5. As a child I was taught that my grandfather was Shab-eh-nay's grandson. I am Shab-eh-nay's great-great granddaughter. And I was also taught since a child that our tribe's reservation in Illinois was stolen from Chief Shab-ch-nay by the government and settlers in the 1840's. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Mr. HAYWORTH. So we thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Vice Chairman, and we will have questions. Now, we turn to Larry Angelo, second chief of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma. Chief Angelo, welcome, and we appreciate your testimony now. STATEMENT OF LARRY ANGELO, SECOND CHIEF, OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA Mr. ANGELO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I am Larry Angelo, Second Chief of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, and I thank the Committee and Chairman for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma on H.R. Bill 791, a bill to extinguish our recognized treaty title and authorize condemnation of property rights of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma to the Shab-eh-nay reservation in DeKalb County, Illinois. This legislation is intended to take our tribal property rights, confirmed by treaty, to the two sections of land as described in Article 3 of the Prairie-Du-Chien Treaty of 1829. The Ottawa Tribe agrees that a legislative solution is needed; however, that that solution is to honor the Prairie-Du-Chien Treaty of 1829 and pay for the lands recognized by treaty title. As Congress is aware, Fifth Amendment taking is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The background of this bill or our role in this is the bill before you in H.R. 791 would extinguish treaty title to our land in Illinois, which includes a reservation of two sections of land, 1,280 acres, that was set aside for Ottawa Chief Shab-eh-nay and his Ottawa Band in the Treaty of Prairie-DuChien, dated July 29, 1829. The Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma did receive a letter from the Office of the Solicitor on January 18, 2001. In that opinion letter, Solicitor John Leshy determined that the Prairie Band of Potawatomi is one successor in interest to the Shab-eh-nay's band. The Ottawa Tribe responded stating our research was ongoing, and a report would be forthcoming. My tribe has completed its historic review and can document that our Ottawa Tribe, in fact, has an interest in the land as a successor-in-interest. About H.R. 791: this bill is inconsistent, because it extinguishes title to existing property rights based on treaties. These are not just aboriginal claims. Enactment of the legislation relieves the concern of non-Indian landowners in Illinois and transfers the debt for taking private tribal property to the U.S. Government. Although it also purports to extinguish the title of any Indian tribe or individual to claims filed in Illinois within 1 year of enactment of the bill, it does not extinguish Congress' obligation to the Ottawa Tribe. The bill does not provide for the payment of compensation for taking of tribal or individual Indian lands. In this instance, if this bill is enacted into law, the United States will be responsible for paying for the present value of the land plus other damages to our treaty-reserved rights. In conclusion, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma agrees that the claim will require a legislative solution. However, this particular bill in its present form is not beneficial or helpful to any tribe in the State of Illinois, nor is it in the best interest of the United States. Attempts were made to resolve this land claim issue with the State of Illinois from 1997 to 1999. All these attempts have failed. The message received from the Illinois representatives was we got rid of the damn Indians over 100 years ago, and we are not going to have them back. This continues to be a historical theme of racism toward American Indians. Therefore, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma strongly opposes H.R. 791 unless the issues referenced above are addressed, and the land is returned to us, or the bill is modified to authorize just compensation for past and future damages. I thank you, and I am ready for questions whenever you want. [The prepared statement of Mr. Angelo follows:] Statement of Larry Angelo, Second Chief, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Larry Angelo, Second Chief of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma. I thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for permitting me to testify on behalf of the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma on H.R. 791, a bill to extinguish our recognized Treaty title and authorize condemnation of the property rights of the Prairie Bank of Pottawatomi and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma to the Shab-eh-nay reservation in Dekalb County, Illinois. This legislation is intended to take our tribal property rights confirmed by treaty, to the two sections of land as described in section III of the Prairie-DuChien Treaty of 1829. The Ottawa Tribe agrees that a legislative solution is needed: that solution is to honor the Prairie-Du-Chien Treaty of 1829 and pay for lands recognized by Treaty Title. As Congress is aware, this Fifth Amendment "taking" is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Background The bill before you, H.R. 791 would extinguish Treaty Title to our land in Illinois, which includes a reservation of two sections of land (1,280 acres) that was set aside for the Ottawa Chief Shab-eh-nay and his Ottawa Band in the Treaty of Prairiedu-Chien, dated July 29, 1829. The Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma received a letter from the Office of the Solicitor on January 18, 2001. In that opinion letter, Solicitor John Leshy determined that the Prairie Band of Pottawatomie is one successor in interest to Shab-eh-nay's Band. The Ottawa Tribe responded stating "our research was on-going and a report would be forthcoming." My Tribe has completed its historic review and can document that our Ottawa Tribe, in fact, has an interest in the land as a successor in interest. H.R. 791 The bill is inconsistent because it extinguishes title to existing property rights based on treaties. These are not just aboriginal claims. Enactment of the legislation relieves the concern of non-Indian land owners in Illinois and transfers the debt for taking private Tribal property to the United States government. Although, it also purports to extinguish the title of any Indian Tribe or individual Indians to claims filed in Illinois within one year of enactment of the bill, it does not extinguish Congress obligations to the Ottawa Tribe. The bill does not provide for the payment of compensation for "taking" of Tribal or individual Indian lands. In this instances, if this bill is enacted into law, the United States will be responsible for paying for the present value of the land, plus other damages to our Treaty reserved rights. Conclusion The Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma agrees the claim will require a legislative solution, however this particular bill in its present form is not beneficial or helpful to any Tribe in the State of Illinois. Nor is it in the best interests of the United States. Attempts were made to resolve the land claim issue with the State of Illinois from 1997 to 1999. All the attempts have failed. The message received from the Illinois representative was, "We got rid of the Damn Indians over one hundred years ago and we are not going to have them back". Therefore, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma strongly opposes the passage of H.R. 791, unless the issues referenced above are ad dressed and the land is returned to us or the bill is modified to authorize just compensation for past and future damages. [Mr. Angelo's response to questions submitted for the record follows:] May 29, 2002 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RE: OTTAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA PRESENTED BY HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, CHAIRMAN QUESTION: The Potawatomi and Ottawa Tribes' land claim rests on the theory that the 1829 treaty created recognized title in a permanent reserve that could only be extinguished by Congress, and that Congress has failed to validly extinguish that reserve. It is the Committee's understanding that in 1852, Congress appropriated $1,600.00 for payment to Indians claiming descent from Shab-eh-nay, and that Congress intended that this payment would extinguish the 1829 treaty reserve. How is this not extinguishment of the 1829 reserve to which you 're claiming title? RESPONSE: The Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma has been ask to respond to the above question in an attempt to clarify certain issues regarding our claim to the 1829 treaty reserve land title of "Shab-eh-nay and his band." Requests were made to the Office of Native American and Insular Affairs on May 17,2002 to obtain the documents that led to the Committee's "understanding that 1852, Congress appropriated $1,600.00 for payment to Indians claiming descent from Shab-eh-nay, and that Congress intended that this payment would extinguish the 1829 treaty reserve." The Ottawa Tribe was denied any documents from the Office of Native American and Insular Affairs. Their reasons are unknown. We can only presume the Committee was referring to the Act of July 21, 1852, 10 Stat. 20 which "appropriated $1,600.00 to Shobonier or his heirs." Did Congress extinguish the 1829 Prairie-du-Chien treaty reserve land title given to Shab-eh-nay and his band by the Act of July 21, 1852? The answer is unequivocally no! The assertion that this occurred is factually inaccurate and emphasizes the confusion that has occurred because Shab-eh-nay and Shobonier (aka Chevalier) were contemporary leaders of separate bands that received reservations in provisions of two distinct treaties and two different States. The property which was the subject of the Act of July 21, 1852, 10 Stat. 20, was land which was reserved for the Chief, Sho-bo-nier. He received a reservation of two sections of land near his village under Article 2 of the Treaty of October 20, 1832, 7 Stat. 378. The Treaty of October 20, 1832, also referred to as the Treaty of Tippecanoe, contained cessions of land by the United Bands of Ottawa, Potawatomie, and Chippewas of the prairie and Kankakee to the United States. Article 2 of the treaty provided that several tracts for individuals would be excluded from the cession. Among the areas excluded was a tract of two sections (1,280 acres) for Sho-bon-ier at his village. Sho-bon-ier, who was French and Potawatomi, was a less prominent |