79–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–677

GRATON RANCHERIA RESTORATION ACT

JUNE 19, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 946]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 946) to restore Federal recognition to the Indians of the

Graton Rancheria of California, having considered the same, report

favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill

do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 946 is to restore Federal recognition to the

Indians of the Graton Rancheria of California.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 946 would restore federal recognition to the Indians of the

Graton Rancheria of California. The Graton Rancheria is one of

over 40 Indian tribes which were terminated in 1958 by Public Law

85–671. Today there are approximately 355 members of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria living in the general vicinity of

Santa Rosa, California.

H.R. 946 provides that the service area for the Tribe shall be

Marin and Sonoma counties, that nothing in the legislation shall

expand, reduce, or affect any hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering,

or water rights of the Tribe, that real property eligible for trust

status shall include certain Indian-owned land, and that the Secretary of the Interior shall compile a membership roll of the Tribe.

2

The bill also provides for an Interim Tribal Council, the election of

tribal officials, and the ratification of a constitution for the Tribe.

Section 5(d) of H.R. 946 provides that real property taken into

trust for the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to the bill shall not have

been taken into trust for ‘‘gaming’’ purposes pursuant to section

20(b) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (12 U.S.C. 2719(b)).

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 946 was introduced on March 2, 1999, by Congresswoman

Lynn Woolsey (D–CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on

Resources. On May 16, 2000, the Full Resources Committee held

a hearing on the bill. On June 7, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were offered and

the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in

the body of this report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States

grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. A cost estimate has been requested but has not

been received. However, the Committee does not believe that enactment of H.R. 946 would not have a significant effect on the federal

budget.

2. Congressional Budget Act. As stated above, a cost estimate has

been requested from the Congressional Budget Office but has not

yet been received. The Committee does not believe that the bill contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.

3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 3(c)(4)

of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has received no report of oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform on this

bill.

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested but has not yet received a cost estimate for

this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

3

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law.

(4)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

Documentation of Miwok peoples dates back as early as 1579 by

a priest on a ship under the command of Francis Drake. Other

verification of occupancy exists from Spanish and Russian Voyagers

in 1595, 1775, 1793, and 1808. Missions established from 1809 to

1834 used Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo tribal people as a

labor source. These records assist us today in substantiating Native

genealogical persistence. After the Mission period (1769–1834) local

Indian people continued in servitude to Mexican land grant owners

throughout their confiscated tribal territories. Mexican and American period records show that a Coast Miwok, Camilo Ynitia, secured the land grant for Olompali near Novato within Coast Miwok

homelands. Olompali is the site of a large village, extending from

prehistoric times into the Spanish/Mexican periods, and continues

today as an important historic locale. Another important locale was

Nicasio (northwest of San Rafael). Near the time of secularization

(1835) the Church granted the San Rafael Christian Indians 20

leagues (80,000 acres) of mission lands at Nicasio. About 500 Indians relocated to Nicasio. By 1850 they had but one league of land

left. This radical reduction of land was a result of illegal confiscation of land by non-Indians under protest by Indian residents. In

1870, Jose Calistro, the last community leader at Nicasio, purchased the small surrounding parcel. Calistro died in 1875, and in

1876 the land was transferred by his will to his four children. In

1880 there were 36 Indian people at Nicasio. The population was

persuaded to leave in the 1880s when Marin County curtailed

funds to all Indians (except those at Marshall) who were not living

at the Poor Farm, a place for ‘‘indigent’’ peoples.

By the beginning of California statehood (1850) the Marshall,

Bodega, and Sebastopol peoples, along with their Pomo and Patwin

neighbors were making the best of a difficult oppressive situation,

by earning their livelihoods through farm labor or fishing, within

their traditional homelands. William Smith, a Bodega Miwok, after

force relocation to Lake County during the late 1800’s, returned to

Bodega Bay where he and his relatives founded the commercial

fishing industry in the area. By the early 1900’s a few people pursued fishing for their livelihoods; one family continued commercial

fishing into the 1970’s, while another family maintained an oyster

harvesting business. When this activity was neither, in season nor

profitable, Indian people of this area, sought agricultural employment, which required an itinerant lifestyle. The preferred locality

for such work was within Marin and Sonoma counties.

In May 1920, Bureau of Indian Affairs Inspector John J. Terrell

proposed the purchase of a 15.45 acre tract of land near the small

rural Sonoma County town of Graton, for the ‘‘village home’’ of the

Marshall, Bodega, Tomales, and Sebastopol Indians. Through the

purchase of this land, put into federal trust, the government conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:11 Jun 20, 2000 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR677.XXX pfrm03 PsN: HR677
5

solidated these neighboring traditionally interactive groups into

one recognized entity, Graton Rancheria. In June 1923, a Bureau

of Indian Affairs census of the Sebastopol Indians of Round Valley

Agency, California, included seventy-five individuals of Marshall,

Bodega, and Sebastopol descent, and demonstrates their congregation in the vicinity of the Graton Rancheria.

The United States government terminated the tribes’ status in

1966 under the California Rancheria Act of 1958 (Public Law 85–

671, as amended; 72 Stat. 619). The Bureau of Indian Affairs approved a plan to distribute the assets between three distributees

(now all deceased). This act in effect called the Coast Miwok extinct, ending their rights as a tribe. Today, the membership of the

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria comprises approximately

366 individuals. Many of thee people have maintained their identities as California Indians from birth as shown by their having roll

numbers on the 1933 Census Roll of the Indians of California, the

1955 California Combined Roll, and the 1972 California Indian

Judgment Rolls. Members born after the last roll numbers were

issued in 1969, have provided birth certificates and/or baptismal

certificates connecting them with roll number bearers and have

been included on the Graton tribal roll.

The Federated Coast Miwok and Federated Indians of Graton

Rancheria, is recognized socially and politically as an Indian group

by outside Indian and non-Indian groups, scholars, organizations,

and federal, state, and local agencies/governments. The Federated

Indians of Graton Rancheria have endured through time as a distinctive tribal group. Restoring Federal recognition will provide the

tribe with much needed health, education, and housing benefits.

The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Gover, testified

on behalf of the Administration at the hearing on May 16, 2000 in

favor of passage of H.R. 946. In part Secretary Gover stated, ‘‘I am

pleased to report that after careful review of the information submitted by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria (the successor name), the documentation shows that the group is significantly tied with the terminated tribe known as the Graton

Rancheria. Therefore, we support their restoration of tribal status.’’

Mr. Gover did, however, recommend the deletion of Section 5(d) of

the bill stating, ‘‘We see no reason to single this Tribe out for gaming restrictions.’’

Section 5(d) of H.R. 946 provides that real property taken into

trust for the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to the bill shall not have

been taken into trust for gaming purposes pursuant to section 20(b)

of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This language places restrictions on gaming activities on certain lands taken into trust. It is

included due to the particular circumstances of this situation and

at the request of the Tribe. We do not intend this language to serve

as a precedent to be used in future restoration acts.

GEORGE MILLER.

Æ