in their home communities, the amount of funds for any given reservation and the plans for the use of such funds to be determined by the reservation planning commission. 6. An adequate land-purchase fund should be made available to permit Indian tribes to buy up heirship lands and lands in non-Indian ownership where these are strategically located with reference to water and other Indian landholdings, with reimbursement to the United States on terms at least as favorable as those accorded farm tenants under existing law. 7. Action should be taken immediately to transfer to tribal ownership submarginal lands acquired with emergency relief funds for Indian use, and to restore to the tribes lands withdrawn from homestead entry but never preempted. 8. A program of on-the-farm and on-the-job training, comparable to the GItraining programs with Federal financing, should be initiated. 9. A national policy with respect to the taking of Indian lands for public purposes should be promulgated. Steps have been taken to move in a direction consistent with this planning, but necessarily the progress has been slow. The 85th Congress had before it, for its consideration, Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, which our people unanimously supported along with the other Indian tribes throughout the country. This resolution, in effect, would have wiped House Resolution 108 off the of the books and would have given the people the opportunity to have proceeded without the fear of termination hanging over their heads. Unfortunately, in spite of the able assistance given us by Senator Neuberger, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3 was not passed. Of course, this resolution would only have acted as a guide to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and would only have been effective had the Bureau made a sincere effort to use it as a guide. Disregarding for the moment all of the practical problems and difficulties involved with termination, and analyzing it from the standpoint of the welfare of our people, it seems clear that no one can logically argue that our people will be benefited by having all of their tribal assets liquidated and suddenly divided up; then having their entire social system changed; and then suddenly finding themselves entangled in a maze of legal, social, and economic problems. Of course, many of our people will be able to step forward promptly and cope with the problem. By far the majority will not. Education and intelligent economic planning among our people would eventually eliminate the problems and hazards of termination. Our people, given the opportunity and the time, can make the transition freely. It is the feeling of the people of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon that termination as it is being conducted on the Klamath Reservation is premature and ill considered. If it is too late to reconsider, as much time as possible should be allowed before bringing about the final termination date. It is difficult for our people to understand why, in the case of the Menominees, all of the termination costs were paid by the Federal Government, whereas in the case of the Klamaths only one-half of such expense is being paid. This may well be an insignificant item compared to the loss the Klamaths very well sustain as a result of the premature action. The resources of the reservation, if held in trust for the Klamaths and wisely used in connection with an intelligent plan, could furnish an asset to the Klamath people as well as to the State of Oregon for many years to come. We are deeply concerned with the fear that under the present course of action it may well result in a liability to the Klamath people and to the State of Oregon. One other element should be considered in discussing termination. Article VI of the Constitution of the United States provides, in part, as follows: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." We should consider seriously whether or not termination, as it is now being carried out, is a violation of the treaties made with the Indians. The United States can justly be proud of its conduct in honoring treaties with foreign nations. We are advised by our tribal attorney that the termination of an Indian tribe with a treaty similar to that entered into with the Warm Springs Indians would be a direct repudiation of a treaty, in the absence of consent, by the people affected. We urge this committee, the Senate Interior Committee, and the Congress of the United States to move cautiously and carefully in affecting so violently the lives and property of so many people. We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before the committee, and we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time allotted to us. Mr. WALTER LEUTHOLD, AVEX D. MILLER, UNITED STATES SENATE, President, National Lumber Manufacturers Association, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. LEUTHOLD: On October 30, 1957, your organization submitted a statement to Senator Neuberger, chairman of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, stating that: "Reportedly, Senator Wayne Morse, of Oregon, coauthor of S. 2047, has supported legislation in the Congress for the disposal of the Klamath Indian Reservation assets without reference to the sale of such assets to the Federal Government." I shall not at this time give you the benefit of my views on your entire statement, which in my judgment, contains