[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 946, H.R. 2671, AND H.R. 4148 (YOUNG, R-AK)--TO MAKE TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT RELATING TO CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. ``TRIBAL CONTRACT SUPPORT COST TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF
2000''.
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 16, 2000, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-95
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-434 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
Carolina Rico
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
CHRIS CANNON, Utah PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
KEVIN BRADY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA MC CHRISTESEN, Virgin
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held May 16, 2000........................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Barrett, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nebraska, Prepared Statement of................... 116
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Prepared Statement of................. 97
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 66
Prepared Statement of.................................... 69
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 1
Prepared Statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Allen, W. Ron, Vice President, National Congress of American
Indians, Washington, DC.................................... 51
Prepared Statement of.................................... 53
Archambeau, Ms. Madonna, Chairwoman, Yankton Sioux Tribe,
Marty, South Dakota........................................ 85
Prepared Statement of.................................... 87
Denny, Mr. Arthur ``Butch'', Chairman, Santee Sioux Tribe of
Nebraska, Niobrara, Nebraska............................... 90
Prepared Statement of.................................... 92
Gover, Hon. Kevin, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Washington, DC.................................... 8
Prepared Statement on H.R. 4148.......................... 10
Prepared Statement on H.R. 2671.......................... 83
Prepared Statement on H.R. 946........................... 105
Narcia, Richard, Lt. Governor, Gila River Indian Community,
Sacaton, Arizona........................................... 43
Prepared Statement of.................................... 45
Sarris, Greg, Chairman, Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria, Novato, California.............................. 72
Prepared Statement of.................................... 74
Smith, Hon. Chad, Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation,
Tahlequah, Oklahoma........................................ 36
Prepared Statement of.................................... 38
Trujillo, Dr. Michael H., Director, Indian Health Service,
Rockville, Maryland........................................ 15
Prepared Statement of.................................... 17
Williams, Orie, Executive Vice President, Yukon Kuskokwim
Health Corporation, Bethel, Alaska......................... 27
Prepared Statement of Gene Peltola, President and Chief
Executive Officer, The Yukon Kuskokwim Health
Corporation............................................ 30
Additional material supplied:
Briefing Paper, H.R. 946..................................... 100
Briefing Paper, H.R. 2671.................................... 101
Briefing Paper, H.R. 4148.................................... 102
Janklow, William, Prepared Statement of...................... 115
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians et al. Statement
regarding impact of H.R. 4148.............................. 112
H.R. 946, H.R. 2671, AND, H.R. 4148 (YOUNG, R-AK) TO MAKE TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION AND
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT RELATING TO CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. ``TRIBAL CONTRACT SUPPORT COST TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF
2000''.
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC. of I21The Committee met, pursuant to notice, in
room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (chairman
of the Committee) presiding.
The Chairman. Where is Mr. J.D. Hayworth? I ask unanimous
consent that Congressman J.D. Hayworth be allowed to sit on the
dais and participate in the Committee during this hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
We're going to change the order of business today. We're
going to take up --H.R. 4148. That's a prerogative of the
chairman. I would suggest that the first panel, the Honorable
Kevin Gover, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs; and Dr. Michael Trujillo, Director of the Indian
Health Service, Rockville, Maryland, be seated at the panel.
I would like to extend my welcome to all of my Alaskan
constituents. I would especially like to thank everyone for
their help in drafting H.R. 4148, a bill that makes technical
amendments to the Contract Support Costs Provisions in the
Indian Self-Determination Act. These amendments are long
overdue. We held our first hearings on contract support costs
on February 24, 1999, accepting testimony from tribes and the
Administration. Additionally, the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee requested a report from the General Accounting
Office regarding contract support costs and to provide Congress
with alternatives to the existing problems.
On August 3, 1999, we held a hearing to accept testimony
from the Administration, the National Congress American
Indians, and their work with the National Policy Work Group on
contract support costs, and from the General Accounting Office
on their final report to Congress and what alternatives that
they recommend with regard to the contract support costs
shortfalls.
H.R. 4148 is a result of the National Congress of American
Indians National Policy Work Group and the Administration's
efforts to resolve contract support costs problems. This is our
first hearing on the bill, and I would like to state my many
thanks to all the tribes for all their input and patience on
this important issue.
On a sideline, may I suggest this has been a battle we have
been fighting for the last six years. This Committee thinks
it's very unfortunate that we can't reach an agreement on how
these contract support costs can be established in a stabilized
manner (without all the fluctuation which has occured in the
present system). I think it's very unfortunate that many of our
tribes and many of our villages do not know for sure that
they're going to receive any of the moneys, which were
guaranteed under the negotiated contracts. So, I hope this
bill, H.R. 4148, will solve some of these problems. I realize
there is some opposition to the bill, but I hope those that are
opposed to it would reconsider and deeply search their souls. I
understand this is a problem and I'd like to see it resolved
before we adjourn this session.
