U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87-772 PS 2003

H.R. 884, ‘‘WESTERN SHOSHONE 

CLAIMS DISTRIBUTION ACT;’’ 

AND H.R. 1409, ‘‘EASTERN 

BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS 

LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 

2003.’’

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Serial No. 108-27

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

VACANCY 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on June 18, 2003 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate to Congress from the Virgin 

Islands, Prepared statement on H.R. 1409 ................................................ 28 

Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nevada, Prepared statement of ................................................................... 25

‘‘People’s Petition’’ submitted for the record ........................................... 93

Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 884 ............................................................. 5

Prepared statement on H.R. 1409 ........................................................... 6

‘‘The Truth about NPCA’s Testimony’’ from the Eastern Band of 

Cherokee submitted for the record ....................................................... 64

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement on H.R. 884 and H.R. 1409 ................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Barger, Don, Senior Director, Southern Regional Office, National Parks 

Conservation Association ............................................................................. 53

Prepared statement on H.R. 1409 ........................................................... 55

Blankenship, Cory Matthew, Enrolled Member, Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians .......................................................................................... 47

Prepared statement on H.R. 1409 ........................................................... 49

Ike, Felix, Chairman, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of 

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 75

Prepared statement on H.R. 884 ............................................................. 77

Jones, Leon D., Principal Chief, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians .......... 38

Prepared statement on H.R. 1409 ........................................................... 40

Olsen, Michael D., Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Oral statement on H.R. 884 ... 10

Oral statement on H.R. 1409 ................................................................... 7

Prepared statement on H.R. 884 ............................................................. 12

Prepared statement on H.R. 1409 ........................................................... 9

Piffero, Laura L., Lead Co-Chairman, Western Shoshone Claims 

Distribution Steering Committee ................................................................ 79

Prepared statement on H.R. 884 ............................................................. 82

Resolution, memorandum and letter submitted for the record ............. 86

Yowell, Raymond D., Chief, Western Shoshone National Council ............... 88

Prepared statement on H.R. 884 ............................................................. 91

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 884, TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF 

THE FUNDS AWARDED TO THE WESTERN 

SHOSHONE IDENTIFIABLE GROUP UNDER 

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBERS 326-A-1, 326-A-3, AND 326-K, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘WESTERN SHOSHONE 

CLAIMS DISTRIBUTION ACT;’’ AND H.R. 1409, 

TO PROVIDE FOR A FEDERAL LAND 

EXCHANGE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL, 

EDUCATIONAL, AND CULTURAL BENEFIT OF 

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THE EASTERN 

BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘eastern band of cherokee 

indians land exchange act of 2003.’’

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard W. Pombo 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Pombo, Duncan, Jones, Gibbons, 

Hayworth, Kildee, Faleomavaega, Pallone, Christensen, Inslee, 

Napolitano, Tom Udall, Bordallo, and Baca. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. 

The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 1409, 

a bill to provide for Federal land exchange for the environmental, 

educational, and cultural benefit of the American public and the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and H.R. 884, to provide for 

the use and distribution of the funds awarded to the Western 

2

Shoshone identifiable group under the Indian Claims Commission 

Docket Numbers 326-A-1, 326-A-3, and 326-K. 

Under Rule 4G of the Committee rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other 

members have statements, they can be included in the hearing 

record under unanimous consent. 

Today’s hearing concerns two bills affecting two groups of Native 

Americans. They are H.R. 1409, sponsored by Congressman 

Charles Taylor of North Carolina, and H.R. 884 by the Vice 

Chairman of the Committee, Jim Gibbons of Nevada. 

H.R. 1409 provides a land exchange between the National Park 

Service and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians whose reservation is located in western North Carolina. The purpose of the land 

swap is to facilitate the construction of a new school badly needed 

by the Cherokee people. Under the legislation, the Eastern Band 

would give the American public high-value, pristine land along the 

Blue Ridge Parkway in exchange for lower-value land called the 

Ravensford tract, which is adjacent to the Cherokee Reservation 

called the Qualla Boundary. The Ravensford tract would be held in 

trust and added to the reservation. The amount of land the Eastern 

Band acquires is only 143 acres, but it has attractive features making it ideal for locating a new school. The witnesses from the 

Eastern Band will explain the need for a new school and why this 

tract is a logical site for it. 

It should also be noted that the Ravensford tract was supposed 

to be conveyed to the Eastern Band in the 1940’s as part of a deal 

which enabled the construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway through 

their reservation. This tract is part of the ancestral homeland of 

the Cherokee people, but the Congress, for no known reason, decided to delete this part of the deal after it was agreed to. That was 

wrong, and I am puzzled why anyone today would reject the moral 

right of the Cherokee to reacquire their ancestral land through an 

exchange which adds more value to the National Park System. 

Under this bill, the Park Service will add 218 acres of pristine 

land to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Many of the nearby lands are 

being developed. Adding this parcel to the parkway would preserve 

a pristine view from an overlook on the road. I think Congressman 

Taylor has written an outstanding bill that will benefit the American public which uses the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Eastern 

Band of Cherokees who need a new school for future leaders of the 

Indian country, North Carolina, and the United States of America. 

The CHAIRMAN. The second bill which is the subject of this hearing is H.R. 884, sponsored by the gentleman from Nevada and the 

Vice Chairman of the Committee. This bill provides for the distribution of more than $140 million to the Western Shoshone 

people. This is money which was awarded to the Indian Claims 

Commission over two decades ago to Western Shoshone people who 

sought compensation for a taking of their aboriginal lands in 

Nevada, California, Idaho, and Utah. The bulk of this money, $142 

million, would be distributed on a per capita share basis to the 

Western Shoshone of at least one-quarter degree blood. About $1.3 

million would be placed in an educational trust fund for the benefit 

3

of the Shoshone people. The judgment fund has been sitting in a 

treasury account gathering interest for over 20 years because no 

plan for distributing it has ever been implemented. This simply 

provides for distribution of the funds. Without this legislation, over 

$140 million will continue to be out of reach of the people to whom 

it rightfully belongs. While there are some people who continue to 

pursue the Shoshone land claim, it is not right to hold these funds 

hostage in the meantime. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Richard W. Pombo, Chairman,

Committee on Resources, on H.R. 1409 and H.R. 884

The Committee will receive testimony on two bills affecting Native Americans. 

They are H.R. 1409, sponsored by Congressman Charles Taylor of North Carolina, 

and H.R. 884, by the Vice–Chairman of the Committee, Jim Gibbons of Nevada. 

H.R. 1409 provides a land exchange between the National Park Service and the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, whose reservation is located in western North 

Carolina. The purpose of the land swap is to facilitate the construction of a new 

school badly needed by the Cherokee people. 

Under the legislation, the Eastern Band would give the American public highvalue, pristine land along the Blue Ridge Parkway in exchange for lower-value land 

called the ‘‘Ravensford Tract,’’ which is adjacent to the Cherokee Reservation, called 

the Qualla Boundary. The Ravensford Tract would be held in trust and added to 

the Reservation. 

The amount of land the Eastern Band acquires is only 143 acres, but it has attractive features making it ideal for locating a new school. The witnesses from the 

Eastern Band will explain the need for a new school and why this tract is the logical 

site for it. 

It should also be noted that the Ravensford Tract was supposed to be conveyed 

to the Eastern Band in the 1940’s as part of a deal which enabled the construction 

of the Blue Ridge Parkway through their Reservation. 

This tract is part of the ancestral homeland of the Cherokee people. But the Congress, for no known reason, decided to delete this part of the deal after it was 

agreed to. This was wrong, and I’m puzzled why anyone today would reject the 

moral right of the Cherokee to re-acquire their ancestral lands through an exchange 

which adds more value to the National Park System. 

Under this bill, the Park Service will add 218 acres of pristine land to the Blue 

Ridge Parkway. Many of the nearby lands are being developed. Adding this parcel 

to the Parkway would preserve a pristine view from an overlook on the road. 

I think Congressman Taylor has written an outstanding bill that will benefit the 

American public which uses the Blue Ridge Parkway ... and the Eastern Band of 

Cherokees who need a new school for future leaders of Indian Country, North Carolina, and the United States of America. 

The second bill which is the subject of this hearing is H.R. 884, sponsored by the 

gentleman from Nevada and Vice Chairman of the Committee. 

This bill provides for the distribution of more than $140 million to the Western 

Shoshone people. This is money that was awarded by the Indian Claims Commission over two decades ago to Western Shoshone people who sought compensation for 

a taking of their aboriginal lands in Nevada, California, Idaho and Utah. 

The bulk of this money—$142 million—would be distributed on a per capita share 

basis to Western Shoshone of at least 1/4 degree blood. About $1.3 million would 

be placed in an education trust fund for the benefit of the Shoshone people. 

This judgment fund has been sitting in a Treasury account gathering interest for 

over 20 years because no plan for distributing it has ever been implemented. This 

bill simply provides for a distribution of the funds. 

Without this legislation, over $140 million will continue to be out of reach of the 

people to whom it rightfully belongs. While there are some people who continue to 

pursue the Shoshone land claim, it isn’t right to hold these funds hostage in the 

meantime. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to now recognize the Ranking 

Minority Member, Mr. Kildee, for any statement he may make. 

4

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MICHIGAN 

Mr. KILDEE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1409 and 

H.R. 884. 

H.R. 1409 is a land exchange bill which will allow the Eastern 

Band of Cherokee to build new schools for their children. I also 

want to welcome my friend, Chief Leon Jones, Principal Chief of 

the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, who is here to testify on behalf of this legislation. 

One of the central promises the U.S. Government made to the 

Indian Nations in their treaties was the promise of education for 

their people. Time and time again, our Government has failed to 

live up to that promise. 

Mr. Chairman, I have visited several of the tribal schools in my 

26 years here in Congress, and I can honestly say that when the 

Federal Government has run those schools, they have not always 

done a very good job. I have visited schools that a Federal judge 

would not let us keep prisoners in. As a matter of fact, we had to 

destroy a jail in Flint, Michigan, because the Federal judge said it 

was unfit for human habitation, and that jail was in better shape 

than some of the Indian schools I have visited. 

So the Federal Government has not done a good job. This nation, 

the Cherokee Nation, wants to build schools for their children, and 

I think we should work with them. 

It is unacceptable that we do not encourage them by legislation 

to do that which they choose to do under their sovereignty. In my 

years of elective office, I have enjoyed the support of the environmental community for my commitment to protecting our Nation’s 

precious resources. That is something of which I am very proud. In 

fact, I wrote the law establishing one of the largest Federal wilderness areas east of the Mississippi River. I have also drafted laws 

protecting some of our Nation’s most threatened wild and scenic 

rivers. I have set aside a thousand miles of rivers in Michigan as 

wild and scenic rivers. And I know that some of my environmental 

friends oppose this legislation and feel that no land should ever be 

exchanged from the National Park Service. But in this instance, I 

must disagree. We have made commitments to this tribe, this sovereign nation, and we should keep that commitment. 

One fact remains indisputable in this case. Before there was a 

park on the Ravensford tract, that land belonged to the sovereign 

Cherokee Nation, and thousands of Cherokee people were forcibly 

removed from this land during the infamous Trail of Tears, which, 

in my view, is one of the most shameful acts in our country’s history. 

Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation because I believe it will 

give back to the tribe what was traditionally theirs and unite their 

reservation which has significant cultural and historic meaning to 

the Cherokee people. I have seen pictures of this land, and I am 

convinced that the land exchange will not endanger the integrity 

of this park. As a matter of fact, I think the park will be enhanced 

by this exchange. 

5

I understand that the tribe has agreed to exchange some other 

valuable property that was identified by the National Park Service, 

and this is a very reasonable approach. And when we find this type 

of reasonable approach, I think Congress should give its imprimatur to that. 

Mr. Chairman, I also would like to speak on H.R. 884, a bill 

which would provide for the use and distribution of funds awarded 

the Western Shoshone Indians under a 1979 ruling by the Indian 

Claims Commission. The award, which today includes over $130 

million, is compensation for what is called an encroachment by the 

United States onto Western Shoshone ancestral lands. Considering 

the riches in much of the land, I do not think anyone could characterize this as a good deal for the Western Shoshone. But it was 

what was litigated and determined to be legal. Disputes and disagreement among the Western Shoshone and between the bands in 

the United States has kept the monies from being distributed. Congress has also clearly played a part in holding up the distribution 

of these judgment awards. 

I have served on this Committee now for over two decades, and 

during this time several proposals have been submitted providing 

for distribution of these funds. We have seen everything from a 

total straight per capita payment to several funds being set up for 

specific purposes, to proposals with overly generous attorneys’ fees 

attached. Each proposal came with a promise of wide support 

throughout the Western Shoshone. And each proposal failed to be 

enacted because ultimately not enough members were comfortable 

with the provisions and the support behind them. 

Many Western Shoshone Indians want these awards distributed 

and are frustrated with the delay. They want to receive the funds 

so they can pay a few bills and move onto their lives. However, for 

many other Western Shoshone Indians, no monetary compensation 

can satisfy their hope for the return of some of the Western 

Shoshone ancestral lands. 

Many on this side of the issue believe that accepting the awards 

money would be supporting the Federal actions that took their 

land. Today, we are again faced with a proposal to distribute judgment award funds to the Western Shoshone Indians. I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses and learning more about the activities which have brought us up to this point. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this bill up for 

a hearing at this time. Because of the long and somewhat tumultuous history, I believe we must move carefully and deliberately on 

this bill. Bringing the bill up during the first session gives us time 

to study the issue and fully understand its ramifications. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Kildee follow:]

Statement of The Honorable Dale Kildee, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 884

MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING TODAY ON 

H.R. 884, A BILL WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS AWARDED TO THE WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS UNDER 

A 1979 RULING BY THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION. THE AWARD, WHICH 

TODAY INCLUDES OVER $130 MILLION, IS COMPENSATION FOR WHAT IS 

CALLED AN ‘‘ENCROACHMENT’’ BY THE UNITED STATES ONTO WESTERN 

SHOSHONE ANCESTRAL LANDS. 

6

CONSIDERING THE RICHES IN MUCH OF THE LAND, I DON’T THINK ANYONE WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS AS A GOOD DEAL FOR THE WESTERN 

SHOSHONE BUT IT IS WHAT WAS LITIGATED AND DETERMINED TO BE 

LEGAL. 

DISPUTES AND DISAGREEMENTS AMONG THE WESTERN SHOSHONE 

AND BETWEEN THE BANDS AND THE UNITED STATES HAS KEPT THE 

MONIES FROM BEING DISTRIBUTED. CONGRESS HAS ALSO CLEARLY 

PLAYED A PART IN HOLDING UP THE DISTRIBUTION OF THESE JUDGMENT AWARDS. 

I’VE SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR OVER TWO DECADES AND DURING THIS TIME SEVERAL PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED PROVIDING 

FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THESE FUNDS. WE’VE SEEN EVERYTHING FROM A 

TOTAL STRAIGHT PER CAPITA PAYMENT, TO SEVERAL FUNDS BEING SET 

UP FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, TO PROPOSALS WITH OVERLY GENEROUS 

ATTORNEY’S FEES ATTACHED. EACH PROPOSAL CAME WITH THE PROMISE OF WIDE SUPPORT THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN SHOSHONE. 

YET EACH PROPOSAL FAILED TO BE ENACTED BECAUSE ULTIMATELY 

NOT ENOUGH MEMBERS WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROVISIONS 

AND THE SUPPORT BEHIND THEM. 

MANY WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS WANT THESE AWARDS DISTRIBUTED AND ARE FRUSTRATED WITH THE DELAY. THEY WANT TO RECEIVE 

THE FUNDS SO THEY CAN PAY A FEW BILLS AND MOVE ON WITH THEIR 

LIVES. 

HOWEVER, FOR MANY OTHER WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS, NO MONETARY COMPENSATION CAN SATISFY THEIR HOPE FOR THE RETURN OF 

SOME OF THE WESTERN SHOSHONE ANCESTRAL LANDS. MANY ON THIS 

SIDE OF THE ISSUE BELIEVE THAT ACCEPTING THE AWARD MONIES 

WOULD BE SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL ACTIONS THAT TOOK THEIR 

LAND. 

TODAY WE ARE AGAIN FACED WITH A PROPOSAL TO DISTRIBUTE JUDGMENT AWARD FUNDS TO THE WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS. I LOOK 

FORWARD TO HEARING FROM OUR WITNESSES AND LEARNING MORE 

ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE BROUGHT U.S. TO THIS POINT. 

I WANT TO THANK CHAIRMAN POMBO FOR BRINGING THIS BILL UP FOR 

A HEARING AT THIS TIME. 

BECAUSE OF THE LONG AND SOMEWHAT TUMULTUOUS HISTORY, I BELIEVE WE MUST MOVE CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATIVELY ON THIS LEGISLATION. BRINGING THE BILL UP DURING THE FIRST SESSION GIVES 

U.S. TIME TO STUDY THE ISSUE AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS RAMIFICATIONS. 

THANK YOU. 

Statement of The Honorable Dale E. Kildee, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 1409

MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING 

TODAY ON H.R. 1409, A LAND EXCHANGE BILL WHICH WILL ALLOW THE 

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE TO BUILD NEW SCHOOLS FOR THEIR CHILDREN. I ALSO WANT TO WELCOME MY FRIEND, CHIEF LEON JONES, PRINCIPAL CHIEF OF THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS, WHO IS 

HERE TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THIS LEGISLATION. 

ONE OF THE CENTRAL PROMISES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT MADE TO THE 

INDIAN NATIONS IN THEIR TREATIES WAS THE PROMISE OF EDUCATION 

FOR THEIR PEOPLE. TIME AND TIME AGAIN, OUR GOVERNMENT HAS 

FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THAT PROMISE. 

MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE VISITED SEVERAL OF THE TRIBAL SCHOOLS IN 

MY 26 YEARS IN CONGRESS, AND I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT SO MANY OF 

THESE SCHOOLS WERE IN SUCH DISREPAIR THAT A JUDGE WOULDN’T 

ALLOW CRIMINALS TO STAY IN THEM. 

THIS IS THE KIND OF ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH MANY OF OUR INDIAN 

CHILDREN HAVE BEEN FORCED TO LEARN. 

THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. THROUGH THIS LEGISLATION WE CAN HELP 

THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE MOVE FORWARD WITH ITS COMMITMENT TO EDUCATE ITS CHILDREN. 

IN MY YEARS OF ELECTED OFFICE, I HAVE ENJOYED THE SUPPORT OF 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY FOR MY COMMITMENT TO PROVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
7

TECTING OUR NATION’S PRECIOUS RESOURCES. THAT IS SOMETHING FOR 

WHICH I AM VERY PROUD. 

IN FACT, I WROTE THE LAW ESTABLISHING ONE OF THE LARGEST FEDERAL WILDERNESS AREAS EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. 

I HAVE ALSO DRAFTED LAWS PROTECTING SOME OF OUR NATION’S 

MOST THREATENED WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS. MY COMMITMENT OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT IS SECOND TO NONE. 

I KNOW THAT SOME OF MY ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDS OPPOSE THIS 

LEGISLATION AND FEEL THAT NO LAND SHOULD EVER BE EXCHANGED 

FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, I MUST DISAGREE. 

ONE FACT REMAINS INDISPUTABLE IN THIS CASE. BEFORE THERE WAS 

A PARK ON THE RAVENSFORD TRACT, THAT LAND BELONGED TO THE 

SOVEREIGN CHEROKEE NATION. AND THOUSANDS OF CHEROKEE PEOPLE 

WERE FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM THIS LAND DURING THE INFAMOUS 

TRAIL OF TEARS, WHICH IN MY VIEW, IS ONE OF THE MOST SHAMEFUL 

ACTS IN OUR COUNTRY’S HISTORY. 

MR. CHAIRMAN, I SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT 

WILL GIVE BACK TO THE TRIBE WHAT WAS TRADITIONALLY THEIRS AND 

UNITE THEIR RESERVATION WHICH HAS SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL AND 

HISTORIC MEANING TO THE CHEROKEE PEOPLE. 

I HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THIS LAND AND I AM CONVINCED THAT 

THIS LAND EXCHANGE WILL NOT ENDANGER THE INTEGRITY OF THIS 

PARK. 

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TRIBE HAS AGREED TO EXCHANGE SOME 

OTHER VALUABLE PROPERTY THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE. THIS IS A REASONABLE APPROACH TO THIS ISSUE. 

I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE WITNESSES TODAY AND 

MOVING FORWARD ON THIS LEGISLATION. THANK YOU. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would now like to welcome our first panel. Panel one consists 

of Mr. Mike Olsen, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs of the Department of Interior. He is providing testimony on 

both bills today. 

Please come up. Before you sit down, you forgot. 

[Witness sworn.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show he answered in the 

affirmative. 

Michael, remember that under the Committee rules you must 

limit the oral testimony to 5 minutes, but the entire written statement will appear in the record. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL OLSEN, COUNSELOR TO THE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON H.R. 1409 

Mr. OLSEN. OK. Thank you. If you can hear me OK? 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Mr. OLSEN. OK. I appreciate the opportunity to present the views 

of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1409. Is that OK that 

we start there? OK. My name is Mike Olsen. I am a Counselor to 

the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. It is nice to be back with 

the Committee, even if it on the other side of this table all by 

myself. 

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Reservation is located in 

western North Carolina and is home to 12,500 enrolled members. 

The reservation is adjacent to both the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway, which are both under 

the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. 

8

H.R. 1409 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exchange 

with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians approximately 143 

acres of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park for 218 acres 

of tribal land. Just to clarify, the 143-acre tract is referred to as 

the Ravensford tract; the 218 acres that the tribe would be giving 

up is referred to as the Yellow Face tract. The Ravensford tract 

would be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the 

tribe, and the Yellow Face tract would be added to the parkway. 

The Department has no objection to action by Congress on this 

legislation. We are, however, moving forward with an administrative process for evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed exchange and alternatives. 

In the report that accompanied the Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, the House Committee on Appropriations expressed support for a land exchange between the tribe and the Park Service so the tribe could obtain land 

suitable for a new school complex. The Committee urged the cooperation of the Park Service to ensure the exchange with the tribe 

takes place expeditiously. The Park Service held a series of initial 

scoping meetings in early 2002. The compilation of the public comments, evaluations, and appraisals are contained in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which was available for public review 

starting on June 13th and extending through August 15th. And 

the Department will update the Committee on the issues raised in 

this public review. 

The tribe has been seeking flat land on which to build a new 

school for over 20 years. The tribe plans to use a portion of the 

Ravensford tract for the construction of an educational campus. 

The bill’s findings point out that over 40 years ago, the Department 

of the Interior built the existing Cherokee Elementary School 

which has a capacity of 480 students. The school now hosts 794 

students in dilapidated buildings and mobile classrooms at a dangerous highway intersection in downtown Cherokee, North Carolina. 

Under the legislation, the Park Service and the tribe would enter 

into consultations to develop mutually agreed upon standards for 

size, impact, and design of the educational facilities in order to 

minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts on natural or cultural 

resources. The Park Service would also be authorized to enter into 

cooperative agreements to provide training, management, and protection of the natural and cultural resources on the tract. The development of the tract would be restricted to a road and utility corridor, and an educational campus and support infrastructure. 

The legislation simply authorizes a land exchange for a site for 

a school. The tribe will still have to go through the process necessary for using BIA funds under the school cost share demonstration project or replacement priority. In addition, while the Park 

Service will mutually agree on the standards for size, impact, and 

design, the tribe will still have to follow BIA requirements with regard to design and planning. 

The Ravensford tract is rich in biodiversity and in historical artifacts and Cherokee history. The tribe’s Historic Preservation Office, 

in consultation with the Park Service, the State Historic Preservation Office, and an independent expert review panel, has developed 

9

a cultural resource mitigation plan to ensure the preservation of 

these properties. 

Finally, the land exchange contemplated in H.R. 1409 presents 

an extremely unique situation. The Department does not typically 

support land exchanges that establish restrictions, such as those 

contained in Section 4 of the legislation, on tribal trust land. We 

understand, however, that there was mutual agreement between 

the tribe and the bill’s sponsor to include these provisions in the 

bill in order to ensure the least amount of impact on the adjoining 

park property. 

This concludes my testimony, and I would certainly be happy to 

answer questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olsen follows:]

Statement of Michael D. Olsen, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1409

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1409, a bill to provide for a Federal land exchange for 

the environmental, educational, and cultural benefit of the American public and the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. 

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Reservation is located in western North 

Carolina and is home to 12,500 enrolled members. The Reservation is adjacent to 

both the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Park) and Blue Ridge Parkway 

(Parkway), which are under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS). 

Congress established the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on June 15, 1934. 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt officially dedicated the Park on September 2, 

1940. 

H.R. 1409 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to exchange approximately 

143 acres of the Park and Parkway, known as the Ravensford tract, to the Eastern 

Band of Cherokee Indians (Tribe) for approximately 218 acres of land, known as the 

Yellow Face tract, to the NPS. The Ravensford tract would be held in trust by the 

United States for the benefit of the Tribe and the Yellow Face tract would be added 

to the Parkway. 

We have no objection to action by Congress in this matter. On the administrative 

front, we are moving forward with a process for evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed exchange and alternatives. House Report 106–646, which accompanied the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 

of 2001 (P.L. 106–291), the House Committee on Appropriations expressed its support of the Tribe’s efforts to enter into a land exchange with the NPS for purposes 

of obtaining land suitable for building a new school complex. The Committee urged 

‘‘the cooperation of the NPS to ensure the exchange with the Tribe takes place expeditiously.’’ In response, in January 2000 the NPS committed to begin this process 

and on June 14, 2000, a general agreement was executed between the NPS and the 

Tribe to identify the resource evaluations and appraisals required to be carried out 

by law. The NPS held initial scoping meetings in Knoxville (TN), Asheville (NC), 

and Cherokee (NC) in early 2002. The compilation of the public comments, evaluations and appraisals are contained in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

which is available for public review from June 13th through August 15th. The Department will update the Committee on the issues raised in this public review. 

The Tribe plans to use a portion of the Ravensford tract for the construction of 

an educational campus, which would replace existing schools that were constructed 

40 years ago. The Tribe has been seeking flat land on which to build a new school 

for over 20 years. The bill’s findings point out that the current Cherokee Elementary 

School was built by the Department of the Interior over 40 years ago with a capacity 

of 480 students, but now hosts 794 students in dilapidated buildings and mobile 

classrooms at a dangerous highway intersection in downtown Cherokee, North Carolina. 

Under the legislation, the NPS and Tribe would enter into consultations to review 

the planned construction allowing the NPS and Tribe to develop mutually agreed 

upon standards for size, impact, and design of construction of the educational facilities in order to minimize or mitigate any adverse impacts on natural or cultural resources. The NPS would also be authorized to enter into cooperative agreements to 

provide training, management, protection, preservation, and interpretation of the 

natural and cultural resources on the tract. The development of the tract would be 

10

restricted to road and utility corridor, and an educational campus and support infrastructure. No new structures would be constructed on the portion of the tract north 

of the point where the Big Cove Road crosses the Raven Fork River. 

The legislation simply authorizes a land exchange for a site for a school. The 

Tribe will still have to go through the process necessary for using BIA funds under 

the school cost share demonstration project or replacement priority. In addition, 

while the NPS will mutually agree on the standards for size, impact and design, 

the Tribe will still have to follow BIA requirements with regard to design and planning. 

During the 2002 National Tribal Historic Preservation Officers meeting, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was given a tour of the lands proposed in this exchange. 

The Ravensford Tract is rich in biodiversity and in historical artifacts and Cherokee 

history. There is evidence that this property has more intact archeological properties 

that are historically significant to the Cherokee than any place other than a place 

known as Katooah, which is considered the birthplace of the Cherokee. The Tribe’s 

Historic Preservation Office in consultation with the NPS, the State Historic Preservation Office, and an independent expert peer review panel has developed a cultural 

resource mitigation plan to ensure the preservation of these properties. 

The land exchange contemplated in H.R. 1409 presents an extremely unique situation. The Department does not typically support land exchanges that establish restrictions, such as the ones contained in section 4, on tribal trust land. We understand, however, there was mutual agreement between the tribe and the sponsor to 

include these provisions in the bill in order to ensure the least amount of impact 

on the adjoining park property. This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Olsen, you may as well do the testimony on 

both bills. 

Mr. OLSEN. OK. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we will open it up for questions at that 

point. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL OLSEN, COUNSELOR TO THE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON H.R. 884

Mr. OLSEN. Very good. H.R. 884, the Western Shoshone Claims 

Distribution Act. 

Taking a step back, the Western Shoshone judgment funds that 

are discussed, contemplated in this legislation originated with two 

claims filed in 1951 by the Te-Moak Bands of Western Shoshone 

in the Indian Claims Commission. One is an aboriginal land claim 

that was concluded in 1979 for $26.1 million. The other is an accounting claim that resulted in two awards. The first was for approximately $823,000, which Congress appropriated in 1992, and 

the second award was for $29,000, which was appropriated in 1995. 

Section 2 of H.R. 884 proposes to distribute the Western 

Shoshone land claim funds 100 percent per capita to approximately 

6,500 individuals who have at least one-quarter degree of Western 

Shoshone blood. The balance of this fund, including interest, as of 

June 11, 2003, is $142,472,644. 

Section 3 of the legislation proposes to use the principal portion 

of the Western Shoshone accounting claims funds for a non-expendable trust fund. The interest and investment income will be available for educational grants and other forms of educational assistance to individual Western Shoshone members that are enrolled 

under Section 2 of the legislation and to their lineal descendants. 

The principal fund totals $754,136. The interest fund, as of 

June 11, 2003, totals $632,582. 

11

Since 1980, numerous attempts have been made to reach agreement on the disposition of the Western Shoshone judgment funds. 

Moreover, a large segment of the Western Shoshone people have 

indicated that they support the judgment fund distribution. However, the tribal councils of the four successor Western Shoshone 

tribes, which are the Te-Moak, Ely, Duckwater, and Yomba, have 

mostly opposed the distribution of the judgment funds because they 

wanted Western Shoshone aboriginal lands returned. 

Now, although the tribal governments were unanimous in their 

opposition in the early 1990’s, since 1997 three of the four tribal 

councils have modified their position to support the distribution of 

the judgment funds. 

The Te-Moak Tribal Council enacted a resolution on March 6, 

1997, adopting a plan for the distribution of the funds and asked 

the Department of the Interior to support that plan. The next 

tribal council rescinded that resolution in the summer of 2000, but 

the current tribal council rescinded that action in January of 2002 

and reinstated the 1997 resolution supporting distribution. 

The Duckwater Shoshone Tribal Council enacted a resolution on 

March 18, 1998, supporting the Western Shoshone claims distribution proposal. On March 10, 1999, the council reaffirmed the earlier 

resolution supporting the distribution proposal, and within the last 

month of 2003, it enacted another resolution reconfirming its support of the proposal. 

The Ely Tribal Council enacted a resolution on October 9, 2001, 

supporting the bills of the 107th Congress dealing with this issue. 

It, too, has enacted another resolution reconfirming its previous 

support. 

We have been advised that the Yomba Tribal Council continues 

to oppose the distribution. However, Duck Valley, Fallon, and Fort 

McDermitt, three tribes with enrolled members that would be eligible to share in the distribution, in the judgment fund distribution 

under this legislation, have also enacted resolutions supporting the 

distribution. 

We testified during the 107th Congress before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that the Shoshone-Paiute Tribal Business 

Council of Duck Valley withdrew its support by resolution dated 

November 13, 2001. However, the Western Shoshones of Duck Valley continue to support the legislative language and have taken no 

action to rescind the resolutions. 

The Department supports the enactment of H.R. 884 because we 

believe that it reflects the wishes of the vast majority of the Western Shoshone people. We are also pleased that three of the four 

successor tribes have expressed their support of the distribution as 

well as two other tribes with a significant number of tribal members of Western Shoshone descent. 

We understand that many of the beneficiaries continue to believe 

in their rights under the Treaty of Ruby Valley. Subsection (2)(9) 

of the legislation acts as a savings clause for whatever rights remain in effect. 

This concludes my prepared statement. We are submitting a 

report to be included in the record that gives more of a detailed 

history of the Western Shoshone claims, and I will be happy to answer any of your questions. 

12

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olsen follows:]

Statement of Michael D. Olsen, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 884

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 884, a 

bill entitled ‘‘The Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act.’’

The distribution of the Western Shoshone judgment funds is a long-standing issue 

that needs to be settled. The judgment funds stem from two claims that were filed 

by the Te–Moak Bands of Western Shoshone in the Indian Claims Commission in 

1951. One is an aboriginal land claim that was concluded in 1979 in Docket 326–

K for $26.1 million. The other is an accounting claim. Several issues in the accounting claim were handled separately and resulted in two awards. The first award in 

the accounting claim was for approximately $823,000, and Congress appropriated 

funds to pay the claim in 1992. The second award was for $29,000, and funds were 

appropriated in 1995 to pay the claim. The accounting claims were in Dockets 326–

A–1 and 326–A–3. 