a series of false premises and erroneous conclusions. However, in order that the record will be crystal clear as to what Wayne Morse reportedly did, I should like to advise you of the facts. These are facts which anyone could obtain by consulting the Congressional Record and the legislative record. On July 25, 1945, on behalf of Senator Guy Cordon and myself, I introduced a bill (S. 1313) to remove restrictions on the property and moneys belonging to enrolled members of the Klamath Indian Reservation in Oregon to provide for liquidation of tribal property and distribution of the proceeds thereon and for other purposes. On page 8042 of the Congressional Record for the 79th Congress, 1st session, you will find I said: "That in introducing the bill the Senators from Oregon have done so for the consideration of the Indian Affairs Committee. We are not members of the committee. We are not prepared to pass upon the merits of the bill ***. We wish to make it perfectly clear that we are introducing the bill at their (persons in Oregon) request." No action was taken on this bill. On May 2, 1947, Senator Cordon and I again joined in the introduction of a similar bill (S. 1222). Page 4457 of the Congressional Record for the 80th Congress shows that I said again : "We want the record to show 2 or 3 things very clearly: First, that the bill is being introduced at the request of a certain group, and, I think, properly described as a certain faction, within the Indian Reservation, that it is being introduced at the request of certain officials of the county, including the county judge, and it is being introduced in behalf of certain civic bodies, who at least want the bill introduced for the purpose of hearings. "The senior Senator and the junior Senator from Oregon do not take any final position on the merits of the bill. We are introducing it because we are in agreement that it is a bill which ought to go to hearing, and because we need, it seems to us, the judgment of the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Public Lands Committee. In fact, two of the Senators on that committee, including the chairman of the subcommittee, have said to us that it is very difficult for them to proceed with the consideration of the problems of the reservation, as they pertain to the subject matter of this bill, in the absence of the bill itself being introduced." The record is so crystal clear that this legislation was introduced by request that I fail to see how your spokesman could say that I reportedly supported this legislation. In order to further insure the accuracy of my facts I point out to you that hearings which were held on S. 1222 show that I never testified for or against this bill, and that both Senator Cordon and myself maintained our original position on this legislation that all we desired was that it receive a fair hearing and judicial consideration from the proper committee of the Senate. This legislation was not even reported by the committee and thus the record speaks for itself that no one associated with this legislation was willing to knowingly approve a bill which would liquidate these great resources for a few paltry dollars. I would also add that Public Law 587 which originated in the 83d Congress was neither sponsored by me nor did it have my support. I would like you to know that I am concerned over the fact that a spokesman for your organization took it upon himself to present an opinion as to my course of action to a committee of the Senate without even making an effort to check the record or to check with me. I am deeply disturbed because your main office is here in Washington, D. C., and it would have been a very simple matter to secure the facts from my legislative files. For that reason I am making a special request to the chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs that this letter be made a part of the printed hearing record on S. 2047 and that it precede the statement you filed with the Indian Affairs Subcommittee. It would be appreciated if you would instruct the employees of your organization to check the facts before they ever again attempt to state my views to a committee of the Congress. Sincerely yours, WAYNE MORSE. NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: This letter outlines the views of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association relative to S. 2047, a bill to provide for the acquisition by the United States of all tribal land of the Klamath Tribe of Indians. Hearings were held by your subcommittee on this measure at Klamath Falls, Oreg., on October 2 and 3, and Portland, Oreg., on October 4. It will be appreciated if this letter will be made a part of the record of those hearings. Our remarks will relate essentially to the Klamath Indian Reservation timberlands. The National Lumber Manufacturers Association believes that (1) S. 2047, if enacted, would transfer privately owned timberlands to the ownership of the Federal Government and thereby deprive private industry and private persons, including the Klamath Indians, of the opportunity of owning forest land in an area where the bulk of such land is already in public ownership; (2) the Klamath timberlands are commercial in character and are suitable for permanent ownership and management by private enterprise; (3) the public interest will be better served by public sale of the Klamath timberlands as contemplated under Public Law 587 (68 Stat. 718), as