I will recognize the ranking member, Mr. Kildee, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's great to sit up
here with Mr. J.D. Hayworth. J.D. and I are Co-Chairs of the
Native American Caucus. We jokingly say sometimes when we see
our votes the same up there, it must be an Indian bill, because
that's one thing that J.D. and I always agree on. We have other
agreements, too.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing will provide us an opportunity
to again examine contract support costs. Last year, this
Committee held two hearings on this issue. The GAO released its
report last summer, offering four alternatives for funding
contract support costs, and the National Congress of American
Indians also released its report last year, making several
recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, in March of this year, you introduced H.R.
4148, that would, among other things, make contract support
costs funding an entitlement. While I'm in support of this
measure, I hope that as the bill moves forward, you will
continue to work with me to address the concerns raised by the
administration regarding this bill, so we can get this bill
signed into law.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony and I thank
you, again, Mr. Chairman, for the introduction of this bill,
Mr. Hayworth, and for this hearing today.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Hayworth?
Mr. Hayworth. Chairman Young, let me begin by saying how
honored I am that you've asked me to participate in this
hearing today on this legislation. I welcome my friend from
Michigan, Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, and others on
the other side of the aisle, because this is an issue that
transcends partisan politics. I think we are all deeply
concerned about the contract support costs funding issue and I
strongly believe we need to work toward a sustainable solution
that ensures the Federal Government will meet its legal
obligation to tribes to help them carry out the management of
their health and social services programs.
Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to work with you on the
development of H.R. 4148. This legislation has been a
cooperative effort, with input from many tribes and tribal
organizations, including the National Congress of American
Indians National Policy Work Group. H.R. 4148 is, also, the
result of the Administration's efforts to resolve contract
support costs problems and includes recommendations from the
Government Accounting Office.
I'd like to thank all of the individuals, who will testify
before the Committee today and I'd like to extend a special
welcome to Lt. Governor Richard P. Narcia and Franklin P.
Jackson of the Gila River Indian Community, located in my
district back in Arizona. Lt. Governor Narcia will provide an
important example of the critical need for full contract
support costs funding and the special challenges that all
tribes are facing, as they attempt to operate effective tribal
programs responsive to their respective community needs. I
pledge my continued commitment to working toward a single,
consistent Federal policy that applies to all self-
determination contracts and self-governance compacts. The end
result must provide stability and predictability, so tribes can
move forward to successfully implement their tribal programs
and the self-determination policy.
I believe that H.R. 4148 is a good starting point. I look
forward to receiving additional comments today on this
legislation from tribal representatives, the Committee, and the
Administration, as we work toward enactment of this important
bill. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the other
members of the Committee for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Don Young follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.004
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Kevin Gover,
you're the first witness.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC.; AND DR. MICHAEL H.
TRUJILLO, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
Mr. Gover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure
to appear before the Committee. We thank the Committee and the
chair, in specific, for taking on this issue. I know that the
chair was reluctant to enter into the Indian Self-Determination
Act, at this time, and, nevertheless, we do think that some
clarifications are necessary, in order to finally address this
issue of contract support.
Let me lay out the background for our testimony and then
get into some of the specifics. The administration does support
the goal of full funding of contract support costs for Indian
tribes and has proposed increases in the Fiscal Year 2001
budget for contract support. We, also, believe that the effort
to reach full funding should be accompanied by timely reporting
and auditing of the use of these contract support costs, as
required of other Federal agencies. We understand that the
contract support issue is one of the primary impediments to the
full implementation of the Self-Determination Act. The idea
behind the Act is to systematically move the Bureau of Indian
Affairs out of positions of making decisions under the delivery
of services to Indian communities; invest those decisions in
tribal governments. We support that proposition and we believe
that the resolution of this issue will assist in that process.
We do have several concerns regarding H.R. 4148. We think
most of them are issues that can be worked through. We do have
to point out our concern that here we are talking about clearly
wanting to spend more money in Indian country through BIA and
through IHS and through these tribal contracting procedures. At
the same time, the Congress has under consideration a budget
resolution that doesn't seem to leave much room for the sort of
expansion of these programs that we're hoping for.
In my testimony, Mr. Chairman, we've identified some
specific concerns and they just demonstrate how tricky this
area is and how we can easily impose unintended consequences
when we're not careful with the kind of language that is used.
We would like to work with the Committee to address the
concerns that we identify in the legislation. I don't think
that they really need to be belabored here. But, we do
encourage the Committee to continue addressing this issue, to
work with us and with the tribes, to try to find a solution to
the problem.
We have had a great deal of conversation within the
administration concerning the specific provisions of this bill
and, in particular, the issue of moving contract support costs
to the mandatory side of the budget. The current status of
those discussions is that we are prepared to say that were the
Congress to identify offsets satisfactory to the
administration, that we would not oppose that proposition. That
is the result of a great deal of deliberation and debate,
within the administration, but I feel safe in saying that
that's where we are at this point.
We would like to work with the Committee to identify those
offsets and address the specifics of how we go about
calculating these contract support costs. If we can resolve
this matter, put the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian
Health Services (IHS) on a smoother trail toward understanding
what our contract support obligations are and how they're going
to be funded, then the tribes will have the kind of security
and the annual funding that they really require to do
meaningful planning for the delivery of services.