Since 1980, numerous attempts have been made to reach agreement on the disposition of the Western Shoshone judgment funds. The most recent attempt began 

in March 1998, the Western Shoshone Steering Committee (WSSC), which is composed of individuals that are tribal members at various reservations in Nevada. 

With the approval of the Te–Moak Tribal Council, the WSSC has worked over the 

past four years investigating if the Western Shoshone people were in favor of a judgment fund distribution. 

Since 1980, when the BIA held its first Hearing of Record on the distribution of 

the land claims judgment funds, a large segment of the Western Shoshone people 

have indicated that they are in favor of the judgment fund distribution. In the 

meantime, it’s important to note that the tribal councils of the four successor Western Shoshone tribes (Te–Moak, Ely, Duckwater and Yomba) have mostly opposed 

the distribution of the judgment funds because they wanted the Western Shoshone 

aboriginal lands returned. Although the tribal governments were unanimous in 

their opposition in the early 1990’s, since 1997, three of the four tribal councils have 

modified their position to support the distribution of the judgment funds. 

The Te–Moak Tribal Council enacted Resolution No. 97–TM–10 on March 6, 1997, 

adopting a plan for the distribution of these funds and requested the Department 

to support it. That resolution was rescinded by the next tribal council in the summer of 2000, but the current tribal council rescinded that action in January of 2002 

and reinstated the 1997 resolution, supporting distribution. It too, has not been rescinded. The Duckwater Shoshone Tribal Council enacted Resolution No. 98–D–12 

on March 18, 1998, supporting the Western Shoshone claims distribution proposal. 

On March 10, 1999, they enacted Resolution No. 99–D–07 reaffirming the earlier 

resolution supporting the Western Shoshone Claims distribution proposal and within the last month of 2003, they enacted another resolution reconfirming their support of the proposal. The Ely Tribal Council enacted Resolution No. 2001–EST–44 

on October 9, 2001, supporting the bills of the 107th Congress. They, too, have enacted another resolution that reconfirms their previous support. We have been advised that the Yomba Tribal Council continues to oppose the distribution. Several 

other tribes with enrolled tribal members that would be eligible to share in the 

judgment fund distribution under H.R. 884 have also enacted resolutions supporting the distribution. Those tribes are Duck Valley, Fallon and Fort McDermitt. 

We testified during the 107th Congress before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that the Shoshone–Paiute Tribal Business Council of Duck Valley withdrew its 

support by Resolution No. 2002–SPR–012, dated November 13, 2001. However, the 

Western Shoshones of Duck Valley continue to support the legislative language and 

have taken no action to rescind the resolutions. 

We support the enactment of H.R. 884 because we believe that it reflects the 

wishes of the vast majority of the Western Shoshone people. We are also pleased 

that three of the four successor tribes have expressed their support of the distribution, as well as two other tribes with a significant number of tribal members of 

Western Shoshone descent. 

Section 2 of H.R. 884 proposes to distribute the Western Shoshone land claims 

funds that were awarded in Docket 326–K, one hundred percent (100%) per capita 

to approximately 6,500 individuals who have at least one-quarter (1/4) degree of 

Western Shoshone Blood. The current balance of this fund, including interest, as of 

June 11, 2003 is $142,472,644. This section appears to be in accord with the wishes 

of the Western Shoshone people. 

13

Section 3 proposes to use the principal portion of the Western Shoshone accounting claims funds awarded in Dockets 326–A–1 and 326–A–3 for a non-expendable 

Trust Fund. The interest and investment income will be available for educational 

grants and other forms of educational assistance to individual Western Shoshone 

members that are enrolled under Section 2 of this Act, and to their lineal descendants. The principal fund totals $754,136. The interest fund, as of June 11, 2003 totals $632,582. This section appears to be in accord with the wishes of the Western 

Shoshone people. 

We understand that many of the beneficiaries of this treaty continue to believe 

in their rights under the Treaty of Ruby Valley and this subsection acts as a savings 

clause for whatever rights remain in effect. We are concerned that some tribes or 

individuals may believe that Article 5 of the Treaty (land provisions) remains in effect. To be safe, the clause should read, ‘‘Receipt of a share of the funds under this 

subsection shall not alter any treaty rights, or the final decisions of the Federal 

Courts regarding those rights, pursuant to the ‘1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley,’ inclusive...’’

This concludes my prepared statement. We are submitting a report to be included 

into the record that gives a detailed history of the Western Shoshone claims. I will 

be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Western Shoshone Claims - Background Information 

In 1935, the Western Shoshone started pursuing their claims against the United 

States by seeking legislation (S. 2510 - 74th Congress, 1st Session) to grant jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to hear the Western Shoshone claims arising under the 

Treaty of October 1, 1863, 18 Stat. 689 (1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley). This bill, and 

several others that were introduced in Congress between 1935 and 1946, did not result in legislation. The last bill, S. 2278, was introduced on May 31, 1946. The primary reason Congress did not enact this legislation was because it deferred action 

on all special jurisdictional bills for individual tribes so that it could pass legislation 

to create an Indian Claims Commission (ICC) with the authority to consider the 

claims of all Indian tribes. The ICC was created under the Act of August 13, 1946, 

60 Stat. 1049. 

The Shoshone claims in Docket 326 were filed before the ICC on August 10, 1951. 

Docket 326 included multiple claims involving the Eastern Bands of Shoshone, the 

Northwestern Bands of Shoshone, the Western Shoshone, the Shoshone–Goship 

Bands, and the mixed Bands of Bannock and Shoshone Indians. The ICC closed 

Docket 326 in 1967 when it severed all of the claims into separate Dockets 

numbering from 326–A through 326–K. The Western Shoshone land claims were 

transferred to Docket 326–K and their accounting claims were transferred to Docket 

326–A. 40 Ind. Cl. Comm. 318, 453

On August 15, 1977, the ICC granted a final award of $26,145,189.89 in Docket 

326–K to the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group as represented by the Temoak 

Bands of Western Shoshone Indians, Nevada. See 219 Ct. Cl. 346 (1979) Crt. Denied 

444 U.S. 973 (1979) Litigation and other actions initiated by some Western 

Shoshone entities, including the Te–Moak Bands (aka Temoak) delayed until 

December 19, 1979, the appropriation of funds to satisfy the award. 

The ICC concluded that the Western Shoshone Identifiable Group aboriginally exclusively used and occupied a large tract of land located principally in Nevada with 

a small portion extending into California. The tract formed roughly a wedge from 

near the northeast corner of Nevada extending south, southwest, with the point of 

the wedge in California, including Death Valley. 

The ICC found that the Western Shoshone California lands were acquired by the 

United States by statute on March 3, 1853, and that Indian title to the Nevada 

lands was extinguished gradually by the United States which treated the tract as 

public lands. On February 11, 1966, the ICC approved a joint stipulation between 

the United States and the Western Shoshone plaintiff that established July 1, 1872, 

as the aggregate valuation date for the encroachment upon and taking of the 

Nevada lands. 

Prior to the agreement of the Nevada evaluation date the ICC had established 

that the Nevada tract consisted of 22,211,753 acres and the California tract consisted of 2,184,650 acres. On October 11, 1972, the ICC awarded in an Interlocutory 

Order $21,350,000 for the Nevada land, $200,000 for the California land, and 

$4,604,600 for the removal of minerals from the Nevada tract prior to the 1872 

taking date. The ICC deducted $9,410.11 as payment on the claim, but nothing for 

offsets, resulting in the 1977 award of $26,145,189.89. See 29 Ind. Cl. Comm. 5. 

14

Pertinent Aspects Concerning the Western Shoshone Land Claims 

Controversy surrounds any discussion concerning the Western Shoshone land 

claims and the distribution of the judgment funds awarded in Docket 326–K. The 

disputed issues include the size and location of the claimed land area, whether the 

1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley grants the Western Shoshone recognized title to the 

lands described in the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, and effect the distribution of the 

judgment funds will have on the remaining claims of the Western Shoshone and on 

individual Western Shoshone people. 

The issue concerning the size and location of the claimed land area first surfaced 

in 1935 when the Department of the Interior issued a report on S. 2510, dated 

June 12, 1935, and stated that the Duck Valley Indian Reservation was within the 

country described in the treaty and that the contention of the Indians to the contrary was not supported by Royce’s Indian Land Cessions (Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology). In a later report on S. 23 (Senate Report No. 79, dated March 5, 1943), the Department of the Interior acknowledged 

that its earlier statement concerning the Duck Valley Reservation was erroneous. 

The report further states that: 

In recent years, there has been discovered a map that was prepared by 

James Duane Doty, one of the Commissioners who negotiated the treaties 

with the Western and four other bands of Shoshone Indians in 1863. The 

map accompanied the treaties concluded by Commissioner Doty with these 

Indians and roughly depicted the boundaries of the lands claimed by them 

as described in the separate treaties. An examination of the map discloses 

that the Duck Valley Reservation is not within the country described in the 

treaty with the Western Shoshones, but, as contended by them for many 

years, is situated a considerable number of miles north of their country. 

Further support is given to the contention of the Indians by a map prepared 

by the General Land Office of this Department in May, 1939, showing the 

boundaries of the lands claimed by the various bands of Shoshone Indians 

in the treaties of 1863 and the acreage of such lands in each State. This 

map also shows that the Duck Valley Reservation is far north of the lands 

described in the Western Shoshone Treaty of 1863. The map shows in addition that the lands described in the Western Shoshone Treaty comprised 

approximately 15,811,000 acres situated entirely within the State of 

Nevada. 

This same issue is discussed in ICC Finding of Fact No. 73 (40 Ind. Cl. Comm. 

318, 400–403). The ICC found that: • The locations of the boundaries of the Western Shoshone country, described by 

metes and bounds in Article V of the Treaty of Ruby Valley, are not free from 

doubt. The decision in the valuation proceeding herein noted that the territorial 

claim of the Western Shoshones, as described in the Treaty of Ruby Valley and 

depicted by Royce, Indian Land Cessions in the United States, supra, was larger than the area of the claim in Docket 326–K (29 Ind. Cl. Comm. 5, 47, note 

5). The Western Shoshone lands are shown as Area 444 on Royce’s maps of 

Nevada, California, Utah, Oregon, and Idaho. Royce Area 444 extends far north 

into Idaho, northwest into Oregon, east into Utah, and covers more Nevada 

land than is included in the Docket 326–K claim. According to Royce’s maps and 

cession schedules, the Lemhi reserve, established by Executive Order of February 12, 1875 (for the Shoshoni, Bannocks, and Sheepeaters), the Carlin Farms 

reserve, established by Executive Order of May 10, 1877, and the Duck Valley 

reserve, established by Executive Order of April 16, 1877, were all located within the boundaries of the Western Shoshone country as described in the Treaty 

of Ruby Valley. • Leaders of the Western Shoshones who lived near the area of the Duck Valley 

Reservation suggested that the Duck Valley land be set aside for all Western 

Shoshones, but the Temoak bands, who lived in the Ruby Valley area south of 

Duck Valley objected because the reservation was not within their country. The 

Temoak bands believed that the treaty promised them a reservation in Ruby 

Valley. This disagreement is consistent with the observations of Powell and 

Ingalls who reported in 1873 that each local group wanted a separate reservation in its particular aboriginal area. 

• Royce relied on data and information of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 

General Land Office in preparing his material. (Royce, supra, p. 644.) 

• The Royce maps, in an official publication of the United States (as is the 18th 

Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology), show the Duck Valley 

Reservation as being within the lands described in Article V of the Treaty of 

Ruby Valley and within the aboriginal area of the Western Shoshones. These 

maps and the notes in the Land Cession Schedules . . . indicate that officers 

15

of the United States believed in 1877 when the reservation was established that 

it was within the Western Shoshone aboriginal area. However, plaintiff’s exhibit 

72 in the offsets proceeding includes a report accompanying a letter of July 11, 

1941, of the Department of the Interior to the Chairman of the Committee on 

Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives which states that according to 

maps available to the Department in 1941, the country of the Western 

Shoshones, as described in the Treaty of Ruby Valley, was much less extensive 

than that shown as Area 444 on the Royce maps, and that according to the then 

recently discovered maps, the Duck Valley Reservation was outside of the Western Shoshone aboriginal lands. In 1935, before the discovery of the maps referred to in the 1941 report, the Department of the Interior reported to Congress that the reservation was within the Western Shoshone aboriginal area. • In sum, from about 1869 through 1877, the United States assisted some Western Shoshones in maintaining small farms and one or more reservations within 

the aboriginal areas, and in 1877, set aside the Duck Valley Reservation for all 

Western Shoshones. Between 1877 and 1941, the Department of the Interior 

records indicated that the reservation was within the plaintiff’s aboriginal area, 

but since 1941 the matter has been open to doubt. 

We are mentioning this issue because we note that the map used by the Western 

Shoshone National Council to show the claimed area is different than the maps used 

by the United States and the ICC in Docket 326–K. The Western Shoshone aboriginal land area was established in 1962 by the ICC, and it is much larger than the 

land area described in the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. We have attached copies of 

the maps to this report. The first map is a portion of a larger map that was included 

with the Final Report of the Indian Claims Commission that was issued in 1978. 

The second map shows the boundaries of the Western Shoshone aboriginal land area 

and the 1863 Treaty area. 

The second issue concerns whether the Western Shoshone have recognized title 

to the lands described in the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. This issue was discussed 

by the United States Supreme Court in its decision in Northwestern Bands of 

Shoshone Indians v. The United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945). The decision specifically pertains to the claims of the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone under the 1863 

Box Elder Treaty, but it also discusses the five treaties entered into with the 

Shoshones, including the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty. The following are excerpts from 

the Supreme Court decision: On July 5, 1862, 12 Stat. 512, 529, Congress appropriated $20,000 for defraying the expenses of negotiating a treaty with the Shoshones. The appropriation followed a letter from the Secretary of the Interior to the chairman 

of the House Committee on Indian Affairs expressing the view that the 

lands owned by the Indians of Utah were largely unfit for cultivation and 

that it was ‘‘not probable that any considerable portion of them will be required for settlement for many years.’’ A special commission was promptly 

appointed and instructed that it was not expected that the proposed treaty 

would extinguish Indian title to the lands but only secure freedom from molestation for the routes of travel and ‘‘also a definite acknowledgment as 

well of the boundaries of the entire country they claim as of the limits within which they will confine themselves, which limits it is hardly necessary 

to state should be as remote from said routes as practicable.’’

As the distances made it impracticable to gather the Shoshone Nation into 

one council for treaty purposes, the commissioners made five treaties in an 

endeavor to clear up the difficulties in the Shoshone country. These are set 

out in full in the report below. 95 Ct. Cl. 642. Four will be found also in 

13 Stat. 663, 681, and 18 Stat. 685, 689. . . Northwestern Bands, 324 U.S. 

335, 341–342 (1935) 

Later in the opinion the Court stated: 

Without seeking any cession or relinquishment of claim from the Shoshone, 

except the Eastern Shoshone relinquishment of July 3, 1868, just referred 

to, the United States has treated the rest of the Shoshone territory as a 

part of the public domain. School lands were granted. . . National forests 

were freely created. . . The lands were opened to public settlement under 

the homestead laws. . . Thus we have administration of this territory by 

the United States proceeding as though no Indian land titles were involved.

The Court of Claims examined the evidence adduced before it and reached 

the conclusion as a finding of fact that the United States ‘‘did not intend 

that it [the treaty] should be a stipulation of recognition and acknowledgment of any exclusive use and occupancy right or title of the Indians, parties thereto . . . The treaty was intended to be, and was, a treaty of peace 

16

and amity with stipulated annuities for the purposes of accomplishing those 

objects and achieving that end.’’ . . . 324 U.S. 335, 346 (1945) 

In its conclusion, the Supreme Court held that: 

It seems to us clear that the circumstances leading up to and following the 

execution of the Box Elder Treaty that the parties did not intend to recognize or acknowledge by that treaty the Indian title to the lands in question. 

Whether the lands were in fact held by the Shoshones by Indian title from 

occupancy or otherwise or what rights flow to the Indians from such title 

is not involved. Since the rights if any the Shoshones have, did not arise 

under or grow out of the Box Elder treaty, no recovery may be had under 

the jurisdictional act. 324 U.S. 335, 354 (1945) 

The Supreme Court decision caused an uproar. Congressman Karl E. Mundt of 

South Dakota was critical of the decision and his comments were included in the 

Extension of Remarks portion of the Congressional Record. Congressman Mundt’s 

remarks, dated March 14, 1945, were included in the Appendix to the Congressional 

Record, 79th Congress, 1st Session, page A1185. Copies of Congressman Mundt’s remarks and the Supreme Court decision are attached. 

The controversy escalated in the 1970’s when the Bureau of Land Management 

filed suit against Mary and Carrie Dann for trespass violations on public domain 

lands. Given a choice, some of the Western Shoshone would prefer to acquire additional trust lands within their aboriginal land areas rather than accept compensation for the loss of those lands. 

In 1974 the United States filed a complaint against Mary and Carrie Dann alleging that they had trespassed on public lands by grazing their cattle there without 

a permit from the Bureau of Land Management. The government sought an injunction and damages. The Danns based their defense on the grounds that they were 

members of the Western Shoshone Tribe of Indians, and that the Western Shoshone 

held aboriginal title to the lands in question. 

Meanwhile, the Western Shoshone Legal Defense and Education Association (Association) filed a petition before the ICC requesting it to suspend further action in 

the proceedings in Docket 326–K until the United States District Court for the 

Nevada District had decided the trespass action brought by the United States in the 

case of United States v. Dann, Civil No. R–74–60, BRT, (D. Nev.). The Association 

also petitioned for leave to file an amended claim in Docket 326–K. The Association 

asserted that Indian title to the greater portion of the aboriginal lands of the Western Shoshone had not been extinguished. It also asserted that an award of damages 

in Docket 326–K would extinguish the Western Shoshone claim to lands. 

In the Dann case, the government argued that any title that the Western 

Shoshone ever had to the land in question had been extinguished, and that this fact 

had been conclusively established in proceedings brought before the ICC on behalf 

of the Western Shoshone. 

In 1975, the District Court accepted the government’s arguments in the Dann 

case and granted summary judgment against the Danns. 

On February 20, 1975, the ICC denied the petition to stay the proceeding and for 

leave to present an amended claim. In 1976 and 1977, the Te–Moak Bands of Western Shoshone filed several motions before the ICC to stay the proceedings in Docket 

326–K. The motions were denied by the ICC on August 15, 1977. The claims in 

Docket 326–K were transferred to the United States Claims Court (Claims Court) 

prior to the termination of the ICC on September 30, 1978. On December 6, 1979, 

the Claims Court certified the award of $26,145,189.89 and the funds were appropriated under 31 U.S.C. 1304. 

On March 11, 1980, the BIA issued its first results of research report in Docket 

326–K. The report described the difficulties in identifying the beneficiary. The Western Shoshone entities were described as being extremely scattered. The report found 

that ‘‘It is not possible to describe the Western Shoshone in terms of forming a tribe 

or a group of organized tribes, particularly in view of the Shoshone–Paiute combined 

organizations and the very real possibility that many Western Shoshone descendants (including those who strongly identify as Shoshone people) are not and never 

have been associated with any reservation entity.’’ On that basis, the report identified those Western Shoshone people, and their descendants, who derive from the 

census and other rolls of twelve identified Shoshone and Shoshone–Paiute entities, 

and other descendants who prove Western Shoshone ancestry on the basis of rolls 

and records to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior, to be the beneficiaries 

of the award in Docket 326–K. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) held a hearing of record on July 26, 1980, in 

Elko, Nevada. Approximately 425 people attended the meeting to hear about the 

proposed plan for the use and distribution of the funds awarded in the Docket 326–

K funds. Those in attendance were given the opportunity to testify at the hearing. 

17

A three-minute time limitation for testimony was established because a large number of those present wished to testify. The meeting was dominated by those opposed 

to the judgment fund plan. Many of those in favor of the plan felt intimidated and 

submitted written testimony with the request that it not be read publicly. At the 

conclusion of the meeting it appeared that the majority were opposed to the plan 

and wanted the funds invested until the Dann litigation was settled. Once the written comments were tallied it showed a different sentiment. The results of the written and oral comments were 75 against the fund distribution and 194 for the distribution of the funds with most asking for 100 percent per capita to individuals 

with at least 1/4 degree Western Shoshone Indian blood. 

The BIA issued an amended Results of Research Report on January 22, 1982, for 

Docket 326–K. The report was amended to bring it in line with the BIA’s ‘‘overall 

policy to designate successor tribes as beneficiaries of claims awards whenever possible in order that there might be maximum opportunity for those tribes that so 

wish to develop programming proposals for the use of judgment funds.’’ In that report, four tribes were designated as the tribal successors to the Western Shoshone 

entity of the period of 1853 to 1872. Those tribes are 1) Te–Moak, 2) Duckwater, 

3) Yomba, and 4) Ely. The remaining beneficiaries consist of all other persons of 

Western Shoshone ancestry, in their individual capacity who otherwise meet the criteria detailed in the March 11, 1980 Results of Research Report. 

On May 19, 1983, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Danns. 

The Ninth Circuit held that the lower court was correct in concluding that the Western Shoshone title was not extinguished as a matter of law by application or administration of the public land laws, but reversed the lower court’s holding that the 

Danns were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel from asserting aboriginal 

title as a defense to the claim of trespass. This ruling was reversed by the United 

States Supreme Court on February 20, 1985. The Supreme Court held that ‘‘To hold, 

as the court below has, that payment does not occur until after the final plan of 

distribution has been approved by Congress would frustrate the purpose of finality 

. . . while subjecting the United States to continued liability for claims and demands 

that ’touch’ the matter previously litigated and resolved by the Indian Claims Commission.’’

Since 1983 the Department of the Interior has been meeting with Western 

Shoshone organizations for the purpose of negotiating a legislative settlement to the 

land claims issue. In 1985, the Western Shoshone National Council received a grant 

from the Administration for Native Americans so that they could develop an inventory and historical analysis of the Western Shoshone aboriginal lands and other natural resources subject to the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. Meetings were held in 

1985 and 1986 with the Western Shoshone leadership for the purpose of developing 

a plan for the distribution of the judgment funds, and to identify lands that could 

be transferred to the Western Shoshone tribes to increase the reservation land base. 

Nothing was accomplished due to the dynamics of tribal politics and power struggles 

within the leadership. 

A legislative proposal was drafted by an attorney representing the organization 

called the ‘‘Western Shoshone Distribution Association.’’ The legislative proposal 

was used as the basis for H.R. 3384 that was introduced on September 28, 1989. 

This bill provided for the establishment of a Western Shoshone roll and the apportionment and distribution of the funds. A hearing was held on April 26, 1990, but 

no action was taken because the tribal governments, the Western Shoshone 

National Council, and the Administration opposed the bill. An attempt was made 

to revise the bill to address Interior’s concerns but the Chairman of the Committee 

on Interior and Insular Affairs advised the Department in September 1990 that the 

bill would not be scheduled for full Committee consideration because all of the tribal 

governments adamantly opposed the bill and wished to begin negotiations with BIA 

to develop a plan to distribute the funds. 

In November 1990, legislation was drafted regarding the use of rangeland resources in Nevada, but never introduced. In January 1991, the Duckwater Shoshone 

Tribe drafted proposed legislation concerning the Tribe’s asserted claim to the lands 

of the Western Shoshone nation. This proposal was never introduced. Another legislative proposal was drafted by the attorney for the Western Shoshone Distribution 

Association. It was used as the basis for H.R. 3897, which was introduced on 

November 22, 1991. Although a hearing was scheduled for April 30, 1992, it was 

never held and this caused the bill to die without action. 

On January 22, 1994, the Western Shoshone leaders met with the Secretary of 

the Interior in Denver, Colorado. As a result of that meeting, efforts were made to 

establish another Federal/Tribal negotiation team. Efforts were made to provide the 

members of the successor Tribes of the Western Shoshone with an inventory of public lands that were available for transfer to the tribes. The Bureau of Land ManageVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
18

1The Business Council of the Shoshone–Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation (Business Council) enacted Resolution No. 97–SPR–63 dated February 11, 1997. The resolution granted recognition to the organization of Western Shoshone descendants called the ‘‘Western 

Shoshone of Duck Valley Reservation’’ for the purpose of handling all matters relating to the 

Western Shoshone claims until negotiations are finalized. The Business Council withdrew its 

recognition of the Western Shoshone organization and rescinded Resolution No. 97–SPR–63 four 

years later by Resolution No. 2002–SPR–012 dated November 13, 2001. The second resolution 

was enacted six months after S. 958 was introduced in Congress. 2The Business Council of the Fallon Paiute–Shoshone Tribes enacted Resolution No. 97–F015, 

dated February 11, 1997, and amended it with Resolution No. 97–F–063, dated May 27, 1997. 

The resolution granted official recognition of the Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee to represent, negotiate, and make decisions on behalf of the Fallon Band of Western Shoshone in all 

matters relating to the claims issue. 

ment continues to meet with some of the tribal governments, but to date no tangible 

results have been achieved. 

Docket 326–A–1 and A–3

The claims in Docket 326–A–1 called for an accounting of two funds. The first was the $100,000 annuity to be paid to the Western Shoshone Indians under Article VII 

of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. In the Opinion of the ICC, dated April 29, 1970, 

23 Ind. Cl. Comm. 74, the ICC found that the Government had not paid $16,392.76 

of the Treaty funds to the Western Shoshone. The ICC also found that the Government improperly disbursed $9,930.74 of the Treaty funds. Those two amounts total 

$26,323.50, which could have potentially been awarded to the Western Shoshone. 

The subsequent ICC and Claims Court decisions never discussed the Treaty accounting claims again. It was inadvertently omitted from the award. 

The second fund was the Indian Monies Proceeds of Labor (IMPL) fund for the 

Western Shoshone Indians. The time-period of the accounting spanned from 1886 

to 1951. The plaintiff asked the government to allocate the funds in the IMPL account between the various Western Shoshone Reservations. The government said 

that it could not allocate the funds because the records did not have sufficient information to allow such an allocation. The reports do show that the bulk of the funds 

were collected from the Duck Valley Reservation between 1919 and the mid to late 

1930’s. 

On December 3, 1991, the United States Claims Court entered a final judgment of $823,752.64, in Docket 326–A–1, on behalf of the Te–Moak Bands of Western 

Shoshone Indians of Nevada, suing on behalf of the Western Shoshone Nation of Indians. On June 16, 1995, in Docket 326–A–3, the Court of Federal Claims awarded 

$29,396.60 in interest on the award previously entered in Docket 326–A–1. The 

funds to satisfy these awards were appropriated under 31 U.S.C. § 1304 on March 

23, 1992, and August 21, 1995, respectively. 

In 1992, the BIA issued a Results of Research Report that erroneously identified 

the Te–Moak Band of Western Shoshone as the sole beneficiary of the funds awarded in Dockets 326–A–1 and A–3. On April 29, 1997, the report was withdrawn. 

The BIA extended invitations to the Tribal leaders at Duck Valley 1, Duckwater, 

Ely, Yomba, Te–Moak, and the Death Valley Timbi–Sha Shoshone Band of California asking them to attend a meeting scheduled for May 22, 1997, at Elko, 

Nevada, to discuss the disposition of the funds. The Chairperson from Ely informed 

the BIA that she would not be able to attend. The attorney representing the Timbi–

Sha Shoshone informed us that they would not attend because they did not believe 

they had an interest in the judgment fund. No acknowledgment or response was received from the Chairman at Yomba. Representatives from Te–Moak, Duckwater 

and Duck Valley attended, as well as the Shoshone representatives from the Fallon 

Reservation 2. During the meeting we asked the tribal representatives to make recommendations on how the funds could be divided. They were advised that the record 

did not contain sufficient information for the government to allocate the funds between the reservations. The tribal representatives arrived at recommendations on 

how the funds could best be expended for the benefit of the Western Shoshone 

people by establishing a perpetual fund utilizing the interest to fund scholarship 

grants. This recommendation is contained in the legislative proposal. 

MEMBERS OF THE WESTERN SHOSHONE CLAIMS STEERING COMMITTEE, 

Te–Moak Tribe: 

1. WSSC Co–Chair Leta Jim, Vice–Chairperson, Te–Moak Tribal Council Member, and Elko Band Council Member 

2. WSSC Co–Chair Larry Piffero, Te–Moak Tribal Council Member, and Elko 

Band Council Member 

3. Wilbur Woods, Chairman, Elko Band Council 

19

4. Grace Begay, Wells Band Council Member 

5. Lydia Sam, Chairperson, Battle Mountain Band 

6. Larson Bill, Tribal Representative, South Fork Band Council 

Duckwater Tribe: 

7. Henry Blackeye, Jr., Chairman, Duckwater Tribal Council 

8. Tim Thompson, Vice–Chairman, Duckwater Tribal Council 

9. Henry Blackeye, Sr., Secretary, Duckwater Tribal Council 

10. Jerry Millett, Member, Duckwater Tribal Council 

11. Douglas George, Sr., Member, Duckwater Tribal Council 

Ely Area: None 

Yomba Area: 

12. Glen Hooper, Tribal Representative, Yomba Area 

Owyhee Area: 

13. Iliane Premo, Chairperson, Western Shoshone Council at the Duck Valley 

Reservation 

14. Mildred Scissions, Member, Western Shoshone Council at the Duck Valley 

Reservation 

15. David Jones, Member, Western Shoshone Council at the Duck Valley Reservation 

Fallon Area: 

16. Nancy Stewart, Co–Chairperson, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

17. Ermert Nihoa, Co–Chairman, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

18. Iola Byers, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

19. Betty Robison, Interpreter for the Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

20. Nevada Iverson, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

21. Kathy Bowen–Curley, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

22. Steven Amick, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

23. Francine Tohannie, Secretary for the Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

24. Ernest Hooper, Interpreter for the Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

25. Nila Shanley, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

26. Winford Graham, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

27. Wayne Ellison, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

28. Lynette Fisherman, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

29. Vana Roman, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

30. Cordelia Nordwall, Member, Fallon Shoshone Claims Committee 

31. Barbara Culbertson, Member, Fallon shoshone Claims Committee 

Fort Hall Area: 

32. Everett Jim, Tribal Representative, Fort Hall Western Shoshone 

Data Concerning the Western Shoshone Reservations and Tribal Enrollment 

• Treaty of Ruby Valley entered into on October 1, 1863, with the Western 

Shoshone Indians. 

• First Western Shoshone Reservation was established outside the aboriginal territory at Duck Valley by Executive Order dated April 16, 1877, for all Western 

Shoshone. Carlin Reserve Farm was established the same year, but it was later 

abolished. 

• In 1885 Paddy Cap’s Band of Paiute were sent to the Duck Valley Reservation. 

By Executive Order of May 4, 1886, approximately 69,000 acres were added to 

the Duck Valley Reservation for them and other such Indians as the Secretary 

of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon. 

• In 1917, a reservation was established at Battle Mountain for homeless 

Shoshone. 

• In 1918, 160 acres were reserved at Elko, Nevada for Shoshone and Paiute Indians living near Elko. 

• The Act of June 27, 1930, authorized the purchase of 10 acres at Ely for the 

Shoshone already living there. 

• The Act of June 18, 1934, authorized the purchase of lands for Yomba 

Shoshone. The Proclamation is dated October 27, 1938. 

• Proclamation dated February 8, 1941, proclaimed a total of 9,548.46 acres within Elko County, Nevada to be an Indian Reservation for the use and benefit of 

the Te–Moak Bands of Western Shoshone. 

• South Fork Indian Colony was established under the 1941 proclamation. 

• Wells Colony was established under the Act of October 15, 1977. 

20


87772.013
21

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. I just have a couple of 

questions for you. 

On H.R. 1409, I have not had the opportunity to visit the site 

yet, but in the pictures that I have seen, it appears that the land 

that the tribe is trying to obtain has electrical lines going across 

it. It has had some development over the years that has occurred 

on that site even though there is not a lot there right now other 

than electrical lines and such. And the land that they would exchange appears to be pristine lands that have some value in terms 

of protection and adding to the park site. 

Would it not make sense to you and the Department of Interior 

to have the pristine lands in the park and protected from development and to take the other lands that have had development and 

are crisscrossed with power lines, to use that as the school site? 

Mr. OLSEN. Well, I think that the Park Service as a result of the 

exchange would be, as you say, receiving land that is in much more 

pristine condition than the land that the tribe would be acquiring, 

the Ravensford tract. And, in fact, it is also home of two endangered species that would be coming under National Park Service 

protection. Whereas, as you have pointed out, the land that the 

tribe would be obtaining is not in that pristine condition. 

In addition, as was pointed out before, the tribe is giving up 218 

acres versus the 143 that it would be acquiring. So the tribe is able 

to accomplish what it is aiming for through the legislation, but the 

Park Service as well comes out not in terrible shape. 