amended, than by the enactment of S. 2047. These views will be briefly discussed in turn. (I) There exists misunderstanding relative to the present ownership of the Klamath timberlands. They are not in public ownership or quasi-private or public ownership. They are privately owned lands and they are for this reason subject to such disposal as their owners (the Klamath and affiliated Indians) prefer. It is our understanding that the official representatives of these Indian owners approved Public Law 587. They thereby approved of public sale (as implied in that law and as indicated by subsequent actions under the law) as the manner of property disposal rather than disposal to the Federal Government. Furthermore, it appears that Public Law 587 as amended was approved by the Department of the Interior; that the Oregon Legislature in 1953 memorialized the Congress of the United States to terminate Federal supervision over the Klamath Indians and divide the assets among the enrolled members; that at one time the officials of Klamath County and other groups in that area strongly supported legislation of this nature; and that, reportedly, Senator Wayne Morse, of Oregon, coauthor of S. 2047, has supported legislation in the Congress for the disposal of the Klamath Indian Reservation assets without reference to the sale of such assets to the Federal Government. S. 2047, therefore, comes at a time when long and careful deliberation and general agreement have jointly formulated a law which to the parties of interest seemed to be a workable procedure. In the consideration of this problem, the predominance of Government ownership of land in the area may have been influential in providing for a public sale procedure. (II) The best evidence that the Klamath timberlands are suitable for permanent ownership and management by private enterprise is the fact that extensive areas of similar timberlands adjacent to the Klamath Reservation and elsewhere throughout the western pine region are under good forest management and are included in certified privately owned tree farms. The purchase of the 98089-57-18 Klamath timberlands by private enterprise would involve substantial investments. It is believed that such investments would be forthcoming and that they would for the most part be based upon stable ownership and long-range management objectives. Public sale under Public Law 587 as amended will, in our opinion, result in the extension of the tree farm movement to the timberlands soid, if not immediately in all cases, then in due time. If private enterprise, therefore, is accorded the opportunity of buying the timberlands in fee simple at a properly appraised current fair market value (as defined below), it is believed that such timberlands will be sold, judging from expressions of interest which have come to our attention. It should be emphasized that the term appraised current fair market value is used here in its usual legal sense to mean an estimate of the highest price arrived at in a public sale between informed and willing buyers and an informed and willing seller under the special circumstances included in Public Law 587, as amended, which govern the period of time during which the Government as the seller is required to dispose of the property through the individual sale of many timberland tracts in a specific area.1 It is obvious that if the appraised prices placed on the tracts (below which bids will not be accepted by the Government from prospective buyers) are higher than the market will accept, few sales will be made. It is also clear that the appraised current fair market value of a tract of timberland is, or should be, an expression of the highest bid price in the market place made by a bidder acceptable to the seller. When value is so determined, there can exist only one value for the same piece of property at a given time. It is believed that Public Law 587 intended that the appraisal of the Klamath Indian Reservation property should be made on the basis of its fair market value and that this term was used in the sense here suggested. (III) Retention of the maximum possible proportion of forest land in private taxpaying ownership has long been the keystone of the forest policy of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association. More than one-fourth of the commercial forest land and 40 percent of the Nation's sawtimber is today in Government ownership and control. In the State of Oregon 51 percent of the land area is in Federal ownership and 54 percent of the total commercial timberland area is federally owned. Furthermore, 59 percent of the live sawtimber volume on commercial forest lands in Oregon is Federal property. The Klamath timberlands involve some 745,000 acres and over 4 billion feet of timber. If they are acquired by the Federal Government, such acquisition will add significantly to its land and timber holdings in Oregon. In view of the already existing large Federal holdings in Oregon, it would appear to be contrary to the public interest to increase such ownership. The expansion of private enterprise in the forest products field can be encouraged by providing, as in the case of the Klamath, for the transfer of suitable commercial forest lands from public control to private control. Should not this be the object of public policy under our American system of private enterprise? If the Klamath timberlands are acquired by the Federal Government, such action will