Mr. Chairman, that is my testimony this morning. As I say,
we've submitted some more specific comments for the record, to
indicate some of the complications that we've identified in the
bill. We do think those complications can be worked out and
look forward to working with the Committee on trying to resolve
these issues.
[The prepared statement of Kevin Gover follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.009
The Chairman. I thank you, Mr. Secretary. Dr. Trujillo?
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL H. TRUJILLO
Dr. Trujillo. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Committee members. Today with me, in case there are any
specific questions, are Mr. Michael Lincoln, Deputy Director of
the Indian Health Service, and Mr. Douglas Black, the Director
of our Tribal Affairs Program.
The Indian Health Service has testified twice previously
this session of Congress on the importance of contract support
costs, on the promotion of strong stable tribal governments and
the provisions, certainly, of quality costs health care. I come
to you today in support of your continued efforts to address
the contract support costs issues. This bill before us contains
provisions that the Indian Health Service supports. However,
there are, also, other provisions within the bill that are of
concern to the Indian Health Service and we would be very
willing to work with you, the Committee members, tribal
leadership, to address our areas of concern.
When I last testified before this Committee, I spoke about
our efforts to work with tribal governments, to develop a
revised policy to allocate contract support costs in Fiscal
Year 2000. In January of this year, I adopted a revised policy,
which now governs the administration in allocation of the
contract support costs for the Indian Health Service. That
policy was developed as a result of very extensive tribal
consultation and collaboration to date, regarding contract
support costs, and has received the formal endorsements of
major national Indian organizations and tribal governments.
The revised policy establishes allocation procedures that
are intended, over a period of time, to reduce the disparity of
contract support costs funding among tribes in our system
without reducing contract support costs funding for tribes that
are still underfunded. The allocation procedures were developed
to address the present environment, in which available contract
support costs appropriated are insufficient to fund the total
contract support costs need.
This bill we are discussing today contains provisions that
legislate the full funding of contract support costs. At the
crux of the contract support costs dilemma and controversy are
provisions in the Indian Self-Determination Act that seemingly
are in conflict with each other. One law directs the Secretary
to fund the full amount of need for such costs; elsewhere, the
Act provides that contract funding is subject to the
availability of appropriations. As a result, the Indian Health
Service continues to be involved in litigation over contract
support costs issues that are rooted in this confusion.
The provisions of H.R. 4148 that require the full funding
of contract support costs would address and essentially end the
confusion over contract support costs by amending the Act,
fully funding these costs. Although I have been a strong
advocate for increased contract support costs funding
throughout my tenure as the Director of the Indian Health
Service, I am very concerned about this provision. This bill
does not specify the source of funding that will be used to
fully address the contract support costs and I would be opposed
to funding for contract support costs that comes from any other
existing or future Indian Health Service appropriations for the
health care programs and services and which supersede other
critical priorities for budget increase for all Indian Health
Service-funded health programs, especially for those tribes who
chose not to assume direct management of their health care
programs.
I do believe that there are provisions in the bill worthy
of consideration, including provisions to enlarge the current
self-determination proposal review period from 90 to 180 days
and one that reconstitutes--reinstates congressional reporting
requirements, to assist you in your future consideration of
contract support costs issues. There are, also, provisions of
the bill that either the Indian Health Service, the Department,
and the administration cannot support, and others would require
further modification and review before they are supported. A
discussion of these provisions is contained in my written
formal statement that was submitted earlier.
In closing, I would, again, like to express my support for
contract support costs and the activities of this particular
committee. I continue to be of the opinion, as I have testified
previously, that carefully drafted regulations governing
contract support costs are still desirable and that the
development of such regulations can be best accomplished
through the negotiated rulemaking process. The Indian Health
Service would welcome the opportunity to join with tribes,
other Federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the Office of the Inspector General, in such a process, if
authorized by Congress. I would close by emphasizing that the
Indian Health Service is committed to upholding, promoting, and
strengthening principles of the Self-Determination Act, the
empowerment of tribal governments, and the government to
government relationship that exist between Indian nations and
this country. Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Michael Trujillo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.016
The Chairman. I thank both of you. I'm somewhat pleased
with your testimony and somewhat discouraged, because this has
been a problem for about 6 years or longer. As I mentioned in
my opening statement, I hope we can reach a solution. Because
if I remember right, both you, Mr. Secretary, and you, Dr.
Trujillo, that this is the third time that you've appeared
before this Committee and said you supported it. We have a bill
that does that and now we have opposition from your
Administration. Although, Mr. Secretary, I think if I
understood you correctly, you would support it, if we find the
offsets. Is that correct?
[No response.]
The Chairman. I know who is looking over your shoulder and
I know who is in this room. You answer freely, because I will
protect you, believe me.
Mr. Gover. I'm trying to pick my words carefully. What I
don't want to be saying is we're putting the burden on you to
find the offsets. I think the Administration shares that
burden. All we mean to say, at this point, is that the offsets
should be satisfactory to both Congress and the Administration
and we will need to work with you, to try to figure out what
that is. The point of my testimony was not just to slough the
burden off onto the Committee and onto the Congress.