The CHAIRMAN. Further, under the current rules that we operate 

under in terms of the relationship between Native Americans and 

the Federal Government, don’t we have a responsibility to try to 


87772.014
22

help improve the conditions on the reservations and provide better 

facilities for education on those reservations? 

Mr. OLSEN. Indeed we do. We have certainly a trust responsibility to the Eastern Band of Cherokee as we do to other tribes, 

and we certainly take that responsibility seriously. And, in fact, 

one of the goals of this administration is to improve the education 

and educational facilities that Indian students attend. In fact, 

President Bush has made it a priority to do that, and we feel very 

strongly about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I just wonder—and I know this may be—you 

may not be able to answer this question, but I wonder if we don’t 

do this, if we don’t make this exchange and provide this particular 

piece of property for them to build the school on, is the Park Service or someone else at Interior willing to step forward and provide 

a different piece of property that is suitable for them to build on? 

Mr. OLSEN. I am not certain that I can answer that. I don’t know 

that there is another suitable piece of property. I am accompanied 

by Randy Jones, who is the Deputy Director of the Park Service, 

who may be able to answer that question. My understand is that 

the tribe has gone to great lengths in the past to determine or to 

find or to come up with property that would be suitable for construction, ideally flat land, and has been unable to find any other 

property that would work. 

The CHAIRMAN. That fits with what I have been told. I have had 

the opportunity to talk to both the chairman of the tribe and the 

staff, and this is apparently an issue that has been kicking around 

for a number of years. And from what I have been able to gather, 

there has not been another site which has been identified that 

would be acceptable not only to the tribe but to anybody else. And 

I just think that at this point in time, we have an obligation to 

move forward with this, and I appreciate your testimony here today 

because I do think this is something that is extremely important, 

so thank you. 

At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mike, I have always enjoyed working with you in your other capacity and look forward to working with you in your new responsibilities. 

Mr. OLSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. KILDEE. This legislation, 1409, specifically bans gaming on 

these lands. Has the tribe talked to the BIA about using these 

lands for anything other than a school? 

Mr. OLSEN. Not that we are aware of. There has not been any 

discussion between the tribe and the Bureau regarding use other 

than for education. 

Mr. KILDEE. And that is my understanding, too. I have been talking to the tribe for quite some time. I just wanted to make sure 

that was part of the record. 

Would the BIA anticipate any problems taking this land into 

trust on behalf of the tribe? Would you anticipate any problems at 

all taking this land into trust? 

Mr. OLSEN. Pursuant to the legislation? 

Mr. KILDEE. Yes. 

23

Mr. OLSEN. No. We feel that it is in the best interest of the tribe 

for this to go through, and, no, I do not believe so. I don’t know 

if I am addressing your question, but this— 

Mr. KILDEE. Yes, you are. This legislation, you support this legislation and this legislation would clear the way for you to accept 

this. 

Mr. OLSEN. The Department does not objection to the legislation 

moving forward, and we feel that it is in the best interest of the 

tribe for the Congress to act on it. 

Mr. KILDEE. How would you describe just briefly the basic condition of schools in Indian country? 

Mr. OLSEN. Well, we certainly have an amount of work to do. There is approximately a $600 million backlog in replacement construction, and like I said before, it is a priority of this administration to correct those problems. It is a priority of President Bush to 

do that. 

We recognize that there is work to be done, and we are committed to doing that. 

Mr. KILDEE. And this certainly dates back to many administrations. I can recall—I have been in Congress now 27 years. About 

25 years ago, I began to travel to various schools, particularly in 

the Western part of the United States. After a while, I would get 

a call from a BIA principal saying, ‘‘Would you come and visit my 

school or just tell the BIA you are coming?’’ because a week ahead 

of time, they are, you know, fixing things up before we get there. 

So this condition certainly has gone through many administrations, 

and I think anything we can do to encourage construction of proper 

schools is a step in the right direction. I appreciate your position 

on that. 

Let me ask another question. Could you explain to the 

Committee the process in H.R. 884 used to name the four tribes 

as the successor tribes for these Shoshone lands? 

Mr. OLSEN. So that you know, I am accompanied also on this legislation as well by Daisy West, who is a Tribal Relations officer. 

And I am going to ask her to come up and answer that question 

for you. 

Mr. KILDEE. I will repeat the question. Could you explain the 

process used to name the four tribes as the successor tribes? 

Ms. WEST. Historical research was done by a historian back in 

the 1970’s to identify the tribal groups that were at the time of taking, which at the time of taking was in, I think, 1870-something, 

1872, I think. And then they traced the migration of those groups 

to where they are presently today. They identified that the majority of the Shoshone are with four present-day tribal governments: 

Te-Moak, Yomba, Ely, and Duckwater. And those tribal governments are composed primarily of Shoshone people, Western 

Shoshone people. 

They also identified other groups, which I think goes to around 

17 or so, that are mixed with Paiute and Shoshone. And the Western Shoshone that are with those groups would also be eligible to 

participate under this distribution. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you. I am always interested in both genealogical and geographical studies that are made here, and I appreciate your response. Thank you very much. 

24

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I would like 

to ask our witness, if you are going to answer any more questions, 

I am going to have to swear you in. But I would like you to state 

your name and your position for the record. 

Ms. WEST. My name is Daisy West, and I am Tribal Relations 

officer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Office of Tribal 

Services. 

The CHAIRMAN. There may be other questions for you, and the 

gentleman from the Park Service, if you could just come up, and 

both of you, I am just going to swear you in right now. That way 

if there are any questions for you, I do not have to stop. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show that both answered in the 

affirmative. Thank you. 

Mr. Gibbons? 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to welcome our guests here today as well on these two very important bills. I am fully in support of H.R. 1409 and its effects on the 

Cherokee Tribe. I also would like to ask a question to focus on Mr. 

Olsen with regard to 884. 

Mr. Olsen, what is the current status of the Indian Claims Commission? 

Mr. OLSEN. My understanding is the Indian Claims Commission 

no longer exists. In fact, in the legislation forming the Commission, 

there was a provision that said after a certain period of time, the 

Commission would go away. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you know the date that the Commission dissolved? 

Mr. OLSEN. I don’t know the exact date. 

September 1978, I am being told. 

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. 

Mr. OLSEN. But we can certainly check on that and make sure 

we get you the accurate answer. 

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. So any requirement of a defunct or dissolved 

commission to perform an act would be very difficult, at best, since 

the Commission no longer exists. Is that correct? 

Mr. OLSEN. Right. 

Mr. GIBBONS. One of the requirements under the finality of the 

Supreme Court decision was a report that was due from the Indian 

Claims Commission. If the Indian Claims Commission is no longer 

in existence and has not been in existence for some number of decades, it would be impossible for that report to Congress to be submitted. Is that correct? 

Mr. OLSEN. If the commission does not exist, it would be difficult 

for it to put together a report. 

Mr. GIBBONS. OK. Is there an alternative body within the Bureau of Indian Affairs or another similar organization that could 

substitute that report? 

Mr. OLSEN. I am not aware of one, no. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Olsen, the money that is in the account for the 

distribution to the Western Shoshone tribes has been there for a 

number of decades as well, since the late 1980’s when the Supreme 

Court ruled on a final decision on the distribution of the money for 

25

the claims that were made in that Supreme Court case. Is that correct? 

Mr. OLSEN. That is right. 

Mr. GIBBONS. That money has not yet been distributed to these 

tribal members, has it? 

Mr. OLSEN. That is correct. 

Mr. GIBBONS. And as it sits there today and, if this bill does not 

pass, will sit there tomorrow and day on and day on after that, 

without being distributed or used by these members as well. So 

this bill simply takes what the Supreme Court ordered back in 

1982 and actually divests the Bureau of Indian Affairs of that 

money and gives the money as it now stands to the tribes as a result of that Court decision. 

Mr. OLSEN. That is correct. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement on 

H.R. 884 which I would like to submit for the record on this as 

well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Nevada, on H.R. 884

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss the Western 

Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. 

H.R. 884 requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a judgement roll consisting of all Western Shoshones who have at least 1/4 degree of Western Shoshone 

blood, are citizens of the United States, and are living at the date of enactment of 

this legislation. 

The Secretary would then distribute and use the funds in two ways. 

First, the Secretary would distribute the $1.43 million from Docket 326–K to each 

person on the judgement roll through a per-capita share. 

Second, using the $1.4 million awarded under Docket Numbers 326–A–1 and 326–

A–3, the Secretary would establish the ‘‘Western Shoshone Educational Trust Fund’’ 

and an administrative committee to oversee the distribution of accumulated and future interest and income for educational grants. 

It is important for the members of this Committee to understand that my constituents-the Western Shoshone people- have expressed to me in an overwhelming 

majority, their desire to see these funds distributed. 

In fact, the Western Shoshone have voted not once, but TWICE on this issue-in 

both instances over 90% of the voters favored the distribution reflected in this legislation. 

The vast majority of the Western Shoshone people have formed a cohesive group 

which operates under a democratic process to express the will of the tribal members. 

Just last year, in 2002, 1,647 Western Shoshone members voted in favor of the 

distribution while only 156 voted against it. 

These numbers account for approximately 65% of the eligible Shoshone voters. 

It is overwhelmingly obvious that the tribe wants these funds distributed. 

It is very disturbing to me to see the will of this Tribe thwarted by a small minority who have a very loud voice. 

There is one point that the opposition makes in their testimony that I would like 

to respond to—that is that the Indians Claim Commission (ICC) has not filed a report to Congress. 

This report is one of two criteria required for final judgement of the Western 

Shoshone Claim. 

I would like to point out that the Indian Claims Commission no longer exists, 

therefore making it impossible for this report to be issued. 

It is also important for this Committee to understand that the U.S. Supreme 

Court ruled on this issue nearly 20 years ago. 

The Supreme Court ruling is so clear that it made the need for the ICC report 

obsolete. 

26

In the U.S. V. Dann case, the Supreme Court held that payment of the ICC award had occurred when the $26 million was placed in the Western Shoshones’ trust account, therefore giving the Western Shoshone Claim finality. 

It is important to note that H.R. 884 specifically ensures that the funds distribution is not a waiver of existing treaty rights, nor will it prevent the Tribe, Band 

or individual Shoshone Indians from pursuing other rights guaranteed by law. 

Lastly, H.R. 884 is a bipartisan effort in both the House and the Senate, and it 

is supported by the Nevada Delegation. 

The opposition has fought this issue in the courts all the way to the Supreme 

Court without success. 

They are now fighting it in the Legislative branch. 

The time is long overdue for the will of the majority of the Western Shoshone 

people to prevail! 

I urge each member of this Committee to support the Western Shoshone people 

in their endeavor to put this issue to rest once and for all. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Olsen, do you know, since you have related the 

historical process by which various different nations or tribes within the Indians have voted up or down on this agreement to accept 

this money, do you know what the vote was or what the support 

level is for the distribution of this money? 

Mr. OLSEN. I cannot give you exact numbers, but it is—based on 

what we know, it is a significant amount of—I mean, a vast majority of the Western Shoshone people are in support of the distribution. 

Mr. GIBBONS. In fact, it is about 90 percent of the population 

there that supports the distribution of this money? 

Mr. OLSEN. Yes, that is what I have been told. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So it would be a rather small number of individuals who are opposed to this on the presumption that if accepting 

this money precludes any further claim or settlement that may 

come from any claim they have for future land? 

Mr. OLSEN. Correct. 

Mr. GIBBONS. But the majority do accept and do wish to have 

this money distributed to them. 

Mr. OLSEN. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. 

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Christensen? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney Olsen, I think in response to the question of supporting 

the legislation, I just wanted to follow up on that. I think you said 

you did not have—the Department or the Bureau had no objection 

to the legislation? 

Mr. OLSEN. Yes. On H.R. 1409? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. 1409. 

Mr. OLSEN. Yes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But does the Department support—by passing the EIS or by doing legislation to accomplish this exchange, is 

that a policy of the Department to—for us to legislate while the 

process is going on? 

Mr. OLSEN. Would you answer that one? 

Mr. DURAND JONES. Well, of course, as the delegate knows, we 

do not control the timetable or the desires of this Committee or the 

Congress in how it proceeds. We, at the direction of our appropriations bill, prepared the Environmental Impact Statement. It was 

released to the public last week, and we are now in the public comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
27

ment period. There will be public hearings on the EIS process. And 

that is one of the reasons why at this point we do not take a more 

definitive stand on the legislation because we still are going 

through the NEPA process. But we have been in negotiations with 

the members of the tribe concerning the restrictive covenants that 

are in the legislation, which we think go a long way toward protecting the values that the park is interested in, and also in defining the acreage involved in that the acreage is a little over 20 acres 

less than their original request. And that is a result of ongoing discussions and negotiations. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I guess my main concern, I really am leaning 

toward supporting this bill, but my main concern is really setting 

a precedent or opening some doors that we might not want to open 

for the future by doing this piece of legislation. 

Mr. DURAND JONES. Looking back, I believe there are numerous 

examples of the Congress acting for the sake of making good public 

policy before we in the executive branch have completed all of our 

bureaucratic steps. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Do you believe that the Park Service has the 

authority to complete the exchange administratively without legislation? 

Mr. DURAND JONES. I think it is not totally clear. The legislation 

for Blue Ridge Parkway has flexible boundary authority in that 

once lands are acquired, the boundary can be automatically expanded. However, the lands to be added to Blue Ridge are clearly 

outside the existing boundary as it exists today. And, therefore, we 

think it is best that this be accomplished by legislation rather than 

trying to look at it administratively. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. I think I still have some time. 

Mr. Olsen, is it the case that the BIA currently has approxi- mately $8 million in Fiscal Year 2003 in Federal funds for improvements to the school that has not been spent? And if that $8 

million is there and has not been spent—I have seen some pictures 

of the school and I share the Administration’s concern about the 

education of our children and the environment in which they are 

educated. Why has it not been spent? Or could you tell us what the 

immediate plans are for spending that $8 million? 

Mr. OLSEN. Certainly. I am not entirely certain. I know that the 

tribe is planning to use that money in order to put—use that 

money and put it toward the construction of the new educational 

facility that this legislation contemplates. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But it is my understanding that is going to 

take about 7 years. 

Mr. OLSEN. To construct the school? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. 

Mr. OLSEN. That very well could be. I don’t know exactly what 

the timeframe is. I know that the tribe and the Park Service have 

engaged in the discussions that the legislation requires and have 

been doing that over the course of several months. And the tribe 

is ready to begin work once the exchange is approved. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I would just like to respectfully suggest that 

the $8 million be spent—if it is going to take that long to get a 

school, I don’t think the children should be in some of the conditions I saw for the next 7 years. 

28

My last question would be: In your testimony, I think you said—

or in the preliminary report of the EIS, it says that certain alternatives were eliminated from further study. I wonder if you would 

just—alternatives for the school site. I wonder if you would just respond to that. Did the alternatives that were excluded include the 

north end of the Cherokee business district and an area by the 

Aconee Road? 

Mr. OLSEN. You want comment on why that was excluded? 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. 

Mr. OLSEN. I do not know and would certainly be more than 

happy to provide you an answer in writing. But we can certainly 

address that question. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate some further information on those specific sites. 

The CHAIRMAN. The record will remain open in order to allow the 

Administration the opportunity to provide a written response to 

you. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And I also have an opening statement that 

I would like to submit for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Christensen follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Donna Christensen, a Delegate to Congress 

from the Virgin Islands, on H.R. 1409

Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on National Parks, 

Recreation and Public Lands, I would like to make a few, brief comments regarding 

one of the bills before the Full Committee today. 

H.R. 1409 would require the Secretary of the Interior to exchange approximately 

143 acres of Federal land currently located within the Great Smokey Mountains 

National Park, known as the Ravensford Tract, for approximately 218 acres, currently owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, known as the Yellowface 

Tract. 

Upon completion of the exchange, the Ravensford Tract would be held in trust for 

the benefit of the Tribe and the boundary of the Park would be altered to exclude 

the land. The Yellowface tract, located some thirty miles from the Park, would be 

added to the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

It is our understanding that the Eastern Band is pursuing this exchange to provide the Tribe with land on which to build three new school facilities, an obviously 

worthy goal. Furthermore, this proposed exchange appears to include lands to which 

the Tribe has a historical claim. We are very interested in hearing from our witnesses today regarding both of these issues. 

However, it must be noted that transferring lands located within a National Park 

to private ownership, regardless of the use to which those lands may be put, is exceedingly rare and raises a number of serious questions. Furthermore, to approve 

legislation which will short-circuit an ongoing EIS process designed to address these 

questions, would be problematic. 

It is our hope that today’s hearing might provide sufficient information that, in 

working with the Tribe, the National Park Service and Mr. Taylor, we might be able 

to craft a solution that addresses the Tribe’s needs without negatively impacting our 

most visited National Park. 

We would like to thank the witnesses for their time and effort to be here today 

and look forward to their insights on both of the measures before the Committee 

today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hayworth? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for holding this hearing. And I have more than passing interest 

in H.R. 1409. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, 

and I just wanted to take time—it is a common affliction that cerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
29

tainly my co-Chair on the Native American Caucus knows, indeed 

all Members of Congress here, of having to be three places at one 

time during the course of a day. But I wanted to stop by, and, Mr. 

Chairman, I have an opening statement for the record which I 

would like to submit. And I also just wanted to thank Chief Leon 

Jones and others from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians for 

being here to discuss what is transpiring there. I believe this is an 

innovative win-win solution that the Park Service and the Eastern 

Band has worked out. And as mention was made in previous testimony, this is not uncommon, but this legislative solution is needed. 

So I look forward to reviewing the record. I thank my friends from 

the Eastern Band for being here. And again, Chairman and colleagues, thank you for holding the hearing. 

Mr. KILDEE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I would gladly yield to my good friend from 

Michigan. 

Mr. KILDEE. I want to thank the co-Chair of the Native American 

Caucus because our staffs have worked together, studied this very, 

very thoroughly, and have concluded that this is a very, very good 

exchange. And I appreciate your continuing good work on this and 

other issues. 

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Michigan. As this illustrates, though we divide by part for purposes of the rules of the 

House, it is interesting that in the case of the first Americans, 

there are only two types of people who serve in Congress: those 

who represent what we now call Indian country and those who represent what was once Indian country. 

And with that acknowledgment, I would yield back to the balance of my time with thanks to the Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Olsen, there are several questions that I have, and part of 

it is a little bit of my inquisitive nature on what happens if the 

tribe decides to use it for gaming. Are there covenant restrictions? 

Mr. OLSEN. We are talking about H.R. 1409, the Eastern Band 

of Cherokee bill? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Mr. OLSEN. OK. Well, gaming is explicitly prohibited in the legislation. I don’t believe that there is a remedy provided in the legislation, but it is explicitly prohibited. And our understanding is that 

the tribe has no intent to construct any sort of gaming facility on 

that land. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, the Federal Government has long ignored my Indian brothers and sisters, and I think it is time we 

owned up to some of the responsibilities that have been ignored for 

many, many, many generations. 

I am concerned that it may begin not only setting a precedent, 

but if there is such a covenant that prohibits gaming, that we are 

sure that there is—sometimes there is no other way for the tribes 

to be able to survive, if you will. They need help and we certainly 

should be able to provide them, which leads to me the question of 

how old is the school on the other bill—or, no, on that one, that 

these deplorable conditions are found, that the Department of InteVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
30

rior or Park Service or the agencies, whoever’s jurisdiction it falls 

under, have not taken action to be able to assist in the construction 

or reconstruction or putting them in a condition that they will be 

usable. 

When I look at some of the information about they are using a 

condemned building, that sends shivers up my spine. As a grandmother, I would not tolerate it, and I don’t see why we should allow 

the Federal Government not to take action to remedy those conditions. 

Mr. OLSEN. Understood, and as I stated before, we certainly feel 

that it is in the best interest of this tribe for the legislation to move 

forward, and— 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK, but this has not happened yesterday. 

Why has action not been taken to remedy the conditions under 

which these children go to school? 

Mr. OLSEN. I don’t know. We are faced—again, I mean, it is the 

same answer that I gave before. We are faced with a significant 

backlog. I understand that it is a problem, and it is a priority to 

correct, and we are doing what we can little by little to correct 

those problems. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, maybe we should have a hearing, 

Mr. Chair, Chairman Pombo, I suggest, to see what the condition 

of the Indian schools are in so that we may not hear it in this 

Committee room at the time we are trying to work on legislation 

to address some of the shortfalls that we have had in those areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. If the lady will yield to me, we are actively looking at that. This is obviously part of that process. 

I am told that this particular school is at least 40 years old. That 

is 40 years of mismanagement that has occurred over the years 

that has allowed this to happen. I don’t think there is any possible 

way that Mr. Olsen can explain to you why in the last couple of 

months that he has been on the job that over 40 years this school 

was mismanaged and things happened in the BIA. But if you want 

to get serious about taking care of these problems, we have got to 

seriously look at the entire issue of how we have dealt with the 

BIA over the last 100 years. That is where the real problem is. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Let’s do so, sir. 

My next question will be on the distribution on 884. How many 

members will receive these dollars? Because I was looking at you 

report, and it says 1,230 voted, 3 opposed, but that is just the voting members. How many members are there in the tribes that are 

getting reimbursed? And are the ones opposing going to be receiving remuneration? 

Mr. OLSEN. There are approximately 6,000 to 6,500 who would 

be receiving money through the distribution, and those who are opposed are included. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. The next question— 

Mr. OLSEN. They can choose to apply, but they are eligible as everyone else. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. But does accepting the funding prevent their 

ability to litigate in the future toward the return of their land? 

Mr. OLSEN. I am sorry. I did not hear your question. 

31

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Would their accepting money preclude them 

from enjoining to get back their tribal lands that they are seeking, 

those that are opposed because of that? 

Mr. OLSEN. No, it would not. But we feel that pursuant to the 

Treaty of Ruby Valley, which is the treaty at issue, that was a 

treaty of peace and friendship, and there is some question about 

whether the Western Shoshone people had title to that land, recognized title to that land. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. I have a 

markup over on my other committee. Are we under general leave 

to submit additional questions in writing to the witnesses today? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, all the witnesses will be asked to respond 

to any questions that are submitted in writing, to answer those in 

writing so that they can be included in the hearing record. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jones? 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very 

much, and I want to say to Mr. Kildee before he leaves, thank you 

for your statement regarding your longevity and trying to help the 

Indians who have certainly not been treated fairly in the history 

of our country. So I thank you as well as the Chairman for his comments. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing both these bills up. It is 

nice to see the bipartisan support for this legislation as well as others. H.R. 1409 was introduced by Congressman Charles Taylor. 

The Cherokees live in his district, and this has been an issue that, 

when Chief Leon Jones is on the next panel, I think he can tell the 

Committee as well as myself the long history of trying to get this 

land exchange accomplished. 

Regarding Mrs. Christensen’s statement about taking 7 years, 

that possibly could be if it went through the administrative process. I don’t know, and I would like for Mr. Olsen in a moment to 

answer that question. 

The beauty of this is that we all get on the floor of the House 

from time to time and talk about our children and wanting them 

to have the best education possible so they can compete in the 

world. And when you see what the Indian children have to deal 

with—I want my staffer if he would, to hold up just four enlargements so you can really see just how bad the school is. 

The first one is the steel beam rusting through the ceiling at the 

school. That in itself—if it is not condemned, it should be condemned. 

Then the next photograph is a major crack in the wall of the 

school. 

The third photograph is cracks in the gymnasium. 

I think those three photographs are deplorable. The last photograph would be the temporary building that the students are trying 

to learn in and become successful. 

This is a situation that I think requires this legislation, and I am 

delighted, Mr. Chairman, that you are holding this hearing. 

The problem is I do not understand those that will be in opposition to this land exchange. Mr. Olsen, would you say that the land 

32

swap—what the taxpayers will be receiving from the Cherokee 

Indians—is an excellent deal for the taxpayers of this country? 

Mr. OLSEN. The tribe would be giving up 218 acres of pristine 

land that, arguably, would—it would go under Park Service protection, would arguably provide for a better—or provide for protection 

of the view shed. The tribe would be obtaining 143 acres, which, 

comparing the two, obviously there is a 70-acre difference that the 

tribe is giving up to the park. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. Chairman, with that, I 

think many points have been made before I had my opportunity, 

and I hope showing the photographs to the members of the 

Committee will re-emphasize the need for this land exchange. So, 

with that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. GIBBONS. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Boy, that was quick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to offer my full support of the gentleman’s bill 

from North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, and, of course, to my colleague, 

Mr. Jones. This is in reference to H.R. 1409, and I want the gentleman to know that he certainly has my full support on this land 

exchange proposal. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, it is always comity and practice as 

a matter of courtesy to members and our colleagues. Given the fact 

that you had introduced this legislation with reference to Shoshone 

Tribe, presumably predominantly in your State of Nevada, I would 

be the last person to second-guess your wisdom and expertise and 

understanding of what has been the problem for all these years. 

At the same time, I don’t think there is any negative connotation 

in terms of your participation. You are just simply trying to implement what has been decided by the Indian Claims Commission and 

also in reference to what the Supreme Court had ruled. 

But I had also read that there are some real strong feelings 

among some of the Shoshone members, tribal members, on how the 

Supreme Court ruling came about, the fact that you have got the 

Te-Moak, the Duckwater, the Ely, the Fallon, the Fort McDermitt, 

the Yomba, these are all different clans that make up the Shoshone 

Tribe, if I am to understand it correctly. This is my understanding 

of the bill. 

What are we talking about, Mr. Olsen, in terms of the principal 

that is to be distributed if this bill passes? I read here $26 million, 

with interest, $130 million, but then I hear someone else, it is only 

$900,000. Can you clarify what exactly we are talking about? 

Mr. OLSEN. Refreshing my recollection here, the distribution that 

would take place as a per capita payment to the approximately 

6,500 Western Shoshone people would be $142,472,644, which 

works out to be roughly $30,000 per person. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, right now I am going to register as a 

member of the Shoshone Tribe. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The first opportunity I have. I found out 

that some of my ancestors settled among the Paiutes and the 

Shoshones in Nevada a thousand years ago. 

Mr. Olsen, there is one concern, I think, with some of the tribal 

members in raising the question how the U.S. Government got to 

33

obtain the land that belonged to the Shoshone. Was there a treaty 

agreement or relationship between the Shoshone Tribe and the 

U.S.? Because we have sisters here by the name of the Dann sisters that had their cattle got taken by the BLM with no reason 

whatsoever. I mean, this is ridiculous. 

Could you explain how the Federal Government ended up owning 

the so-called Shoshone tribal lands? 

Mr. OLSEN. One of the claims is, as I mentioned before, for the 

taking of land, and it was a result of the gradual encroachment of 

the United States on the Shoshone land. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Was it the United States or the ranchers? 

Mr. OLSEN. Both. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Both. And we are talking about how much 

was taken by the Federal Government that belongs to the 

Shoshone people? Acreage. Half of Nevada? 

Mr. OLSEN. Well, there is a difference between what is being 

claimed by some who are opposed to this distribution and what is 

described, basically. And I cannot give you an exact number of 

acreage, but, again, certainly will be happy to— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My colleague from Nevada tells me onethird of the State of Nevada belonged to the Shoshone people. 

Mr. OLSEN. That is a big piece of land. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Big piece of land. And it was taken by the 

Federal Government with no treaty agreements, nothing. This is 

what you might call adversary possession of the land. I go back to 

my original question. Was there a treaty relationship between the 

Federal Government and the Shoshone people allowing the Federal 

Government to take the land? 

Mr. OLSEN. Referring back to the treaty, the treaty allowed 

people to pass through the land, but, you know, going back to what 

I had said before, we are talking about it is a taking, the gradual 

encroachment on the land. And that is about the best answer I can 

provide you now, and we will certainly, you know, provide a better 

historical perspective if that is what you are after. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So what we are looking at in this proposed bill is the distribution of funds of approximately $140 million. 

Mr. OLSEN. Correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Among some 6,500 Shoshone. 

Mr. OLSEN. That is right. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Among the four different clans that make 

up the Shoshone Tribe. 

Mr. OLSEN. Among the four successor bands as well as others 

who would be entitled to that distribution. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see. And if by chance there is no agreement, the interest continues to buildup on this fund. 

Mr. OLSEN. It will continue to grow. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Are the Shoshone people so anxious that 

they really want the money or do they not care about the money? 

I get the impression from Mr. Yowell’s testimony here that it is not 

the money, but the principle involved here on how the Federal Government ended up owning what is known as Shoshone territory. I 

think maybe this is where we are having problems and where some 

of the tribal members have very strong feelings about this issue because once we establish the foundation of how this came about in 

34

the first place, then the funds become relevant in terms of what 

else needs to be done. 

Is there any portion of this one-third of the State of Nevada that 

was used for nuclear testing? 

Mr. OLSEN. I am not in a position to— 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Have you been to Nevada? 

Mr. OLSEN. I have been to Nevada, certainly. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But what portion of the State of Nevada are 

you aware of that we are talking about? 

Mr. OLSEN. Congressman, can you— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GIBBONS. Predominantly the Shoshone area would be the 

eastern part of Nevada. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Eastern part, I see. 

Mr. OLSEN. I am not aware—I cannot answer whether there has 

been nuclear testing on that. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I think my time is up. I will 

wait for the second round. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBONS. The gentleman from Tennessee? 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have no questions, Mr. Gibbons. I thank you for 

calling this hearing, but since I did not hear the testimony, I will 

not ask any questions at this point, and I will listen to the next 

panel. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Ms. Bordallo is next. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Olsen, I have a question on H.R. 884. How many trespass 

violations have been issued on Western Shoshone ancestral lands? 

Is the use of the land an ongoing concern to the Department? I believe it was approximately 3 years ago when a trespassing violation 

was issued for grazing on the BLM land without a permit. But I 

wanted to know if this is an isolated issue, or are there other landuse violations? 

Mr. OLSEN. There have been trespass violations issued to both 

Western Shoshone and non-Indian people. 

Ms. BORDALLO. You don’t have a number? 

Mr. OLSEN. I don’t have a number. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Has it been frequent? 

Mr. OLSEN. Well, I know that it is more than one. I don’t know 

how frequent it is. But we can certainly obtain that information 

and get that back to you. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. And my other question, Mr. Chairman, 

does the treaty preclude a land settlement? 

Mr. OLSEN. No, the treaty does not preclude a land settlement. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Udall? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Olsen, your testimony refers to the support for the distribution of funds by three of the four successor tribes. What documentation is there that shows this support? 

Mr. OLSEN. Well, tribal resolutions, basically, the resolutions 

that I referenced before in my testimony. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Was there an election or anything like that that 

was supervised by the BIA? 

35

Mr. OLSEN. Over the course of a number of years, there have 

been various referendum votes, surveys, but they were not supervised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. So this was not an official election supervised 

by the BIA and then officially accepted as an election held by a sovereign Indian tribe? 

Mr. OLSEN. It was not supervised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. And yet you are willing to testify today that 90 

percent—is that the figure you have used—90 percent of the tribe 

support this bill and support the distribution? 

Mr. OLSEN. Ninety percent is the number that I have heard. I 

used ‘‘vast majority’’— 

Mr. TOM UDALL. That is your figure? That is the Interior Department’s figure? 

Mr. OLSEN. That is the number that Congressman Gibbons used, 

but that is the number that I have heard. I would say a vast majority of the Western Shoshone members. I mean, 90 percent is probably fairly accurate. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Can you give the Committee any documentation 

of that? Is there any evidence of that other than in several resolutions? There is no certified election? I mean, what is there for the 

Committee to rely on to show that there is this kind of, as you put 

it, overwhelming or the 90 percent figure that has been used by the 

Chairman, what is there to show that? 

Mr. OLSEN. We will certainly provide, be more than happy to provide whatever we have to the Committee that demonstrates the 

support, absolutely. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Well, I would very much like to see that kind 

of evidence, and please, Mr. Chairman, if it is acceptable, have it 

submitted for the record. 

My understanding, there are about 6,000-plus members, something in— 

Mr. OLSEN. Yes, 6,000-plus who would be eligible for the distribution. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. And 1,500 voted for it? Is that right? 

Mr. OLSEN. That is, I believe, the number. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Then how do we get to 90 percent and overwhelming if we—that is only one-quarter. 

Mr. OLSEN. Well, as I am being advised here, the 6,000 also includes minor children. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. So do you know the figure for the 6,000-plus for 

adults that would be eligible to vote? 

Mr. OLSEN. I don’t. I don’t. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Udall, would you yield to me to answer the 

question? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Well, I would like them to answer the question, 

actually, because I think that is who normally certifies an election 

by a tribe, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Interior Department, if they are able to answer. No disrespect at all to you, Mr. 

Gibbons, but— 

Mr. OLSEN. I am unable to answer that question. I don’t know 

what the percentage of voting adults— 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Are you able to answer? 