undoubtedly set a precedent for the purchase of timberlands on other Indian reservations as the program of termination proceeds. This fact, more than any other, justifies the concern we have in the Klamath problem. We are advised that there are on Indian reservations and in tribal ownership some 5 million acres of commercial timberland and perhaps 30 to 35 billion board-feet of timber. If all this land and timber were eventually acquired by the Federal Government, it is conceivable that the cost to the taxpayer would be well over $500 million. And this is not all. Some 35 million acres of tribal Indian reservation grazing and woodland, in addition to the 5 million acres of timberland, are held in trust by the United States for the Indians. Would these lands, too, be acquired by the Government at the time the timberlands were acquired? If so, what would they cost? These facts and question should be carefully considered before S. 2047 is approved. It is possible that if the termination program is now to be predicated on Government purchase of the Indian reserva 1 Although the period of time provided for the sale of assets was extended by the act of August 14. 1957 (71 Stat. 347), there exists some question as to whether or not such extension still provides adequate time for the most advantageous sale of assets. Also it may be noted that the present law apparently requires cash payment in full at the time of sale. 2 These lands have been well managed over the years and represent today, therefore, substantially greater worth than would otherwise be the case. tions, we may see the program essentially beginning and ending with the Klamath Reservation. For many years the Congress of the United States and the executive department of the Government have urged the greater application of the science of forestry to private lands and the expansion of private sustained-yield forestry practice throughout the Nation. Encouragement has largely taken the form of financial subsidies, demonstrations and education. Today good forestry practice on industry-owned timberlands is the rule rather than the exception and conditions on the smaller holdings are progressively being improved. Changed economic circumstances have been largely responsible for this favorable development. It is the desire of industry to further expand or extend the practice of sustained-yield forestry. The Klamath timberlands present both a challenge and an opportunity to do this. It would seem consistent with past practice and policy for the Congress and the executive department, therefore, to encourage the transfer of the Klamath timberlands, which are made available for disposal, to continued private ownership rather than Federal ownership. The Federal taxpayer can well question the proposal that the Government purchase the Klamath timberlands. To illustrate the financial aspects of such a transaction let us suppose that the Government is able to purchase these lands for $50 million. The annual profit and loss statement then might look something like this: 1 Sale of 75 million board-feet annually at average price of $30 per thousand. 2 Interest at 4 percent on $50,000,000. 3 Average annual minimum administrative cost of 35 cents per acre for 745,000 acres of timberland (591,580 acres sawtimber and 153,700 acres lodgepole pine), including costs for fire, insect, and disease protection, construction and maintenance of roads, buildings, and other improvements, timber-sale preparation and supervision, tree planting and stand improvement, purchase of equipment, etc. Calculated as 25 percent of gross receipts, same as for the national forests. Admittedly it is impossible to prejudge how Congress will provide for this type of payment. estimate, therefore, may be too liberal. The Obviously, the annual deficit of $535,000 would increase or decrease in proportion to the amount above or below $50 million the Government actually paid for the lands and to variations in other factors. Under the assumptions made there would be no revenue available to pay off the $50 million indebtedness. (Most of the proposals we have seen for a Government purchase payment are in excess of $50 million.) It is perfectly apparent that the Government would not have to incur annual deficits and borrow $50 million from the taxpayers if the lands are sold to private enterprise. Then not only would private management in due time provide substantially equal onsite benefits (timber production, water and game production, etc.) but would under favorable economic circumstances be able to intensify utilization of the timber, develop greater industrial and community stability and larger payrolls, and, at the same time, pay into the Federal Treasury a share of the income received from such undertakings. Private landownership would permit long-range planning for the development and use of timber resources by the dependent landowning industries. Government ownership would not permit this to the same degree because no individual operator or industry could feel certain of a guaranteed annual supply of timber under Government policies which must provide for the competitive sale of timber. We are confident that this is a realistic appraisal of the situation under the conditions we have previously outlined. This figure does not represent what NLMA thinks the timberlands are worth as it has made no appraisal or estimate of such worth. The figure is used for illustrative purposes only. |