Mr. MCCLOSKEY. If the Yuroks are identified as constituting 1,800 people on this reservation and they then outnumber the Hoopas 1,600 do you agree that the Yuroks and the Hoopas should then vote to elect a single form of tribal council to operate the single reservation the court has declared by law?

Mr. POLE. No.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Why not?

Mr. POLE. They are two separate communities.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. If there is one reservation-

Mr. POLE. How can you ask? If there is one council, would you have it in Klamath or Hoopa? Per diem pay for us going there or them coming to Hoopa would take most of our budget.

You know, we have developed our community with a hospital and a shopping center. We have developed our timber corporation; we have made investments in our community and now you are asking that we divide that.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I am not asking that, but Mr. Masten said that within 6 months you could reach an agreement.

I find no willingness to agree on your part because you said that you agree that you should have the 12-mile square and that they should not participate.

Now, how do we reach agreement with that set of circumstances if they outnumber you?

Mr. MASTEN. Well, I can appreciate the dilemma that you have, Congressman.

Let me go back. I know you asked questions of one of the other panelists that was here in regard to this equal representation. I might add that if you look through the makeup of the individual plaintiffs in the Jessie Short case you will find a considerable number of them who are less than one-quarter degree Indian blood. Now, you come up with this figure of 3,800 people. Now, our membership-you must be one-quarter degree Indian blood.

If we take the number of people that we have that are, say, from one-thirty-second up to a quarter, then we would come up with pretty much of an equal number. So, I think that answers that question.

Mr. BREAUX. Let me recognize Congressman Don Clausen at this time.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, I am not going to take up a lot of time because there are some other witnesses that want to get into this. I do want to make this point as it relates to the problems as expressed by the witnesses in the matter of the structuring and establishment of the court of Indian offenses.

Were you ever asked by the Bureau of Indian Affairs people for an opinion as to how that particular court could or should be established?

I intend to ask the same of the Yuroks. Were you asked for your opinions or was it imposed upon you?

Mr. MASTEN. I think we were informed that it was going to be established. Our position was that we do not recognize really the validity of that court and we believe that any court or the enforcement or citations that are issued or have been issued in regard to should be established by the tribes.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well again, it would be my intent, and I will provide a copy of this to you and others that I ask this question of in my followup questions, to have you read and evaluate Assistant Secretary Gerard's testimony before the committee which took place this past week with regard to the Court of Indian Offenses. I want to have you have a chance to review it along with the tribal members. I want to have the same privilege granted to the Yuroks so they also have an opportunity to place into the record what their own impresslons of how the Court of Indian Offenses has in fact been functioning and operating.

I think that is very important. There have been many, many complaints by all the people in the area.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you. Thank you very much, Congressman. Mr. MASTEN. May I make one last comment in response to a question by Mr. McCloskey earlier?

Mr. BREAUX. Yes.

Mr. MASTEN. I think one of the things that has been seriously lacking in this whole process, and I am talking about the court process, is that accurate information has not, I believe, been distributed.

I think that maybe now you could do it. I don't know, but some mechanism might be developed so that accurate information could be distributed and all plaintiffs in the Jessie Short case could be made aware of what that court case did, what are the effects of that court case and the publicity that has been distributed in this has been very much in error in many cases. To me, that is probably one of the most serious things that has happened down the line and I think that has been a major problem in the hindrance of the two tribes, or hindering the two tribes from getting together. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I can confirm that, because I have seen some of the information about what I have allegedly said or done. Mr. Williams, who will testify this afternoon, in his testimony before this committee last year indicated that the plaintiffs in the Jessie Short case are not divided into three groups: 100 who have left it to go to a law firm, 700 who would like to go to that new law firm but have been denied by the court, and apparently 3,100 who are still represented by the original attorneys, I have seen letters from the original attorneys indicating that the plaintiffs are by no means in agreement as to what course to pursue with the mediation.

Our problem is that we don't know who to identify as the leaders of the Yurok tribe, how to organize the Yurok Tribe because with the three groups apparently differing in their own legal representation, who do we deal with and how do we be fair to all Yuroks? I am at a loss as to how to know whom to deal within the Yurok tribal organization, in view of their own testimony before this committee that they are divided into at least three groups.

Mr. MASTEN. I think one of the important things that has to be done is that accurate information has to be somehow distributed as to what this lawsuit is all about.

How much money are we actually talking about? We are not talking about very much money. Not as a result of the Jessie Short lawsuit.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Could you confirm at this time, Mr. Masten, what have the Hoopas that have been members of the Hoopa Tribe

over the past 15 years received per capita? What is the total amount of money that each individual has received in the distribution of timber revenues?

Mr. MASTEN. Since 1964? Approximately $24,000.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. About $24,000 each?

Mr. MASTEN. That's right.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. So, if the plaintiffs in the Jessie Short case were to share in that and there were 1,800 as you suggest, or 3,800 as is the number of plaintiffs, there would be more than enough money in the money now sequestered to pay them the sum of money that each Hoopa has received, would there not?

Mr. MASTEN. That is one of the misconceptions of the court decision. What the court decision says is that they will be entitled to a share, a pro-rata share, of what they would have received had they been members or had they been allowed to share in the income from 1955 to 1974 and that does not mean that each Yurok Indian, each one of the 3,800 Indians will receive the same amount of money that the Hoopas have received.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. How many?