36

Ms. WEST. First of all, I would like to clarify that most elections 

are not—tribal elections are not certified by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs. They are certified by the tribes themselves. The only elections that we certify are those that are required to be certified 

within the tribal governing document. This is not the type of election that the Secretary had the authority or the requirement to certify. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Is the Interior Department committed to begin 

negotiation with the Western Shoshone Nation to establish a culturally and economically adequate land base for all Federally recognized Western Shoshone tribal governments and communities? 

Mr. OLSEN. If that is something that the Committee wanted to 

pursue, I am sure that we would be more than happy to participate 

and provide support and assist in that. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Is it accurate to say that—the Federally recognized Shoshone tribes in Nevada currently hold a total of about 

24,000 acres of Indian trust land. This is less than one one-hundredth of the Western Shoshone ancestral lands. Is that fair to say 

that? 

Mr. OLSEN. I believe that 24,000 acres is the correct figure of 

trust land. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. And is it the position of the Interior Department that they should have more land to have an economically viable land base? 

Mr. OLSEN. On that I cannot say that that is the position of the 

Department of the Interior. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. And, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Chairman, if I have 

time, I will be happy to yield to you to insert anything in the record 

that you would like to have in there. 

Mr. GIBBONS. That is all right, Mr. Udall. I think the answer was 

adequately given before. But I did notice your time is up. 

Mr. Baca? 

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

I guess I have one question. Have the Western Shoshone Indians 

expressed any opposition to this measure? 

Mr. OLSEN. Have Western Shoshone people expressed opposition? 

Mr. BACA. Yes. 

Mr. OLSEN. I am sorry. I am not hearing very well. Yes, there 

have been tribal members, Western Shoshone people, who have expressed opposition. 

Mr. BACA. And what do you think the consequences of that will 

be? 

Mr. OLSEN. The consequence of their— 

Mr. BACA. The opposition right now. Is there any formal agreements that they can— 

Mr. OLSEN. I am not aware of any formal agreement. I think it 

depends on what the community decides to do with the legislation. 

Mr. BACA. Will the funds improve the economic conditions of the 

Western Shoshone Indians? 

Mr. OLSEN. I am assuming that it would. A $30,000 payment to 

each eligible member, I think the feeling is that, yes, it would improve the economic condition. That is why I think there is a desire 

for this to move forward. This money has been sitting. The Western 

Shoshone people are entitled to it. It is their money. And I think 

37

the feeling is that, yes, it would improve the economic condition. 

It is their money, and they should receive it. 

Mr. BACA. What are the current conditions right now? 

Mr. OLSEN. I can’t speak specifically. I have not visited the area. 

But my understanding is the vast—well, a good portion of the 

people are living in poverty, that it is—suffer some. It is a desperate situation. 

Mr. BACA. Well, it is something that I would support. I believe 

when you look at sovereign countries and you look at Native—we 

have not given enough, even from what we have done—we have always taken, and it seems like we have the right to give back not 

only for sovereignty but to improve conditions in education, health, 

road conditions, tribal pride, tribal respect, and give them back a 

portion of the land. I think it is what we have done; we have taken 

the land away. It is time that we give it back as well. And that 

is toward any Native American Indian that we have in this country. Hopefully, if we have hearings, we will produce and we begin 

to identify and to give back to Native Americans, because they 

truly are the first people in this country and should be recognized 

as contributors. And I think we have an obligation to improve conditions within each of the reservations as well, and we should not 

rely on gaming of others, but also as part of our responsibilities to 

make sure that conditions are improved and they have the same 

rights that anybody else. Because when we talk about leave no 

child behind, that means in our reservations and other places as 

well, from both educational, technology, health improvements. So 

hopefully we will work along those areas and that we as individuals can all come together in a bipartisan and again support our 

Native Americans who are truly in a lot of these conditions that 

are very poor conditions. And I think it is our responsibility to do 

whatever we can to make conditions a lot better. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Baca. Just for the Committee’s 

record, this bill deals only with the distribution of an account 

which was a judgment from a court to the tribes, and without this 

distribution, of course, this money sits in that account growing interest, helps no one, has not helped anyone for more than 20 years. 

And the purpose of this bill is not to adjudicate the validity of anybody’s claim on the land, but to distribute the funds that are in 

this account. 

We all agree with your comments, and we agree with the status 

of our Native Americans and needs of those individuals. But this 

bill does not deal with that. 

Right now, since we have finished discussion and all members 

have questioned this panel, I would like to dismiss this panel and 

call up the second panel. 

Mr. GIBBONS. The second panel is Mr. Leon D. Jones, Principal 

Chief, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Cory Matthew 

Blankenship, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Don Barger, Senior Regional District Representative, National Parks Conservation 

Association. 

Gentlemen, while we are getting prepared, we have a custom in 

this Committee to swear you in, so if you would all rise and raise 

your right hands? 

38

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GIBBONS. Let the record reflect that each of the individuals 

testifying before us today has responded in the affirmative, and I 

would turn to my friend, Mr. Jones, for an introduction of the witnesses. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Congressman Charles Taylor, I am delighted to introduce Chief Leon 

Jones and Cory Blankenship, and I will be very brief in the introduction. 

Chief Jones is the Principal Chief of the Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians based in Cherokee, North Carolina. He served as 

tribal court judge and council member before serving as chief, the 

only person to serve in all three branches of Eastern Cherokee government. Also, Chief Leon Jones is a 26-year veteran of the military, both Air Force and the United States Marine Corps. We welcome you, sir. 

Cory Blankenship is a recent graduate of Cherokee High School 

and a product of the Cherokee school system. He will attend NC 

State in Raleigh, North Carolina, on a 4-year academic scholarship, 

and is a long-time advocate of the land exchange, and I welcome 

both these gentlemen to the Committee. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. 

We will begin now with the testimony of Chief Leon Jones. You 

are welcome to the Committee. The floor is yours. We look forward 

to your testimony, Chief Jones. 

STATEMENT OF LEON D. JONES, PRINCIPAL CHIEF,

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS 

Mr. LEON JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my 

name is Leon Jones. I do have the honor of being the chief of the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in North Carolina. 

Mr. Pombo, Ranking Member Mr. Kildee—I am a little nervous, 

as you can probably understand—members of the Resource Committee, and other distinguished Members of Congress, thanks for 

this opportunity to be here. 

I have a prepared statement. However, everything that is in my 

prepared statement has been said. There is no need for me going 

back over things you have already heard and repeating. I am going 

to hit a couple of high points and then talk from my heart, if you 

don’t mind, sir. 

This is very important not only to the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians but the entire nation. As has been said by our President 

and by each one of us as we campaigned for office, education is our 

highest priority, to educate our children, leave no child behind. Our 

President says that and so do I. I have committed myself to that. 

The land under consideration is tremendously important. It is 

important to the future of my tribe, and it is important to the future of the United States because we do want to educate every 

child we have. 

The land under consideration, the Yellow Face, or Waterrock 

Knob, is a piece of property that was pointed out by the park as 

one that they desired, one that would be of benefit for them. We 

reacquired that piece of property, and we are now ready to make 

the exchange. 

39

We have some pictures. We have pictures of the view of how 

beautiful Waterrock Knob is. You will see them right here. And 

this piece of property is in danger because—has been in danger because the properties on both sides of it have been bulldozed and 

house sites have been prepared. 

This is the view from the Blue Ridge Parkway, one that the Blue 

Ridge Parkway was designed to protect, and we want to help the 

Blue Ridge Parkway to protect this property. 

Seventy-five years ago, the property that we are asking for was 

a lumber mill. You can see that on my right. It is not pristine property. This property here is 218 acres of very pristine property. It 

has water on it. It has endangered species on it, Federally endangered species. Those species need to be protected. 

Conversely, the piece there that you see has been disturbed 

greatly. It is the ancestral lands of the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians. That has been proven through archaeological studies. We 

now want to use it for schools to educate our children. This piece 

of property was supposed to be returned to my tribe back in 1940 

when the Blue Ridge Parkway was built. For some reason, when 

it reached Congress, this piece of property was taken out of the legislation and not returned to us. The money was given to us to buy 

it, and then we were not allowed to. So we feel that this property 

is our ancestral lands, and we feel that we should have it back. We 

need it for our children. We want to build three schools: an elementary, a middle school, and a high school. Having all three schools 

together will help us teach our native language along with a modern curriculum. 

We do it in a multi-age, communal setting that is consistent with 

our culture. The vision will replace the dilapidated, overcrowded, 

and dangerous schools that the Government built for us years ago 

and that we still use. You have seen some of the pictures of the 

schools in the poor condition that they are in. 

To address the Park Service concerns, we have already spent over $1.5 million on environmental and archaeological studies. We 

have designed and redesigned the site plan to minimize any impact. We have changed the footprint of this school to miss things 

that were very important. The current site plan preserves the 

views from the Blue Ridge Parkway. It provides a buffer around 

the wetlands next to the exchange tract. It avoids any impact on 

12 of the 14 archaeological sites found on this property. And it calls 

for approximately $3 million of careful research for the two sites 

in the construction area. 

We have taken all the steps to preserve and to do a fair exchange. The land that we want to exchange is the highest piece of 

property owned by a person east of the Mississippi, highest piece 

of pristine land in the United States—or east of the Mississippi, I 

should say. We have purchased it. The option on the property was 

about to run out. We went ahead and purchased it so that we could 

exchange it for this piece of property. 

The most important thing for me, ladies and gentlemen, is the 

children and the future of this tribe. The future of this tribe, like 

the future of the United States, depends on educating our people 

in the highest and best way that we know how, and that is exactly 

what we want to do. 

40

Before I close, I want to thank the National Park Service Director Fran Mainella and the people working with her in the Interior 

Department for dealing in good faith with the Eastern Band over 

the last 4 years. Although we have not always found agreement on 

every issue, they have demonstrated a willingness to work through 

the issues, and in many cases, we have become friends. 

Chairman Pombo and members of this Committee, the Eastern 

Band of Cherokee Indians has the resources to make this vision a 

reality. You can make it possible. Please help us as we strive to 

leave no child behind. Help us to protect our unique culture, our 

unique heritage, our language, and our identity. For the benefit of 

the Cherokee people and the American public, we respectfully ask 

that you support our land exchange. 

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 

[The prepared statement of Leon Jones follows:]

Statement of Principal Chief Leon Jones,

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, on H.R. 1409

Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, Members of the Resources Committee 

and other distinguished Members of Congress, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak today. 

I come before you to speak about an important issue—perhaps the most important 

issue—facing our two Nations, the United States and the Eastern Band of Cherokee. 

That is the education of our children. Our Nations cannot be strong without welleducated members. President Bush and this Congress have pledged to ‘‘leave no 

child behind,’’ and I have made the same pledge for my people, the Cherokee people. 

The Ravensford–Yellow Face Land Exchange under consideration by this 

Committee today is tremendously important for the future of the Eastern Band of 

Cherokee. But first let me discuss why it is important for the National Park Service 

and the American public. 

With Congress’s approval of this exchange, the Yellow Face (or Waterrock Knob) 

tract will be placed under the protection of the National Park Service. We asked 

the Park Service what land they would like to acquire, and they selected this property, among other options. 

The views from Waterrock Knob are increasingly threatened by non–Indian housing development. The parcel next to the Yellow Face tract, and just beyond this 

view, already has house sites bulldozed on it. Yellow Face, and the splendor of this 

view from Waterrock Knob, urgently need protection so they can be enjoyed by the 

American public for years to come. In contrast, the Ravensford tract that we seek 

for schools is a smaller, disturbed, and less valuable piece of land. Seventy-five 

years ago, it was a lumber mill town. We have a picture of what it looked like then. 

You can see that it was anything but pristine. We also have pictures of its current 

uses. It is a road corridor for tribal members and visitors traveling between downtown Cherokee and the Big Cove Community. It is also the corridor for major power, 

telephone, water and sewer lines serving both Big Cove and the National Park Service facilities across the river from Ravensford. 

The Ravensford tract currently splits the Qualla Boundary, isolating the Big Cove 

community from the rest of the Qualla Boundary. Archaeological research has confirmed what we already knew—that it is part of our ancestral homeland. Sixty-five 

years ago, we negotiated a deal with the United States to exchange the Ravensford 

tract for the Blue Ridge Parkway right-of-way through our land. At the last minute, 

the deal was changed without our knowledge, and Ravensford was removed from the 

legislation. The details of this unfortunate history are described in my written testimony. 

But let me get back to the main reason I am here. This exchange will provide 

the Cherokee people with the only suitable location we can get to build a new threeschool education center. We envision this new campus as a ‘‘cultural village’’ where 

Cherokee children can honor their past while embracing the future. Having all three 

schools together will help with the teaching of our native language and the modern 

curriculum. And we can do it in a multi-age, communal setting that is consistent 

with our culture. This vision will replace the dilapidated, overcrowded and dangerous schools that the Government built for us years ago and that we still have 

to use. 

41

We plan to build state-of-the-art facilities with all of the modern requirements for 

a school system, and with cultural features like a seven sided ‘‘council’’ room in the 

school. The schools are designed for geothermal heating to be both safe and comfortable for our children, and friendly to the environment. 

Before I close, I want to thank National Park Service Director Fran Mainella, and 

the people working with her in the Interior Department for dealing in good faith 

with the Eastern Band over the last four years. Although we have not always found 

agreement on every issue, they have demonstrated a willingness to work through 

the issues. And in many cases, we have become friends. 

Chairman Pombo and members of the Committee, the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians has the resources to make this vision a reality, and you can make it possible. Please help us as we strive to ‘‘leave no child behind.’’ Help us protect our 

unique culture, heritage, language and identity. For the benefit of the Cherokee 

people—and the American public—we respectfully ask you to support this land 

exchange. 

Positive Impacts of the Land Exchange 

NPS will acquire the Yellow Face tract from the Eastern Band and protect it for the American public: • Includes 218 acres adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway. • In the foreground view from Waterrock Knob Visitor Center. • Area is under rapid development; home sites are now available on an adjacent 

tract. • Endangered species: Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel, Rock Gnome Lichen. • Seven acres of high-altitude wetland seeps. • Fair market value exceeds Ravensford value. 

Transfer of Ravensford to the Eastern Band with agreed restrictions has 

many benefits: • Benefits the Eastern Cherokee and American public by helping preserve 

Cherokee language and culture. • Cherokee children can be moved from the dilapidated, overcrowded, and dangerous elementary school to a safer location with less traffic. • Helps United States meet a high priority goal of improving Indian education. • Reunites two parts of the Cherokee reservation and restores Tribal territorial 

integrity. • Rectifies an historical injustice to the Eastern Band (1940 Act). • The Eastern Band’s agreement to reduce its request from 168 to 143 acres protects resources. • Wetlands and alluvial forest adjacent to site remain in NPS ownership. EBCI 

has offered to help restore wetlands and will likely create additional wet meadow areas. • 12 of 14 archaeology sites are preserved in place without development. Knowledge increased through careful research of the two archaeology sites affected by 

construction. • Development restrictions protect views from Parkway near Ravensford. • Federal environmental and cultural resource laws will continue to apply. • No Federally-listed threatened or endangered species have been found at 

Ravensford. 

History of Ravensford Tract and Eastern Band of Cherokee 

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians’ seeks to reunite the Big Cove Community 

with the rest of the Qualla Boundary based in part on our need for territorial integrity. The Ravensford Tract is the transportation, utilities, and geographical link between these communities. Reunification of the Boundary through the Ravensford 

Tract is important to the Tribe for significant historical reasons. 

The history of the Cherokee Nation is known to most Americans. Between 1700 

and 1838, European–Americans settled on the Tribe’s original territory of over 

100,000 square miles. Despite a number of treaties over more than a century promising no further incursions on the Nation’s territory, most Cherokees were forcibly 

removed from the Southeast over the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma. The Eastern Band 

consists of descendants of those Cherokees who remained in the mountains to avoid 

the Trail of Tears, and those who returned from Oklahoma afterward. Through determination and with some assistance from friends like Will Thomas, members of 

the Eastern Band eventually repurchased a small part of the Nation’s original territory. They fought lawsuits in the late 1800’s to keep their land and finally, in 1925, 

deeded the repurchased land to the United States to be preserved in trust for the 

Tribe. 

42

When European–Americans settled in the Cherokee Nation’s territory, they established themselves firmly in the rich bottomlands like the Ravensford Tract. After 

the Trail of Tears, it was difficult for the Eastern Band to repurchase very much 

of this prime land, so most of the present day Qualla Boundary is steep and difficult 

terrain. 

The Ravensford Tract resonates with the Eastern Band as part of that history. 

Ravensford was also involved in a particular injustice the Tribe suffered in the mid–

20th Century. In 1933, the Tribe had granted a right-of-way to the State of North 

Carolina for a highway from Soco Gap to Cherokee, to assist with transportation 

and economic development. That project was put on hold in 1935 when the United 

States Interior Department proposed to locate the last 12 miles of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway along that route through Soco Valley. When the Tribe learned that the 

Parkway would take valuable bottomland on which many enrolled members lived 

and require a 200 to 800 foot inaccessible right-of-way, it soundly rejected that proposed route. Tribal leaders and the Interior Department negotiated for several years 

to find another route, despite significant opposition among influential Tribal members. In 1939, the Secretary of the Interior proposed legislation allowing him to condemn a right of way over the Qualla Boundary. H.R. 6668, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 

(1939). The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs sent a representative to negotiate 

with the Tribe in North Carolina. Over the course of a year, an acceptable compromise was negotiated. 

The compromise negotiated with the Senate’s representative is laid out in a revised Senate Committee version of H.R. 6668. See Senate Report No. 1491 at 2 

(1940). The compromise had several elements: (1) The Tribe agreed to a ridge route 

over its territory for the Blue Ridge Parkway. (2) The State of North Carolina 

agreed to go back to its original plan to build the Soco Valley highway with public 

access for Tribal members and visitors. (3) The State agreed to pay the United 

States, in trust for the Tribe, $40,000 for the Blue Ridge Parkway route. (4) With 

those funds, the Tribe would be permitted to purchase replacement lands adjacent 

to the Tribe’s territory in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, including both 

the Boundary Tree Tract and the Ravensford Tract. The Chief and Tribal Council 

supported this agreement, although the Parkway was still opposed by a vocal minority in Cherokee. 

The agreement was approved and reported favorably by the Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs. The House sponsor of the original Bill, Congressman Weaver, testified at the Senate Committee’s hearing on the Bill and indicated his support for the 

negotiated agreement, including the transfer of both the Boundary Tree and 

Ravensford Tracts. Transcript of Hearing, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

April 22, 1940. 

When the Bill came up for consideration on the Senate floor, however, a Senator 

from Oklahoma presented an amendment that deleted the Ravensford Tract. Congressional Record, May 28, 1940, at 6989. There is no indication in the record of 

the reason for that change, nor that the Tribe was notified. Typical of the United 

States’ treatment of the Cherokee, another agreement negotiated in good faith was 

modified without the Tribe’s consent, and the Ravensford Tract remained out of 

reach. 

The 1940 legislation removed 1,333 acres from the Tribe’s territory for the Blue 

Ridge Parkway, and effectively landlocked an even larger portion of the Tribe’s high 

elevation property. It also completely severed the Big Cove Community from the 

rest of the Qualla Boundary geographically. In exchange, the Tribe was allowed to 

purchase 905 acres of the Boundary Tree Tract, for a net loss of at least 428 acres 

and effective loss of use of many more acres. If the 322-acre Ravensford Tract had 

not been eliminated from the Bill at the last minute, then the acreage exchanged 

would have been closer to equal. 

This history is the source of the belief expressed by some Cherokees today that 

the Ravensford Tract should be given or sold to the Tribe. The Tribal leadership, 

however, recognizes that the NPS Director does not have that authority and has offered to enter into a fair value-for-value land exchange. 

The Tribe gave up much of its hard-won land in 1940 so the United States could 

complete the Blue Ridge Parkway, and believes the United States should live up to 

the commitment its representatives made to the Tribe. The Ravensford Tract should 

have been sold to the Tribe over 60 years ago and should be exchanged today so 

the Tribe can reunite the two communities and build its education and culture center. 

Archeological research has confirmed that the Ravensford Tract is part of the 

Eastern Band’s ancestral homeland. The Cherokee Nation was forced to give up over 

100,000 square miles of land in the 18th and 19th centuries for the benefit of the 

American public. This land exchange would involve returning less than 1/4 of a 

43

square mile in exchange for a larger, more pristine, and more valuable tract that 

needs protection. 

Mitigation Measures Agreed to by the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

The Eastern Band has demonstrated its good faith in negotiations with the 

National Park Service. The Eastern Band has agreed to spend over $1.5 million to 

study the feasibility of an exchange, has reduced its acreage request, and has agreed 

to development restrictions to avoid or mitigate impacts on natural and cultural resources. The Eastern Band expects to spend more than $3 million on further archaeology research if the exchange is approved. Detailed mitigation measures will include the following: 


87772.001
44


87772.002
45


87772.003
46


87772.004
47

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Mr. Blankenship, do you have any comments? Please pull the 

mike close to you so everyone can hear. 

STATEMENT OF CORY MATTHEW BLANKENSHIP,

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Kildee, 

members of the Resources Committee, and other Members of Congress, I, too, would like to express my thanks for being allowed to 

address the Committee this morning. 


87772.005
48

I am an enrolled member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians and a student at Cherokee High School. I started my academic career at Cherokee Elementary School and graduated from 

Cherokee High School last month. Next year I will attend North 

Carolina State University, and when I finish my education, I will 

return to my home, my family, and my people. God willing, I will 

raise my own children in the community 1 day. As a student at 

Cherokee schools for nearly 13 years, I have seen firsthand the 

dangerous and dilapidated conditions that exist in our school 

system. 

As Chief Jones has already mentioned, education is extremely 

important to the Eastern Band. We strive for excellence in our 

schools, take pride in our traditions, language, and history, and we 

want our children to have the schools they need and deserve. We 

only want the best for our children. Our children need a safe, 

ample school facility that is more conducive to learning—something 

we do not have now. 

We currently have over 700 students enrolled at Cherokee Elementary School, all of which are housing in a facility built for 480. 

Over 35 percent of our elementary school students are classified as 

‘‘un-housed’’ students because they attend classes in modular units 

that have been set up on campus. This number comes from the 

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools which accredits the 

Cherokee Central School System. Also, according to the Southern 

Association of Colleges and Schools, our elementary school campus 

should sit on 17 or more acres of land. The elementary school currently sits on nine. This small campus is located at the busy intersection of U.S. Highways 19 and 441, where millions of visitors to 

the Great Smoky Mountains National Park pass each year. 

Not only are the elementary school buildings overcrowded, they 

have seen the effects of time. The foundation has shifted, causing 

walls floors, and ceilings to crack, allowing for the formation of rust 

and mold. In some places, ceiling tiles have disintegrated to nothing, exposing electrical corridors and other utilities. Our gymnasium has been condemned for structural reasons, but we have to 

continue using it. 

Cherokee High School has similar problems. The school is currently at capacity. Parts of the building have been declared unfit 

for educational purposes, and parts of the structure have been condemned. These school facilities are simply inadequate for the education of our children. 

But we have the resources and Congress has the power to solve 

this problem. With Congress’ approval of this exchange, the 

Eastern Band will have a suitable location in which to build three 

new schools, all part of one multi-generational educational village. 

We envision a cultural village where our children can gain an 

understanding of our culture, heritage, language, and our history. 

They will learn traditional ways, customs, language, and natural 

history alongside the modern curriculum of schools throughout the 

Nation. Our children will attend school in modern, environmentally 

friendly facilities in an area that is part of our ancestral homeland, 

close to our homes, and more conducive to learning. 

We are a close-knit community and our clan and extended family 

relationships are important. Our language is also important to preVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
49

serve that culture. In this educational village, Cherokee language 

teachers and elder speakers will be able to move from students in 

one school to the next. And older students will be able to assist in 

the education of younger ones. 

Our ideal teaching method is language immersion, and it has 

been introduced into the school system, but cannot reach its full potential in isolated schools. The basis of immersion is that students 

hear and speak nothing but Cherokee for hours each day. They 

speak with and teach each other and, therefore, truly absorb our 

native language. this new three-school campus will allow us to expand the immersion program and increase the fluency and numbers of native language speakers. This new facility will also allow 

many Cherokee students who have entered the public school 

system because of poor conditions and overcrowding in our schools 

to return. These public school students currently receive virtually 

no exposure to our language and culture while at school. 

This large parcel of land will also rejoin the isolated Cherokee 

community of Big Cove with the rest of the Qualla Boundary. Restoring jurisdictional integrity of our land will serve not only as a 

physical connection but also as a spiritual one that will allow the 

coming together of communities of people and of traditional ways. 

In the last decade, over 3.5 million acres nationwide have been 

placed under the protection of the National Park Service, and we 

ask only for 143. If this exchange takes place, there will still be 

more acres under Park Service protection, with the 218 we are offering at Waterrock Knob. We believe this exchange is fair and that 

our goals are important, and we hope you do, too. 

We ask everyone here today to support the Cherokee people, help 

us protect our unique identity, help us to ensure the future of our 

children and our nation as a whole. Please support the Ravensford 

land exchange and do not allow our Cherokee children to be left behind. 

Thank you again for allowing me the honor to appear before you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blankenship follows:]

Statement of Cory Blankenship, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, Members of the Resources Committee 

and other members of Congress, I too would like to express my thanks for being 

allowed to address this Committee today. 

I am an enrolled member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and a student 

at Cherokee High School. I started my academic career at Cherokee Elementary 

School, and I graduated from Cherokee High School last month. Next year I will 

attend North Carolina State University, and when I finish my education, I plan to 

return to my home, my family, and my people. God willing, I will raise my own children in the community one day. As a student at Cherokee Schools for nearly 13 

years, I have seen first hand the dangerous and dilapidated conditions in our school 

system. 

As Chief Jones has already mentioned, education is extremely important to the 

Eastern Band. We strive for excellence in our schools, take pride in our traditions, 

language, and history—and we want our children to have schools they need and deserve. We only want the best for our children. Our children need a safe, ample 

school facility that is more conducive to learning, something we do not have now. 

We currently have over 700 students enrolled at Cherokee Elementary School, all 

of which are housed in a facility built for 480. Over 35% of our elementary school 

students are classified as ‘‘un-housed’’ students because they attend classes in modular units that have been set up on campus. This number comes from the Southern 

Association of Colleges and Schools which accredits Cherokee Central Schools. Also, 

according to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Cherokee Elementary 

should sit on 17 or more acres of land’’ the elementary school currently sits on 9. 

50

This small campus is located at the busy intersection of U.S. Highways 19 and 441, 

where millions of visitors to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park pass each 

year. 

Not only are our elementary school buildings overcrowded, they have seen the effects of time. The foundation has shifted, causing walls, floors, and ceilings to crack 

allowing for the formation of rust and mold. In some places, ceiling tiles have disintegrated to nothing, exposing electrical corridors and other utilities. Our gymnasium has been condemned for structural reasons, but we have to continue using 

it. 

Cherokee High School has similar problems. The school currently is at capacity. 

Parts of the building have been declared unfit for educational purposes and parts 

of the structure have been condemned. These school facilities are simply inadequate 

for the education of our children. 

We have the resources, and Congress has to power to solve this problem. With 

Congress’s approval of this exchange, the Eastern Band will have a suitable location 

in which to build three new schools all part of one multi-generational, educational 

village. 

We envision a ‘‘cultural village’’ where our children can gain an understanding of 

our culture, heritage, language and our history. They will learn traditional ways, 

customs, language, and natural history alongside the modern curriculum of schools 

throughout the Nation. Our children will attend school in modern, environmentally 

friendly facilities in an area that is part of their ancestral homeland, close to our 

homes and more conducive to learning. 

We are a close-knit community and our clan and extended family relationships 

are important. Our language is also important to preserve that culture. In this educational village, Cherokee language teachers and elder speakers will be able to move 

from students in one school to the next. And older students will be able to assist 

with the education of the younger ones. 

Our ideal teaching method of ‘‘language immersion’’ has been introduced in the 

school system, but cannot reach its full potential in isolated schools. The basis of 

immersion is that students hear and speak nothing but Cherokee for hours each 

day, speak with and teach each other, and therefore truly absorb their native language. This new three-school campus will allow us to expand the immersion program and increase the fluency and numbers of native language speakers. This new 

facility will also allow many Cherokee students—who have entered the public school 

system because of poor conditions and overcrowding in our schools—to return. These 

public school students currently receive virtually no exposure to our language and 

culture at school. 

Our ‘‘educational village’’ will be on a large parcel of land, in a safe location 

buffered from major highways. It will be a beautiful facility designed with nature. 

We will be able to look out on the mountains and forests that we are a part of, and 

that are a part of us. Natural study areas in the forest will surround this campus, 

where our children will learn the scientific and biological make-up of our ancestral 

homeland. 

This large parcel of land will also rejoin the isolated Cherokee community of Big 

Cove with the rest of the Qualla Boundary. Restoring jurisdictional integrity of our 

land will serve not only as a physical connection, but also as a spiritual one that 

will allow the coming together of communities, of people and of traditional ways. 

In the last decade, over 3,500,000 acres nationwide have been placed under the 

protection of the National Park Service. We are asking only for 143 acres to help 

us build our schools and preserve our culture. And when this land exchange is completed there will still be more acres under Park Service protection, with the 218 we 

are offering at Waterrock Knob. We believe this is a fair exchange and that our 

goals are important, and we hope you do too. 

We ask everyone here today to support the Cherokee people, help us protect our 

unique identity, help us insure the future of our children and our Nation as a whole. 

Please support the Ravensford Land Exchange, and do not allow our children to be 

left behind. Thank you again for allowing me the honor to appear before you. 

Cherokee Cultural Education Center at Ravensford 

The Eastern Band seeks to develop a three-school elementary, middle and high 

school campus on the Ravensford land exchange site, presently located in the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. At scoping meetings held to prepare for the draft 

environmental impact statement regarding the land exchange, members of the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee explained their cultural and educational reasons for planning a three-school campus, and this briefing paper is intended to consolidate and 

summarize those reasons in a single document. 

51

It is important to note that the Eastern Band has requested the Ravensford site 

both for school construction and to reunite the Big Cove Community with the rest 

of the Qualla Boundary (Cherokee Indian Reservation). Big Cove is completely separated from the Boundary by National Park Service land, and the access road to Big 

Cove travels for about two miles through the National Park. Even if other land were 

available for the school campus, the Eastern Band would seek the Ravensford site 

to re-establish territorial integrity with Big Cove. 

Cultural Background 

The Eastern Band of Cherokee are the descendants of the Cherokee Nation who 

refused to relocate to Oklahoma, or who returned from Oklahoma after the Trail of 

Tears in the 1830s. The Tribe struggled for decades to reacquire and preserve a tiny 

portion of its original land base. The community is a close-knit one, formed by common ancestry and the struggle for cultural preservation on its original land base. 

Cherokee culture is clan-based. Extended family plays a much more significant role 

in Cherokee culture than it does in most non–Indian cultures. 

Traditional Cherokee cultural norms are also based on a reverence for nature and 

natural life cycles. Along with ceremonial practices conducted in the rivers and 

mountains, the practice of gathering wild foods and natural medicinal herbs is still 

widely practiced. The natural environment of the Western North Carolina mountains has sustained the Band for many years, and preservation of that environment 

is important to Tribal members. 

At the same time, the Eastern Band of Cherokee has embraced many elements 

of non–Indian culture, and has developed a thriving economy based on tourism. Although not without challenges, the Qualla Boundary probably has the most developed economy on a per capita basis of any Indian Nation. The modern economy has 

had an impact on Cherokee culture, particularly by affecting the number Cherokee 

language speakers. 

Anthropologists recognize the importance of a distinct language as perhaps the 

key element for preservation of traditional cultures. In this regard, the Eastern 

Band is at a critical juncture. While there are still many fluent Cherokee speakers, 

and a smaller number who can read and write in Cherokee, many adults and children do not speak Cherokee fluently, and some know only a few words. 

The Eastern Band and other Indian Nations face many challenges in the modern 

world. Among other things, diabetes is epidemic among many Tribes including the 

Eastern Band. Recent research has indicated that cultural knowledge and self-esteem are key prevention factors in helping today’s youth combat this spreading disease. Maintaining the Tribe’s language and culture may indeed be a matter of life 

or death in the future. 

To combat this trend and reverse it, the Eastern Band has established a program 

to teach Cherokee language and culture in the elementary school, in addition to the 

regular academic curriculum. The program has been successful, but is difficult to 

implement in the outdated, dilapidated, and overcrowded elementary school, located 

at a busy downtown intersection. Some of the serious challenges faced in the current 

setting are summarized in the attached memorandum by Lee Clauss of the Tribal 

Historic Preservation Program. The Tribe wants to expand the language program 

to the high school level, but with limited numbers of fluent Cherokee speakers who 

also have teaching credentials and geographically separated schools, that is not possible at this time. 

