than 10 percent. Whereas of the people who were held to be Indians of the reservation who elected to join the Yurok Tribe in 1991, the base roll of the Yurok Tribe was entirely made up of Indians of the reservation. There is another large fraction of Indians of the reservation that Mr. McCaleb referred to who chose to disaffiliate from both tribes, the so-called lump sum option under section 6(d). The Secretary's report mistakes the Settlement Act as having primarily been a boundary resolution act and instead suggests that the settlement fund be administered for the mutual benefit of both tribes. Boundary clarification was only a small part of this act and the efforts to administer the fund for mutual benefit were dramatically unsuccessful prior to the Settlement Act. For years, long proceedings were necessary to get a tribal budget approved. Sometimes the tribal budget would get approved in the last month of the fiscal year because of Interior's inability to adopt standards and to determine whether things affected the reservation fairly. This led to conflicts between rulings in the Short case and the Puzz case over which kinds of expenditures were permissible. For example, the Short case in 1987 held that money that was distributed to the tribe for tribal governmental purposes did not damage the Short plaintiffs, was not an injury to the Indians of the reservation and did not invade their rights. The Puzz court, a district court in the Northern District of California, held to the contrary, that funds used by the Hoopa Valley Tribe did damage the Indians of the reservation. So there are insufficient standards and not enough expertise to make that recommendation work well. As George Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to relive it.'' There is an error found in Interior's recommendation. Under the Settlement Act, there are some benefits potentially available to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes. Only 22 Short plaintiffs were adjudicated to be Indians of the reservation in 1973, so the court embarked on a long process which actually is still un-

App. 260

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 21 of 50

17 derway of identifying the eligible Indians of the reservation and their heirs for inclusion in per capita payments. This ruling precipitated other lawsuits, precipitated administrative actions that brought tribal government to a standstill, jeopardized public health, and made necessary the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act. The Settlement Act originated in the House and in the House two hearings were conducted, one by the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and another by the Judiciary Committee, and this committee conducted two hearings on its bill. And as you recall, at least three law firms appeared and participated in the proceedings on behalf of various groups of what have become Yurok tribal members. This included the Faulkner and Wunsch firm which represented most of the Short plaintiffs, many who became Yurok tribal members, the Heller, Ehrman White & McAuliffe firm which represented the Short plaintiffs, the Jacobsen, Jewitt & Theirolf firm which represented the Puzz plaintiffs, and so although the Yurok Tribe had not organized in a fashion to designate its own attorney, its members participated completely and fully. With the committee's guidance, after all these legal issues were discussed and the equities were considered, the parties came together on a settlement package to be laid before each one of the contestants. At the request of the House, the Congressional Research Service analyzed the House bill to determine whether Congress could lawfully do this or whether it would involve a taking of property. The Congressional Research Service concluded that because of the unique background of this reservation and the litigation, it was possible that a court would conclude that non-tribal Indians, Indians of the reservation, had some vested interest in reservation property. Ultimately, the courts didn't conclude that but the fact that there was a risk there is part of why the committee and Congress in the Settlement Act went to great pains to offer benefits in exchange for waivers of claims. So the settlement fund, for example, was allocated essentially in three ways, partly to the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe, if those tribes waived their claims, and partly to Indians as individuals who qualified as Indians of the reservation and appropriated money was provided which defrayed most of the cost of the lump sum payments. As Mr. McCaleb correctly said, the appropriated money was not sufficient for the people who disaffiliated from both tribes, so some of the Yurok and Hoopa escrow funds went to that payment. This act nullified the Short rulings. That was the purpose of the act. The act, this committee said in its report, was not to be considered a precedent for individualization of tribal communal assets but rather, sprang from the realization that there were some judicial decisions that were unique and the committee concluded,
The intent of this legislation is to bring the Hoopa Valley Tribe and the Yurok Tribe within the mainstream of Federal Indian law.

That is in the committee's report on page 2. The Settlement Act preserved the money judgments that had been won by the individual Short plaintiffs, so they ultimately recovered about $25,000 each from the treasury in addition to the payments that were made to them in exchange for claim waivers under section 6 of the act.