The Chairman. Well, I'm saying that's the biggest hold up,
as far as you're concerned, in the bill. The Doctor seems to
have some other problems. But, again, I go back to: if we don't
correct this now, it will always be an uncertainty for tribal
health care, because we don't know if they've received enough
funds or not.
Mr. Gover. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. OK. You know, again, as long as we have that
understanding. Are you communicating with the tribes all the
time and trying to find the solution? Is that occurring?
Mr. Gover. We have put a lot of effort into working with
the tribes on this issue. I think it's fair to say IHS has put
even more effort into working with the tribes on this issue. I
believe that this bill represents a solid step forward and that
it would bridge a lot of the problem between our position and
the tribes. Obviously, we would be much more open in adding
additional elements of costs to our contract support formulas,
if we knew that the money was going to be there. What we don't
want to do is make agreements with the tribes, as to what are
the appropriate elements of contract support, knowing full well
that they are not likely to be funded, because that's just a
broken promise to the tribes. I've been holding the line in the
discussions with the tribes, saying, look, let's not pile on
more costs, until we have some understanding of how they're
going to be paid for.
If the Congress and the Administration agreed on a solution
as to the funding of contract support costs, I believe it
becomes a much easier exercise to agree on what the elements of
contract support costs should be.
The Chairman. Offsets do not have to come out--the Doctor
said, out of the existing health services. Offsets can come out
from anywhere within the budget. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Gover. That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. OK. For instance, we have--I'm going to pick
on the Administration, The Administration now wants to get some
of the funding out of the tobacco settlement and spend it for
other purposes. That tobacco settlement could be used for
contract support costs (as an offiset). Would that be a correct
interpretation?
Mr. Gover. I can't speak for the Administration, as to
whether or not to encourage the Committee to look to the
tobacco settlement money for an appropriate offset. But, yes,
it's my understanding that an offset could come from any part
of the Federal budget.
The Chairman. This is ignorance on my part, would we have
to find an offset every year or is there any way, again, that
we can provide stability in the funding? Because once we passed
the Self-Determination Act, we tried to make sure that there
was the money available, and we haven't done that. And that
uncertainty has caused shortfall problems. Is there any way we
can write this bill, so that there isn't uncertainty?
Mr. Gover. I believe so, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we
could identify an offset that would continue just the same as
this increase in spending would be continuing over some number
of years.
The Chairman. My time is about up. The gentleman from
California?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank
the panel for their testimony and I agree with the dialogue
that you just had, that we've got to come up with the offsets.
I think your bill does it right. I think we should just
recognize that these are the costs and we've got to take them
out of the ongoing general revenues of the government, instead
of believing that we're somehow going to trade this off between
law enforcement and Indian health, or other services that we
already know are inadequately funded. This is part of the price
of self-determination. The program is working and I think your
legislation speaks to it quite correctly. And if saying that
we've got to look for offsets just is another way to keep
postponing this year after year, then we're obviously just
robbing already inadequate sources. So, that won't work. And so
I think, at some point, we have to sit down with the
Administration and make a decision about that, because that
holds everybody in abeyance, but it doesn't solve the problem.
And there clearly are sufficient revenues to deal with the
contract costs.
I want to thank you, very much, and I appreciate the
problem that's being presented by the position of the
Administration here, but I think we've got to get on and solve
this issue. As you have pointed out, we have now punted three
years in a row on this and that's not helping anyone.
The Chairman. Mr. Hayworth?
Mr. Hayworth. I just want to thank both the chairman, and
the ranking member and these two gentlemen for their testimony.
I think we have the context where at long last we need to act.
And while I think we've documented the problem and they've
outlined their concerns, I would concur with both the chairman
and the ranking member, it's time to get this done.
The Chairman. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we
have to work together to identify those offsets and I think
they have to be in the whole Federal Government, because I
don't know of any Indian program that we haven't been penny
pinching in my 24 years here in the Congress. So, I hate to
take money from another Indian program for this very good thing
here, because we've been penny pinching for so many years. So,
I think it's very important that we sit down, not delay, get on
immediately and identify some offsets from other areas of
government, not Indian programs, so we can do this. And I think
that should be our top priority, because the effects of not
providing full funding for contract support costs is really a
terrible defect.
I think--this is more than just a legal matter. I think
it's a moral matter. I think J.D. Hayworth and I agree upon,
this is something very--a moral matter, that we really should
be fully funding this and make this an entitlement, find some
offsets. But, I think that we should not wait until next month.
We should start working today or tomorrow on identifying those
offsets and not from other areas where we are already
underfunding Indian programs.
I've been in Congress for 24 years and I have yet to see
where, when I've traveled throughout the country or looked at
the books, that we're over funding our responsibilities in our
sovereign-to-sovereign relationship and our trust
responsibilities to the Indians. So, Kevin and Dr. Trujillo, we
look forward to working with you starting today, to try to
identify those offsets. And I think that we have, I think, a
very important bill here. We can move forward in our support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland?