Cherokee Cultural Education Center 

The Eastern Band proposes a unique educational center, designed with a strong 

emphasis on nature, and in keeping with the traditions of the Cherokee culture. 

This three-school campus will include elementary, middle, and high schools in stateof-the-art facilities built to teach both the regular curriculum and Cherokee language and culture. The high school will include classrooms and meeting rooms for 

post-secondary education and for adult continuing education, making the facility a 

multigenerational cultural education center. 

The Center’s buildings will include elements of the traditional Cherokee sevensided council houses and other references to the seven Cherokee clans. The written 

and spoken Cherokee language will be prevalent throughout the Center. Cherokee 

language teachers and traditional tribal elders will be able to circulate through the 

schools, helping classroom teachers incorporate language and culture into the classroom. The Center will facilitate mentoring programs, pairing older and younger students in collaborative teaching and learning experiences. 

Opponents of the land exchange have argued that the schools should be separated 

to comply with current non–Indian education theory. Even if that is current theory, 

the Tribe’s need to preserve its language and culture is paramount. Without 

52

intending any disrespect, we have struggled for years in schools that were designed 

by the Federal government based on the mainstream education theories of the time. 

We are ready to design and build our own education center. 

Consistent with Cherokee respect for nature and the mountains, the Eastern 

Band plans outdoor learning settings as well, so that students can remain connected 

with and learn more about the environment as they are being educated. The 

Ravensford site offers several opportunities that are not available elsewhere, with 

the adjacent wetland, riverine, and montane alluvial habitats. Ravensford also contains significant historic and prehistoric Cherokee archeological features, which 

could offer educational opportunities whether they are preserved in place or excavated by professional archeologists working with the schools and community. 

The challenge of designing our own Education Center in a way that fits with the 

natural setting and does not interfere with the experience of Park visitors is one 

that the Tribe is happy to accept. Like the developers of the Folk Art Center on 

the Blue Ridge Parkway in Asheville, the Eastern Band will work closely with Park 

Service planners and officials to ensure that the schools fit the site, minimize any 

impact on views and other resources, and blend into the environment. This is not 

just something we want to do for the environment. We believe that replacing the 

current aging and substandard facilities that we inherited from the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs with beautiful schools in a natural setting will greatly enhance the 

self-esteem and educational experience of Cherokee children. 

The consolidated Education Center will also promote other efficiencies, including 

the ability to maintain the buildings and grounds, full use of school libraries on a 

multigenerational basis, use of athletic facilities, more efficient bus service, providing on-site specialists, including counselors, health educators, special education 

teachers, agricultural, environmental, and archeological educators, as well as the 

cultural and language specialists. 

We want to teach our children from the standpoint of history, nature, culture and 

community. The Cherokee Cultural Education Center, located in the heart of the 

Qualla Boundary at Ravensford, will be the central core that draws the community 

together and maintains the cohesive nature of our clan- and family-based society. 

The Education Center is needed, both literally and spiritually, to ‘‘bring us together.’’ It is not just our preference—it is a cultural necessity. 

53

The CHAIRMAN. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Mr. Barger? 

STATEMENT OF DON BARGER, SENIOR REGIONAL DISTRICT 

REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BARGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good 

morning. I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the 

National Parks Conservation Association on H.R. 1409. We have 

submitted a written statement that I will summarize. 

I want to be very clear from the outset. The problems are real 

and NPCA completely supports and applauds the Eastern Band’s 

commitment to provide their students with the best possible 


87772.006
54

schools. At the same time, NPCA must oppose H.R. 1409 at this 

time. Our position has not been lightly considered nor easily 

reached. 

NPCA has been joined in opposing the development of this site 

by the Governor-appointed National Park Advisory Councils of both 

North Carolina and Tennessee. Appointed by former Governors 

Don Sundquist and Jim Hunt, both commissions passed resolutions 

in opposition to the proposed exchange, and we have attached that 

to our written testimony. 

For over 2 years, the Park Service has studied the potential effects of the proposed exchange. The draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, or EIS, has just become available, and there has been 

no opportunity to review or comment on it. Consequently, NPCA 

believes that H.R. 1409 is premature as it would short-circuit the 

ongoing public process and require the land exchange and development to proceed before the impacts of the proposal have been fully 

discussed or understood. 

I would like to raise just a few of the kind of issues that the EIS 

will unravel over the next few months. 

The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places due 

to its over 8,000-year archaeological record of Euro-American, 

Cherokee, and pre-Cherokee history. Scientists from the All Taxa 

Biodiversity Inventory have identified to date 59 species new to 

science within the area. The Park Service’s visual analysis of the 

site from the two overlooks along the Blue Ridge Parkway that look 

down upon the valley states, and I quote, ‘‘Parkway visitors consider the Raven Fork River Valley view among the most coveted, 

a rare icon view.’’ 

Two descending ridges currently separate the noise, lights, and 

congestion of Cherokee from the Oconaluftee Valley in the park. If 

the Ravensford tract is developed as this bill proposes, the valley 

and the grandstand of mountains around it will be impacted by 

three buildings, six athletic fields, including some lit for night 

games, and several parking lots. We would oppose the development 

of this site even if the Park Service had proposed it. 

In relation to the Big Cove Road, the Park Service has worked 

with the Eastern Band over the years, and to our knowledge, no 

problems have been identified with either services or access along 

the road. We have been told that the two tracts of land proposed 

for exchange have relatively equal values of around half a million 

dollars. In 1972, the Park Service’s regional real estate appraiser 

determined the fair market value of the Ravensford tract to be 

$6,000 per acre. If you apply an extremely conservative 3-percent 

annual increase to that value, the Ravensford tract should be 

worth around $2 million. At the same time, we visited the Jackson 

County property assessor’s office in May and found that the appraisal for the Yellow Face tract was $58,400. While these appraisals are usually on the low side, it would be quite unusual for them 

to be so by a factor of 10. 

These and many other issues and questions will be vetted in the 

public participation process for the EIS. We believe that forum is 

the proper one for understanding and fully evaluating these issues. 

It is important to emphasize that we believe that there are alternative locations for the new schools that could be developed and 

55

used. According to the Cherokee Business District Master Plan of 

February 2001, and I will quote, ‘‘With a large amount of flat to 

rolling land, opportunities exist for development of large facilities 

such as a shopping area or hotel as well as a public parking 

facility.’’ 

The master plan also states, ‘‘The elementary school occupies one 

of the most prime parcels of real estate in Cherokee, as does the 

BIA office next door...Over the long term, the elementary school 

and BIA sites should become a new cohesive anchor attraction. 

These anchors could be an outlet mall, festive retail, or entertainment uses that draw visitors to their locations as destination attractions.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, even a poorly done Education Campus Site Evaluation with hand-picked criteria that assured the Ravensford tract 

would be identified, found potential alternative sites for the construction of schools. The study does not conclude that the 

Ravensford tract is the only potential site for school construction. 

In closing, this is not a case of schools versus scenery. The simplest reason for not removing the land from the park is that we 

don’t need to. NPCA stands ready to work with the Eastern Band, 

the Resources Committee, the National Park Service and the BIA 

to devise a solution that both protects Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway, and provides Cherokee 

children with the best possible educational opportunities. We believe both of these goals can be satisfied. Unfortunately, the legislation before you does not produce that solution. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barger follows:]

Statement of Don Barger, Senior Director, Southeast Regional Office, 

National Parks Conservation Association, on H.R. 1409

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Don Barger, Senior Director 

of the southeast regional office of the National Parks Conservation Association 

(NPCA). NPCA is America’s only private, nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated 

solely to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the National Park System. NPCA 

was founded in 1919 and today has approximately 300,000 members who care deeply about the well being of our national parks. 

NPCA appreciates the opportunity to express our views about H.R. 1409, the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian Land Exchange Act of 2003. This proposed exchange has enormous implications for two of our most visited national park units—

Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway—and should 

not be entered into lightly. NPCA, along with others in the environmental community, applauds the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians’ (EBCI) commitment to provide their students with the best possible schools. The proposed Ravensford land exchange is so controversial because it combines two extremely important and emotional public policy issues: protecting our national parks, and providing young 

people with the best possible schools. Fortunately in this case, both of these important goals can be satisfied because of the presence of alternative locations for 

schools outside the boundary of our Great Smoky Mountains National Park. 

As you know, the National Park Service (NPS) is analyzing a proposal for Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park to relinquish 144 acres, commonly referred to as 

the Ravensford tract, to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI), in exchange 

for adding a parcel of land to the Blue Ridge Parkway many miles away. The exchange is extremely controversial with many national, regional and state organizations, including the North Carolina National Park, Parkway and Forest DevelopVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
56

1Park Commissions’ Resolutions. 

2Personal communication with GRSM staff. 

3 Cherokee Business District Master Plan, February 2001, pg. 1.1. 

4 Cherokee Business District Master Plan, February 2001, pg. 4.1. 

ment Council and Tennessee Park Commission, expressing their opposition. 1 NPS 

is developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); a draft EIS is slated for publication this month. 

Consequently, NPCA believes that H.R. 1409 is premature, as it would short-circuit 

the ongoing public process and require the land exchange to proceed before the impacts of the proposed land exchange have yet to be fully debated or understood. 

Ravensford 

The proposed exchange will have far reaching impacts on the integrity of the 

National Park System and will significantly impair the resources of both Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The beauty, natural 

history, and human history of the Ravensford tract make it of great educational 

value as a natural classroom. Scientists from the All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory 

have recently identified approximately 59 species that are new to science located 

within the Ravensford tract. Ravensford is also home to an unbroken archeological 

record of Euro–American, Cherokee and pre–Cherokee history, including historic 

and prehistoric artifacts dating back more than 8,000 years. The discovery of these 

cultural resources supports the site’s 1982 placement on the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

Part of the Ravensford tract includes alluvial floodplain, a globally rare ecological 

community described as imperiled by the Nature Conservancy. Because they’re flat 

and near water, most such areas have been developed over the course of history, 

making the preservation of Ravensford in an undeveloped state even more important. In fact, the Ravensford tract was flooded during the recent severe rains during 

the week of May 5, 2003. 2 The Ravensford tract affords beautiful vistas from the 

Oconaluftee Valley, with a foreground of open fields from which hills and mountains 

of Great Smoky Mountains National Park rise abruptly. The topography of the park 

is such that vistas like these are extremely limited. The recently updated Blue 

Ridge Parkway (BLRI) visual analysis survey of the Ravensford tract published by 

the Department of Interior states, ‘‘Parkway visitors consider the Raven Fork River 

Valley view among the most coveted, a rare icon view.’’ Parkway management has 

concluded that the views to the tract should be preserved. 

The ridges of the Great Smoky Mountains form a natural gateway that separate 

the noise and congestion of the town of Cherokee from the Oconaluftee Valley in 

the national park. The proposed school complex would sit at the primary North 

Carolina entrance to the park as well as the southern terminus of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. If the Ravensford tract is developed into a school campus, that grandstand 

of mountains will include night lighting, six athletic fields, three parking areas and 

traffic congestion, as school buses would have to navigate the principal North Carolina entrance to our nation’s most visited national park. 

Alternative Locations for School Construction 

It is important to emphasize that there are alternative locations for new schools 

both inside and outside the Cherokee Reservation. Two documents produced by 

EBCI, the Cherokee Business District Master Plan and Education Campus Site 

Evaluation, state explicitly that alternative sites are available. 

EBCI received the Cherokee Business District Master Plan in February 2001. The 

stated purpose of the document is to ‘‘serve as a guide for the orderly growth and 

development of Cherokee’s CBD [Central Business District].’’ 3 The development of 

the master plan began with an inventory and analysis of the natural and man-made 

features and conditions within the reservation. Based on that inventory the master 

plan states: 

Opportunities for commercial developments, parking facilities, and cultural 

attractions also exist throughout the area. The north end of the CBD is currently experiencing retail growth. With a large amount of flat to rolling 

land, opportunities exist for development of large facilities such as a shopping area or hotel as well as a public parking facility. (emphasis added).

Another large area of potential development lies across the river where several large buildings stand unused on Acquoni Road. These large flat and 

paved areas could be used for a number of public or private ventures that 

do not require direct tourist visibility. 4 (emphasis added). 

The master plan states that the long-term plan includes possible acquisition of alternative sites for schools. The master plan states: 

57

5 Cherokee Business District Master Plan, February 2001, pg. 5.20. 

6 Education Campus Site Evaluation, Joel L. Starrow, P.E., Dale E. Pennell, P.E., P.L.S., 

McGill Associates, October, 2002, p. 4. 7 Education Campus Site Evaluation, p. 5. 

8 Education Campus Site Evaluation, p. 11. 

9 Education Campus Site Evaluation, p. 12. 

10Draft Statement of Findings for Wetlands for a Proposed Land Exchange between the 

National Park Service and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park/Draft Land Exchange EIS, pg. 12. 11Personal communication with GRSM staff. 12 Education Campus Site Evaluation, p. 13. 

The elementary school occupies one of the most prime parcels of real estate 

in Cherokee, as does the BIA office next door. The school and the BIA are 

not the ‘‘highest and best use’’ of these prime parcels. Over the long term, 

the elementary school and BIA sites should become a new, cohesive anchor 

attraction. . . . These anchors could be an outlet mall, festive retail, or entertainment uses that draw visitors to their locations as destination attractions. The size of these parcels makes it possible to develop them cohesively, which is of primary importance in the development of an anchor destination. 5 (emphasis added). 

Even the poorly done Education Campus Site Evaluation, with EBCI’s handpicked criteria that assured the Ravensford tract would be identified, found potential alternative sites for the construction of schools. The study included a number 

of limiting criteria, including: 

Commuting distance for students (maximum 15-mile bus commute for all students 

on the Qualla Boundary). 6

• Topography and soils analysis, based on a threshold of 8 degrees slope and 

less. 7

A map showing low-slope land in and around the Qualla Boundary indicates large 

tracts of land with slope of no more than 8% within a ten-mile radius of the 

Ravensford tract. 

EBCI have identified a need for 73 acres to accommodate a three-school complex 

with necessary parking and athletic facilities. The Education Campus Site Evaluation identifies 10 potential sites for school construction. 

Following the site selection process, each site was evaluated based on a more detailed examination under the technical criteria. A lower ranking score of ‘‘4’’ was 

provided to sites that, among other factors, have ‘‘wetland and/or flood issues adversely impact full use.’’ 8 The study also states that it is important to note that 

many of the tracts are ‘‘located outside reservation boundaries and are comprised 

of individual tracts with multiple owners’’ concluding that these sites ‘‘will prove difficult, if not impossible, to acquire.’’ 9 The study neglects to point out that the 

Ravensford tract is among those sites outside the reservation boundary. 

The Ravensford tract is outside the reservation boundary, within the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, and as parkland is owned by and for the enjoyment of 

every American, including the Cherokee. The tract includes approximately 7 acres 

of wetland. 10 As stated earlier in the testimony, the Ravensford tract was flooded 

during the recent severe rains during the week of May 5, 2003. 11 Nonetheless, the 

Ravensford tract was determined to be the ‘‘best suited to accommodate a consolidated school campus.’’ 12 The study does not conclude that the Ravensford tract is 

the only potential site for school construction. Also, the study neglects to consider 

the current locations of the schools as suitable locations for schools. 

In a letter from NPS Director Roger Kennedy to Senator Jesse Helms, dated 

June 13, 1994 Mr. Kennedy noted that construction of either a golf course or school 

complex ‘‘would be totally contrary to the purpose for which the land was placed 

within the park, i.e., to preserve its scenic, natural and cultural resources.’’ The letter continues: 

Construction of a school complex along with the attendant parking, athletic 

field and 2 other facilities would require extensive clearing, grading and 

construction in an area where native grasses and forests now exist. The resultant disturbance would be totally incompatible with the archeological 

district and historic appearance now protected by national park status.

Visually, the proposed school complex would have a dramatic impact on the 

view from the last two overlooks on the Blue Ridge Parkway which currently provide unimpaired vistas of the pastoral Oconaluftee River valley 

and the Oconaluftee Pioneer Farmstead which is part of the park’s 

Oconaluftee Visitor Center Complex.

58

13 NPS letter dated June 13, 1994. To Senator Jesse Helms, from Director NPS. 14 NPS GRSM Briefing Statement re. Eastern Band of Cherokee Requests for Special Park 

Use of Land for Development, dated January 20, 1998. 15General Agreement (Agreement No. GA–GRSM–01–FY00) Between National Park Service 

and Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, June 14, 2000. 16Paul A. Webb, et al., Cultural and Historical Resources Investigations of the Ravensford 

Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina 

(ARPA Permit GRSM 99–001, Amendment 1 SEAC Accession No. 1580, June 2002), 37. 17Webb, Cultural and Historical Resources Investigations, 38. 18Webb, Cultural and Historical Resources Investigations, 38. 19Margaret Lynn Brown, The Wild East: A Biography of the Great Smoky Mountains (University Press of Florida, 2000), 52. 

Finally, the National Park Service is concerned that carving into the park 

for this project would lead to proposals for development in the park by 

other entrance communities, all of which are nearing the limits of the 

developable land. A few years ago, for example, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, 

requested permission to build flood control facilities inside the park’s northern entrance. This request was rejected as well. 13

NPS published another GRSM Briefing Statement regarding the EBCI requests 

for special park use of land for development on January 20, 1998. The Briefing 

Statement includes the NPS official position; ‘‘The National Park Service continues 

to oppose cutting into the Park to construct facilities such as the golf course or 

school complex which are not compatible with Park purposes.’’ 14

On June 14, 2000 NPS broke with their long-standing policy of rejecting EBCI’s 

request for land within GRSM. Robert Stanton, former Director of NPS, entered into 

an agreement with the EBCI, to ‘‘create a framework within which the parties may 

explore the feasibility of a land exchange involving the Ravensford tract.’’ The agreement includes a list of steps to be taken by both NPS and EBCI to determine whether it is feasible to exchange the land. One of the NPS action items listed in the 

agreement reads as follows: 

5. Make final determination in good faith, after the completion of the required surveys and studies, to enter into the proposed land exchange or not 

to enter into the proposed land exchange. 15 (emphasis added) 

Thus the agreement does not contain a guarantee that the exchange would take 

place. 

History of the Ravensford Tract 

The Ravensford tract was part of the land ceded by the Cherokees at the Treaty 

of Tellico in 1798. 16 Euro–American settlers had begun to enter the area at that 

time and by the early 1800s the Ravensford tract and surrounding area was settled 

by the Mingus, Enloe and Hughes families. 17 Descendants of these three families 

continued to control the private holdings in the area into the 1920s. 18

During that period leading up to the creation of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) in 1934, the states of Tennessee and North 

Carolina bought the land in preparation for turning it over to the Federal 

government. Timber interests owned and were harvesting the vast majority 

of the land that became GRSM. Such was the case with the Ravensford 

tract. The Whitimer–Parsons Pulp & Lumber Company had purchased the 

land that was to become the lumber town of Ravensford in the early 

1900s. 19 The land in turn was acquired by condemnation from the lumber 

company by the State of North Carolina in 1933 and subsequently became 

part of the national park. Following the establishment of GRSM the 

Federal government began the process of developing the Blue Ridge Parkway, an ambitious vision for a unit of the park system to connect Shenandoah National Park in northern Virginia to the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in North Carolina. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway Negotiations (1937—1940) 

In 1937 the Cherokee declined an offer by NPS for the Ravensford tract as well 

as the Boundary Tree tract, Tight Run tract and cash in exchange for right-of-way 

across the Qualla Boundary to be used for the preferred, westward route for the 

Blue Ridge Parkway down from Soco Gap. The Cherokee’s refusal of that offer set 

into motion a complex set of negotiations that eventually led to acceptance of an 

offer for cash and the construction of U.S. Highway 19 in exchange of right-of-way 

for the current eastward route of the Parkway. 

One of the key issues faced by Parkway planners was acquiring right-of-way 

through the Qualla Boundary to GRSM to construct the southern terminus of the 

road. Negotiations began between the Federal government, North Carolina and 

59

20 Harley E. Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway (University of Tennessee Press, 1983), 93. 21 Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, 93. 22 John R. Finger, Cherokee Americans: The Eastern Band of Cherokees in the Twentieth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991), 78. 23 75th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 5472, pg. 699. 24 75th Congress, H.R. 5472 25 Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, 97. 26 Jolley, Blue Ridge Parkway, 100. 27 John R. Finger, Cherokee Americans, 93. 28 76th Congress, 3d Session, H.R. 6668, pg. 299. 29 76th Congress, H.R. 6668. 

EBCI with the original plan to route the Parkway through Soco Gap west along 

Soco Creek down into the town of Cherokee. 20 When the Cherokee discovered that 

NPS wanted a one-thousand-foot right-of-way and that the road would be for 

restricted use, the EBCI opposed the project. 21 The Cherokee were concerned that 

the wider right-of-way would take valuable farmland in the Soco Valley and negatively impact commercial possibilities on the main street in Cherokee. 22

Negotiations for the preferred Blue Ridge Parkway route along Soco Creek 

evolved with the Secretary of Interior offering the following exchange of park land 

for EBCI land: the EBCI would receive the Ravensford, Boundary Tree, and Tight 

Run tracts (all within GRSM) plus reasonable cash compensation; the NPS would 

receive the 1,102 acre Towstring tract and a right-of-way for the Parkway through 

the Qualla Boundary from Soco Gap west along Soco Creek. 23 This exchange was 

explicitly made contingent upon consent of EBCI through a secret ballot in a general 

election within sixty days of the bill’s passage. 24 The bill was approved by Congress 

on August 19, 1937. 

This proposal was clearly controversial among the Cherokee as reflected in an article from the Sylva Herald dated September 9, 1937. The headline read ‘‘Council 

Vote Reflects Opposition to Soco Route.’’ According to the article, a general election 

resulted in an EBCI Tribal Council consisting of eight opponents of the exchange 

plan and four proponents of the plan. The Sylva Herald reported on October 14, 

1937 under the headline ‘‘Indians Will Not Vote on Parkway,’’ that the new council 

had chosen to adjourn without voting on the Parkway plan. Thus the offer of the 

Ravensford tract was rejected by EBCI in 1937. 

Secretary of the Interior Ickes was thus caught between his attempts to procure 

a suitable route for the Blue Ridge Parkway and his obligation to protect the interests of the Cherokee. He composed a letter to the EBCI in which he plainly stated 

that DOI would not coerce the Cherokee into providing the right-of-way: ‘‘If you do 

not want the road to be built where the National Park Service desires it to go, it 

will not be built.’’ The Cherokee were advised that if they did not approve of the 

current proposals for the Parkway, either a new route avoiding the reservation 

would have to be found or else the road would have to terminate at Soco Gap. 25

The State of North Carolina, working through EBCI Principal Chief Jarret Blythe 

and the Superintendent of the Cherokee Indian Agency, abandoned the original proposal to go down Soco Creek. 26 The new plan called for a completely different route 

eastward from Soco Gap, along the existing ridge-top route of the parkway. Given 

the complex of cuts, fills and tunnels NPS had realized that with this route it was 

going to cost significantly more to build the parkway into GRSM. This offer required 

that the State of North Carolina build a new highway through Soco Gap that would 

leave EBCI tourist business intact and allow economic expansion. This offer did not 

include any exchange of parkland. EBCI rejected this proposal. 27

Finally, in 1940 Congress passed legislation that would provide NPS with a rightof-way across the Qualla Boundary along the existing route of the Parkway. That 

route takes the Parkway from Soco Gap along the ridgeline and finally connects 

with U.S. Highway 441 (Newfound Gap Road) within GRSM immediately adjacent 

to the Ravensford tract. 28 In exchange the State of North Carolina agreed to build 

a highway from Soco Gap to Cherokee (now U.S. Highway 19), and the Cherokee 

received $40,000 or $30 an acre (whichever amount was greater) for the right-ofway and an option to acquire the Boundary Tree tract. 29 EBCI did acquire the 

Boundary Tree tract in 1943. 

Thus the boundaries of the Parkway and GRSM overlap along the southern most 

mile of the Parkway, with the Parkway passing immediately southeast of the 

Ravensford tract and running parallel to Big Cove Road. In other words, the 

Ravensford tract is completely surrounded by GRSM and bounded on the southeast 

side by the Parkway. The Ravensford tract is situated with both the Parkway and 

over one-half mile of GRSM land separating it from the Qualla Boundary to the 

southeast. Removing the tract from the park would create a private in holding almost completely surrounded by national park land. 

60

30Memorandum dated August 8, 1940 from Superintendent J. R. Eakin to Acting Director 

NPS Demaray. 31Letter dated February 22, 1972 from Superintendent Vincent Ellis to the Honorable Noah 

Powell, Principal Chief. 

For that reason the route of the Parkway became a significant factor in NPS removing the Ravensford tract from the negotiating table. With the original proposal, 

the Parkway would have come down the west side of the ridge along Soco Creek, 

following a path that did not overlap with GRSM. Writing in 1940, GRSM 

Superintendent J.R. Eakin discussed, in pertinent part, the original rationale for the 

land exchange in the 1937 offer and how the NPS position had to change with the 

alternative route of the Blue Ridge Parkway: 

I initiated the exchange that was offered to the Indians in 1937. The idea 

was to get a better administrative boundary for the park and to secure a 

right-of-way for the Parkway down Soco Creek, where construction costs 

would have been very much less than the location selected. We offered the 

Indians a value of about four-to-one, predicated upon the Soco Creek location. The Indians did not accept, and we here considered the matter ended. 

At the time the exchange was offered the site of the Secondary Administration Building [at Oconaluftee] had not been selected’’. We are going to have 

a very fine layout there and I did state to Mr. Zimmerman [Acting

Commissioner of the Indian Service] that in my opinion it would be unwise to 

complicate the situation by letting the Indians have the Ravensford tract. This is 

still my opinion and is the opinion of our entire staff. We believe the Parkway location has changed the whole picture.

Mr. Zimmerman appears to be of the opinion that we are withholding something 

that rightfully belongs to the Indians. The North Carolina Parks Commission purchased the lands under discussion for park purposes.

The present Cherokee entrance is not impressive and we proposed to exchange the 

Boundary Tree Tract, the northern boundary of which will make a more impressive 

entrance, unless the present deplorable development along the road in the Reservation continues on the Boundary Tree Tract if acquired by the Indians.

In conclusion, I desire to state that I have made no misleading statements, but 

on the contrary, Mr. Zimmerman is badly confused. 30

Recent History (1970—Present) 

Since 1971, leaders of EBCI have periodically approached NPS requesting that up 

to 200 acres of the Ravensford tract be made available to the tribe. NPS consistently 

rejected EBCI’s request for a land exchange. For many years EBCI requested the 

land to build an 18-hole golf course. Writing to Noah Powell, Principal Chief EBCI, 

in 1972 GRSM Superintendent Vincent Ellis explained the NPS position. Ellis pointed to a set of reasons for the denial including: 

1. Policies for the administration of natural areas of the National Park System. 

Moving the developed area into the natural area in effect diminishes the attraction, which brings the visitors here. It would also reduce the perimeter of 

the Great Smoky Mountains natural and historic area and open the door to 

further such requests at other entrances to the park. These requests usually 

originate in response to needs generated by inadequate land use planning adjacent to the park. 

2. Visual impact from Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Immediately above the proposed golf course area two scenic overlooks have been 

established on the Blue Ridge Parkway specifically to provide the visitor views of 

the pastoral scene including the open meadows, the natural river environment, and 

the Oconaluftee historic farmstead in the background. I do not think that a golf 

course in this location is compatible with the historic and pastoral scene we are attempting to maintain in the Ravensford–Oconaluftee area. 31

The Cherokee continued to request the Ravensford tract for a golf course. A 

memorandum to George Hertzog, Jr., Director NPS, from David Thompson, Director 

SE Regional Office NPS on November 16, 1972 sets out his recommendation that 

NPS not support a land exchange with EBCI. Thompson provides a list of reasons 

for this denial: 

The land within the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park have been set aside for all the people to use and still preserve the natural, historical and cultural values. Certain of these Ravensford lands are 

61

32Memorandum dated November 16, 1972. To Director, NPS, from Director Southeast Region. 33Memorandum dated March 4, 1991. To Chief Resource Management and Science, from Historian, GRSM. 34GRSM Briefing Statement re. Proposed Transfer of Park Lands to Cherokee Indian Reservation, dated March 5, 1991. 35 Asheville Citizen–Times, Man turns back on park job and its controversies, October 5, 2002. 36Warranty Deed, Book Number 758, Page 132, Jackson County Register of Deeds. Registered 

June 25, 1990. 37 Real Property Identity Results, Jackson County Maps Department, May 19, 2003. 38The Washington Post, Good for the Cherokee, Good for the Park Service, letter to the editor 

from Principal Chief Leon Jones, October 21, 2002, pg. A 24. 

classed as cultural and historical. Section 106 of the Historic Preservation 

Act and Executive Order 11593 apply to portions of this land. 32

In reaction to a subsequent EBCI request for the land, NPS requested that the 

park’s historian, Edward Trout, analyze the feasibility of conducting a land exchange involving the Ravensford tract. A memorandum produced by Trout in 1991 

explains his determination that NPS cannot conduct the land exchange and includes 

the following: 

It should be noted that the land in question lies within the Oconaluftee Archeological District, which was placed on the National Register of Historic 

Places on February 19, 1982. It was placed thereon because of the valuable 

store of Cherokee and pre–Cherokee archeological resources contained within the District. 33

A Great Smoky Mountains National Park Briefing Statement on the Ravensford 

land exchange followed that memo. NPS’s stated position is ‘‘The National Park 

Service strongly opposes cutting into the Park to construct a golf course.’’ 34

EBCI established a Harrah’s Casino in Cherokee, NC, in the early 1990s. It is 

assumed that with this revenue stream, EBCI shifted its priority to improving its 

school system. In 1994, the tribe requested a land transfer for the construction of 

new schools. 

NPS officials have made it clear that no pre-decision on the land exchange has 

been made. This issue came to the forefront when Yosemite Superintendent David 

Mihalic chose to retire rather than take the Superintendent position at GRSM. 

Mihalic spoke to the press explaining that he was getting pressure from NPS officials. Quoted in the Asheville Citizen–Times Mihalic stated: 

‘‘I was told that one of the reasons that (Michael) Tollefson (current Smokies superintendent) was being moved was that he hadn’t done it (the land 

swap), and it was my job to get it done,’’ Yosemite Superintendent David 

Mihalic said Friday. ‘‘My charge in going to the Smokies wasn’t to go in 

there and fight that direction.’’

Mihalic says he also was asked to tackle the controversial North Shore 

Road—a project the park historically has opposed. He announced this week 

he would retire Jan. 3 rather than take on the tasks. 35

Also quoted in that October 5, 2002 Asheville Citizen–Times article was National 

Park Service Spokesman David Barna. 

National Park Service spokesman David Barna said there has been no ‘‘predecision’’ on either the North Shore Road or the Ravensford land swap. 

It is our understanding that EBCI have yet to purchase the non-Federal land that 

is proposed for the land exchange. According to Jackson County, North Carolina 

records the property is still owned by Jay Schenck of Florida. 36 According to Jackson County records the land value is assessed at $58,400. 37 This is in sharp contrast 

to the NPS appraisal value cited by EBCI in a letter to the editor of the Washington 

Post that states ‘‘The land the Park Service would receive in exchange, the 218-acre 

Yellow Face site, was appraised at $590,000. 38

Access Between Big Cove and Qualla Boundary 

Another of the reasons that EBCI have stated for their request for the Ravensford 

tract is to reconnect the community of Big Cove with the rest of the Qualla Boundary communities. The mountainous topography in western North Carolina provides 

a limited number of suitable routes for roads through the area. By the 1960s the 

road system in and around the Qualla Boundary included the paved Big Cove Road, 

approximately one mile of which runs through GRSM. NPS has worked with EBCI 

providing the tribe with the authority to maintain Big Cove Road and providing 

right-of-way through the park for water, sewer, cable TV and electricity along the 

Big Cove Road corridor to service the community of Big Cove. EBCI have not articulated any problems with access to Big Cove as a result of the stretch of Big Cove 

Road that passes through the park. 

62

Conclusion 

NPCA stands ready to work with the Resources Committee, the National Park 

Service and EBCI to devise a solution that both protects Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway and provides Cherokee children with 

the best possible educational opportunities. Both of these goals can be satisfied. Unfortunately, the legislation before you does not produce such a solution. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about this important issue. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank the panel for their testimony. 

As I am sure you are aware, we have a vote that has been called 

on the House floor. We are going to recess the Committee temporarily to allow the members to go over and vote, and then we will 

reconvene as soon as the votes re complete. So it will probably be 

about 25 minutes that we are over there, but we will be back as 

soon as we can. 

I will tell the members that I know a number of you have questions for this panel, so if you can hurry back, it would help in moving this along. 

The Committee will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the panel for their patience. 

