11 1 representative shall be as provided in section 4(e) of such 2 Act. 3 SEC. 9. TRIBAL TIMBER SALES PROCEEDS USE. 4 5 Section 7 of the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 857; 25 U.S.C. 407), is amended to read as follows: "Under regula6 tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, the timber 7 on unallotted trust land in Indian reservations or on other 8 land held in trust for tribes may be sold in accordance with 9 the principles of sustained-yield management or to convert 10 the land to a more desirable use, as determined by the Secre11 tary. After deduction for administrative expenses under the 12 Act of February 14, 1920 (41 Stat. 415; 25 U.S.C. 413), the 13 proceeds of the sale shall be used— 14 15 16 17 18 “(1) as determined by the governing bodies of the tribes or reservations concerned and approved by the Secretary, or “(2) in the absence of such a governing body, as determined by the Secretary for the tribe concerned.”. O The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Rodino, is concerned about that, and we would not want to be any lacuna in our jurisdictional responsibility. The sponsor of the bill, who has worked very hard, informs me that we have a new version of the bill, and some of the problems that impinged on our jurisdiction are no longer present, and it is his belief that this bill is not generally affected, but that is what we will hear today. And while there won't be time for a formal action, we do have a full committee meeting this afternoon, and if this is, in fact, as the gentleman described it, we may very well be able to remove any obstacle. Our first witness is Douglas Bosco. TESTIMONY OF HON. DOUGLAS H. BOSCO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Bosco. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my gratitude to you for holding this hearing, especially so quickly, and I do appreciate the Judiciary Committee's interest in our measure. House Resolution 4469 will divide the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation in northern California into two reservations, one for the use of the Hoopa tribe, the other for the Yurok tribe. It will enable each to organize and govern itself, and it provides the establishment of tribal roles and the payment to individuals of funds now held in trust by the United States. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, originally this bill did have bearing on the Judiciary Committee, because it provided for the payment of claims under a case pending in the Federal Courts. However, the Justice Department objected to this provision, because they feel that case is already close to being settled, and any payment of claims at this time would be premature, so that part was depleted-deleted from the bill when it was heard by the Interior Committee, and the Parliamentarian of the House informed me that the Judiciary Committee of the House therefore doesn't have at least any official jurisdiction over the bill. But Mr. Rodino was concerned that perhaps this bill would reflect on current litigation, and we are very pleased to be here today to answer any of those questions that you or he might have. Mr. Chairman, each of the Federal judges who have heard matters related to the Hoopa Valley Reservation dispute over the years has said that it is Congress' responsibility to settle many of the contentious issues involved. This legislation meets that responsibility. I am proud to say that the people who will be affected the most, the Indians of the reservation, have worked hard to resolve their differences. As a result, we have widespread support for this legislation, including the leadership of both tribes, all the national Indian organizations, the major newspapers of California, and even Jessie Short, who filed an original lawsuit some 25 years ago that started these decades of contention, and her hard work, hopefully, will result shortly in an Act of Congress that benefits the thousands of people who heretofore have seen no relief whatsoever. I wanted to point out to the committee, for your reference, a fine paper that was done by the American Law Division of the Library of Congress at the request of the Interior Committee. It presents in good detail all of the major legal issues involved in this legislation, both from a present and historical standpoint. Thank you again for your interest, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. FRANK. Explain to us, if you could, exactly where the change came with regard to pending litigation in the bill? Mr. Bosco. There is a case in the Federal Claims Court called Jessie Short v. the United States. It was filed some 25 years ago, and challenges the distribution of timber revenues from the Hoopa Valley Reservation. That case, for the most part, has been settled. The Court now is simply trying to find which Indians of the reservation should be paid under these claims, and the roles of the— are being prepared for that purpose. Our legislation wanted originally to get this money out to people, because it has been some two decades and no one has seen any money from the claims, and so we provided for partial payment of those claims. As I mentioned, the Justice Department felt that this was premature, that these people will start to get their money shortly in any case, and we didn't want to compromise the legal procedures. So we dropped that entire provision from the bill, and it no longer calls for the payment of those claims. Mr. FRANK. All right. I have no further questions. Anyone else? Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Bosco, you mentioned in your presentation that both tribes agree; what happened to the third tribe? Wasn't there a third tribe involved in this? Mr. Bosco. Well, Mr. Coble, the reservation-I shouldn't go into any great detail in this Mr. COBLE. This is a friendly question. Mr. Bosco. This has long been the home of Indians of various tribes; however, it is recognized that the Yuroks and the Hoopas have claim to the reservation. One other group, the Karuks, are already organized and recognized as a tribe, but their residency is elsewhere. It isn't on this reservation. Mr. COBLE. So they are not parties to this? Mr. Bosco. They want to be, because they want to participate in the funds that will be distributed under it. I think this is borne out by the Congressional Research studies that I alluded to. I feel that they really don't as a tribe have a claim on this particular reserva tion. Some individuals, as Karuks, have lived on the reservation and they will have the opportunity under the legislation to receive the benefits of distribution of funds. But the tribe itself I do not believe can make a claim to distribution of funds. Mr. COBLE. Thank you. No further questions. Mr. FRANK. Let me ask, have you seen the Justice Department's amendments to this bill? Mr. Bosco. As of that time? We have been working with them throughout. Mr. FRANK. September 30, 1988. It looks like they have two more Mr. Bosco. I am not aware of that. Mr. FRANK. I shall read you what it says. "We worked closely with his staff on this piece of legislation. We have two remaining concerns of the bill." Mr. Bosco. I am not aware of that. Mr. FRANK. It is rather strange wording on the part of Justice. One, affirming tribal consent to the contribution of Hoopa escrow moneys to the settlement fund, and affirming to the contribution of Yurok escrow moneys. That is just making it explicit. Mr. Bosco. I don't think that will be a problem. The Justice Department has been enormously helpful. Mr. FRANK. And they wanted-they said, it is possible that Congress might take action to make payment unnecessary. They wanted a provision that would deal with that. Notwithstanding, it shall not be paid 180 days after judgment. Payments shall be made-I don't know why we want to do that. But I wonder if you might want to look at the escrow language. It doesn't sound like you have any problem with it. Perhaps you want to incorporate that. Mr. Bosco. I will. Their suggestions have always been meritorious, I think. Those changes are made, I am sorry. Mr. FRANK. So, you incorporated that then? Mr. Bosco. I am just the front man in all of this. Mr. BERMAN. I don't want to get bogged down in the lacuna of jurisdictional matters. Mr. FRANK. The lacunae. Mr. BERMAN. What, there are more than one? If we don't act, do we just sort of waive our role and it moves on, or is it because it is a joint referral, do we have to pass something or else the bill can't be taken out? Mr. FRANK. I don't think-is this a joint proposal? Well, if it is joint, we would have to report it out. We have a full committee hearing this afternoon. What the chairman expressed to me, there are two questions here. One is the court dispute, and there is a jurisdiction argument that says any time the U.S. Government is a defendant, it is within our jurisdiction. I have problems with our being forced to exercise that in every case I think that is right and we ought to have the right to deal with that if we have a particular reason to. This committee does have some expertise in the area of claim to the procedures in general. Where, however, what is at issue is not procedural in any substantive way, but turns on the substance of the dispute, I am less convinced that while we continue to have the jurisdiction, we should exercise it because we are not the experts in Indian matters or defense matters, we are not the experts in every substantive dispute that comes up. And I don't think it would be useful for us if the rule was that every bill which affected a claim against the United States had to be substantively decided by this committee. I don't think that we could do that. The chairman was concerned about a special procedural problem above and beyond that which has to do with an unfortunate prece dent that made or followed legislation affecting pending cases. That is the particular piece that seems to be resolved. So, my inclination would be-it would be for us to waive rather than act, because I don't feel competent to pass on the substantive issue one way or another. The chairman asks us particularly to exercise our charge to look at the procedural question. It does seem like it is getting somewhat resolved. So that is my sense of where we are right now. Mr. BERMAN. We will hear from other witnesses, but it sounds like this is a complicated case that in the last week of the session I don't know how we can-I don't know quite how we can thoroughly get into all the merits of this dispute, and so, I guess Mr. FRANK. As I said, if there was some particular procedural issue, we would have something to contribute. It has gone through the Interior Committee. It has not passed before the House. People unhappy with it have the option of making argument against it. But I don't think this committee is in a position, although we have the jurisdiction, we don't have to exercise it in every case in an affirmative way. We have been satisfied it is a procedural problem, and as to the substantive issue, we would defer in this particular instance without setting any kind of binding precedence to do So. Any further questions? Mr. Bosco. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that this bill has not lacked scrutiny in the Congress. We have had one hearing in the Interior Committee, and over in the Senate there have been two hearings by Senator Inouye's Select Committee on Indian Affairs. And we have literally gone over every cent of the bill. It does state a different policy than our Government has had so far toward these particular people. But it hasn't lacked any scrutiny by the Congress. Mr. FRANK. That gets to the question we just referred to. This subcommittee and, indeed, this full committee has no expertise in what the old policy was. If you put the two down on paper and ask us to pick, we would have a random chance. This is a substantive sub-matter. Thank you. |