Chairman’s Report
’••O
’*.-'**’
Oregon. We have worked to alleviate any
and all concerns they asked about.
We met with and discussed the pro
posed legislation with all six counties
that have land within our original 1855
Siletz/Coast Reservation. We also have
met with and discussed our boundaries
with both the’Coos, Lower Umpqua and
Delores Pigsley
Siletz Legislation
As I mentioned in an earlier edition
of Siletz News, the Tribe is seeking to
have our original Siletz/Coast Reserva
tion border recognized in legislation.
The purpose of the legislation is to make
it easier to have land the Tribe purchases
taken into trust in a more simple process
than is currently used.
We began working on this process
several years ago. Our efforts resulted
in some changes in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs that allow the fee-to-trust process
to be completed in the Northwest regional
office, but all acquisitions - whether
within our original reservation or not - are
treated as off-reservation.
We have met on this issue with our
congressional representatives several
times both in Washington, D.C., and in
Siuslaw Tribe and with the Confederated
Tribes of Grand Ronde.
In talks with the Coos, we recognized
that their casino is inside the original 1855
Siletz/Coast Reservation. The land they
purchased was a Siletz allotment and owned
by an enrolled Siletz Tribal member.
Our Tribe did not object to the Coos
purchase nor taking the land into trust
for their casino. We remain supportive
today of their efforts to further develop
their resort plans, but in exchange we
want them to acknowledge our historical
reservation boundary.
In discussions with the Grand Ronde
Tribe, their position has been that they
also have a right to the Siletz/Coast Res
ervation. They currently have a bill intro
duced in both the House and the Senate
that identifies their original 1857 Grand
Ronde Reservation and doesn’t mention
our reservation. Their bill would recog
nize the boundaries set in the presidential
order signed by President James Buchanan
establishing the Grand Ronde Reservation.
Historical documents identify both
the 1857 Grand Ronde Reservation estab
lished by executive order and the 1855
The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
Tribal Council
Phone (503) 879-2301
1-800-422-0232
Fax (503) 879-5964
9615 Grand Ronde Rd.
Grand Ronde, OR 97347
April 6,2011
Senator Ron Wyden
223 Dirksen Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Re:
via electronic mail to
senator@nyden.senate.gov and
michele_miranda@nyden.senate.gov
Siletz Restoration Act Amendment
Dear Senator Wyden:
On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (“Grand
Ronde”), I am writing to express concern over the proposed legislation to amend the Siletz
Indian Tribe Restoration Act, and to urge you not to advance this legislation. The Siletz
legislation is materially different from HR 726 and SB 356, Grand Ronde’s bills to amend the
Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and would significantly infringe on the rights of Grand Ronde
and other tribes in western Oregon.
Unlike Grand Ronde’s bill - which seeks to improve the process of acquiring lands in trust and
returning to reservation status lands the Tribe reacquires within its original reservation - we
believe the purpose of the Siletz legislation is to eliminate the historic claims of other tribes to
the former Coast Reservation (which was set aside for all tribes in western Oregon) by equating
the boundaries of the Siletz Reservation with the boundaries of the Coast Reservation. The
Coast Reservation, as described in the Executive Order dated November 9,1855, was never
designated exclusively for the Siletz. It was set aside for Indians throughout western Oregon,
including the antecedent tribes and bands of the Grand Ronde such as the tribes of the
Willamette Valley, Umpqua Valley, and Rogue River Valley.1 The Siletz are aware that Grand
Ronde has made historic claims to the Coast Reservation. Their proposed legislation is nothing
<
'
'¡^
'
S I
Siletz/Coast Reservation established by
an executive order signed by President
Franklin Pierce. Both executive orders
were pursuant to several treaties and
stipulations contained in them.
Along with the executive orders are
numerous other documents as well as
Court of Claims decisions that rejected
any Grand Ronde interest in our original
Reservation or any matters pertaining to it.
Both the Grand Ronde legislation
and ours cite these executive orders as
the authority for defining our original
respective exterior boundaries for use in
processing fee-to-trust applications.