Chief Jones, what are the plans that the tribe has for the use of 

this land? We have heard about the building of an educational facility on the land. Are there any other plans that you have or that 

you envision for the future on this land? 

Mr. LEON JONES. There is only one other use that we have discussed, sir, and that is the corridor for transportation back and 

forth between the Big Cove community, which has been cutoff from 

the reservation by this piece of property. I have personally told the 

parties involved that I would sign any document needed to say that 

this piece of property will be used for educational purposes only, 

sir, no other use except transportation through to go to the Big 

Cove area, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. What if at sometimes in the future there is economic activity? I understand that the bill specifically says that 

there could be no gaming, but what if at sometime in the future 

there is some other type of economic development that could occur 

on this land? Would that be a possibility? 

Mr. LEON JONES. No, sir. I have expressed that I would sign the 

document saying that it is to be used for educational purposes only, 

sir. The Cherokee are honorable people. We will keep our word, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you about the environmental questions that have come up. I don’t know if you are familiar with it, 

but there is a group called the Sierra Club that has come out in 

opposition to this. They sent out a letter talking about this. Does 

your tribe have a history of environmental degradation? Do you 

have a long history of destroying the environment around you? 

Mr. LEON JONES. Sir, we have a Cultural and Heritage Department. The employees of this department, some of them have doctor 

degrees, others have master’s degrees. Their specialty is preserving 

the lands and the archaeological sites, not only on the reservation. 

They have been called, when they were going to expand the Marine 

Corps base in South Carolina, that far away, up into Kentucky, for 

their advice and their counsel on how to preserve cultural and arVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
63

chaeological sites. No, sir. To answer your question, the answer is 

no, we do not have a history of doing destruction to the land, but 

only preserving the land, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. On the culturally significant sites, the archaeological sites, it is my understanding from your answer that you 

don’t have a long history of destroying those sites either? 

Mr. LEON JONES. That is correct, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is interesting. 

Mr. Blankenship, can you tell the Committee what current educational opportunities exist for students on the reservation or nearly the reservation? 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. There is a public school system in the county 

schools, which some of our students are forced to attend because 

of the overcrowding and conditions at Cherokee Central Schools, 

but as far as education goes, Cherokee schools strive for excellence 

in their school system. We have a number of students with us 

today who are going off to college to pursue their own academic careers, so the support is there, but the facilities that we have now 

are not conducive to learning and conducive to supporting these 

students at the facility. 

And also if I may, I would like to make a comment on the land. 

We, as Cherokee people, have lived off that land for thousands of 

years, and to say that we go and destroy that land is far from the 

truth. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me ask you then. Do you have any attachment to the land? Do you care about it at all? do you have any 

history in the area? Have your people been there for a number of 

years and tried to protect this land? 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. My people have been there for thousands of 

years and because of our commitment to the United States we were 

willing to give up that land for the Blue Ridge Parkway to come 

through, because of our commitment to the United States and 

being United States citizens. I mean we haven’t even been citizens 

of the United States for a number of years now. To say that we 

would go and destroy something that is sacred to us, something 

that we have lived off of for thousands of years, goes against everything that Native American Indians and Cherokee people stand for. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does that include the riparian areas along the 

river, any sites that may be environmentally sensitive? 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. There are currently 14 archaeological sites on 

the Ravensford tract, 12 of which will not be touched at all. The 

two that will be disturbed are Cherokee sites and you can be assured that we will take every precaution necessary to observe those 

remains because those are our people. 

The CHAIRMAN. So the two sites that would be disturbed are historically Cherokee sites? 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would assume from your answer that you 

do have some interest in preserving and protecting those areas? 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. Absolutely. I mean, this serves not only for 

our tribe as a whole, but also allows our students to be involved 

in our history and participating in things like archaeological digs 

and things of that nature. The tribe has committed itself to spendVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
64

ing the money and taking the time to preserve these sites and ensure that none of these remains are lost. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it would be part of the educational opportunities? 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to submit a document replying to the National 

Park Conservation Association’s testimony from the Eastern Band 

of Cherokee Nation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. Who is it from? 

Mr. KILDEE. It is from the Eastern Band Cherokee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included. 

[The information referred to follows:]

THE TRUTH ABOUT NPCA’S TESTIMONY

FROM THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE

JUNE 18, 2003

NPCA makes false claims in its testimony. 

Let’s examine the facts: 

NPCA Myth: If the proposed schools are built, among other things, ‘‘school busses 

would have to navigate the principal North Carolina entrance to our nation’s most 

visited national park.’’

FACT: Our education center would be built across the river on a road that 

is physically separated from the main entrance to the Park. There would 

be no busses navigating that entrance, nor any impact on the views from 

the Park entrance. 

NPCA Myth: There are large parcels of land suitable for school facilities on the 

Cherokee Reservation. 

FACT: It takes more than 70 open acres of land to adequately site the 

school complex we need. NPCA has identified no such parcel available in 

or near Cherokee. The sites discussed in the Tribe’s Business District Master Plan are not large enough to build the school complex, or even a single 

school. The one large parcel we have located to the south of the Reservation 

is not available for us to purchase, despite repeated contacts with the many 

owners of that land. 

NPCA Myth: ‘‘The [Ravensford] tract includes approximately 7 acres of wetland.’’

FACT: We have worked carefully with NPS to exclude all 7 acres of wetland, along with a buffer, from the exchange site. That wetland will remain 

in NPS ownership and protection. We have offered to help NPS restore this 

long neglected and disturbed wetland. The Yellow Face Tract also has approximately 7 acres of high elevation wetland seeps that will be preserved 

under NPS protection upon approval of the land exchange. 

NPCA Myth: ‘‘The Ravensford tract was flooded during the recent severe rains 

during the week of May 5, 2003.’’

FACT: We did have a flood on the Oconaluftee River during the week of 

May 5, 2003 but flood waters did not even reach the Ravensford fields, 

much less the proposed school building site, which is located above the 100-

year flood plain. 

NPCA Myth: The Education Campus Site Evaluation was ‘‘poorly done’’ based on 

‘‘hand-picked’’ criteria. 

FACT: The site evaluation was done by independent professional engineers 

based on objective criteria. 

NPCA Myth: The Park Service has, until recently, opposed the Ravensford land 

exchange. 

FACT: In 1940, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs sent a representative to negotiate with the Tribe, and he reached an agreement, including 

exchange of the Ravensford tract, that was satisfactory to the Tribe and the 

National Park Service, among other parties. Sen. Report No. 1491, p. 2 

(1940). Without notice to the Tribe, that agreement was changed on the 

floor of the Senate. 

65

NPCA Myth: NPCA implies that the Eastern Band has a hidden agenda, based 

on past efforts to acquire the property. 

FACT: The Tribe has negotiated in good faith to restrict the development 

of the Ravensford tract to educational purposes, in a manner that will 

protect the environment. As noted in the Administration’s testimony, those 

carefully negotiated restrictions are included in H.R. 1409. 

NPCA Myth: The Yellow Face Tract is owned by a resident of Florida. 

FACT: For almost two years, the Eastern Band has had an option to purchase the Yellow Face Tract from its former owner, hoping to complete the 

study process before having to exercise that option. The option was due to 

expire this Spring, so the Tribe exercised the option, and closed on the purchase. 

NPCA Myth: The Yellow Face Tract is worth less than the Eastern Band claims. 

FACT: An appraiser selected from a list provided by the National Park 

Service has appraised the Yellow Face Tract at $590,000, using applicable 

Federal appraisal standards. He considered a number of relevant factors, 

including recent sales of similar tracts near the Parkway, and did not rely 

on the county tax value cited simplistically by NPCA. Using those same appraisal standards, the Ravensford tract has a significantly lower fair market value. 

NPCA Myth: The Tribe does not need to reunify its boundary; it has access to the 

Big Cove Community. 

FACT: Access is not the only issue at stake in jurisdictional integrity. For 

purposes of maintaining a Tribal community, it is important for the 

Eastern Band to reestablish the connection to Big Cove that was taken 

when it was severed by the Blue Ridge Parkway. For the same fundamental 

reason, the Eastern Band needs to build an education center in the heart 

of its territory on the Ravensford tract. 

NPCA Myth: H.R. 1409 will ‘‘short circuit’’ the Environmental Impact Statement 

process. 

FACT: The Draft EIS has been published and it finds no impairment of 

NPS resources from the land exchange. The Eastern Band has made a commitment with NPS to complete the EIS process, has spent $1.5 million to 

date on the process, and will honor its commitment. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Jones, in your testimony you reference a situation about 60 

years ago where the tribe tried to acquire this land but Congress 

changed the legislation at the last minute. What exactly happened 

there? You had been told that that land would be yours? 

Mr. LEON JONES. At the time the Blue Ridge Parkway was going 

to be built through our reservation. The tribe and U.S. Government 

made an agreement, after much time and haggling. There was a 

right-of-way planned and given. Along with that right-of-way, the 

Cherokee were to be given the right to purchase Ravensford. It was 

in the bill when it came to Washington. When the bill came to be 

heard, a Senator, I believe it was, from Oklahoma, asked that that 

part, Ravensford, be deleted from the bill. So the legislation passed. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway was built. We were allowed to buy the 

Boundary Tree tract, which was the other part that we were going 

to be able to have, but they took the Ravensford Tract out of the 

legislation. That was the second time it was taken from us. 

The first time was many years before, 1938, at the time of the 

Trail of Tears. This property has belonged to us for many, many 

years, sir. 

Mr. KILDEE. You mentioned 1938. I make it part of my job to 

read treaties. I remember several years ago reading the Treaty of 

Detroit, how they treated the Michigan Indians and how very often 

they made the Indians follow the treaty but the U.S. Government 

did not always follow the treaty. 

66

You have been really more than patient in this whole situation. 

I think you have been long suffering on this. Can you go into more 

detail as to how you plan to mitigate environmental concerns on 

that land? 

Mr. LEON JONES. The tribe has already spent $1.5 million on 

mitigation of these sites, on exploring them. We have also committed to another $3 million to expand on the sites that remain 

and the ones that will be disturbed. So our commitment is firm. 

Our commitment will be honored and all of the sites on this property will be taken care of in the manner and the dignity that they 

should be treated, sir. 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Blankenship, if you were a Michigan Indian, belonged to a Michigan tribe, under a bill which I introduced probably 37 years ago in Michigan, which is still a law in Michigan, the 

Ottawa, the Chippewa, the Potawatomi can go to a public college 

in Michigan and the State pays the tuition. So maybe you can get 

that done in your State some day down there. 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. Absolutely. I mean our tribe does an excellent 

job at getting us the funding to go to school, but. 

Mr. KILDEE. Let me ask you, Mr. Blankenship, you seem to feel 

that it will be helpful to have all the schools situated on the same 

educational campus. Could you tell us why you think that might 

be helpful? 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. Well, in all ties and aspects of our Cherokee 

culture and multigenerational and familial society and ways of the 

Cherokee people, so it is more or less a way for us to protect our 

identity by protecting our language and our culture by keeping it 

all in one area. Language is key to this culture, so we bring in native language speakers, like I mentioned in my testimony, where 

they are able to travel from students in one school to the next. We 

also have a situation set up where older students will be able to 

assist in the education of younger ones. 

Mr. KILDEE. I always carry with me the Constitution of the 

United States, and Article I, Section 8 says, ‘‘Congress shall have 

the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among 

the several States, and with the Indian tribes.’’ That lists the three 

sovereignties right there in the Constitution, which is very, very 

important. 

I think two of the great anchors for sovereignty, one is land, that 

is a great anchor for your sovereignty. The other is language. Many 

of the tribes in my State have lost their language. Some are trying 

to recreate it, but I think you are on the right track, and you 

should get involved in Government some day yourself. 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. Thank you. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jones? 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. Chairman, Thank you very 

much. 

Chief, let me ask you a question. The land that you propose 

swapping or exchanging with the Federal Government, you own 

that land, the Cherokees own that land; is that correct? 

Mr. LEON JONES. The Cherokee recently bought that land because the option we had on it was about to run out, and we 

67

thought it was so important that we keep this land available to 

make this exchange, that we went ahead and bought it, sir. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. Barger was saying that 

there are other sites that possibly the school could be built on. Do 

you know if there are other sites that could even be considered that 

would be satisfactory? 

Mr. LEON JONES. There was a study done by an independent organization, sir, to see if there were other sites available. They came 

up with two sites that would be likely candidates for schools like 

we want to build. One of them was off the reservation, very close 

to the reservation. We inquired of the owners, and there were multiple owners. They were not interested in selling, sir, so that was 

not an option. The other property they said was suitable was the 

Ravensford property, sir. Those were the only two sites available. 

Anything else would have been miles away and too far to transport 

our children. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Let me ask you, how long have 

the Cherokee Indians been trying to get the Federal Government 

to work with them so that this new school could be built? 

Mr. LEON JONES. I can only speak for myself, sir. I have been 

in office 4 years. I came up in the first 6 months of my administration, and have been working very diligently since that time. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Let me ask you one other question. I want to pick up on what Ms. Christensen was asking earlier 

with the first panel. Once you get the go ahead how long would it 

take to construct the school? 

Mr. LEON JONES. If we were to get the go ahead in the very near 

future, we could probably build an elementary school in the next 

3 years or so, and then it would take a little longer to build the 

middle school and high school, sir. 

Mr. JONES OF NORTH CAROLINA. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say 

to Mr. Blankenship, as you go to NC State, home of the Wolfpack, 

I wish you well. I know you will do extremely well in the classroom. 

And thank you, all three, for being here today. Thank you. 

Mr. BLANKENSHIP. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pallone? 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to say to the Chairman of Eastern Band that I am 

a cosponsor of the bill and I support the bill and am prepared to 

vote for the bill when the Committee considers it, but I wanted to 

mention a couple of things and then ask two brief questions. 

One is, my feeling very strongly is that you have a bit of a crisis 

here in the sense that you have overcrowding, you have an old and 

dilapidated school. You need to move quickly to get this done, and 

I feel very strongly that we should do whatever we can to move the 

process forward for those reasons, not to mention what Mr. Kildee 

said about the issue of sovereignty. I feel kind of strange even sitting here and sort of presiding over the issue about whether or not 

you should be able to build the school on traditional Cherokee 

lands. I know that we are authorized to rule on that as Members 

of Congress, but it seems to me that every should be made to give 

the benefit of the doubt to you and what you feel is best. 

68

Two questions I have, and one of them, Mr. Barger, talked about 

alternative sites, but my understanding is that none of the alternative sites that have been identified are really suitable in terms 

of the amount of land, and so there really isn’t an alternative at 

this point. Would you just comment on that briefly? 

Mr. LEON JONES. Yes, sir. The present elementary school is on 

a 9-acre site. To be an accredited school the Southern Association 

of Schools and Colleges requires that elementary schools the size 

that we need, has to be on 15 acres of more, sir. So even if we were 

to level the school that we have, we could not build new schools on 

it and be accredited because it is only a 9-acre site, sir, and besides 

it being in a very dangerous place, downtown Cherokee with much 

traffic going by it. 

So it would take a piece of property the size of Ravensford to 

meet the criteria of the Southern Schools and Colleges, so like is 

aid a few minutes ago, the only other sites available are off the reservation, and we would have been willing to purchase them had 

they been available. The one site that was close enough and suitable was not for sale, sir. 

Mr. PALLONE. Then the second question, again briefly I will ask 

it, I understand that, again, Mr. Barger was making the point that 

this process should proceed administratively and suggests that 

there is no need for a bill. I assume the reason why you want this 

bill passed is because of the need to act quickly, that if you don’t 

pass the bill it is going to take too long, and the problems that you 

have with overcrowding and bad conditions will just continue. But 

if you would just address that, the reason we need the bill versus 

just moving administratively. 

Mr. LEON JONES. You are exactly right, sir. The administrative 

way is an option and might be successful in the long run and it 

is a long arduous process. After that, sir, if it were, then the people 

who oppose this land exchange could take it to court then and tie 

it up for many more years, so we’re talking at a minimum 10 to 

12 years to get through the objections. My children don’t deserve 

that, sir. The people who are opposing us, I am sure that most of 

them may not be wealthy, but affluent, they send their children to 

the finest schools available to them, to their children, the best that 

they can afford. That is what I am asking for my children, sir, the 

best that we can afford. Why they oppose my children going to the 

best schools they can afford, I do not understand, sir. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Christensen. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to welcome the Chief and Mr. Blankenship for being 

here, as well as Mr. Barger from the NPCA. 

Chief, I would like to ask you the first question just to follow up 

on the issue of alternative schools. Could you address the issue 

that has been raised in other testimony that maybe there were 

some areas identified in the Cherokee business development plan 

that might have been available for schools? Could you address that, 

the alternatives? 

Mr. LEON JONES. Yes, ma’am. As I just stated, it takes many 

acres to build schools. It takes very small acreage to do business, 

69

ma’am. If you build a restaurant you may only need one acre or 

an acre and a half. If you want to build a motel, you might only 

need an acre, an acre and a half or two acres. Yes, there are such 

available for business, and I agree wholeheartedly, but I do not 

agree that there are sites that are suitable for schools. The size is 

the limitation. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. The size, thank you. And as you have 

planned and done some studies around the possibility of putting a 

school there, do you believe that you can build a structure that 

would not be extremely intrusive on the park, that would blend in 

and maybe even enhance the park in some way? 

Mr. LEON JONES. Yes, ma’am. There is a long arduous plan, and 

I have parts of it here. I will not take the time of this Committee. 

But it talks about buildings being very low structures, being of 

toned-down colors to match the area, to the roofs not being of the 

metal type where they reflect light, being of the asphalt type where 

they will not be seen. 

Also the parts of this piece of property that are visible from the 

Blue Ridge Parkway—this chart, ma’am, the use of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway here, the trees and the terrain will not allow the schools 

to be seen from this portion. The other site, this is visible, this part 

is visible from Blue Ridge Parkway, and we have agreed not to 

build anything on that part where it can be seen. So these buildings will be of low tone, low buildings. There are only about 8 football games played a year, and someone has mentioned the light 

from them. The Blue Ridge Parkway closes for part of that time. 

The winters come on, snows are on them, so the lights have been 

toned down and only will be used about 8 times a year to where 

they might be seen from the Parkway. And most of those are during the wintertime when the Parkway is closed. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Barger, one of the concerns—and you 

have said that the exchange is controversial. One of the concerns 

that brings us to the point of doing legislation around this is the 

concern that the NPCA and other groups might sue once the report 

is out. Is that a mistaken belief or is that a real possibility? 

Mr. BARGER. Our position is that the exchange bill is premature 

because we want to have the administrative process, that is, the 

examination of the facts and the environmental impact statement 

move forward. We in fact agree with Assistant Director Jones, who 

spoke earlier, that probably if something is to be effectuated, legislation is the best way to do it in the long run, and that would 

eliminate in fact any lawsuits. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I don’t think I have any further questions, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Chief Jones, I first got involved in politics trying to 

build a high school on kind of a rocky, slopey area, so I’m real sensitive to your desires to try to get a new school built, but it sounds 

like one of the important issues here is what alternatives may 

exist, and so I want to ask you about that. Would the tribe have 

a realistic alternative of building three separate schools as it has 

now? Do you have that alternative available to you, do you think? 

But realizing that is not your desire. I understand that. 

70

Mr. LEON JONES. You have to have pretty good size pieces of 

land even to build an individual school. The sites of both of our 

schools—the middle school and the high school are combined—are 

not large enough. There are not sites—have you ever visited on our 

property, sir, may I ask you? 

Mr. INSLEE. I haven’t. I am sorry about that. I want to come. 

Mr. LEON JONES. We live in very small valleys in very steep—

most of our land stands on its side, and that is not conducive to 

building schools. One of the reasons we live in that is because back 

in the days that we acquired this land, no one else wanted it. It 

was too steep for any use, so consequently we were in very narrow 

valleys, and in those very narrow valleys our people live. Our businesses are built there and they are crowded. To acquire land large 

enough to build schools would be very difficult, sir, it not impossible. 

Mr. INSLEE. Was that option evaluated? You referred to this 

study of an outside organization? Was that option evaluated? 

Mr. LEON JONES. I believe it was, sir. I won’t give you a definite 

yes because I might not be telling the truth. 

Mr. INSLEE. I think it would be helpful, at least to me, if you 

could share that study. We could look at it. 

Mr. LEON JONES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. And then we might also ask Mr. Blankenship’s organization to comment on that, specifically just to look at what alternatives exist, and I will tell you, to me this really is a difficult 

issue because we have two loves here, one for your children and 

two, our parks. And at least I am very cognizant of the dangers of 

a death by a thousand cuts to our park system because there are 

many sort of gateway communities that are growing up around our 

parks now because of the tremendous desire to go to the parks. 

And I can just see this coming from other communities as well who 

live in similar geographically constrained areas as yours. So I think 

this is a really important issue. And if you could perhaps provide 

us with that alternative study. Then we can ask Mr. Blankenship’s 

group to comment on that. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. Blankenship, do you have any comments about—Mr. Barger, 

I am sorry. 

Mr. BARGER. Yes. We would be happy to give you an analysis 

and comment on the alternatives analysis. We do believe that it 

was very, very limited in scope. It did not look at, and in fact, the 

entire process that the National Park Service initiated limited its 

ability to look at what are the best options for making sure that 

the Cherokee schools are the best they can be. Their options were 

wrapped around assuming that we do the exchange. We have a noaction alternative, don’t so it, and then we have two proposals for 

doing it in two different ways. So the analysis that the Park Service did sprang out of there. The alternative site study that was 

done by the consulting firm that Chief Jones mentioned was very 

limited in scope, and we would be happy to give you the information that we have on it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Udall? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. I would just thank the panel members. I don’t 

have any questions, Mr. Chairman. 

71

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baca? 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am one of the 

cosponsors of the legislation. I think it is good legislation, and I appreciate the tribal chair’s comment in terms of leaving no child behind. I think it is important that we create an atmosphere that is 

positive for a lot of the students. When you look at schools that are 

dilapidated, that puts kids in a very negative environment, and I 

think we have to put our kids in a positive environment where the 

schools are modernized. When we can deal with technology, we can 

deal with modernization. We can deal with conduit and others that 

need to be. If the children want to be competitive in the 21st century, it is important that our reservations have the same kind of 

schools that are being built outside of that area, and I think it is 

important that every one of children go into a position attitude, 

and positive attitudes are created when you have good schools and 

they feel good about that environment, and I think that is positive 

in building it, and I commend you in terms of that effort. I think 

having the three sites in that area is positive when you look at elementary, intermediate and then your high school too as well. I 

think it is positive in that area and I support this concept, especially as well look at self sufficiency in terms of Native Americans 

that have worked so hard to do this. And you have invested already 

$1.5 million in terms of the study that has already been conducted. 

When I look at alternatives sites and I look at the delay, now it 

will take 3 years. We are talking about 3 years to build the first 

elementary school. If another site was selected, what would be the 

time length of that, and has any money been invested at this point 

and who would invest that money then? Mr. Barger, my question 

is to you because you are the one that came up with the alternative 

site. There is already a site. There is already money that has been 

invested. Are you going to put up the money? Who is going to put 

up the additional money? 

Mr. BARGER. The money that has been invested is a result of an 

agreement between the National Park Service and the Eastern 

Bank of Cherokee that they both entered into, what, 2 years ago, 

about 2 years ago, to do the investigation of the Ravensford site. 

So that money is essentially part of that agreement and not part 

of necessarily the search for a piece of land. This exchange would 

in fact, as I think has properly been characterized, would exchange 

one piece of land for another, and that would be the value that the 

Eastern Band would be essentially putting forth for the Ravensford 

site. 

If they were to choose an alternative site, they would be expected 

to put the money forth for that one instead. 

Mr. BACA. They would be, right? 

Mr. BARGER. Certainly. 

Mr. BACA. They would. Not you or anyone else, so there is already money that has already been invested in this particular one 

site right now with an agreement. So it seems like all of a sudden 

we are talking about alternative sites that somebody else has to 

pay when yet money has been invested, and money is hard to come 

by, and yet we are saying because now Native Americans are self 

sufficient. They have gaming. All of a sudden we are saying, well, 

gee, they should be able to provide additional monies for additional 

72

sites. I don’t know where the other sites are at. I don’t know who 

is going to pick up the cost out there. We already know that money 

has already been invested. 

It seems that is the area that we should go in right now since 

the research has been done, the money has been invested. It is a 

positive site, and there is an agreement right now in terms of this 

particular site in exchange. I find it very difficult. 

Then your comments about let the administrative process, well, 

the administrative process, we don’t know how long it is going to 

even take, when another school will be built, or is that another 

delay tactic of not allowing them to build a site right now? To me 

that is prolonging it, which means then a child then loses. And 

every child that grows in age loses from the time that that child 

is in an educational environment, and we should make sure that 

that child has that opportunity, because every year I keep getting 

older, and the same thing with a child. A child gets older every 

year, and every year that child loses an opportunity to be in a positive environment with self esteem, self motivation, and aspirations 

to be what he or she wants to be. We have got to create that kind 

of an atmosphere, not create the negative one. 

So it is difficult to say, we are overcrowded. Now, they have 800 

and some students going to a school that only has capacity for 450 

I believe. 

Mr. LEON JONES. 480, I believe. 

Mr. BACA. Somewhere in that neighborhood. But it seems like we 

should try to expedite this process and move the legislation. Legislation is the way to do it. Other than that, it is just another delay 

tactic, and we wait forever, and a child then is out of school, and 

before we know it, they are not competitive for the 21st century. 

Mr. BARGER. I completely agree with the need to try to move forward and with what happens to generations of people. I think that 

the manner in which the United States of America has dealt with 

at least these schools—they are the only one with which I am 

familiar—is shameful. There is money to fix and renovate those 

schools that has not been spent for some time— 

Mr. BACA. But it becomes difficult because you cannot even lay 

the conduit in a lot of these schools right now. I have dealt with 

a lot of the school. Yet, when you can’t put the conduit that means 

that you can’t have technology, which means then that they can’t 

be as competitive, which means they have to have it at home or 

somewhere else, and you are not creating that kind of an atmosphere where a lot of them can’t afford that. 

Mr. BARGER. Yes, sir, I completely understand. Our point in 

wanting to have the administrative process move forward is that 

2 years has been spent developing a very detailed environmental 

impact statement which contains a number of studies, and I am 

told, although I have not had a chance to see it yet, it is about an 

inch and a half thick. The delay has already happened. We have 

basically got the studies that are out there. The only time that is 

necessary in order to allow that process to play out, is just review 

those documents, receive public comment on those, and finalize the 

documents. So I think that it would be a mistake not to examine 

that information before we took the action, and that is the basis 

for our position. 

73

Mr. BACA. Let us go forward with the project. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I just had a couple of more questions, and then I will excuse the 

panel. 

Chief Jones, it was brought up in Mr. Barger’s testimony, a question about the appraisal, and I believe that—and correct me if I am 

wrong—I believe that he said that the property that you were trying to get for the school was worth 6 million and what you purchased to trade was worth 58,000. I believe that is what he said. 

That is contrary to information that the Committee has received. 

Can you clear that up? 

Mr. LEON JONES. Yes, sir. In the first place, I am a real estate 

appraiser, sir. I let my license die, but I was a real estate appraiser 

before. We have certain standards that we had to meet, Federal 

standards. We went to school and met those standards, and one of 

those standards was honesty and integrity. The appraisals were 

done. They were done by a person in the last several years. He did 

it the way that we were taught in school. He got comparables that 

were sold in the area to show what it was worth on both properties. 

I resent the fact that an appraiser’s integrity has been questioned. 

If those appraisals in the past were made—and I am sure they 

were, he would not have said not--maybe that was before we had 

the Federal regulation of appraisers. 

Today’s market is not the same as yesterday’s market. The appraisal was made recently, not in the past. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is your testimony then that the appraisals on 

the two pieces of property are equal or close to each other? 

Mr. LEON JONES. The Ravensford property was appraised at less 

value than the Yellow-Face property is, sir, and it is a larger piece 

of property. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it was less value? 

Mr. LEON JONES. The Ravensford is less than the piece we were 

proposing to give to the park. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell me, and you may have told me this 

before and I forgot, but how old are those appraisals that were 

done? 

Mr. LEON JONES. They were updated within the last year, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. So they are current. 

Mr. LEON JONES. Current by a competent appraiser. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barger, I understand from your testimony, 

from reviewing you testimony, that your opposition to this is taking 

the land out of the park, and without going through the process, 

the EIRs and all of that. Is that accurate? Is that the basis for the 

opposition? 

Mr. BARGER. I would say that it would probably be more accurately characterized that we are opposed to the development of the 

site. 

The CHAIRMAN. No matter what? 

Mr. BARGER. Yes, sir. It is the proposed development that we 

have before us and the impacts that we believe that would have on 

the national park, not just the site itself but on the surrounding 

national park, that lead us to oppose the bill that we have in front 

of us. 

74

The CHAIRMAN. So regardless of how the EIR or EIS, doctors 

checkup, no matter how they all come out, you are going to oppose 

it anyway. 

Mr. BARGER. Not necessarily. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, wait a minute. You just said that you opposed the development of the site. 

Mr. BARGER. Right, and the reason is because we do believe—and 

this is from—I have also personally driven through the Qualla 

Boundary and the areas around and looked at the alternative sites. 

We do believe that there are in fact some alternatives that could 

and should be looked at thoroughly as part of the EIS examination 

process. I will tell you that if as a result of that process we became 

convinced that the Ravensford site is the only way to property provide for the schools that the Cherokee need, we would revisit our 

position immediately. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your position or the group that you represent’s position to oppose this Committee taking legislative action? 

Mr. BARGER. It is our suggestion that the bill before you now is 

premature. We do believe that if a land exchange of some type is 

the appropriate action, is determined to be the appropriate action, 

that legislative action would be the appropriate way to go. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am just trying to follow along with your position or your thinking on this, because it has been my experience 

that both in dealing with the Park Service and in dealing with the 

BIA, that we are not talking about months or a couple of years in 

order to get something done. It is multiple years that it takes. 

Mr. BARGER. Yes, sir, and those years are behind us. We have, 

apparently, as I say, I haven’t had a chance to see it yet, but we 

have the draft environmental impact statement supposedly being 

published. The Federal Register notice is supposed to go in the day 

after tomorrow I was informed. 

The CHAIRMAN. But that doesn’t end the process. 

Mr. BARGER. It does not end the process. 

The CHAIRMAN. We go through the comment period and the 

threatened lawsuits and—I mean you are looking at years before 

this thing gets done, and the Chief is concerned about his kids and 

his grandkids. I am more concerned about Mr. Blankenship’s 

grandkids going to school. 

Mr. BARGER. I think that concern is well placed. However, in this 

process we are close to the end of this process, and as I said, if in 

fact a— 

The CHAIRMAN. We are not anywhere near the end of this process. You know that. 

Mr. BARGER. The process under NEPA, after a draft environmental impact statement is published, is to take public comment 

and then publish the final environmental impact statement and 

record of decision. 

What we would be looking at is the examination of the information that we get to do during the draft environmental impact statement. Then at that point this Committee and Congress can make 

a decision based on the information that is there, and that is literally all we are asking for. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you for your testimony. I thank the 

panel for their testimony, and I again apologize for the delay, and 

75

I appreciate your patience in sticking with us. Thank you all very 

much. 

I am going to excuse this panel. I will remind you that there will 

be written questions that several members had that will be 

submitted to you, and if you could answer those in a timely manner 

so that they can be included in the Committee record, I would appreciate it. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to call up our third panel to testify 

on H.R. 884, Mr. Felix Ike, Ms. Laura Piffero, and Mr. Raymond 

Yowell. 

If I could have you stand and I will administer the oath, and 

then we can start. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

The CHAIRMAN. To begin with, I want to thank this panel for 

your patience. I know this has been a long time and you have all 

been patiently waiting for your opportunity to testify, so I want to 

thank you for doing that. We are going to begin with Chairman 

Ike. In front of you we have the lights. The green light is a go, the 

yellow light is to sum up, and the red light is to stop. If you would 

try to keep your oral testimony to the 5 minutes, your entire written testimony or other material that you would like to submit to 

the Committee will be included in the Committee record, but if you 

would try to maintain your oral testimony to the 5 minutes. 

Chairman Ike, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF FELIX IKE, CHAIRMAN, TE-MOAK TRIBE OF 

WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS OF NEVADA 

Mr. IKE. First of all, I want to thank the Committee for inviting 

me to do the testimony. This is an honor to come before the Resources Committee on a matter of great importance to the Western 

Shoshone people. 

I am Felix Ike, Chairman of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western 

Shoshone Indians of Nevada. Te-Moak represents the four Te-Moak 

communities of Elko, Battle Mountain, South Fork and Wells. Our 

tribal council represents over 2,500 enrolled members which is 

more than 65 percent of the nearly 3,700 identified people who are 

one-quarter or more Western Shoshone blood. Te-Moak is four 

bands, and under Federally recognized tribes at Fallon, Duckwater, 

Ely, Yomba, Duckvalley. All have legitimately elected and recognized councils. The people overwhelmingly voted in favor of the distribution of the trust funds. 

Te-Moak was the named claimant before the Indian Claims Commission. Thus this will be different than what the Western 

Shoshone National Council will say before this Committee. The 

Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada want the Committee to know 

that group has no legitimate authority to speak on behalf of Western Shoshone Indians except for a few individuals involved in that 

organization. They have no formal existence as a Shoshone Government within the recognized Western Shoshone communities. Nor 

are they recognized by the Federal Government as an American 

Indian tribe. 

The Western Shoshones once occupied a large area of the western part of the United States including parts of Nevada, Idaho, 

76

California and Utah. Our traditional way of life was closely connected with nature. Our land was abundant in resources including 

springs, streams and rivers, snow-covered mountains and valleys. 

Even the desert areas were full of plant and animal life. 

When the non-Indians came into our land, they depleted our natural resources, destroyed our way of life, and forced us to adopt 

their ways. Of the vast territory that was once our homeland, only 

a few small colonies, branches and reservations have been set aside 

for us. In the interest of our future generations we need to expand 

our land base to support our tribal population and provide a base 

for which we can develop greater self sufficiency. It is our understanding that this legislation will not prevent us from expanding 

our land base in the future. The Western Shoshones have always 

had a strong attachment to our land, which encompassed many 

millions of acres as described in Article V of the Treaty of Ruby 

Valley. Our people traditionally knew every valley and spring in 

our vast territory. Our land has always been at the center of our 

culture identity and way of life. Expanding our meager land base 

is essential for the health and vitality of our communities and for 

the survival of our culture. 

We ask Congress to consider the expansion of our land base to 

establish a permanent homeland for the Western Shoshone. We believe it was never the intent of Congress to leave the Western 

Shoshones homeless. Subsistence, hunting, fishing and gathering 

rights are of great importance to the Western Shoshone people. 

Our people hunt, fish and gather traditional food sources to supplement their diet. It is very important that Western Shoshones continue to have access to the traditional hunting, fishing and gathering areas, and that we continue to be able to hunt, fish and gather those traditional food sources which are part of our culture, our 

diet, a part of who we are. 

Many tribal members rely on these traditional food sources on a 

subsistence basis. Traditional medicines are made from native 

plants, and plant sources gathered throughout out aboriginal territory. These are also important to our people for health, culture and 

religious reasons. 

Our aboriginal lands were destroyed and poisoned by mining and 

toxic waste and other forms of abuse. The native animals and 

plants are disappearing from our lands that have suffered so much. 

Shoshones are the guardians of our environment. We traditionally 

practice a way of life that was in harmony with the earth. It is a 

part of our religion and a way of life to respect all forms of life. 

The land, the air, the water and animals, the birds and plants, are 

all interconnected and all depend upon each other for existence. We 

want our important hunting, fishing and gathering and spiritual 

areas to be set aside for us so that we can preserve them. 

In accepting the claims money, we are not giving up any hunting, 

fishing and gathering rights. Northeastern Nevada’s economy is in 

a period of decline. With unemployment rising in and near the TeMoak communities, economic development to increase our self sufficiency is very important to our communities. But our opportunities 

are very limited. Our need for Federally funded services will continue in the areas of education, health, housing, community development, social services, judicial services, law enforcement, environVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
77

mental protection and other services necessary for a viable community. It is our understanding that this legislation to compensate the 

Western Shoshone for past wrong will in no way diminish the 

United States Government’s obligation to continue to provide these 

services as needed for the health and well being of our people. 

I now ask you to support the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act, to distribute the claims awarded through Docket 326 K, 

326A-1 and 326A-3, with the same language contained in S. 958 

referred to House submitted during the 107th Congress. That 

would maximize the chance of rapid passage by both houses of Congress. 

The Western Shoshones voted on three questions: whether or not 

to accept the claims money from Docket 326 K, whether tribal 

members of at least one-quarter degree Western Shoshone blood 

should be able to participate in the settlement, and whether or not 

326A-1 and A-3 should be placed in an educational trust fund. The 

vote was 1,647 to 156 in favor of distribution; 1,601 to 196 in favor 

of tribal members with at least one-quarter degree of Western 

Shoshone blood participating; and 1,020 to 769 in favor of an educational trust fund. The majority of Western Shoshone voters clearly support distribution as described in the Western Shoshone 

Claims Distribution Act. It is the mandate of the people that we 

move forward in this process. 

This money was awarded so many years ago in an attempt to 

compensate the people for some of the wrongs that had been done 

to us. Too many of our tribal member have passed away without 

benefiting from the money that was set aside for them. Although 

it cannot fully compensate us for the loss of our land and way of 

life, the claims money may help to make life better for the trial 

members who receive a share. Te-Moak and the other Western 

Shoshone communities overwhelmingly voted for the distribution 

claims dollars. I believe they have waited long enough for this distribution. 

I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ike follows:]

Statement of Felix Ike, Chairman, Te–Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone 

Indians of Nevada, on H.R. 884

This is an honor to come before the Resource Committee on a matter of great importance to the Western Shoshone people. I am Felix Ike, Chairman of the Te–Moak 

Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada. Te–Moak represents the four Te–

Moak Band communities of Elko, Battle Mountain, South Fork, and Wells. 

Our Tribal Council represents over 2500 enrolled members which is more than 

65% of the nearly 3700 identified people who are 1/4 or more of Western Shoshone 

blood. Te–Moak, its four bands, and the other Federally recognized tribes at 

Duckwater, Ely, Yomba and Duckvalley all have legitimately elected and recognized 

councils. The people overwhelmingly voted in favor of distribution of the trust funds. 

Te–Moak was the named claimant before the Indian Claims Commission, thus 

this will be different than what the Western Shoshone National Council (says or 

said) before this Committee. The Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada want the 

Committee to know that group has no legitimate authority to speak on behalf of 

Western Shoshone Indians except for the few individuals involved in that organization. They have no formal existence as a Shoshone Government within the recognized Western Shoshone communities, nor are they recognized by the Federal government as an American Indian Tribe. 

The Western Shoshone Nation once occupied a large area of the western part of 

the United States, including parts of Nevada, Idaho, California and Utah. Our traditional way of life was closely connected with nature. Our land was abundant in reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
78

sources, including springs, streams and rivers, snow-covered mountains and rich 

valleys, and even the desert areas which were full of plant and animal life. When 

the non–Indians came into our land, they depleted the natural resources, destroyed 

our way of life, and forced us to adopt their ways. Of the vast territory that was 

once our homeland, only a few small colonies, ranches and reservations have been 

set aside for our use. In the interests of our future generations, we need to expand 

our land base to support our tribal population and provide a base from which we 

can develop greater self-sufficiency. It is our understanding that this legislation will 

not prevent us from expanding our land base in the future. 

The Western Shoshone have always had a strong attachment to our land, which 

encompassed many millions of acres as described in Article V of the Treaty of Ruby 

Valley. Our people traditionally knew every valley and spring in our vast territory, 

and our land has always been at the center of our cultural identity and way of life. 

Expanding our meager land base is essential for the health and vitality of our communities and for the survival of our culture. We ask Congress to consider the expansion of our land base to establish a permanent homeland for the Western Shoshone. 

We believe it was never the intent of Congress to leave the Western Shoshones 

homeless. 

Subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering rights are of great importance to the 

Western Shoshone people. Our people hunt, fish and gather traditional food sources 

to supplement their diet. It is very important that Western Shoshones continue to 

have access to traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering areas, and that we continue to be able to hunt, fish and gather those traditional food sources which are 

part of our culture and our diet, a part of who we are. Many tribal members rely 

on these traditional food sources on a subsistence basis. Traditional medicines are 

made from native plant sources gathered throughout our aboriginal territory, and 

these are also important to our people for health, cultural, and religious reasons. 

Our aboriginal lands were destroyed and poisoned by mining, toxic waste, and 

other forms of abuse. The native animals and plants are disappearing from lands 

that have suffered from so much abuse. Shoshones are the guardians of our environment. We traditionally practiced a way of life that was in harmony with the earth. 

It is a part of our religion and way of life to respect all forms of life. The land, the 

air, the water, the animals, the birds and plants are all interconnected and all depend upon each other for existence. We want our important hunting, fishing, gathering, and spiritual areas to be set aside for us so that we can preserve them. In 

accepting the claims money, we are not giving up any hunting, fishing or gathering 

rights. 

Northeastern Nevada’s economy is in a period of decline, with unemployment rising in and near the Te–Moak Tribal communities. Economic development to increase our self-sufficiency is very important for our communities, but our opportunities are very limited. Our need for Federally funded services will continue in the 

areas of education, health, housing, community development, social services, judicial 

services, law enforcement, environmental protection, and other services necessary 

for a viable community. It is our understanding that this legislation to compensate 

the Western Shoshone for past wrongs will in no way diminish the United States 

government’s obligation to continue to provide all these services as needed for the 

health and well-being of our people. 

I now ask you to support the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act to distribute the claims awarded through Docket 326 K, 326 A–1 and 326 A–3 with the 

same language contained in S958 RFH submitted during the 107th Congress. That 

would maximize the chance of rapid passage by both houses of the Congress. 

The Western Shoshone voted on three questions- whether or not to accept the 

claims money from docket 326K, whether tribal members of at least 1/4 degree of 

Western Shoshone blood should be able to participate in the settlement, and whether or not 326A–1 and A–3 should be placed in an educational trust fund. The vote 

was 1647 to 156 in favor of distribution, 1601 to 196 in favor of tribal members with 

at least 1/4 degree of Western Shoshone blood participating, and 1020 to 769 in 

favor of the educational trust fund. The majority of Western Shoshone voters clearly 

support distribution as described in Western Shoshone claims distribution Act. It is 

the mandate of the people that we move forward on this process. 

This money was awarded so many years ago in an attempt to compensate the 

people for some of the wrongs that have been done to us. Too many of our tribal 

members have passed away without benefiting from money that was set aside for 

them. Although it cannot fully compensate us for the loss of our land and way of 

life, the claims money may help to make life better for the tribal members who receive a share. The Te–Moak Tribe and other Western Shoshone communities overwhelmingly voted to support the distribution of the claims money. I believe they 

have waited long enough for it to be distributed. 

79

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Piffero? 

STATEMENT OF LAURA L, PIFFERO, LEAD CO-CHAIRMAN,

WESTERN SHOSHONE CLAIMS DISTRIBUTION STEERING 

COMMITTEE 

Ms. PIFFERO. Good afternoon. I am grateful to the Resource Committee for authorizing this hearing and for the support of our 

Nevada Congressmen, Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Porter, thank you. 

I am Laura Piffero, Lead Co-Chairman of the Western Shoshone 

Claims Steering Committee. We support H.R. 884 and represent 

the majority opinion. 91 percent of the Shoshones voted on 7 reservations to distribute their 1977 court award, the last of 5 

Shoshone Treaty claims in the United States and the last major 

tribe in Nevada to be compensated for losses sustained. 

The Senate, after markup of a companion bill passed in the 

107th, created differences. We would like to propose minor amendments as specified in the written testimony Section 2(2), certain individuals ineligible, to add the words, ‘‘Based upon aboriginal land 

claim.’’ Section 3 on the Administrative Committee, (2)(A) and 

(2)(B) and (2)(B)(v) to be comprised exclusively of Western 

Shoshone’s, due to its tribes, and to add Section 5 on regulations. 

I will speak about the factors that have led to the majority support of this bill, the good, the bad and the ugly. It is a brief overview about the Shoshones, their years of involvement in the 


87772.015
80

Federal courts, their political and cultural distinctiveness, and how 

they were impacted by the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. 

Despite a period of suffering during U.S. land expansion, the 

Shoshones are loyal to this country and fought for America in foreign wars. Culturally the Shoshones were a peaceful people and 

struggled to adapt to a changing world and to cooperate with their 

new neighbors. Western Shoshone aboriginal territories covered 

two-thirds of Nevada. They became a captive tribe due to no major 

battle with encroaching immigrants. The Shoshones feel the 1863 

Treaty had too many concessions and placed the people in a downward spiral of poverty. In 1863 the Shoshones group in the west 

signed treaties of peace, of friendship, giving the U.S. the right to 

engage in multiple uses of Shoshone land. The Shoshone Treaty 

signed in Ruby Valley was two pages in length. 

It has been argued there were treaties of succession, as Article 

II through IV gave the land for military post, telegraph, railways, 

mining, agricultural settlement and timbering. Article VI changed 

the Shoshone’s historical use of the land. The reservations, whenever the President of the United States deemed it expedient, reservations were to be established within the country above described. One was the Carbon Farms, later moved to Duckvalley 

outside of the country designated. Severe hardship and starvation 

fell upon Shoshones during this period of displacement and adaptation. Article VII promised as full compensation $5,000 for 20 years 

for the inconvenience resulting from the occupation of others, privileges conceded and adherence to the treaty. 

Article VIII acknowledged the receipt of provisions and clothing 

upon signing. Although the Supreme Court determined the award 

had been accepted by the Secretary of the Interior on behalf of the 

Western Shoshone over 26 years ago, payment has never been distributed. 

Sixty-seven years ago, 1951, Article V became the vehicle of injustice by which the Shoshones entered 26 years of litigation under 

the 1946 Indian Claims Commission Act. Final judgment was 

reached in 1977 and determined the Shoshones lost their land by 

gradual encroachment. 

Had the Shoshones not filed this case in 1951, there would be no 

court award today. 11 years after the claim was filed, minority dissidents attempted to halt the proceedings. Unsuccessful, they tried 

to stop the 1979 appropriation. Due to political instability no common distribution plan was developed in 1981 as required under the 

1973 Indian Judgment Funds Act. 

In 1974 the dissidents supported Danns’ cattle trespass case as 

the defense project to the Supreme Court. It lasted 15 years. Minority cattlemen and supporters established nonprofit corporations, 

collecting Internet donations. Preposterous misleading newspaper 

remarks said they represented the Shoshone Nation. The public 

thought they were an elected body. Their unpaid trespass fees 

amounted to over a million dollars. Their press touted it is still 

Shoshone land as the people do not want the money, they want the 

land, or refuse to take the money. In truth, the majority wanted 

their award disbursed. In 1985 the United States Supreme Court 

in Cattleman Danns case concluded that payment of the claims to 

81

trust for the Shoshones effectuated full settlement of all claims 

against the United States. 

The minority received over a million dollars in ANA and BIA 

grants to resolve land issues. Federal land negotiations at the highest level failed in 1994. A promised plan for the WSNC in Vucanovich’s 1990 House hearing never materialized. The Shoshone people 

felt their leaders did not negotiate in good faith and discussed the 

beneficiaries of the award via the Steering Committee. Given their 

civil right to band together and take action or to submit a bill, a 

1998 referendum revealed the true collective interest. 96 percent 

favor distribution in 2002. Senator Reid requested another vote. 65 

percent of the eligible enrolled Shoshones participated. 91 percent 

favored distribution. 

At two meetings when a division of the House was called, where 

only 3 people stood in opposition to the bill, they were loudly booed 

when speaking. The minority’s pursuit to claim two-thirds of 

Nevada is unrealistic. The international report for the Dann case 

before a United Nations Commission since 1993, was rejected by 

the United States in its entirety. The report noted that the Danns’ 

be afforded resort to the courts for the protection of their property 

rights. Apparently the commission viewed their 15 years of litigation to the Supreme Court as insufficient, and that subsequently, 

1991 case abandonment to pursue allowable individual aboriginal 

title as unimportant. 

This endless legal debate is a delaying tactic that benefits a 

small minority culturally as more elders pass on, their hopes never 

realized. It angers many. The manipulation of some tribal chairmen to suppress the majority opinion, illegal council meetings and 

resolutions, minority promotion of non-Shoshones interference in 

the claims, has ruined the credibility of some elected leaders and 

destroyed faith in their ability to act in a fair and forthright manner in representing the majority’s mandate. 

Most Shoshones do not want the monetary award held hostage 

any longer. Needed lands should be handled by individual tribes 

with the relevant stakeholders and separated from the distribution. 

Finally, the Shoshones have endured much in their quest for justice. It was the intent of Congress, when it passed the Indian 

Claims Commission Act in 1946 to bring finality to Indian claims, 

not to leave claims hanging in limbo for over 25 years. As Congress 

said, no one should be allowed to litigate a claim forever. It is time 

to effectuate this distribution to the Western Shoshone. We now 

rely on Congress to resolve this longstanding court award and distribute it to the beneficiaries as intended under the law. 

In conclusion, the matter here before us today is not whether an 

award is due to Western Shoshone. The issue is to determine the 

procedural means by which Dockets 326 K, 326A-1 and 326A-3 will 

be distributed. It is a matter of process. This bill lays out that process. The Steering Committee on behalf of the majority respectfully 

requests that the Resource Committee pass H.R. 884 back to the 

full floor of the House for consideration in the interest of the longsought closure of my people. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Piffero follows:]

82

1Las Vegas Review Journal, ‘‘Indians Ask U.N. to Protect Rights’’ Las Vegas, Nevada. 2000. 

2 United States V. Santa Fe Pacific Ry., 314 U.S. 339, 347 (1947) 

3 Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517, 515. 

4 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, Article V: It is understood that the boundaries of the country 

claimed and occupied by said bands are defined and described by them as follows: 

Statement of Laura Piffero, Lead Co-Chairman, Western Shoshone Claims 

Distribution Steering Committee, on H.R. 884

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, I am Laura Piffero, Lead Co-Chairman of 

the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Steering Committee. Our group is a 

grass roots volunteer Committee. We represent the 1998 and 2002 referendum 

where 91% of the Shoshone people voted on seven reservations to have their court 

award distributed. The Western Shoshone Claims in the last of five Shoshone treaty 

claims to be paid in the United States and the last of the major tribes in Nevada 

to be disbursed. We are grateful to the Resource Committee for authorizing this 

hearing and for the support of Nevada’s Congressional Delegation in the House, 

Congressman Jim Gibbons and Congressman Jon Porter and in the Senate, Senator 

Harry Reid and Senator John Ensign. The companion Bill in the Senate was passed 

last year in the 107th. 

I am here to present testimony for the Steering Committee in favor of H.R. 884, 

the ‘‘Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act’’. The Shoshone people are aware 

that the Resource Committee will have ‘‘mark-up’’ on the Bill. The Steering Committee would like to propose AMENDING the following Sections: 

• Under Section 2, (2) Certain Individuals Ineligible. After the words ‘‘’’ a per capita payment from any other judgment fund’’ add the words ‘‘based upon an aboriginal land claim.’’ (Note: the Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Services concurs 

with this change.) 

• Under Section 3, (2)(A): after the words ‘‘An Administrative Committee’’ to add 

the words, ‘‘exclusively comprised of Western Shoshon...e’’

• Under Section 3, (2)(B): at the beginning after the word ‘‘The’’ add the words 

‘‘Western Shoshone’’ to read—The Western Shoshone Administrative Committee...’’

• Under Section 3, (2)(B),(v) to be revised from ‘‘The Western Shoshone Business 

Council of the Duck Valley Reservation’’ to read ‘‘The Western Shoshone Committee of the Duck Valley Reservation’’. 

As others will address various issues—I will speak about that which is not always 

so apparent to people on the fringes of a problem, the subtle factors that has lead 

to the people’s support of this Bill and factors in the past that have acted to delay 

support for distribution—the good, the bad, and the ugly. I hope this will give you 

some insight about the people for whom you are about to make a very important 

decision—either to vote in favor of S. 958 as is, or to change, or to allow to die in 

Committee. 

First, THE GOOD: 

• THE SHOSHONES ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. Despite ‘‘minority’’ news reports to the contrary that draws attention to issues of discrimination 1, the Shoshone people are thankful that they live in this country and are 

proud of their participation in various global military conflicts to promote and 

preserve the nation’s security, freedom and peace. Yes, there does exist a dark 

period in the history of the displacement of the Shoshones to reservation in the 

late 1800’s, as part of Indian removal acts across the United States that were 

repeated 53 times by 1868. Unfortunately, in a conflict of cultures the five 1863 

Shoshone treaties of ‘‘Peace and Friendship’’ were eventually and gradually 

taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals, both non-governmental and 

governmental. In regard to Indian title to the land, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that ‘‘such extinguishments raise political, not justiciable, issues.’’ 2 Likewise, in another case, it was further stated that ‘‘... its justness is not open to 

inquiry in the courts’’, that ‘‘the exclusive right of the United States to extinguish’’ Indian title has never been doubted’’ 3. Concerning ‘‘recognized title’’, in 

the Sac and Fox Tribe v. United States the court stated, ‘‘... Congress, acting 

through a treaty...must grant legal rights of permanent occupancy within a sufficiently defined territory. Mere executive ‘‘recognition’’ is insufficient as is a 

simple acknowledgment that Indians physically lived in a certain region’’, such 

as in the Western Shoshones treaty of 1863. In some treaties, the United States 

recognized title by relinquishing its claim to a specific area and promised to protect the Indians within the borders of their land, such as the Sioux treaty. This 

was not stated in the ‘‘Treaty of Ruby Valley’’ under ‘‘Article V’’. 4 In 1974, when 

a group of Shoshone people attempting to stop the court proceedings filed a moVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
83

5 ... TeMoak Bands of Western Shoshone Indians, Nevada, and Western Shoshone Legal Defense and Education Association’’ v. United States, decided 2/20/75. 6 Johnny, Ike. Enrolled member of the Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe. 99 years old. 

7Official Tally, ‘‘Referendum for the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act’’, 2002. 

tion for rehearing on the findings of title by the ICC (1962), according to a 30 

day time limit under the ‘‘Rules of Procedure’’, they were 11 years to late 5. In 

the end, Congressional action is the only way to restore tribal title. With the 

passage of time, assimilation, reorganization, and relocation the vast ‘‘majority’’ 

of Western Shoshone people have laid their feelings to rest. The outcome of the 

1998 and 2002 referendums for distribution is symbolic of the peace, closure 

and restitution they desire. • THE SHOSHONES VIEW THE CLAIMS AWARD AS AN APOLOGY OF SUBSTANCE offered by the United States via the U.S. Indian Claims Commission 

established after the injustices to the American Indian became more widely 

known to principled contemporary politicians following World War I. The 

Shoshones enthusiastically filed their case for the wrongs done in 1951. It was 

fraught with numerous attempts by some ‘‘minority’’ dissidents to change the 

litigation strategy in the judicial process. Had a withdrawal been successful, 

there would be no court awarded claims today. • THE CONTINUING HOPE OF THE SHOSHONE PEOPLE,’’ Now the 

Shoshone people look to Congress to conclude the claims after 41 years of litigation (1951–77 & 1974–89), 52 years of debate, and 99 6 years of faith of the elders that the claims would be finalized. Now they are placing their trust in an 

extremely difficult course to traverse—the Congressional legislative process—

with the hope it will not let them down and H.R. 884 will be passed within the 

allotted time. • DEMOCRACY IN ACTION. The Shoshone people were pleased to finally get the 

opportunity to be heard at the ballot box through a straw poll. Tribal voter eligibility lists and required individual identification was employed to determine 

Shoshone affiliation. Those unable to attend their reservation’s polling site were 

allowed with proof of tribal enrollment to request an absentee ballot. A few 

Shoshones who chose not to enroll in an IRA tribe but wanted to vote were allowed to complete a ‘‘Letter for the Record’’ after certifying that they had not 

received any other claims award, offered a photo I.D. and stated their degree 

of blood. In 1998, 96% favored distribution. The results were 1,230 voted ‘‘yes’’ 

and 53 voted ‘‘no’’. 7 In 2002, 91% favored distribution with 1647 ‘‘yes’’ and 156 

‘‘no’’. It was estimated that approximately 65% of the eligible enrolled adult 

Shoshones participated in the straw poll. Of the seven reservations / colonies, 

NONE has ever put the question of distribution on their annual election as an 

advisory question in the last 26 years after the award was confirmed. Therefore, 

the Steering Committee felt the question needed to be answered to determine 

the direction of the Committee on distribution. • A REALISTIC OUTLOOK. It is time to put behind the disappointment in the 

failure of the tribal system of government and their inability after 26 years to 

coordinate their inter-tribal efforts to produce a comprehensive plan for distribution to settle this issue. It was the instability and manipulation of tribal 

politics by those opposed and their lawyers, that gave impetus to the formation 

of a ‘‘people’s committee’’ or the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Steering 

Committee in 1997. It is the CIVIL RIGHT of a descendent group to submit a 

Bill to congress, to band together and take action. At a publicly held meeting 

concerning the legislation in Elko, NV, (8/21/99) with half of the gymnasium 

and the center filled in a ‘‘division of the house’’ a vote of confidence in the Bill 

and in the Steering Committee was called for. Three people stood opposing the 

legislation and the Committee. In Fallon NV, (9/12/99) no one in a gym half full 

stood against the Bill or Committee. 

Second, THE BAD: 

• THE DEATH OF ELDERLY BENEFICIARIES who had basic needs and were 

forgotten in the never-ending controversial litigation. Their dreams and hopes 

for a better future were never realized. It was their generation that was fraught 

with a multitude of social and economic problems in an era of little opportunity. 

A distribution could have provided something as simple as a new mattress. The 

growing resentment against those who oppose the claims distribution was obvious when at the public meeting on the Bill the three who opposed the Bill were 

loudly booed when speaking. 

• TRIBAL ELECTIONS ARE BASED ON KINSHIP NOT ON ISSUES,’’ issues 

such as the ‘‘Claims’’. Unemployment remains high on isolated reservations 

(Yomba, Duckwater, South Fork, Duck Valley). Jobs are scarce with the excepVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:38 Sep 09, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87772.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
84

8http:// www.alphacdc.com/wsdp/[W.S. Land Rights and Grazing] W.S. Defense Project. No 

date. 9 Nordwall, Wayne. BIA Area Director. Memorandum: ‘‘W.S. Claims Distribution’’. Phoenix, 

AZ, 1998. 10 Elko, NV. Te–Moak Council Meetin. Flyer mailed to Fallon Committee: ‘‘Cattle Over People, 

WSNC’’, 1999. 11Letter to Senator Inouye, Senator Campbell, and Committee on Indian Affairs by Felix Ike, 

Te–Moak tribe chairman. 8/29/02. 2pp. 12 Elko Band Council. Resolution N. 2002–ECB–28. Elko, NV 8/28/02. 3 pp. 13 Reno Gazette Journal (Reno, NV), ‘‘25 Month Prison Sentence for Embezzling Tribal Officer’’ 

(Duckwater). 1997. 

tion of tribal jobs and having a tribal job means voting family members to office. 

Therefore, much time and energy is spent on electing relatives to council seats, 

not on a representative’s stance on issues. • THE CHANGING FACES OF DEMOCRACY. Elections cause change—in leadership, objectives, and claims negotiation’s progress in the government-to-government process. Democracy is good in one sense, but has its weaknesses also. 

Constant change in tribal leadership means the end to long range goals and 

partially why no one comprehensive distribution plan ever materialized. When 

given a deadline to develop a plan under the 1973 Indian Judgment Funds Act 

in 1980, they failed. This tribal political instability was to the advantage of the 

stable core ‘‘minority’’. More recently (1997), it was also to the advantage of the 

Steering Committee’s ability to move the claims issue forward, to obtain the 

consensus of the Shoshone people and to promote resolutions of support from 

the majority of tribal governments—some resolutions have vacillated with new 

councils the last seven years. However, the people’s desire to have their court 

award distributed on all reservations never changed. Where a tribal government 

‘‘for, by and of the people’’ did not exist in representing the distribution of the 

claims, the people organized petition drives so that they might be heard over 

their councils. Where a petition was necessary to support distributing the 

claims, endorsement ranged on two reservations at 85% and 90% (Yomba and 

South Fork councils has never supported the claims distribution due to councilmen’s cattle interests). • COUNCILMEN OR LEADERS THAT REPRESENT SPECIAL INTEREST 

GROUPS OR HAVE A SELF INTEREST. Some leaders / councilmen opposed 

to the claims distribution have BLM cattle trespass charges amounting to a million dollars or more. 8 They work through their lawyers and the news media to 

defeat distribution of the award as a reason to continue to use the land by 

claiming it is still ‘‘Shoshone land’’ as ‘‘the people do not want the money’’ or 

‘‘refuse to take the money’’——in total disregard of the of the U.S. Supreme 

Court decision 9 and the decision of the Shoshone people per the two straw poll 

referendums. Information is power and the control of information coming 

through tribal offices is tightly guarded as to what is told or not told to the 

people. When information is kept from the Shoshone people or twisted it limits 

their ability to make well informed decisions and retards the decision making 

process. Telling the Shoshones they still own the land is a shameful deceit and 

only causes confusion and creates controversy. Of course, some will say there 

is money to be made in an atmosphere of controversy. • CONTROL OF THE FOUR CHAIRMEN OF THE ‘‘SUCCESSOR 

TRIBES’’...controls the government-to-government relationship in negotiation, a 

subtle mechanism. The ‘‘minority’’ leadership and their lawyer(s) have utilized 

this process over the years. It resulted in the ‘‘majority’’ opinion being suppressed, 10 the people being put on the ‘‘back burner’’. This political manipulation and maneuvering was evidenced most recently after the August 2, 2002, 

Senate hearing. In an illegal meeting of the four Te–Moak band chairs, several 

resolutions were passed against the people’s voice or straw poll. 11 Once the 

people heard about this outrage in the largest band, Elko, the Elko council 

passed a resolution to not recognize the ‘‘illegal’’ resolutions. 12Even today, this 

is not widely known due to the control of information to the people by four leaders involved. An added drawback, is the lack of a tribal newspaper on various 

reservations. 

Third, THE UGLY: 

• THE LACK OF FAITH IN TRIBAL ACCOUNTABILITY due to questionable 

accounting/ budgeting procedure and little to no public reporting mechanism 13’’ 

one reason people do not want any hold-back for tribal programming. The Steering Committee has received numerous comments on how if a hold-back on funds 

was implemented in the Bill with no restrictions, such as interest only to be 

expended plus categories for use, the capitalization to the tribes will not be able 

85

14 Information on Those Opposed to Distribution—Who are They and What do They Represent? 15 Reno Gazette Journal (Reno, NV), ‘‘W.S. Oppose F–22 Fighter’’. 1999. 

to be found in seven to nine years as has happened with other Indian nations’ 

court awards. • PRETENTIOUS DECLARATIONS BY THOSE OPPOSING DISTRIBUTION 

OF THE CLAIMS. Federally recognized IRA tribes have their own Constitution 

and By–Laws. They are independent of each other. For an organization to declare that they are part of a ‘‘nation’’ of people is questionable. No one single 

entity is a sole representative of the various Shoshones around the state. Yet, 

the Western Shoshone National Council (WSNC) 14 has made such preposterous 

claims of ‘‘representation’’. The majority of Shoshones see this organization(s) 

with limited numbers attempting to assert themselves into the governmental 

process on negotiations or into the news media on behalf of the ‘‘Western 

Shoshones’’, in a sense displacing the officially recognized IRA governments. 

The WSNC goes on to use the ‘‘Western Shoshone—name in international forums. Their term ‘‘traditional government of the Shoshone nation’’ or ‘‘Western 

Shoshone nation’’ is misleading. Most non–Indians or institutions will interpret 

this to mean an ‘‘elected’’ government, which is quite different than being a registered Nevada non-profit corporation. In addition, donations (money, gifts of 

real property, clothes, trucks, night vision goggles, etc.) being requested over 

the internet in the name of the ‘‘Western Shoshones’’ is debatable when most 

Shoshones are unaware of the contribution. • THE LITIGANTS OPPOSING DISTRIBUTION, unlike the changing faces of 

elected official, these faces never change’’ They were at the Interior Department 

negotiation meetings in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1994, and former Congressman 

Vucanovich’s House hearings in 1990 and 1992—all of which failed. Some are 

still here today in opposition, probably not with a ‘‘good faith plan’’, but to undermine the ‘‘majority’’ opinion and as always to stop distribution. • NEWSPAPER PROPAGANDA BY SPECIAL INTERESTS that tout the 

Shoshones are opposed to this or that 15 when in fact the average Shoshones 

know nothing about nor have they agreed to what is published. This same propaganda was used in the past to say, ‘‘the Shoshones don’t want the money they 

want their land’’. This is why a straw poll had to be completed to reveal the 

truth about the interest of the Shoshone people, descendants and beneficiaries 

of ‘‘The Western Shoshone Identifiable Group’’ court award 326–K. • THE UNENDING DEBATE BY MINORITY OPPONENTS over land title, mineral rights, religion, air, etc’’ has kept the Shoshones’ right to their court award 

or a tribal plan in limbo. The latest development is the presentation to staff 

members of the Indian Affairs Committee (7/26/02) of a 2001 international report by the Inter–American Commission on Human Right (Case No. 11.140—

Mary and Carrie Dann), which the United States rejected ‘‘in its entirety’’. The 

case that has been before the U. N. Commission since 1993. The U.S. Supreme 

Court (1985), after deciding that payment into trust for the Shoshone people effectuated full settlement of all claims and the extinguishments of aboriginal 

title, left the door open for ‘‘individual aboriginal title’’. The Danns could have 

pursued this avenue, but the lawyers for the Danns withdrew their case from 

the U.S. court system in 1991. Now the deficiencies mentioned in the Commission’s report, partly that the Danns ‘‘be afforded resort to the courts for the protection of their property rights’’, reiterates what probably should have continued 

to be litigated in 1991. Given the past history and the years of prior suit by 

the Danns (1974–1989), the Federally financed opportunities for land settlement negotiations amounting to over a million Federal dollars, and the Indian 

title issues before the U.S. courts in past case law’’ it is best to separate the 

land issue ( reservation by reservation ) from the monetary distribution and, in 

following the people’s wishes, distribute 326–K, 326—A–1 and 326—A—3. 

