[House Report 106-677]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-677
======================================================================
GRATON RANCHERIA RESTORATION ACT
_______
June 19, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 946]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 946) to restore Federal recognition to the Indians of the
Graton Rancheria of California, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 946 is to restore Federal recognition
to the Indians of the Graton Rancheria of California.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 946 would restore federal recognition to the Indians
of the Graton Rancheria of California. The Graton Rancheria is
one of over 40 Indian tribes which were terminated in 1958 by
Public Law 85-671. Today there are approximately 355 members of
the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria living in the general
vicinity of Santa Rosa, California.
H.R. 946 provides that the service area for the Tribe shall
be Marin and Sonoma counties, that nothing in the legislation
shall expand, reduce, or affect any hunting, fishing, trapping,
gathering, or water rights of the Tribe, that real property
eligible for trust status shall include certain Indian-owned
land, and that the Secretary of the Interior shall compile a
membership roll of the Tribe. The bill also provides for an
Interim Tribal Council, the election of tribal officials, and
the ratification of a constitution for the Tribe.
Section 5(d) of H.R. 946 provides that real property taken
into trust for the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to the bill
shall not have been taken into trust for ``gaming'' purposes
pursuant to section 20(b) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(12 U.S.C. 2719(b)).
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 946 was introduced on March 2, 1999, by Congresswoman
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Resources. On May 16, 2000, the Full Resources Committee held a
hearing on the bill. On June 7, 2000, the Full Resources
Committee met to mark up the bill. No amendments were offered
and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. A cost estimate has been
requested but has not been received. However, the Committee
does not believe that enactment of H.R. 946 would not have a
significant effect on the federal budget.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As stated above, a cost
estimate has been requested from the Congressional Budget
Office but has not yet been received. The Committee does not
believe that the bill contains any new budget authority,
spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or
decrease in revenues or tax expenditures.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has requested but has not yet received a
cost estimate for this bill from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Documentation of Miwok peoples dates back as early as 1579
by a priest on a ship under the command of Francis Drake. Other
verification of occupancy exists from Spanish and Russian
Voyagers in 1595, 1775, 1793, and 1808. Missions established
from 1809 to 1834 used Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo tribal
people as a labor source. These records assist us today in
substantiating Native genealogical persistence. After the
Mission period (1769-1834) local Indian people continued in
servitude to Mexican land grant owners throughout their
confiscated tribal territories. Mexican and American period
records show that a Coast Miwok, Camilo Ynitia, secured the
land grant for Olompali near Novato within Coast Miwok
homelands. Olompali is the site of a large village, extending
from prehistoric times into the Spanish/Mexican periods, and
continues today as an important historic locale. Another
important locale was Nicasio (northwest of San Rafael). Near
the time of secularization (1835) the Church granted the San
Rafael Christian Indians 20 leagues (80,000 acres) of mission
lands at Nicasio. About 500 Indians relocated to Nicasio. By
1850 they had but one league of land left. This radical
reduction of land was a result of illegal confiscation of land
by non-Indians under protest by Indian residents. In 1870, Jose
Calistro, the last community leader at Nicasio, purchased the
small surrounding parcel. Calistro died in 1875, and in 1876
the land was transferred by his will to his four children. In
1880 there were 36 Indian people at Nicasio. The population was
persuaded to leave in the 1880s when Marin County curtailed
funds to all Indians (except those at Marshall) who were not
living at the Poor Farm, a place for ``indigent'' peoples.
By the beginning of California statehood (1850) the
Marshall, Bodega, and Sebastopol peoples, along with their Pomo
and Patwin neighbors were making the best of a difficult
oppressive situation, by earning their livelihoods through farm
labor or fishing, within their traditional homelands. William
Smith, a Bodega Miwok, after force relocation to Lake County
during the late 1800's, returned to Bodega Bay where he and his
relatives founded the commercial fishing industry in the area.
By the early 1900's a few people pursued fishing for their
livelihoods; one family continued commercial fishing into the
1970's, while another family maintained an oyster harvesting
business. When this activity was neither, in season nor
profitable, Indian people of this area, sought agricultural
employment, which required an itinerant lifestyle. The
preferred locality for such work was within Marin and Sonoma
counties.
In May 1920, Bureau of Indian Affairs Inspector John J.
Terrell proposed the purchase of a 15.45 acre tract of land
near the small rural Sonoma County town of Graton, for the
``village home'' of the Marshall, Bodega, Tomales, and
Sebastopol Indians. Through the purchase of this land, put into
federal trust, the government consolidated these neighboring
traditionally interactive groups into one recognized entity,
Graton Rancheria. In June 1923, a Bureau of Indian Affairs
census of the Sebastopol Indians of Round Valley Agency,
California, included seventy-five individuals of Marshall,
Bodega, and Sebastopol descent, and demonstrates their
congregation in the vicinity of the Graton Rancheria.
The United States government terminated the tribes' status
in 1966 under the California Rancheria Act of 1958 (Public Law
85-671, as amended; 72 Stat. 619). The Bureau of Indian Affairs
approved a plan to distribute the assets between three
distributees (now all deceased). This act in effect called the
Coast Miwok extinct, ending their rights as a tribe. Today, the
membership of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
comprises approximately 366 individuals. Many of thee people
have maintained their identities as California Indians from
birth as shown by their having roll numbers on the 1933 Census
Roll of the Indians of California, the 1955 California Combined
Roll, and the 1972 California Indian Judgment Rolls. Members
born after the last roll numbers were issued in 1969, have
provided birth certificates and/or baptismal certificates
connecting them with roll number bearers and have been included
on the Graton tribal roll.
The Federated Coast Miwok and Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria, is recognized socially and politically as an Indian
group by outside Indian and non-Indian groups, scholars,
organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies/
governments. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria have
endured through time as a distinctive tribal group. Restoring
Federal recognition will provide the tribe with much needed
health, education, and housing benefits.
The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Gover,
testified on behalf of the Administration at the hearing on May
16, 2000 in favor of passage of H.R. 946. In part Secretary
Gover stated, ``I am pleased to report that after careful
review of the information submitted by the Federated Indians of
the Graton Rancheria (the successor name), the documentation
shows that the group is significantly tied with the terminated
tribe known as the Graton Rancheria. Therefore, we support
their restoration of tribal status.'' Mr. Gover did, however,
recommend the deletion of Section 5(d) of the bill stating,
``We see no reason to single this Tribe out for gaming
restrictions.''
Section 5(d) of H.R. 946 provides that real property taken
into trust for the benefit of the Tribe pursuant to the bill
shall not have been taken into trust for gaming purposes
pursuant to section 20(b) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
This language places restrictions on gaming activities on
certain lands taken into trust. It is included due to the
particular circumstances of this situation and at the request
of the Tribe. We do not intend this language to serve as a
precedent to be used in future restoration acts.
George Miller.