I am happy to announce that our
legislation was introduced in the Senate
by our Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff
Merkley; it is S908. Rep. Kurt Schrader
will introduce the bill in the House of
Representatives soon.
Bud Lane, our attorney Craig Dorsay
and I visited Washington, D.C., the first
week in May and met with our representa
tives. A hearing on our bill will be held by
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,
where we will present our case and facts
in support of our legislation and have the
opportunity to respond to any opposition.
Currently, the only opposition is by
the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde.
I have included their opposition letter in
this edition of Siletz News so everyone
will have a clear understanding of how
extreme and unfounded a position they
have taken (see below).
'
- '
Investment Committee: Hawaii
Our Investment Committee held its
last committee meeting in Honolulu,
Hawaii. The representative of our inves
tor, Atalanta Sosnoff Capital LLC, was
recently changed to a gentleman named
Kamani Kuala’au, now the senior vice
president, who happens to be a Native
Hawaiian and resides there.
Also included was Ken Miller, finan
cial advisor of Morgan Stanley Smith Bar
ney, who invests our minors’ trust accounts
along with our short-term investments.
We meet with our investors every other
year to understand the investment strategies
and make any changes that may be neces
sary. Our investments are doing very well.
Ken Miller agreed to provide infor
mation to our 18-year-olds who draw their
funds out of the trust, information that will
assist them in re-investing their funds.
Also on our agenda was a meeting
with the Native Hawaiian group that is
seeking federal recognition for Native
Hawaiians. Some of us had met previously
with their representatives while on a trip to
Washington, D.C. The group invited us
to a meeting with the larger group to talk
about Tribal restoration and discuss the
process our Tribe went through.
The Native Hawaiians were very cor
dial, had lots of questions and are seeking
assistance. We will have a follow-up meet
ing when they visit us in the near future.
Their Restoration legislation has
been introduced in the Senate by Senators
Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka.
Senator Wyden
April 6,2011
Page 2
more than a veiled attempt to eradicate the claims of Grand Ronde and other western Oregon
tribes to the Coast Reservation.
The intent of the Siletz legislation is clear as the legislation does nothing to improve the process
by which lands are taken into trust or given reservation status. The provisions of the legislation
are not effective unless the relevant county submits a resolution or similar document accepting
the provisions of the legislation and there is no certainty that the affected counties would actually
do this.
The proposed legislation is also inconsistent with Section 7(d) of the Siletz Indian Tribe
Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 71 le(d)), which provides that “the Secretary shall not accept any real
property in trust for the benefit of the tribe or its members unless such real property is located
within Lincoln County, State of Oregon.” The property described in the proposed legislation is
much more expansive, covering Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas
Counties. Moreover, since the proposed legislation includes property in Tillamook and Yamhill
Counties, the proposed legislation infringes on interests of Grand Ronde. Specifically, Section 8
of the Grand Ronde Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 713(f)), provides that “the Secretary shall not
accept any real property in trust for the benefit of die tribe or its members which is not located
within the political boundaries of Polk, Yamhill, or Tillamook County, Oregon.”
The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde request you defer any further action on the Siletz
Restoration Act amendment.
cc:
Oregon Congressional Delegation
Tribal Council
Tribal Attorney
1 The Executive Order states: “The reservation of the land within denoted by blue-shaded lines
is hereby made for the purposes indicated in the letter of the Commissioner of the General Land
Office of the 10th September last and letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the 8th November,
1855.” 1 Kappler’s Indian Affairs 890-91 (U.S. G.P.0.1904). The letter of September 10,
1855, referenced in the Executive Order, indicates that the Coast Reservation was established for
the “Coast, Umpqua, and Willamette Tribes of Indians in Oregon Territory.” The letter is
reprinted in Alcea Band ofTillamooks v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 934 (Ct. Cl. 1945) (Special
Findings of Fact #13), aff'd United States v. Alcea Band ofTillamooks, 329 U.S. 40 (1946).
Umpqua Molalla Rogue River Kalapuya Chasta
Umpqua Molalla Rogue River Kalapuya Chasta
2
*
Siletz News
*
June 2011
'i: