interest or the use of one-half of the property for life. Even neighboring States have different rules as to descent and distribution. These members of the Yakima Tribe say to me that if they are going to be forced to change their act against their will, then Congress should enact a uniform inheritance law for all tribes.

These elected officers of the Yakima Tribe also state to me that if the act is amended, allowing inheritance by non-Indians or trust lands, this will by necessity create administrative problems in partition, leasing, and management of the property, since you cannot deal with trust and nontrust property and Indian and non-Indian owners in the same transaction. They tell me that Congress, the Interior Department, and they themselves, have not been able to provide the answer to this problem. These members of the tribe tell me that members can make lifetime disposition of their property and the Yakima Enrollment Act only applies to members of the Yakima Tribe. Therefore, if the land is held on the Yakima Reservation by a member of any other tribe, or by a non-Indian, the Yakima Act does not control. Also, members of the tribe can obtain a patent or trust deed to their children and not be within the purview of this act.

These same members of the Yakima Tribe feel that since the Federal Government, by virtue of the Allotment Act, gave the tribe's lands to individuals, not necessarily Yakimas, without tribal consent, that the tribe should have the right to control the descent of this land as to their members at this time. If this committee feels that something should be done in regard to the amendment of section 7 of the Yakima Enrollment Act so that those who would inherit under State law may inherit, might I suggest that some form of amendment be considered that would allow these interests to pass to the tribe upon the tribe compensating the heirs for these lands? Such an amendment would allow said heirs to receive just value but would not create administrative problems in partition, leasing, and management of the property.

These same members of the Yakima Tribe have pointed out to me that H.R. 2581 would not let them consider the residence or domicile of an applicant in determining membership. They say it would not allow them to consider whether or not they have an interest in trust lands in determining membership. They say it would not let them consider whether there has been any tribal affiliation on the part of a member. They say to me that isn't it strange the Congress and the Federal Government will not allow them to consider these factors but that Congress and the Federal Government do themselves consider these factors in administering Federal programs in determining who is an Indian. For example, under Indian public health, if you reside on deeded land, even though you are an Indian on the reservation, you are not eligible for public health service. For example, where you reside, what the status of the land is that you live upon, are factors to be considered in determining if you are eligible for adult education, vocational education, or even eligibility for the relocation program sponsored by the Federal Government. These elected officials say to me that the Federal Government, if it does not allow them to use these same factors in determining who is an Indian, is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

These elected officials say that these factors-interest in land, residence within the reservation, and tribal affiliation-have always been factors that can be considered by a tribe in determining who its members may be. They point out that any person who retains any interest in trust lands, or resides on the reservation, or resides in the vast ceded area, or maintains any contact with the tribe or agency, under the ordinances interpreting this act, cannot be striken from the rolls. They say to me, "Does the Federal Government consider anyone who does not do any of these things to be an Indian in administering their programs?" If this is true, is this not an inconsistent position for the Congress of the United States to take?

There is also before the Congress of the United States a general bill, S. 2188, introduced by Senator Allott, which covers in a general way all of the matters encompassed in H.R. 2581. If this committee feels that the matters covered in the Yakima Enrollment Act are improper, would it not be a better way of handling this to consider the problem as it affects every tribe and forbid them from taking such action in their constitution and ordinances without limiting this action, if it is felt by this committee to be necessary, to only the Yakima Tribe. I reiterate that it is still my opinion that matters of enrollment and of descent and of distribution are internal matters, but if this committee would take a contrary view, I certainly feel that this is the best approach to correct this problem.

These elected officers of the Yakima Tribe point out to me that under resolutions passed by them in interpreting domicile for the purpose of their Enrollment Act, provides that anyone who departs for the purpose of obtaining employment or to take part in the Bureau of Indian Affairs relocation program, or who are in the armed services of the United States, are determined to be domiciled. This, they say to me, is a much broader position than that taken by the Federal Government, and that the amendment of the act would remove their discretion in this regard.

These thoughts have been presented to me by the Yakima Tribal Council, the elected representatives of the Yakima Tribe, and I earnestly ask your consideration of these factors before passage of this

bill.

I would like to submit for inclusion at this point in the hearing record the statement of the Yakima Tribe on H.R. 2581. Also I would like to have the statements of the Yakima Tribe on H.R. 6802, H.R. 3784, H.R. 3785, and H.R. 3786 also included in the record. I introduced these latter bills at the request of the Yakima Tribe and feel that the hearing record should therefore include the tribe's current views in justification for consideration of the committee and so that these views will be available to all interested individuals in advance of the field hearings.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this information to the committee.

Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much, Mrs. May.

Without objection, the statement will be made a part of the record at this point, and as we move along on these other bills, we will insert them in the appropriate place.

Mrs. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The statement of the Yakima Tribe on H.R. 2581 follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE YAKIMA TRIBE ON H.R. 2581

The Yakima Tribe of the State of Washington is opposed to proposed amendment of Public Law 706, 79th Congress, which is an act to provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation and for other purposes. The Yakima Tribe does, therefore, object to the passage of H.R. 2581.

This opposition is an existing one and has been the continued position of the Yakima Tribe. The Yakima General Council and the Yakima Tribal Council have in the past rejected any attempts to amend or repeal said act. This act, as enacted, was an act formulated to respect all the wishes of the Yakima Tribe, and H.R. 6165, which became the act of August 9, 1956, was initiated by the Yakima Tribe acting through the recognized governing bodies of the tribe.

Let us digress a moment to explain the government of the Yakima Tribe. The Yakima Tribe has two governing bodies. One, the Yakima General Council, and the second the Yakima Tribal Council.

The general council meets once a year, or sooner on special occasions, upon 30 days' notice to all members of the tribe. Every member above the age of 18, both men and women, has a right to attend, express his views, and vote upon all matters brought before the council. There is unlimited debate on all questions. A quorum of 250 members is required. Once a quorum is present business proceeds as long as there are 175 members present to transact business, and vote of the majority present settles all matters brought before the council, with the exception that a two-thirds vote is required to repeal or amend rules or procedures, acts, resolutions, ordinances, and tribal codes.

The Yakima Tribe also has a tribal council composed of 14 members. The tribal council members are elected by the Yakima General Council for a term of 4 years. The tribal council meets once a month, or sooner, at the Yakima Agency and handles all the matters of the tribe; and by general council resolution dated February 18, 1944, and ratified by resolution T-38-56, dated December 6, 1955, has authority to transact all tribal business with the exception of business that by its nature it wishes to refer to the general council, or that the general council wishes to discuss. The Yakima Tribal Council are the elected representatives of the Yakima Tribe.

With this understanding of the government of the Yakima Tribe we will continue the narrative of the history of the Yakima Enrollment Act.

Before the year 1945 the Yakima General Council had directed certain of its members to investigate the possibility of securing enrollment of the members of the tribe and the proper method of doing so. The committee appointed for this purpose reported its findings to the Yakima General Council on February 20, 1945. By an overwhelming majority the general council voted to secure legislation by Congress authorizing enrollment of the members of the Yakima Tribe, rather than to make an enrollment under the regulations of the Interior Department. At this council a resolution was adopted to include members not only living on the Yakima Reservation proper, but also those who had secured public domain allotments within the area ceded to the United States under the treaty of June 9, 1855.

On February 21, 1945, the general council approved a motion directing the tribal council to draft the desired legislation. The tribal council prepared several drafts and submitted them to the general council held on March 6, 1946. The general council rejected the drafts submitted and after considerable debate selected a committee of the general council to assist the Yakima Tribal Council in preparing a draft in accordance with the specific directions of the general council. At this council a motion was approved establishing the minimum degree of blood requisite for enrollment at one-fourth or more of the blood of the 14 tribes which constitute the Yakima Nation.

This draft, prepared by this committee and the Yakima Tribal Council in accordance with the wishes of the general council, was embodied in H.R. 6165, 79th Congress, 2d session, and was introduced by Congressman Hal Holmes, of the State of Washington. This bill, enacted into law by Congress and approved August 9, 1946, represented the will of the great majority of the Yakima Tribe and still does.

The Yakima Tribe has, every time the amendment of this Yakima Enrollment Act comes up, rejected overwhelmingly any amendment thereto. The

records of your committee will show such action. The Yakima Tribal Council has been unanimous in its objection to the amendment of the Yakima Enrollment Act.

The Yakima Tribe does sincerely take this position-that matters of enrollment and of descent and distribution are, and have always been, internal tribal matters and for that reason does object to any enactment in regard to enrollment and descent and distribution unless it be according to the wishes of the tribe or tribes involved.

Speaking specifically on the bill, the tribe takes the following positions, sec tion by section:

Section 1 of the bill amends section 1(d) of the Yakima Enrollment Act, which relates to the enrollment in the Yakima Tribe of children born to the members of the tribe. The present law provides that in order for a child to be eligible the parent must maintain a domicile on the reservation or within the ceded area at the time the child is born. H.R. 2581 would repeal this domicile requirement. We believe that the domicile requirement for future enrollments should not be repealed. Several other tribes have included similar residence requirements within their constitutions with the concurrence of Congress and the Department of Interior. In addition, it is to be noted that the Yakima Tribe is very liberal in regard to the interpretation of this provision. In addition to the general law in regard to domicile they have provided by resolution that if parents depart from the reservation or ceded area for the purposes of obtaining employment, taking part in the Bureau of Indian Affairs relocation program, or are in the armed services, they are determined, through said resolution and ordinance, to be domiciled. The records of the Yakima Enrollment Committee and Tribal Council will show that no hardship has resulted because of this section. We are pleased to note that the Department of Interior concurs in asking that section 1 of H.R. 2581 be deleted.

Section 2 of the bill amends section 3 of the Yakima Enrollment Act, which relates to corrections being made to the roll where there have been clerical errors made by erroneously placing or omitting someone from the roll. The bill would require that the action of the Yakima Tribal Council in this regard would be subject to a review by the Secretary of the Interior. We believe that there is Do requirement for such action in that there has been no hardship shown or no abusive discretion shown in this regard. We object thereto because of the delay that exists in having the Secretary of Interior review any matter. The Secretary of the Interior cannot and does not keep up with his review workload now, and we suggest that additional duties should not be pressed upon him unless the need for such review is clearly shown to the committee.

Section 3 of the bill repeals section 4 of the present law. That section provides for the loss of membership in the Yakima Tribe whenever an enrolled member ceases to own any trust or restricted land in the area and either has lived away from the reservation or has failed to maintain tribal affiliations for a period of 5 consecutive years. This section has not been used by the tribal council and there can be no showing of any hardship resulting from this section. We object to the deletion of section 4 of the Yakima Enrollment Act. The Yakima Tribe by ordinance has provided that even if there is no interest in land or residence, if the member participates in a tribal activity once in 5 years by, but not limited to, fishing, hunting, berrypicking, root harvesting, attending a tribal dance, ceremonial, tribal, or general council meeting, or corresponds with the tribe, or agency, then he cannot be stricken. Surely anyone who, by the lack of taking part in any of these activities, does not show his interest in remaining a member of the tribe should not remain a member of our tribe.

Section 4 of H.R. 2581 repeals section 7 of the present law. Insofar as the future is concerned section 7 of the Yakima Enrollment Act deals with the subject of inheritance of restricted and trust property belonging to individual Yakima Indians and provides that in order to have the privilege of inheriting said property the heir or devisee must be one-fourth of the blood of the Yakima Tribe. We believe that this requirement should not be repealed. We need go no further than the act of our courts and to the actions of Congress and the administration to show that descent and distribution is an internal tribal matter. Descent and distribution varies from tribe to tribe, as tribes and States have different rules in regard thereto. For example, in the neighboring State of Oregon a wife would only inherit a dower interest for the use of one-half of the property for life. This is contrary to Washington State law, which has a different rule. If the Yakima Tribe is going to be forced by Congress to change its rules in regards to descent and distribution against our will, then it is our position that

Congress should enact a uniform inheritance law for all tribes. The inheritance by non-Indians or nonmembers of a tribe within Federal supervision will create administrative problems in partition, leasing, and management of trust and restricted property.

This problem is one that Congress, the tribe, and the Department of Interior have difficulty correcting. If the committee feels that this act is improper in not allowing some to inherit, some provision must be made so that there will not be nonrestricted interests in trust or restricted lands. To allow such interests creates great hardship on the members of the tribe. It is to be noted that this act, by the interpretation of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, only pertains to the lands of the members of the Yakima Tribe; therefore, anyone who is not a member of the Yakima Tribe can devise his lands in any way he wishes. It is also to be noted that the members themselves can make lifetime distributions by trust patent or patent-in-fee. It is firmly our position that the tribe has a right to regulate in this matter for the Federal Government, by virtue of the General Allotment Act, gave tribal lands to individuals, not necessarily Yakimas, without tribal consent. Should not the Yakima Tribe now be able to control the distribution of this land as to the members only?

It is also to be pointed out that there is before this Congress S. 2188, introduced by Senator Allott, which would cover the matters involved in H.R. 2581 on a general basis pertaining to all tribes. It is to be suggested that if the committee feels that there are abuses in regards to the matters covered in the Yakima Enrollment Act and if this committee does not feel that matters pertaining to enrollment and descent and distribution are internal tribal matters, then legislation covering all tribes should be considered.

We are, of course, opposed to any congressional interference with said internal tribal matters, but feel even stronger that we should not be singled out by Congress and forced to change our rules in regards thereto against the overwhelming majority's wishes of the Yakima Tribe. Because of the foregoing, we recommend that H.R. 2581 not be enacted.

Mr. HALEY. I want to thank you for your statement and commend you for your interest in these bills. You are always cooperative and we find you well represent the people of your great district out there. We are happy to have you here this morning.

Are there any questions by any Member?

(No response.)

Mrs. MAY. Mr. Chairman, the people of my great district look forward to the great chairman of this subcommittee coming out to visit them this fall.

Mr. HALEY. He will be there.

We shall be glad to hear from the Department witnesses on H.R. 2581.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN P. MANGAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, AND LEWIS A. SIGLER, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. MANGAN. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2581 would do three things, basically. It would amend the 1946 act, which is a special statute applying only to the Yakima Tribes, concerning the membership rolls of the Yakima Tribes and the methods of disposing of trust property on the Yakima Reservation and trust property of the Yakima members.

This bill would amend that 1946 act by preventing the Yakima Tribe from using the nonresidence of the parents of a Yakima child or the birth of such a child away from the reservation as the basis for denying membership in the Yakima Tribe.