App. 261

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 22 of 50

18 The committee said while it didn't believe the legislation was in conflict with the Short case, ``To the extent there is such a conflict, it is intended that this legislation will govern.'' The reason that is important now is because it is indisputable that over 98 percent of the remainder in the settlement fund is derived from Hoopa escrow funds, from Hoopa timber sales, trees cut on the Hoopa Square. That proportion in our view belongs to the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The Short case is not to the contrary. The Hoopa Valley Tribe has a right to timber proceeds for trees cut on the Square. As a historical matter, tribes didn't have a right to proceeds for timber sales on reservation until 1910 when Congress passed a general timber statute now enacted in section 407. In 1964, Congress changed the designation of beneficiaries from the 1910 Act which said the proceeds would be used for the benefit of Indians of the reservation. In 1964 that was changed to say that proceeds would be used for the benefit of Indians who are members of the tribe or tribes concerned. At that time, the Department of the Interior, which advocated that technical correction, explained that Indians of the reservation didn't really describe anyone and that in fact members of the relevant tribe shared in the proceeds of sale of tribal properties. In the Short case, the 1983 opinion, the court held to the contrary and said Congress, when it used the term tribe here meant only the general Indian groups communally concerned with the proceeds and not officially organized or recognized tribes. So another important part of the Settlement Act was correcting the damage done to the general timber statute. A section of the Settlement Act amended section 407 to say the proceeds of sale shall be used as determined by the governing bodies of the tribes concerned. In the litigation that came after the Settlement Act, the Yurok Tribe and other plaintiffs continued to presume the correctness of some of the rulings in the Short case, in particular, the 1891 Executive order. The Short case did not support their claim that they had a right to the Hoopa escrow funds generated from timber cut on the Hoopa Square. Instead, in two opinions in 1987, an opinion discussed in this committee's report, and later in 1993, in the sixth published Short opinion, the Short court held that the plaintiffs there did not have a right to the trust funds, the escrow funds. Instead, the court made very clear that all it held in Short was that if money is distributed to individuals, not distributions to tribes but individualization of money, gave rise to a right by Indians of the reservation to share. The Federal courts rejected this most recently in the litigation concerning the Hoopa Yurok Settlement Act. Without the theories of the Short case that as Indians of the reservation, they have some claim to the timber revenues of the Square, without that theory, there is no connection between the Yurok Tribe and the Hoopa escrow moneys. The Hoopa escrow moneys were part of a settlement package and that is the only method by which they could have had access to them. As the court ruled in the most recent case, Karuk Tribe of California v. United States, this litigation is the latest attempt by plaintiffs to receive a share of the revenues from timber grown on

App. 262

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 23 of 50

19 the Square. The Settlement Act nullified the Short rulings by establishing a new Hoopa Valley Reservation. A necessary effect of the Settlement Act was to assure payment of the timber revenues from the Square exclusively to the Hoopa Valley Tribe. It was the purpose of the Settlement Act to return these tribes to the mainstream of Federal Indian law. In the mainstream of Federal Indian law, the proceeds of trees cut on a tribe's reservation go to that tribe. I want to mention one other issue that comes up recurrently and that is the assertion that a portion of the Hoopa Square was actually traditional Yurok Tribe territory or some even say traditional Karuk Tribe territory. As the chairman pointed out, this is not a new issue, it is an issue that has been litigated specifically and in the just completed litigation concerning the Settlement Act, Karuk Tribe v. United States, the court's ruling was that both as a matter of history and as a matter of law, the record does not support the Yurok's claim to Indian title to the site of the Square. This issue is adverted to in this committee's report concerning the Settlement Act where the committee pointed out that the Settlement Act's choice of the Bissell Smith Line as the dividing line between the two reservations had the effect of putting a traditional Yurok village into the Yurok Reservation where it might previously have been in the Square. With that, I would conclude my remarks and would be happy to answer questions. [Prepared statement of Mr. Schlosser appears in appendix.] The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. One of the first issues confronting me as chairman of this committee was this matter. Obviously I knew very little about Indian country or Indian history or relationship. I spent 2 whole days in Sacramento conducting hearings, I visited the Valley, I would never fly back again and I must say that I thought the committee did pretty well. But this committee was a successor of other committees in the U.S. Senate that felt that all the answers were in Washington, that the answers were in the minds of lawyers and government officials. What we have here today is the product of government officials and lawyers, starting off with deception and based upon the deception coming forth with conclusions and then obviously wanting to justify the deception. In the years that followed my tenure as chairman beginning in 1987, I have become much more dependent upon the wisdom of Indian country, to tell me and to tell Washington what the solutions should be. We have too often tried to impose our will upon Indian country and this is one example. In looking at the activities of 1852 and 1864, one must assume that the Indians were well organized with a whole array of lawyers who knew the Constitution inside and out and therefore they had their rights and liabilities all determined and that was not so. The Government of the United States went out of its way to make certain that Indians never got organized. I wish we could start all over and I could tell the Hoopa and the Yuroks why don't you all get together as you did in the old days. In the old days, it was either war and kill each other and decide or you sit down, have a

App. 263

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 9-17

Filed 04/02/2008

Page 24 of 50

20 big conference. In some places they smoked tobacco or exchanged gifts. Maybe the time has come for the restoration of the old method because as certain as I sit here if the Congress of the United States should come forth with Settlement Act No. 2, we will be back here in about 20 years trying to draw up Settlement Act No. 3. I have a series of technical questions but those are all legal questions. It is good to know the history but I was trained to be a lawyer myself and when one presents his case, you make certain you don't say good things about the other side, you speak of the good things about your side. That is what you are paid for. I would expect lawyers to do the same. With that, I will be submitting questions of a technical nature for the record. May I thank you, Mr. Chairman and your staff. Our next witness is the most distinguished member of Indian country, the chairperson of Yurok Tribe of Klamath, California, Sue Masten.
STATEMENT OF SUE MASTEN, CHAIRPERSON, YUROK TRIBE

Ms. MASTEN. Good morning. I have the distinct honor to serve as the chairperson of the Yurok Tribe. The Yurok Tribe is the largest tribe in California with over 4,500 members of which 2,800 members live on or near the reservation. Thank you for holding this hearing. We appear today with deep resolve and a commitment to working hard toward addressing the issues before you. I know you can appreciate that the issues here run deep and are heart felt. I also know that when the act was passed Congress believed that the act reached equity for both tribes. Thank you for your willingness to hear our concerns that those goals were not achieved. We especially thank y