Mr. Gilchrest. No questions, at this time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. I've got a great offset. I know
this is going to stir the pot up, but the Senate is considering
the pullout of Kosovo. We're spending approximately 20 times
the budgets for Indian Health in that activity alone. And once
they pull out, maybe we can apply that money for something that
helps us in the great United States of America.
I want to thank the panel. We'll be in communications. I
was very kind to you today, because I heard what was being said
behind the words that were being said, that we want to work
together. And I will be talking to OMB to find out what their
problem is, because this is an issue and a commitment that
should have been met a long time ago. If we believe in the
Self-Determination, and Congress said we did, that's not up to
the Administration not to fully fund programs. It's up to us to
make sure that Self-Determination is fully funded, especially
the contracting part of it. So, I do thank both of you and we
will be in communication with you. And you are excused for this
panel. I think one of you is up for the next bill. Kevin, I
think you are.
The next panel, H.R. 4148, the next panel: Mr. Orie
Williams, Executive Vice President, Yukon Kuskokwim Health
Corporation, Bethel, Alaska; the Honorable Chad Smith,
Principal Chief, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma; Mr.
Richard Narcia, Lt. Governor, Gila River Indian Community,
Sacaton, Arizona; and Mr. W. Ron Allen, Vice President,
National Congress of American Indians, Washington, DC.
Mr. Williams? Turn your mike on. There you go.
STATEMENTS OF ORIE WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, YUKON
KUSKOKWIM HEALTH CORPORATION, BETHEL, ALASKA; HONORABLE CHAD
SMITH, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHEROKEE NATION, TAHLEQUAH, OKLAHOMA;
RICHARD NARCIA, LT. GOVERNOR, GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY,
SACATON, ARIZONA; W. RON ALLEN, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, WASHINGTON, DC
STATEMENT OF ORIE WILLIAMS
Mr. Williams. For the record, my name is Orie Williams and
I'm the Executive Vice President of the Yukon Kuskokwim Health
Corporation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning on H.R. 4148.
I would like to begin my testimony by putting H.R. 4148
into perspective, our perspective. The Yukon Kuskokwim Health
Corporation serves as a consolidated and only health care
provider for 25,000 people in 58 Federally-recognized Alaskan
native villages. It's spread across 85,000 square miles of
roadless area the size of the State of South Dakota.
Poor health and a subsistence lifestyle have led some of
the compared conditions in many of our villages to those facing
Third World nations. Our people live on the most over regulated
lands in the nation. Mr. Chairman, that is no exaggeration.
Besides the subsistence--besides subsistence, the largest
economy in the region is government, including our YKHC health
system. There is no viable commercial fishing, forest, or other
resource development industry that can offset the statistics.
The unemployment rate exceeds 80 percent and most of our
village homes still have a six gallon plastic bucket for a
toilet. That's not all. Our villages post neonatal mortality is
more than double the average U.S. rate. Death by suicide is
four times the national rate. Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal
alcohol affect are rampant. And despite recent increases in
congressional appropriations, the lack of adequate sewer and
water systems still leave over many of our communities victims
of every known infectious disease.
What have we done to meet some of these challenges? Our
tribal government is working together under the Indian Self-
Determination Act. I've replaced the Indian Health Service and
directly administer 47 village clinics; one mid level sub
regional clinic, with two more under construction; a 51 bed
hospital; and over 11,000 employees. Since taking over daily
operation of the Indian Health Service system, we have
witnessed tremendous improvements in the delivery of health
care. But, the contracts support shortfall we have faced each
year, over $2.3 million each year, has consistently crippled
our ability to do more.
As our written testimony details, the shortfall has meant
deficiencies in our accounting department, our medical coding
and billing department, and our hospital facilities maintenance
programs. The shortfall has, also, required us to transfer
funds away from key programs and has impaired our ability to
enhance our substance abuse and mental health services, our
home elder care, and our health prevention education programs
to many of our villages. To those unfamiliar with health care
conditions in rural Alaska, our contract support costs deficit
is just a number. But for us working out there in the trenches,
it is having a corrosive impact on the quality of our health
care system and may, in fact, lead to layoffs and salary
reductions.
Mr. Chairman, for nearly 20 years, the Administration and
Congressional Committees have all acknowledged the grave impact
caused by contract support costs shortfalls. For nearly 20
years, the contract support costs system has been studied and
restudied and restudied. The last time, read the GAO's June
1999 report.
Never until H.R. 4148 have we seen a solution that fully
and completely addresses the problem, so that there are no more
shortfalls and no more court cases and we can get on with the
process of tribal self-determination without reducing the very
government programs we are charged to carry out. Contract
support shortfall creates--cheats the tribes and punishes our
people. It's not how the country deals with other government
contractors, be it General Electric or Boeing, and it's not the
way the country should deal with Indian tribes.
Just yesterday an article in the Wall Street Journal
reported a GAO study that confirmed that the U.S. Congress
spent $2.2 billion to subsidize sugar growers in America.