FINALLY, the aforementioned factors both negative and positive have contributed 

to the present status of the Western Shoshone Claims. The Shoshones have endured 

much in their quest for justice and finality. The 1946 Indian Claim Commission Act 

passed by Congress gave the Indian people their day in court to air grievance suffered. The limitation was ‘‘no one should be allowed to litigate a claim forever.’’ It 

was not the intent of Congress to leave claims hanging in limbo for over 52 years. 

We now rely on the judgment of Congress, where 100% agreement is a rarity, to 

end this long standing Claim. The Steering Committee on behalf of the ‘‘majority 

opinion’’ respectfully requests that the Resource Committee pass H.R. 884, as soon 

as possible back to the full floor of the House for consideration in the interest of 

the long sought judgment and closure our people deserve. Thank you. 

86


87772.010
87


87772.011
88

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Chief Yowell? 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND YOWELL, CHIEF,

WESTERN SHOSHONE NATIONAL COUNCIL 

Mr. YOWELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, although it is afternoon now, and Committee members. 

My name is Raymond D. Yowell, a citizen of the Western 

Shoshone Nation. I presently hold the office of Chief of the Western 

Shoshone National Council, which is the government of the Western Shoshone Nation. 

Due to the limited time set for this testimony, the Western 

Shoshone Government has prepared this supplemental to its main 

opposition testimony for presentation at this hearing. 

In accordance with the rules of this Committee, the required 

number of copies of this supplement and our opposition main testimony has been filed with the clerk of this Committee. 

All the elements of our main opposition testimony are reaffirmed. 

We stand opposed to H.R. 884. This supplemental testimony will 

address and point out the events that have transpired recently in 

connection to the Western Shoshone territorial rights issue. 


87772.012
89

ICC Docket 326 K. The last event to happen in the overall U.S. 

Indian Claims Commission process is a hearing of record that was 

held in the territory of the Western Shoshone Nation. This hearing 

took place in July 1980 at Elko, Nevada. At this hearing of record 

the Western Shoshone asked the Federal hearing officer, ‘‘By what 

U.S. law did the United States acquire the territory of the Western 

Shoshone Nation?’’ Because the hearing officer could not answer 

the question, the Western Shoshone rejected the monetary award 

from the ICC, Docket 326 K, stating, ‘‘Keep your money until you 

[meaning the United States] can show us how you acquired our territory.’’ 

I testified at the hearing of record, and I also asked the exact 

same question of the hearing officer. Again, when the hearing officer could not answer my question, I also rejected the monetary 

award from ICC Docket 326-K. Today, 23 years later, the United 

States has not answered the question put to it by the Western 

Shoshone. 

Since the hearing officer could not show how the United States 

acquired the territory of the Western Shoshone Nation, and since 

the Western Shoshone, myself included, rejected the monetary 

award from Docket 326 K, the Western Shoshone territory remains 

in the property of the Western Shoshone Nation, rightfully under 

Western Shoshone control and jurisdiction. 

Based on this fact, Western Shoshone cattlemen, myself included, 

and in compliance with Article VI of the 1863 Treaty of Peace and 

Friendship made with the United States, stopped paying the U.S. 

Government for grazing our cattle on our own Western Shoshone 

lands. We withheld grazing fees to show the United States that 

there was a problem with its claimed ownership of the territory of 

Western Shoshone Nation. From the very start of our nonpayment 

for grazing our cattle on our own Western Shoshone land, the 

Western Shoshone stated to the U.S. Government that if it could 

not answer the question of how it acquired the territory of the 

Western Shoshone Nation, then the best way to move toward a solution would be through negotiation between our two Nations. 

Confiscation of Western Shoshone Cattle. In May 2002, armed 

agents of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management came in the early 

morning hours and confiscated cattle belonging to me and to Mr. 

Myron Tybo. The BLM did this without answering the question 

first put to the Federal hearing officer at the 1980 hearing of 

record, ‘‘By what U.S. law did the United States acquired the territory of the Western Shoshone Nation?’’ In September of 2002 

armed agents of the BLM came in the early morning hours and 

confiscated the cattle of Mary and Carrie Dann, and did so without 

answering the above question. 

In 1924 Congress declared Indians to be citizens of the United 

States. If from the point of view of the U.S. Congress we are U.S. 

citizens, then this means that our property cannot be taken from 

us without a court order. But when the BLM agents were taking 

our cattle, we asked them if they had a court order. They said they 

did not have a court order and took our cattle anyway. The BLM 

theft of our property is a gross violation of our civil and human 

rights and robs us of our livelihood. It is also a violation of our 

1863 Treaty vested right to be agriculturists and herdsmen. 

90

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on U.S. v. Dann, 1985. In 1974 the 

United States sued two Western Shoshone sisters, Mary and Carrie 

Dann for trespass, the allegation being made that they were grazing their cattle on Federal public land. After going back and forth 

in U.S. Federal Appeals Court several times, the case reached the 

U.S. Supreme Court in 1984. The Supreme Court ruled that because the U.S. Secretary of the Interior had accepted the monetary 

award from ICC on Docket 326 K as a trustee for the Western 

Shoshone, the Dann sisters could not defend on the grounds of 

original Western Shoshone title. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically based its decision on an erroneous assumption that the ICC 

had filed its final report with Congress. 

OSA Investigation, Docket 326 K.. In 1992 the Dann sisters petitioned the Organization of American States, OAS, to look into their 

treatment by the United States. The Danns were joined in the petition by the Western Shoshone IRA Reservation Tribal Councils and 

by the Western Shoshone National Council. In December of 2002 

the OAS released its report, stating that United States, through its 

U.S. Indian Claims Commission process had violated the human 

rights of the Western Shoshone, that the ICC process lacked due 

process of law, and that the property rights of Western Shoshone 

had been ignored. The United States has to this date failed to remedy the violation put forth in the OAS report though asked by the 

OAS to do so. 

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985, ruling on the case, U.S. 

v. Dann, used an Indian Claims Commission process against the 

Danns that has been found to be in violation of Western Shoshone 

human rights. 

The Indigenous Law Institute’s Finding on the ICC’s Failure to 

File a Final Report with Congress on the Western Shoshone Case. 

In January of 2203 the Indigenous Law Institute issued its finding 

that the U.S. Indian Claims Commission failed to file a final report 

with Congress regarding the Western Shoshone case. Docket 326 

K, Section 21 of the ICCA, Report of Commission to Congress, requires such a report in order to provide Congress with the information it needs to make an informed judgment in every case. The ILI 

report reveals that the Indian Commission did not complete its 

work as required by law. The Indian Claims Commission failed to 

fulfill a legally required ingredient of finality in Section 22(a) of the 

ICC Act. Therefore, an essential part of the statutory basis that 

Congress has set up for a distribution of the monies in Docket 326 

K remains unfulfilled. 

The Amnesty International Report. In May of 2003, Amnesty 

International issued its report on the Western Shoshone case, and 

found that violations occurred in the ICC process concerning Western Shoshone human rights. The violations were lack of due process of law, violations of Western Shoshone human rights, and violations of Western Shoshone property rights. This report gives added 

credibility to what the OAS and ILI reports reveal about the ICC 

Docket 326 K. 

Recommendation. A distribution bill came before this Committee 

on Docket 326 K. The Committee at that time wisely rejected taking action on it by nor bringing it out of Committee. With the 

above referenced reports now bringing to light the major problems 

91

with the ICC process as it pertains to the Western Shoshone territorial rights issue, we request that this Committee not take action 

on bill H.R. 884, but to let it die the death it deserves in 

Committee. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yowell follows:]

Statement of Raymond D. Yowell, Chief,

Western Shoshone National Council, on H.R. 884

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, 

My name is Raymond D. Yowell, a citizen of the Western Shoshone Nation. I presently hold the office of Chief of the Western Shoshone National Council, which is 

the Government of the Western Shoshone Nation. 

Due to the limited time set for this testimony, the Western Shoshone Government 

has prepared this supplement to its Main Opposition Testimony for presentation at 

this hearing. 

In accordance with the rules of this Committee, the required number of copies of 

this Supplement and our Main Opposition Testimony has been filed with the Chief 

Clerk of this Committee. 

All the elements of our Main Testimony are reaffirmed. We stand opposed to 

H.R. 884. This Supplemental Testimony will address and point out events that have 

transpired recently in connection with the Western Shoshone Territorial issue. 

I.C.C. Docket 326–K 

The last event to happen in the overall U.S. Indian Claims Commission process 

is a hearing of record that was held in the Territory of the Western Shoshone Nation. This hearing took place in July of 1980 at ‘‘Elko, Nevada.’’ At this hearing of 

record, the Western Shoshone asked the Federal hearing officer, ‘‘By what U.S. law 

did the United States acquire the Territory of the Western Shoshone Nation?’’ Because the hearing officer could not answer the question, the Western Shoshone rejected the monetary award from the I.C.C., Docket 326–K, stating, ‘‘Keep your 

money until you [meaning, the United States] can show us how you acquired our 

Territory.’’

I testified at the hearing of record, and I also asked the exact same question of 

the hearing officer. Again, when the hearing officer could not answer my question, 

I also rejected the monetary award from I.C.C. Docket 326–K. Today, twenty three 

years later, the United States has not answered the question put to it by the Western Shoshone. 

Since the hearing officer could not show how the United States acquired the Territory of the Western Shoshone Nation, and since the Western Shoshone, myself included, rejected the monetary award from Docket 326–K, the Western Shoshone 

Territory remains the property of the Western Shoshone Nation, rightfully under 

Western Shoshone control and jurisdiction. 

Based on this fact, Western Shoshone cattlemen, myself included, and in compliance with Article 6 of the 1863 Treaty of Peace and Friendship made with the 

United States, stopped paying the United States Government for grazing our cattle 

on Western Shoshone lands. We withheld grazing fees to show the United States 

that there was a problem with its claimed ownership to the Territory of the Western 

Shoshone Nation. From the very start of our non-payment for grazing our cattle on 

our own Western Shoshone land, the Western Shoshone stated to the United States 

Government that if it could not answer the question of how it acquired the Territory 

of the Western Shoshone Nation, then the best way to move towards a solution 

would be through negotiations between our two Nations. 

Confiscation of Western Shoshone Cattle 

In May 2002, armed agents of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management came in the 

early morning hours and confiscated cattle belonging to me, and Mr. Myron Tybo. 

The BLM did this without answering the question first put to the Federal hearing 

officer at the 1980 hearing of record, ‘‘By what U.S. law did the United States acquire the Territory of the Western Shoshone Nation?’’ In September 2002, armed 

agents of the BLM came in the early morning hours and confiscated the cattle of 

Mary and Carrie Dann, and did so without answering the above question. 

In 1924, Congress declared Indians to be citizens of the United States. If, from 

the point of view of Congress we are U.S. citizens, then this means that our property cannot be taken from us without a court order. But when the BLM agents were 

taking our cattle we asked them if they had a court order. They said that they did 

92

not have a court order and took our cattle anyway. The BLM theft of our property 

is a gross violation of our civil and human rights, and robs us of our livelihood. It 

is also a violation of our 1863 Treaty vested right to be agriculturalists and herdsmen. 

U.S. Supreme Ruling On U.S. v. Dann (1985) 

In 1974, the United States sued two Western Shoshone sisters, Mary and Carrie 

Dann, for trespass, the allegation being made that they were grazing their cattle 

on Federal ‘‘public land.’’ After going back and forth in the U.S. Federal Appeals 

Courts several times, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984. The Supreme Court ruled that because the U.S. Secretary of the Interior had accepted the 

monetary award from the I.C.C. on Docket 326–K as the ‘‘trustee’’ for the Western 

Shoshone, the Dann sisters could not defend on the grounds of original Western 

Shoshone Title. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically based its decision on an erroneous assumption that the I.C.C. had filed its final report with Congress. 

OAS Investigation of Docket 326–K 

In 1992, the Dann sisters petitioned the Organization of American States (O.A.S.) 

to look into their treatment by the United States. The Danns were joined in their 

petition by Western Shoshone I.R.A. Reservation Tribal Councils, and by the 

Western Shoshone National Council. In December of 2002, the O.A.S. released its 

report, stating that the United States—through the U.S. Indian Claims Commission 

process—had violated the human right of the Western Shoshone, that the I.C.C. 

process lacked due process of law, and that the property rights of the Western 

Shoshone have been ignored. The United States Government has to this date failed 

to remedy the violations put forth in the O.A.S. report, though asked by the O.A.S. 

to do so. 

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985, ruling on the case, U.S. v. Dann, used 

an Indian Claims Commission process against the Danns that has been found to be 

in violation of Western Shoshone human rights. 

The Indigenous Law Institute’s Finding on the I.C.C.’s Failure to File A Final Report 

With Congress in the Western Shoshone Case 

In January of 2003, the Indigenous Law Institute, issued its finding that the U.S. 

Indian Claims Commission failed to file a final report with Congress regarding the 

Western Shoshone case, Docket 326–K. Section 21 of the I.C.C.A, ‘‘Report of Commission to Congress’’ requires such a report in order to provide Congress with the 

information it needs to make an informed judgment in every case. The I.L.I. report 

reveals that the Indian Commission did not complete its work as required by law. 

The Indian Claims Commission failed to fulfill a legally required ingredient of finality in Section 22(a) of the I.C.C. Act. Therefore, an essential part of the statutory 

basis that Congress set up for a distribution of the monies in Docket 326–K remains 

unfulfilled. 

The Amnesty International Report 

In May of 2003, Amnesty International issued its report on the Western Shoshone 

case, and, found that violations occurred in the I.C.C. process concerning Western 

Shoshone human rights. The violations were lack of due process of law, violations 

of Western Shoshone human rights, and violations of Western Shoshone property 

rights. This report gives added credibility to what the O.A.S. and I.L.I. reports reveal about the I.C.C. Docket 326–K. 

Recommendation 

A distribution bill came before this Committee on Docket 326–K. The Committee 

at that time wisely rejected taking action on it by not bringing it out of Committee. 

With the above referenced reports now bringing to light the major problems with 

the I.C.C. process as it pertains to the Western Shoshone Territorial rights issue, 

we request that this Committee not take action on bill H.R. 884, but let it die the 

death it deserves in Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Gibbons. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and again, 

I have submitted a formal statement for the record on Bill 884 that 

we have before us today, and I apologize to my witnesses here for 

being absent, but other duties kept me away at the time I could 

have introduced you. And I wanted to welcome you and the other 

Nevadans that are here today to Washington, D.C. to witness and 

93

partake in this Committee hearing, and it is certainly a pleasure 

to have you before us, and I certainly am very proud to see such 

great representation here before us today. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record of the 

Committee, several petitions that have been signed by a number of 

Shoshone Indians, Western Shoshone Indians, that would have 

been here, but they have submitted their petition in support of 884, 

and I would like copies of these petitions to be admitted into the 

record if I could. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]


87772.007
94


87772.008
95

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, this is indeed an issue which is 

long overdue, as I said earlier. And these witnesses—and I think 

the eloquence of Laura Piffero is certainly to be commended because she put in very clear perspective historical presentation of 

the whole process the that this thing has gone through over the 

last two decades, and certainly it is one which I think is timely. 


87772.009
96

It is one which we have to deal with. If we don’t deal with it, the 

money will serve no one. It will sit in an account, a trust fund, and 

do no good for anyone. I apologize for the double negatives. It will 

not do anyone any good. We want the bill. 

Ms. Piffero, let me say that I have looked over your technical 

suggestions for the language. I have no problem with working on 

the bill between now and when it is submitted to the Committee 

to make those technical corrections that you addressed in your 

opening statement as well. We will work with you on that to make 

sure that we take them into consideration. 

Ms. PIFFERO. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBONS. I guess I don’t know what else to ask, because I 

think everything that has been said needed to have been said, and 

I think the record is clear. 

I would only turn basically to Chief Yowell and maybe ask him 

a question. It relates to the Western Shoshone National Council 

that you represent. My question is, is that an elected body by the 

Shoshone Nation? 

Mr. YOWELL. No, it is not. It is the entity that signed the Treaty 

of 1963 that has continued from that time down to today’s times. 

Mr. GIBBONS. So what you are saying is that the rest of the 

Shoshone Nation over the years has had no elected effect on the 

membership of this national council? 

Mr. YOWELL. Elections came to be the way that tribal councils 

were appointed based upon the Indian Organization Act entities 

that were established in Shoshone territory in 1938. From that 

time forward— 

Mr. GIBBONS. I am not trying to undermine you in any way, but 

I want to just get some clarity out here. The Western Shoshone 

National Council, is it a registered nonprofit organization in the 

State of Nevada? 

Mr. YOWELL. It is not. 

Mr. GIBBONS. It is not? 

Mr. YOWELL. No. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Is it an IRA sanctioned council as contrasted to a 

reservation council? 

Mr. YOWELL. It is not. It represents a nation based upon the 

treaty that it signed with United States. 

Mr. GIBBONS. And how many members of the Shoshone tribes 

that are in Nevada, whether you consider the Te-Moak, the Fallon 

Western Shoshones, Duckvalley, how many of all of those members 

do you have in your organization? 

Mr. YOWELL. None of the ones you mentioned. The Ely tribe belongs. The Tempe Nation belong, the traditional cattlemen from 

South Fork Reservation belongs, the Dann family belongs, the 

Great Basin Western Shoshone belong. 

Mr. GIBBONS. And how many members would that be total? 

Mr. YOWELL. We haven’t computed the membership of those entities. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Could you guess? 

Mr. YOWELL. Not at this time. I couldn’t give an accurate figure. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Would either Mr. Ike or Ms. Piffero have an answer to that? Would you have an estimate? 

Mr. IKE. I don’t have any privilege to their membership. 

97

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired, and 

I will certainly hope that members look at this carefully. It does 

not waive any rights under any treaty organization or treaties that 

were established, and certainly I think it is time to look favorably 

upon this part of our cultural history and reward these people with 

the judgment that the courts have set out for many, many years 

ago, and it is time to put that money to good use and benefit these 

people, and I would hope that every member could support this bill. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Pallone? 

Mr. PALLONE. I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman. I don’t really 

have a position on the bill at this point, but I have to say that, you 

know, I am—two things are sort of weighing on me. One is the fact 

that I really don’t like the idea of Nations having to give up land 

and, you know, getting some kind of payment in lieu of whatever 

land claims they might have. So that weighs very strongly on—you 

know, on the one hand, not being supportive of this type of a settlement. 

On the other hand, because of the fact that Nations are sovereign, they should be able to do what they please. In other words, 

if you have a vote and it is legitimate, there is no reason why you 

shouldn’t be able to do what you think is best. That is the process. 

I guess my concern is, and I have heard some of the testimony 

and read some of the testimony—I wasn’t here for the whole 

panel—everyone seems to be—on the one hand, Mr. Gibbons and, 

I guess, the chairman are suggesting that if this land settlement 

goes through and the bill is approved, that you could still claim 

title to certain lands. On the other hand, Chief Yowell seems to 

suggest that that is not the case, you know, that somehow the settlement, if it is granted, will be a contributing factor, if not total 

factor, toward extinguishing any rights to the land. 

So I guess I am a little confused. If either of you could just respond to that—what makes you think that this settlement does or 

does not preclude you from making claims to the land, and how 

successful you could be if this settlement and this legislation went 

through? If I could just ask the chairman and the chief that, 

quickly. I know you have probably answered already, but just to 

give me a little more information. 

You believe that, if this bill goes through, that essentially the 

land claims are extinguished, which is why you are not in favor of 

it in part. Is that true? 

Mr. YOWELL. Yes, basically that is true. You have to go back to 

the rejection of the claim to begin with, in 1980, when the question 

was asked of the hearing officer, by what law did the United States 

acquire the territory of Western Shoshone. And these laws are explained fully in the main testimony that we have submitted to the 

clerk of this Committee. That question still remains unanswered to 

this day. And the very fact that the Indian Claims Commission 

award contains the wording ‘‘per acre’’ means that the land is, you 

know—that is payment for the land. And so that is why we take 

the position that, if we take this award, then we have been paid 

for the land. 

98

Mr. PALLONE. OK, then let me ask the chairman, now, you seem 

to feel that that is not the case, right? That you could still exert 

certain claims successfully? 

Mr. IKE. I believe that, because I was in opposition to 

Kantovich’s introduction of a bill in early 1990, and it was suggested at that particular time by Senator Inouye, to the Western 

Shoshone leadership, to go back to Western Shoshone country and 

to develop a land package. And we wanted to deal with the highest 

level of Government. And at that particular time, there was Secretary Babbitt who we were dealing with. We met with him in Denver, Colorado. Ample money was given to the Western Shoshone 

National Council for the Duckwater Tribe to initiate this process. 

This process only lasted about four or 5 years. It fizzled right 

quick. The Western Shoshones could not get together on a land 

issue in regard to the expansion of the Reservations. I still believe 

that if the Western Shoshones themselves, through their Governments, through their Tribal councils, can ask for and will receive 

additional land base for an expansion of their existing land base 

that they now have. And that is the hope that we have coming before this Committee, so that we can get that language once more 

introduced. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBONS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, sure. I don’t have time, but— 

Mr. GIBBONS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding his time. The 

bill only deals with the distribution of a settlement from a court 

award. In there, in Section 2(D)(9), it says that there is no waiver 

of any treaty rights in the bill. So that these Tribal Nations that 

are subject to this settlement still retain their treaty rights as pursuant to the treaty rights of Ruby Valley that was established. So 

there is no waiver of any of the rights that are inclusive of Article 

1 through Article 8 of that treaty. 

Mr. PALLONE. And I gather there are some that would argue that 

the treaty rights were extinguished long ago anyway, right? I 

mean, I guess none of us agree with that, but that is another argument that is out there. I thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Udall? 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Yowell, let 

me—just following up on this same question—let me read you part 

of this bill. In Section 2, paragraph A, it says—and this is not a 

waiver of treaty rights. It says, ‘‘Receipt of a share of the judgment 

funds under this section shall not be construed as a waiver of any 

existing treaty rights pursuant to the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, 

inclusive of all Articles 1 through Article 8, and shall not prevent 

any Western Shoshone Tribe or band or individual Shoshone 

Indian from pursuing other rights guaranteed by law.’’ 

How do you interpret this? If this bill doesn’t preclude claims 

under the treaty or on other grounds, what is objectionable about 

the bill? 

Mr. YOWELL. The very fact that this is referring to Docket 326-

K that came out of the Indian Claims Commission, when that commission, which now I have stated is—that the law is incomplete—

that the commission failed to file the final report with Congress. 

The final thing that happens in that, when the finality is 

99

achieved—you know, had this report been issued, the finality would 

have been achieved—is that Section 22(a) of this Indian Claims 

Commission Act kicks in and that bars any further—since this is 

based on a land issue—any further land claims to be brought forward. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. So as I understand your position, you believe 

the ruling and the money, if that is taken, will actually extinguish 

the claims and that you feel that to proceed in that manner would 

extinguish the claims and there is no guarantee of any future land 

settlement? 

Mr. YOWELL. Yes. It would make it very difficult for, you know, 

Western Shoshone to bring that issue forward again. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Now, one of the parts to this that is a little bit 

troubling to me—and I think there is a history out there when we 

do these ballots, and everybody talks about the ballots. The options 

that were laid before people in terms of the ballot was basically 

saying here is a big pot of money, do each of you want 30,000 of 

these dollars? I mean, there was no mention of a land settlement, 

there was no mention that this—is that correct in terms of characterizing the way the ballot was phrased? I mean, was there any 

mention one way or another about the history, anything like that? 

Mr. YOWELL. That is my understanding. I did not partake in that 

ballot or that voting process, so I didn’t get to see the ballot itself. 

But it is my general understanding that it is only for money—you 

know, the choice is given only for money. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Ms. Piffero, I would like to ask you the question, because I have a copy of one of the ballots here and it says 

the ballot presents the following two options: Yes, I am in favor of 

100 percent per capita claims payment to persons who have at 

least one-quarter degree of Western Shoshone blood; No, I am not 

in favor of receiving any claims payment. Is that basically what the 

ballot was? 

Ms. PIFFERO. Yes, it was. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. So when people were balloting, the issue before 

them was, You have a big pot of money and do you want it? There 

was never any discussion about land claims or land settlements or 

the history that this has had over the last 25 years and how that 

might impact on the tribe. Is that correct? 

Ms. PIFFERO. Right. And I would agree with that statement. 

However, that has been—the lack of communication between our 

people and the truth is making amends. That is true. There has 

been a lot of miscommunication, I believe. But in these last few 

years, that is closing. They are being told the correct information 

by the correct people. And so, yes, that was in fact a valid statement in the beginning; however, that is progressing, going forward 

in a positive manner so that they are aware. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Chairman Ike, do you foresee a process that is 

in place today and that is moving along for having a land settlement take place and you receiving a larger share of land? I mean, 

several administrations—the first Bush administration, I know, 

had negotiations going, the Clinton administration had negotiations going. My understanding Bush 2, there are no negotiations. 

I mean, what are—because you mentioned in your statement, you 

100

know, this doesn’t preclude a settlement, what is the process you 

see reaching some kind of land settlement? 

Mr. IKE. That was the beginning of the process which you had 

just asked in regard to the monetary distribution. Because initially, 

when the Western Shoshone Tribal Governments were asked to 

participate in planning for the expansion of their reservations, 

those negotiations fell apart. 

With that being done and that not proceeding, the Western 

Shoshones claim committee that was developed initiated a different 

distribution package. And these things were discussed in many 

meetings in regard to the overall package and the procedure. And 

there were three questions on that ballot, and the ballot was very 

straightforward in regard to exactly what this process was going to 

be all about. 

I still do believe that there is a process available for the Western 

Shoshones, through Congress, to expand our land base. Those 

plans are still in place. All we have to do is go back, regenerate 

those plans, introduce them, and the we can move forward. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is out. 

If possible, I would like to ask the sponsor just an issue about this 

land settlement, but I can do it— 

Mr. Gibbons, I am just—I am puzzled by the two positions we 

have here with the— You know, I understand the good intent of 

your bill in terms of getting this money out there and getting it to 

people. And yet at the same time, you see this tortured history of 

trying to negotiate a settlement and linking the two together and 

there being a lot of fear that if the settlement takes place, Congress 

will never pick up this issue again. 

And I was just wondering what your perspective was on this in 

terms of—and the chairman’s, for that matter. I mean is there a 

sense of coming back to this issue later on? Are we going to give 

some directive to the Administration to try to reach a settlement? 

You know, where are we on that? 

Mr. GIBBONS. I think, Mr. Udall, first of all, the old saying, ‘‘Justice delayed is justice denied.’’ And what we are trying to do with 

this bill is to allow for the justice to meet the needs of Western 

Shoshone people in the State of Nevada. And that is because the 

judgment that the Court ruled said that X number of dollars were 

to be paid to this Tribe for the taking of their land in the 1850’s. 

There will always be the opportunity for extensions, additions, and 

acquisitions of new lands to be added to the existing holdings right 

now by the Shoshone Nations throughout Nevada. 

That is a process which is ongoing, which is not the subject of 

this bill. It is simply one—this bill, as I said earlier, is to ensure 

that the money does not remain in a trust account for another 20 

or 30 years while senior members of the Shoshone Nation pass 

away without ever receiving the benefit of what this Government 

took from them decades and centuries ago. 

So the point is not—this bill is not the point to be the end-all 

solution to their needs. This bill is only directed to require the distribution of those funds which the Court had said was an award 

to be given to the Shoshone Nation for that taking. It has nothing 

to do with later rights of individual reservations or Tribes to request additional land, to negotiate with the Federal Government 

101

for extensions and trust lands to be added to that. This would 

make this bill so immensely complicated and delay it so long, that 

I would venture to say that everyone sitting in this room will not 

be here by the time that was ever negotiated and agreed upon at 

some point in the future. 

What we are trying to do is require justice to be delivered to 

these people today—not tomorrow, not a decade from now, not 20 

years from now. That is all this bill does. And it does not restrict 

any of the treaty rights, as you have said by reading and quoting 

that part of the bill. 

So the purpose, of course, is just to get the monies released and 

distributed, and it has nothing to do—and does not prevent later 

or even concurrent negotiations for additional lands for the 

Shoshone people. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. If we can just for a second continue this colloquy. I mean, when Senator Reed—he asked that when the ballots 

were voted on in one of these elections, that a fact sheet be handed 

out. And the fact sheet said the following—and my understanding, 

it was handed out. ‘‘The United States Supreme Court has ruled 

that claims to tribal aboriginal land title were extinguished upon 

the payment into the U.S. Treasury of judgment funds awarded 

under Docket Numbers 326-K, 326-A1, 326-A1-3 by the Indian 

Lands Claims Commission. Accordingly, the distribution of these 

funds neither revives any extinguished claims nor extinguishes any 

existing future claims against the U.S. Government.’’ 

So if this statement is accurate, that the judgment by the claims 

commission and then further approved by the Supreme Court extinguished all claims— 

Mr. GIBBONS. That was, as you’ve read, the aboriginal lands. But 

it did not, as it said in the last statement of that paragraph, extinguish any future claims that may be brought. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Yes. No, I understand. 

Mr. GIBBONS. I don’t understand where you are coming from. We 

are looking at an historic area that has been taken by the United 

States. And this bill only pays them $142 million for that, which 

has been sent out by the Court to be distributed. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. I think where—I am trying to understand 

where the other side is coming from. And I think where they are 

coming from is saying since this has extinguished all these claims 

in the past and there isn’t anything going on in the future in terms 

of existing claims or future claims, why don’t we try to settle this 

in one package? I think that has been the basic position that has 

come up. Why can’t we resolve this all at once? And I think there 

will be—it just, you know, it is just my opinion, I think there will 

be a strong movement that, once the funds have been paid out, 

that the Congress is done with this and will never come back to 

it. And so if there is an issue out there, it seems like there might 

be an argument for packaging it in one. 

But you are very close to this issue and spent a lot more time 

with it than I have, and I just wanted to raise this with you and 

the chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for allowing 

me to carry on this colloquy with my colleague here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I have no problem and I would be 

more than happy to work with Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Porter and the 

102

Tribe in trying to come up with some kind of an equitable expansion in terms of what reservation lands should be there. And as 

Mr. Gibbons knows, I don’t think there is any reason for the 

Federal Government to own 90 percent of his State or more. And 

anything that could help rectify that situation, I am in favor of 

doing. And if there is a way to put this together and do that, I am 

all for doing that. But having said that, I think it is crazy to have $140 million sitting in an account somewhere that belongs to these people and not 

give it to them. I think that we are dealing with two separate 

issues here. And the one issue I think we should take care of immediately; the second issue I believe is—we are going to need a lot 

of help from you folks to do this and come up with an equitable 

solution for that. And as I’ve said, I am more than happy to work 

with you in order to make that happen. 

I think most of these issues have been dragging on for way too 

many years. And, you know, to hear Mr. Yarrow talk about this 

court case and how far it goes back and all this, I mean, you realize 

that this started 10 years before I was born, this whole thing. And 

that is just, to me, is unacceptable. So we need to get the money 

to the people it rightfully belongs to. We need to come up with a 

solution in terms of what lands should be tribal lands and get that 

done with. And I think that would, I think, help satisfy some of the 

concerns that are out there. I think they are legitimate. We do 

need to take care of that, and I support you in that. But at the 

same time, I do believe that we need to deal with this money that 

is in this judgment fund. It is not doing anybody any good where 

it is right now. We all know that. So I think we just need to deal 

with that. But I am more than happy to work with all of you to 

help solve this problem in as short a period of time as we possibly 

can. 

But I thank you very much for your testimony. I think is was 

very valuable to the members of the Committee to have you in, and 

I know it is not easy for you to come back. But I do appreciate you 

doing this. 

The members of the Committee will have additional questions. 

Several of them were unable to stay because of the late hour, but 

those questions will be submitted to you in writing. If you could answer those in a timely manner so that they can be included in the 

hearing record, I would appreciate that. 

If there is no further business before the Committee, I again 

thank the members of the Committee and our witnesses for this 

hearing. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:54 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