Mr. MASTEN. They will receive the amount of money-you take the total amount, the total income, the total money that was received to the Hoopas, or even if you take the total income you divide it into-not 1,540 Hoopa tribal members but you add the 1,540 and the 3,800 plaintiffs together, divide those or that total figure into the total income and then you would get the amount they are to receive as per the court decision.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I see. In other words, the Hoopas have already gotten the $24,000 and so they would have to take some sort of a debit in order to pay out an identical sum to the Yurok claims. They are not going to give that money back, are they now? Mr. MASTEN. No; but on the basis of the court's decision which says that they would be entitled, those that are later identified or later determined to be eligible to share in the proceeds, they would get a pro-rata share for that period of time.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Thank you.

Mr. BREAUX. I want to thank the panel very much for their presentation.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BREAUX. Let me recognize Mr. Clausen.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, I wonder if you would be willing to respond in writing to the committee on this, one of the questions I really wanted to have answered.

Mr. MASTEN. Yes.

Mr. CLAUSEN. That is, what should the role of the BIA actually be in Indian affairs?

Now, I want you to think this through. What is their role? I don't want a response now, but I would like a very comprehensive and conclusive explanation of what you think the BIA's role should be.

And I would hope that we can have that from all witnesses, Mr. Chairman. It would be extremely helpful, so they can have an input to the hearing record.

Mr. POLE. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Pole, do you have an additional comment?

Mr. POLE. My additional comment would be that I apologize to the Indians residing on the extension, those Indians who do practice their religion and still believe in their traditions and their cultures and their language.

Mr. BREAUX. Well, fine.

I thank the panel very much for their testimony. This is not an easy matter to testify about and I recognize that for all sides involved.

This afternoon we will have testimony from other Indian tribes involved. They will have an equal opportunity to tell their stories. Mr. MASTEN. May I take about 15 more seconds, Mr. Chairman? Mr. BREAUX. Go ahead.

Mr. MASTEN. I would like to say that Mr. McCloskey has talked about there being hatred between the tribes. I don't really believe that that is true, at least not from our part.

I would like to reiterate that we stand ready to sit down with Yurok people of their choosing. We firmly believe that we can negotiate a settlement that would be to a much greater benefit to the Yurok people that the benefits they will receive from the Jessie Short case.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you again.

Our next panel to be received this afternoon will be the Yurok Indian panel.

The Chairman of the Committee announces at this time that they will take a 30-minute lunch break and we will return back into session at 1 p.m.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 1 p.m. the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. BREAUX. The committee will please come to order. The Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife will please come to order and we ask our guests in the hearing room to please take their seats so that we might continue.

Our first panel of witnesses on this afternoon's hearings will be a representative panel of Yurok Indians. We would like to welcome to the witness table at this time Mr. Timm Williams, Mr. William Van Pelt, Ms. Ollie Foseide, Mr. Walt Lara and Mr. Robert Kinney.

If these people will please take their seats at the witness table, we will begin with Mr. Williams.

I invite you to proceed.

STATEMENT OF TIMM WILLIAMS, REPRESENTATIVE, YUROK INDIAN TRIBE

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to Ms. Ollie Foseide, who is unable to make it for this panel, would it be allowable to request another Yurok to sit in her place?

Mr. BREAUX. If someone would like to speak for her that would be acceptable.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Fine.

Mr. Chairman, I have submitted 15 copies of my written testimony with its attachments to the committee for your consideration and your evaluation.

I would like to read that statement into the minutes of this meeting and then refer it to the other panelists and then we will be open to answering questions as suggested by Mr. Clausen.

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: last year, on August 2, 1978, in Washington, D.C., I was privileged to appear as a witness before this subcommittee during its hearings on Indian fishing rights.

During that hearing, with the assistance of Congressman Paul N. McCloskey, who is a member of this subcommittee, I clearly established the fact that I am authorized to act in all matters pertaining to the tribal rights and tribal lands of the Hoopa Valley Reservation, on behalf of the majority of the Yurok Indians of the reservation. I also established the fact that in 1973, the United States Court of Claims recognized me as an eligible Indian of the Hoopa Valley Reservation, entitled to equal rights on that reservation with all other eligible Indians of the reservation, including members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe.

I am appearing here today, in my capacity as one of the three attorneys-in-fact who have been authorized to represent the majority of the Yurok Indians of the Hoopa Valley Reservation, and also, as an eligible Indian of the reservation.

Subsequent to the August 2, 1978, hearing, our tribal advisor, Allan Morris, discovered that this subcommittee adopted an amendment to the Anadromous Fish Act which would have permitted the State of California to abolish commercial fishing rights which were previously granted to us through an agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

As Mr. Morris has previously pointed out, the validity of such agreements was recognized and confirmed by Congress, with the enactment of Public Law 280.

I hereby appeal to the honorable members of this subcommittee, and all other Members of Congress, to oppose any further efforts to induce Congress to enact legislation which would deprive the California Indian people of any fishing right which is covered by a previous agreement with the BIA or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

Should Congress deprive the Indians of the Hoopa Valley Reservation of any of their fishing rights, we shall demand that the U.S. Government compensate each of us in cash for the loss of such rights.

Our commercial fishing rights alone have a valuation of a few hundred million dollars-so Congress would do well to consider the taxpayers before taking action to deprive us of any of our long-held fishing rights.

The majority of the Yurok Indian people did not have any part in creating the problems in connection with the lower Klamath River fishery. The BIA's gross mismanagement of the Hoopa Valley Reservation and its anadromous fishery resources, created the problems.