Isn't it ironic that in the same--that is the same amount spent
for all of Indian health care in America. It is ironic, also,
that the subsidy--the historical subsidy of the tobacco
industry, greater than all of the resources spent on the health
care of the Americans worse people, are industries, whose
products caused some of the greatest health risk to Native
American, and probably up to 30 percent of our costs.
Since my time is short, I respectfully refer the Committee
to my written testimony for comments on the balance of the
bill. I would note, however, that the consolidation initiative
proposed in Section 2 is a novel and innovative new way to deal
with contract support costs issues. The consolidation
initiative answers those, who are concerned that somehow tribes
have insufficient incentives to maximize the efficiency and the
operation of their health programs. While we find such
criticisms demeaning, we recognize that this option, first put
forward by the General Accounting Office, does provide a better
way for Congress to predict contract support costs requirements
from one year to the next.
Mr. Chairman, many years ago, Congress failed--failed to
fully fund contract support costs, the single most serious
problem with implementation of the Indian Self-Determination
Act. H.R. 4148 will at long last firmly and finally solve that
problem. Nationally, the cost of the bill is negligible. For us
in the trenches on Indian reservations in Alaskan native
villages, the financial stability we will regain will translate
in desperately needed care for American Indian and Alaska
native people. They are far beyond the reach of our nation's
typical health care system.
I praise the chairman and Congressman Hayworth and others
for introducing this legislation; Congressman Miller and other
members of the Native American Caucus for their continued
support for self-determination and self-governance. I
respectfully urge that the Committee move this bill forward as
quickly as possible, so that it can be enacted this year.
Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I would like to close
my testimony with the request for the Committee to observe a
moment of silence for one of the nation's greatest Indian
leaders, Mr. Joe De La Cruz, a champion in tribal rights of the
Indian Self-Determination Act throughout his life, even up to
the day he died of a major heart attack on April 16th, on the
way to a national Indian Health Service tribal conference.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Orie Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.021
The Chairman. Without objection, a moment of silence.
[Moment of silence.]
The Chairman. Thank you and I can tell you that Mr. De La
Cruz was one of my favorite people who testified before this
Committee and his was an unfortunate death. We never know why
God reaches down and takes us.
I'm going to use my discretion here, as I do have another
appointment, I'm going to have Mr. Gilchrest take over the
hearing. But before I do, I want to ask Orie two questions. One
is you mention the shortfall of $2.5 million. Is that
recoverable money or is that what you're out of pocket? Is
there any way you can negotiate that?
Mr. Williams. That has been the shortfall in our contract.
For several years, we filed the claim for the amounts of the
shortfall in 1991 and 1994. And despite the desperate
telephonic calls and recordings--recording our annual funding
agreement, I've never received any written decision from the
Indian Health Service in over four years.
The Chairman. Have there been lawsuits filed by the tribes
over this problem?
Mr. Williams. No, we've tried to resolve it without legal
action, at this point.
The Chairman. OK. No. 2 is you mentioned two things, one
sugar and one, I believe, was tobacco. Sugar, you say, is
subsidized at 2.--how many billion?
Mr. Williams. The GAO report, if you can believe everything
you read, in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, state that last
year
$2.2 billion, the total Indian Health Service budget; and this
year, so far, $1.6 billion, with a request from the--it's crazy
that OMB would oppose any health service contract support. But,
then, the Administration asked for another $350 million to
subsidize a product, with all due respect to the great farmers,
for 544 tribes and two and a half million Indians, and they can
fund a subsidy such as this. It's killing our people, and still
cheat and rob and treat the first Americans the way they do for
the third of the money that's required for health care.
The Chairman. I think that's a good point. I love sugar
myself, but it is probably the biggest villain we have, I know,
in Alaskan villages, between soda water and coke and--that's
the drinking kind--and I guess candy, two of the--biggest,
harmfulness consumption thing that they take now. It's close to
alcohol or worse.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, it glared at me, because I know
if you stop the flights of the soft drinks, which the sugar is
in, to our villages, you'd have community in relapse. They've
been without good water for 30 and 40 years and they've
substituted--the young generation has substituted good drinking
water, which Americans take for granted, with soft drinks.
That's a fact.
The Chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. Gilchrest, would you
take over for me, please?
[Pause.]
Mr. Gilchrest [presiding]. The chair now recognizes Mr.
Smith.
STATEMENT OF CHAD SMITH
Mr. Smith. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chad
Smith. I am Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation. I'm honored
to have this opportunity to present the Cherokee Nation's view
on contract support costs today.
The Cherokee Nation is comprised of over 230,000 tribal
members, nearly half of which live within our 7,000 mile
jurisdictional area in northeastern Oklahoma. We are one of the
second largest tribes in the country and we have 22 treaties
with the Federal Government and Great Britain. Twenty-five
years ago, we began the gradual process of contracting local
programs to the BIA and IHS, in order to streamline, redesign,
and enhance Federal services for people. And from our
perspective, I can best convey the message by a story.
Ruth Smith, Rufus Smith's wife, was a great basket maker in
our rural community of Marble City, a vibrant, beautiful woman.
