2 1 Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1052; 2 25 U.S.C. 70k), or any other provisions of law, jurisdiction is 3 hereby conferred upon the United States Court of Claims to 4 hear, determine, and render judgment on any claims filed by 5 the Assiniboine Tribe or the Blackfeet Tribe, within one year 6 of the date of this Act, for just compensation under the fifth 7 amendment for loss of land claimed to have been taken in 8 violation of the United States Constitution. Such jurisdiction 9 is conferred notwithstanding any defense of res judicata or 10 collateral estoppel. 11 SEC. 2. (a) In determining the amount to be awarded in 12 any action under this Act, the United States Court of Claims 13 shall make appropriate deductions for all offsets, counter14 claims, and demands that would be permitted to be made 15 under the third paragraph of section 2 of the Act of August 16 13, 1946 (25 U.S.C. 70a). 17 (b) Any award made before, on, or after the date of the 18 enactment of this Act, under any judgment of the Indian 19 Claims Commission, the United States Court of Claims, or 20 any other authority with respect to any lands that are also 21 the subject of a claim submitted under this Act shall not be 22 considered as a defense, estoppel, or setoff to such claim, and 23 shall not otherwise affect the entitlement, or amount of, any 24 relief with respect to such claim. 3 1 SEC. 3. The provisions of section 15 of the Act of 2 August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1053; 25 U.S.C. 70n) shall be 3 applicable with respect to any claim filed pursuant to this Act 4 in the same manner and to the same extent as if such claim 5 were pending before the Indian Claims Commission except 6 that the functions of the Commission shall be performed by 7 the United States Court of Claims. 8 SEC. 4. The provisions of the Act of November 4, 1963 9 (77 Stat. 301; 25 U.S.C. 70n-1-7) shall be applicable with 10 respect to any claim filed pursuant to this Act in the same 11 manner and to the same extent as if such claim were pending 12 before the Indian Claims Commission except that reference 13 to the Commission shall be deemed to be to the United States 14 Court of Claims. Senator MELCHER. This morning, fresh from the great State of North Dakota, we have our colleague, Senator Quentin Burdick, to introduce the first group of witnesses from the Fort Berthold Reservation. Quentin, we are very glad to have you here. The reason I know you were not here yesterday is that I tried to contact you. I think I saw on the Today Show on NBC the reason you were not here yesterday. But we are pleased to have you here this morning with the representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold. STATEMENT OF HON. QUENTIN BURDICK, A U.S. SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM NORTH DAKOTA Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce the witnesses that are before you this morning. Austin Gillette is the chairman of the Tribal Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes. Mr. Willard Yellow Bird, Mr. Roy Bird Bear, and Mr. Louis Felix are also of the Three Affiliated Tribes. The chairman, in his opening statement, has more or less put his finger on the problem they have. The question here, in the approval of S. 341, is whether or not they will be given an opportunity to bring the matter to the Court of Claims. It does not, as you say, automatically grant any relief, except to give them the right to present a grievance they claim is theirs in that the interest allocation was overlooked at the time of the judgment a number of years ago. Their lawyer is here, and he probably knows more of the details than I do. I am just presenting you with the general outline of the concept and ask for your earnest consideration of their claim. Senator MELCHER. Thank you very much Quentin. STATEMENT OF AUSTIN GILLETTE, CHAIRMAN, THREE AFFILIATED Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, my name is Austin Gillette, and I speak for the Three Affiliated Tribes. I will just say that, as you have a copy of my prepared statement and it will be in the record, all we are asking for is our day in court to have our case heard. That is all we ask for nothing more, nothing less. That is all I have. Thank you. Senator MELCHER. Without objection, your full prepared statement will be included in the record at this point. [The prepared statement of Austin Gillette follows:] My name is Austin Gillette, and I am the Chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. I speak for all of our people. I would like to explain our views on S. 341. One of the claims in the 1924 case was for the taking of our treaty reservation lands on three separate occasions without the consent of our people or the payment of just compensation. In 1930, the court agreed that certain portions of our reservation totaling almost 10,000,000 acres were taken by the United States to establish a military reservation at Fort Buford, to make land available to the Northern Pacific Railroad, and to diminish our reservation so as to reduce conflict with white trespassers. awarded us $4,900,000 in damages, but deducted $2,700,000 in offsets, leaving us only $2,200,000. The court In our Court of Claims petition we asked for just compensation for the taking of our land in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and we asked for interest as part of just compensation. Page Two However, the court did not say one word about whether the takings were in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and it did not award us any interest. It was completely silent on the matter. After our case was decided, the Supreme Court in two other cases, (Shoshone and Klamath cases) said that when Indian land is taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the tribe is entitled to just compensation, which includes the value of the land, and damages for delay in payment, which is the same as interest. After the Indian Claims Commission Act was passed, we filed a claim asking for our Constitutional right to damages for delay for the taking of our lands. But we still could not get a hearing; the Commission said that the 1930 decision prevented it from even considering whether we were entitled to delay damages, even though the 1930 decision never discussed our claim or ruled on it. We do not feel that we have received justice when we did not get what any other person is entitled to for the taking of their land under the Fifth Amendment. We didn't even get a hearing on the merits of our claim. We are not asking Congress to give us the money for the interest; we are only asking Congress to give us our day in court to see if we are entitled to interest and, if so, how much. Our lawyers tell us there are questions which could be decided against us, which would reduce or even wipe out any delay damages. But until we have had a chance to have a court pass upon our claim, we will not feel that we have received justice. |