carry out the Government's legal and moral obligations to these citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much, Congressman. We are very happy to have you here with us this morning.

I see two other distinguished members of the Oklahoma delegation here this morning, who I am sure are interested in this legislation. We have Congressman Albert and Congressman Wickersham. Do either of you gentlemen care to make a statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL ALBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. ALBERT. I would like to make just a brief statement and not take much time because we want our guests who come all the way from Oklahoma to have all the time that they need.

I want to say that I introduced a bill early in the session simply to extend the existing law because the present law will expire next year. It had been my idea all along, and I think the idea of most of the Indians in my district because I had talked to a lot of them, that the simpler and more directly we could extend the law, the better off we would be. But the Department had several suggestions, and they incorporated them into their recommendations.

I want to compliment my colleague, Mr. Steed, for the way he has gone into this thing and tried to work it out, a bill that would protect the Indians and also meet as far as possible the recommendations of the Department.

I desire to say there are two things in which I think the Indians I represent, who are most of the Choctaws and a good portion of the Chickasaws, are primarily interested.

First, they must have the extension of this law, otherwise there will be chaos. That is the primary thing. The second thing is that it not be complicated or too great a departure from present practice because that would cause undue litigation or difficulty in administration.

As I say, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Steed, has worked this out in detail, has done fremendous work on this bill, and I am inclined to agree that his recommendations certainly deserve the most careful consideration and study of the committee.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much.

Congressman Wickersham, would you care to say a word?

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR WICKERSHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In view of the fact that the Five Civilized Tribes are in eastern Oklahoma and the tribes I represent are a different group, I am willing to go along with the sponsor of the bill, the chairman of the Oklahoma delegation, Mr. Steed, and Mr. Albert, who is secretary of the delegation. We also have one of your group, Mr. Edmondson. I think this committee has the information well in hand and will make a proper decision.

Before the hearings end I would appreciate your receiving a statement either orally or in writing from a very good friend of mine, Mr. Stone. He is here and will be willing to be heard at any time.

Thank you.

Mr. HALEY. We also have a member of this committee who represents the great State of Oklahoma. I might say the Oklahoma delegation is a very fine delegation.

Mr. Edmondson, would you care to make a statement?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, in view of the time limitation, I believe I will withhold my statement and ask permission to submit it in writing at the conclusion of the hearings.

Mr. HALEY. That permission will be granted.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I am favorable to extending the legislation, and I am definitely in agreement with Congressman Albert that this bill appears to be the best legislation we can obtain in this session.

Mr. HALEY. Then we will hear from Mr. H. Rex Lee, the Associate Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

STATEMENT OF H. REX LEE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY LEWIS SIGLER, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Lee, I notice we have no report on this bill. Is it contemplated we will have one very shortly?

Mr. LEE. I hope, Mr. Chairman, we will be able to get one up to you this afternoon. Our report was cleared informally by the Bureau of the Budget this morning, and we are now reproducing our report and hope to have it up to you this afternoon. I am sorry we were unable to get clearance in time to provide you with copies for this hearing. They will be here late this afternoon or at least, at the latest, tomorrow morning.

Mr. HALEY. I might inquire, is it a favorable report?

Mr. LEE. It is a favorable report.

Mr. HALEY. Any amendments?

Mr. LEE. Yes, there are some minor amendments which we will explain to you.

Mr. HALEY. You may proceed.

Mr. LEE. I might say that last year, as Congressman Albert has indicated to you, you had several bills on this subject and the Department reported on those bills. Those bills called for a simple extension indefinitely of the trust we are considering here. The Department had a suggestion that there be a 3-year extension, during which time the Secretary would make a study to determine which Indians were in need of a continued trust. The Indian groups were not happy with our suggestion, and as a result, early last winter, through the kind offices of Congressman Steed, Mr. Edmondson, and other members of the delegation, we got together with the intertribal council down in Oklahoma and worked out our differences, and the results are now reflected in this bill which you are considering.

66573-55

I believe that that body, and they can speak for themselves a little later, acted unanimously in endorsing this bill, and the Department recommends its passage.

Also, as I indicated earlier, the Bureau of the Budget has approved our recommendations on this bill.

I think that it might be better that we have Mr. Lewis Sigler, our legislative counsel, explain the details of this bill and also our amendments, if it is agreeable with you.

Mr. HALEY. That is perfectly all right. You may proceed, Mr. Sigler.

Mr. SIGLER. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, there are two kinds of restrictions against the alienation of land that is owned by individual members of the Five Tribes.

One type of restriction requires secretarial approval before the land may be sold or alienated in any other way. That type of restriction applies only to living original allottees of one-half or more Indian blood, and it also applies only to their homestead allotments or to the homestead plus surplus allotments in the case of three-quarter Indian blood members of the tribe. The point I want to emphasize is: This is a restriction against alienation without secretarial approval.

The second kind of restriction applies to heirs or devisees of original allottees if they acquired the land in a restricted status, and that type of restriction requires county court approval, not secretarial but county court approval, before the land may be alienated.

The first kind of restriction, that is, the secretarial restriction, is scheduled to expire by act of Congress in April of next year, 1956. The second type of restriction, the one that applies to the county court approval, does not by its own terms have any expiration date. There is a difference of opinion among the legal profession about whether there is any termination date. One school of thought says that when read in the light of all of the other Five Tribes' legislation it also is subject to the 1956 expiration date, but the contrary view is that because Congress has not in so many words specified a date, there is

none.

This bill that you have before you is drafted on the assumption that the county court restrictions will continue indefinitely until otherwise changed by Congress and that this bill need apply only to the secretarial restrictions that are scheduled to expire next year by operation of law.

I want to make that sharp distinction because you have in Oklahoma right now a system that permits the county courts to remove restrictions on the lands owned by heirs or devisees and a system which permits the Secretary to remove restrictions in the case of original allottees. This bill will extend for the life of the original allottee the secretarial restriction. That is the action which the Five Tribe Indians have advocated and have been seeking to get for some time. This bill will do that.

In addition, however, in recognition of the fact that there are some members of the Five Tribes who are able to handle their own affairs without help, this bill provides that the Secretary may remove, either on his own initiative or upon the application of the individual Indian himself, the restrictions that are applicable to an Indian who is in fact able to handle his own affairs without governmental help. That action by the Secretary, however, is made subject to review by the

county court, subject to appeal through the State court system. The appeal process can be invoked either by the Indian or by the county commissioners or by the Secretary, and the purpose of that provision is to make certain that there will be no arbitrary action in any event. If an Indian applies for an order removing restriction and the Secretary refuses it, then that Indian may go to the county court and ask for action on the part of the county court to remove the restriction.

Similarly, if the Secretary on his own initiative decides that an Indian is able to handle his own affairs without further help and orders the removal of restrictions, that Indian, if he does not agree, may seek a review of the Secretary's action in the county court.

Also, if the county commissioners, who are the local people primarily affected-if there should be an improvident removal of restrictions, the county commissioners may invoke a judicial review of the Secretary's action.

That, in essence, is the bill. It extends for the lifetime of the original allottee the secretarial restrictions that apply to his land and permits the removal of those restrictions subject to review by the county court.

I pointed out earlier that the county courts now have that function in connection with the lands of the heirs and devisees of original allottees.

The Department has suggested two amendments, which are solely for the purpose of clarifying an ambiguity in the bill as it was drafted. The first amendment is on page 5, line 16. At the beginning of that section insert the words:

Except as provided in section 2 of this Act

and at the end of that sentence add the words

the provisions of which shall continue in effect until otherwise provided by Congress.

That will make section 4 read in its entirety as follows:

Except as provided in section 2 of this Act nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal or to limit the application of the Act of August 4, 1947 (61 Stat. 731), the provisions of which shall continue in effect until otherwise provided by Congress.

By way of explanation, I indicated earlier that there is a difference of opinion among the legal profession about whether the 1947 act does or does not expire in 1956. This language is intended to make certain that its provisions do not expire in 1956 but will continue until otherwise provided by Congress, but that 1947 act will be subject to the removal of restriction procedures that are spelled out for the secretarial type of restriction.

The second amendment which the Department suggests is on page 5, line 9. The proviso that begins on line 7 is a savings clause sayingthat nothing herein contained shall abrogate the interest of any lessee or permittee in any lease, contract, or permit heretofore granted.

Now the word "heretofore" will mean the date of the act, and in order to make certain that leases that are granted after the date of the act but before the removal of restrictions are protected, they suggest that the words "heretofore granted" be deleted and that there be inserted in lieu thereof the words:

that is outstanding when an order removing restrictions becomes effective.

The only purpose, as I indicated, is to correct that word "heretofore" so that it will apply to leases that are outstanding when an order removing restrictions becomes effective.

Those are, in my judgment, the essential features of the bill, and they are designed, by way of summary, to extend for the lifetime of the original allottees the restrictions that are now applicable to his land subject to a procedure for removing those restrictions in the case of the individuals who no longer need help.

I neglected to indicate also that this is the third extension in the case of Five Tribe Indians. When Congress provided for the termination of tribal government and the division of the tribal lands among the individual Indians in 1906, I believe it was, Congress specified a 25-year period for the trust. Before that 25-year period expired Congress extended it for a second 25-year period, and it is that second 25-year period that is about to expire in 1956. This is the third extension of the trust that Congress originally said would last for a 25-year period.

Mr. HALEY. Does that complete the Department's statement? Mr. LEE. I would like to add one other word, Mr. Chairman. That is the urgency of this legislation.

You will note from the bill that the trust expires April 1956, and if that should not be extended, as Congressman Albert has pointed out, there would be a great deal of chaos down there. There are a number of Indians that need continued assistance in managing their affairs. The time is pretty short and you do not have too much time to consider this during the next session of Congress, so we strongly urge that some action be taken at the earliest possible time.

Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall.

Mr. STEED. If I might, Mr. Chairman, make an interjection right here in connection with these suggested amendments. I am sorry I forgot to mention it a while ago.

On page 3, line 19, subsequent to our conferences the intertribal council felt that the words

the principal chief or governor of the tribe to which the applicant belongsshould not be in the bill. I recommend that amendment be made striking that language because it could add confusion, and it does not have any benefit to the carrying out of the law.

Mr. LEE. I might say on that point, I am sure if the Five Tribes want that amendment the Department would have no objection to the omission of that provision.

Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Lee, is it true that what this bill proposes to do is to abrogate the thought that was behind the passage of the first law in determining a date certain for the removal of all restrictions?

Mr. LEE. I am not sure

Mr. ASPINALL. In other words, first it was 25 years, and then another 25 years was added on to it.

Mr. LEE. That is correct.

Mr. ASPINALL. And now you add any place from 1 year to 80 years. Is that not right?

Mr. LEE. No; simply the life of the allottees.

Mr. ASPINALL. But some of these allottees that have an interest in it are mere children. Is that right? I do not know. I am just trying to find out.