She contracted diabetes. As all of us know, the Indians have
the highest rate of incident of diabetes in this country. She
came to town one day. The diagnosis was made. The next time she
came to town, she had toes and one foot removed. The next time,
she had toes and another foot removed. And every time she came
to town thereafter, to Tahlequah, another index was removed,
another part of a limb, her ankles, her calves, and then her
whole legs. And the last time I saw her with her children, on a
hot July day, they were taking her in and out of a backseat of
a car, without legs. The next time for Ruth Smith, after
dialysis, she passed away.
In response, the Cherokee Nation developed some very
aggressive diabetes programs through health care funding. We
developed, in cooperation with the local rural hospital, a
podiatry and orthopedic clinic. Last year, during my term, we
had to reduce our health budget by $1.5 million. We had to cut
the podiatry clinic. And now I face the recurring cries of our
people, who come to me and say, we need the podiatry clinic. We
need that orthopedic clinic. We're going back to the scenario,
we'll see more Mrs. Smiths come to town less and less each time
by incidents of diabetes.
To complicate matters, we have two Indian hospitals within
our territory. We operate six clinics. Each of those hospitals
have recorded a million dollar deficit this year. Our
population goes from clinic to clinic, from hospital to
hospital. When they reduce their services, they come to our
clinic. In fact, Indian hospitals reduced their pharmaceuticals
by--they no longer issue the asthmatic inhalers. It cost them a
dollar and a half each. That creates that market to come to our
clinics and we have to deal with it.
We're suffering, because of lack of contract. We have to
ask the question, why does a private contractor, such as
General Electric and Boeing, get their administrative and
general costs paid, full indirect costs, full direct costs,
such as unemployment and Worker's Comp, and we don't. We can
assure the Committee and Congress that we don't pile on the
costs when we run these programs. Each of these programs begin
to suffer, because of the lack of funding. For example, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs programs that we operate, we've taken
a hit of $500,000 for each of the last 10 years, for
accumulative amount of $5 million. In health service, we have
been cut back $3.7 million, because of the lack of contract--
contract costs.
My written testimony addresses several others, with respect
to this excellent bill, including the way it addresses the
barriers in our government indirect cost agreement, the need
for a new OMB circular, the need to eliminate the conflict of
interest presently and how IHS handles contract support costs
issues. There is so much more that the Cherokee Nation and the
government can do and there's so much more that we must do, to
meet the critical health, education, economic and social needs
of our citizens and other eligible Indian people in our area.
We are pleased to carry out the Federal Government's trust
programs. Pleased, because history shows that we have the
capacity and capability to do a much better job than the
Federal bureaucracy. But, our ability to administer these
programs successfully maximize the delivery of these needed
services to Indian people depends on having adequate contract
support costs funding. This bill will go a long way for
resolving a very serious problem in the self-determination,
self- governance programs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify in
support of H.R. 4148.
[The prepared statement of Chad Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.026
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your testimony. We
have a vote going on. I think instead of stopping the hearing
to go vote, if it's all right with the members, if the
gentleman from American Samoa can take the chair while we
vote--we'll return after the vote.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I think they would rather
talk to you, as the chairman, than to me. I would respectfully
request that we'll wait until you return.
Mr. Gilchrest. Then, we shall return. You all have a 15
minute break then.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The Committee will come to order. We
appreciate your indulgence on our fascinating schedule here in
the Nation's capital. And before we get started, I ask
unanimous consent that Congresswoman Woolsey, if she wants to,
to be allowed to sit on the dais and participate with the
Committee during this hearing. You want to come up, Lynn, or
you want to stay there?
Ms. Woolsey. I'll stay here until I offer my testimony, if
that's OK.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right, that's fine. Our next witness is
Lt. Governor Richard Narcia.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD NARCIA
Mr. Narcia. Good afternoon. My name is Richard Narcia. I'm
Lt. Governor for the Gila River Indian Community. With me today
is Franklin Jackson. Mr. Jackson is President of our Health
Care Corporation. He's seated to my left. And, also, Ms.
Lindsey Naas, who is, also, the counsel for our corporation.
Our community is located in south central Arizona. We are
located in the heart of Congressman J.D. Hayworth's district.
We are pleased and honored to have him sitting with you on the
dais today. He has been a dedicated and long-standing friend of
our community and deeply committed to the interests of the
Native Americans, not only in Arizona, but in the--throughout
the nation.
The community provides health care, law enforcement,
irrigation system construction, and rehabilitation and other
community services under self-determination contracts and self-
governance agreements with the Indian Health Service, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and Bureau of Reclamation. The issue of
contract support funding is an issue of ongoing concern and
importance to the success of our Federal programs. We are
pleased to testify in support of H.R. 4148, which would make
technical amendments to the contract support provisions in the
Indian Self-Determination Act. Our Health Care Corporation's
experience with contract support funding from the Indian Health
Service demonstrates the failings of the existing contract
support system.
The community initially contracted with the IHS, to operate
the hospital at Gila River in October 1995. For Fiscal Year
1996, 1997, 1998, the Health Care Corporation's contract
support requests worked its way up the IHS waiting list or cue.
In late 1998, we were expecting 100 percent funding for the
Fiscal Year 1999 contract year; however, the IHS policy
changed. While we generally supported the new policy, the
Fiscal Year 1999 policy change resulted in a loss of
approximately two million dollars in contract support funding
for our Health Care Corporation.
Of particular concern during this past year was the IHS
policy decision not to reimburse our Health Care Corporation
prior year pre-award and startup contract costs. This decision
resulted in the community receiving 61 percent of IHS approved
Fiscal Year 1999 requests, while most tribes were funded at 80
percent. This decision, also, resulted in our community and
other similarly situated tribes being denied reimbursement of
these one-time costs, while tribes before and after 1999 will
receive reimbursement of these types of costs.
With this background, I would like to briefly address
several key issues addressed in H.R. 4148. As the Committee is
aware, there is a 25-year history of inadequate funding of
tribal government contract support costs. The community
operates 14 BIA programs, two programs, public health and
public works, with IHS, and recovers 85 to 90 percent of its
indirect costs from the BIA and IHS. However, both BIA programs
and the public health programs have accumulated over the years
a significant amount of unrecovered indirect costs, which are
absorbed by the community. H.R. 4148 would remedy this cycle.
H.R. 4148 addresses several key issues that are necessary
to ensure the sustainable success of any new contract support
system, allowing for consolidation of adequately funded
contract support costs, provides additional incentive for
efficiently administering, and hopefully generating savings to
reinvest in our health care and other programs. Providing for
annual funding adjustments, based on medical inflation rates
and the Consumer Price Index, recognizes the reality of keeping
pace with the rising costs of providing health care and other
services. The 2 to 3 percent inflationary increases we
typically receive are not sufficient to keep us competitive
with the Phoenix Valley health care market, which has
experienced medical inflation rates of 8 to 9 percent.
The last provision I want to comment on is section 3 of the
bill. It is a provision that would require IHS to pay our
Health Care Corporation and other pre-award and startup costs
incurred in prior years. This provision would remedy the
inequity I described earlier and treat our Health Care
Corporation and other affected tribes on the same basis as all
other newly contracting tribes have been treated before 1999.
In closing, I want to thank Chairman Young and Congressman
Hayworth for introducing this bill. I, also, thank the
Committee for your commitment and persistence in pursuing a
long-term workable solution to the contract support dilemma.
The Gila River Indian community urges the Committee to report
favorably on H.R. 4148. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Richard Narcia follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.032
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Narcia. Mr. Allen?
STATEMENT OF W. RON ALLEN
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the Vice President
of the National Congress of American Indians in Washington,
DC., and Chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam tribe, located in
Washington State. I am here testifying on behalf and in support
of this particular bill. I am very appreciative of the Chairman
introducing this bill and Congressman Hayworth for sponsoring
it. I, also, would encourage our Democratic friends and
supporters in the Congress to endorse this bill. As Congressman
Kildee had noted earlier in his opening remarks, when we find
bipartisan or nonspartisan agendas, it's usually about Indian
issues that involve the obligations of the Federal Government
to Indian communities.
The subject matter of this bill is something about which I
have testified before this Committee and the Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs many times over the last number of years. I
have personally led the NCAI task force that has conducted an
exhaustive study with regard to contract support and the
responsibilities of the Federal Government to Indian tribes
with regard to contract support. We have studied it in
conjunction with the GAO and the IGO and the other Federal
agencies, which have continued to analyze their
responsibilities with regard to contract support, in complying
with or carrying out the full intent of the Self-Determination
Act.
The Act has been very successful. It is transferring
Federal resources to Indian people. It is empowering tribal
governments to take over their responsibilities. And
reciprocally, it is supposed to reduce the Federal bureaucracy,
so that those resources and responsibilities are transferred
out to Indian communities.
But, this particular Contract Support Cost problem has
become a serious impediment and it is frustrating. I
appreciated Orie Williams' comments earlier in his testimony
about the priorities of the Congress with regard to the
funding. You have a lot of money and a lot of issues you have
to deal with every year. But with regard to Indian issues, we
have consistently shown that the underfunding of Indian
programs continues to be a blemish against the Federal
Government with regard to how it is addressing the problems and
needs of Indian communities, and contract support is one of the
fundamental responsibilities. It is an administrative
responsibility of carrying out these Federal functions and it
is a legitimate function and legitimate responsibility.
This bill proposes to resolve a lot of legal ambiguities.
It proposes to provide solutions that we believe are
reasonable. It addresses a consistency of how to approach it.
It suggests approaches on how to provide stability and
efficiencies, and there are a number of other things that we
believe it does to resolve some of the problems and conflicts
that we, the tribes, have had with the Administration.
It is quite frustrating that we can't get the Congress or
the Administration to raise this issue as a priority and to
fully fund it, both in IHS and BIA. It is also equally
frustrating that we cannot get the other Federal agencies to
take responsibility for this need within their contracts. But
this bill puts the pressure on resolving this issue in a
logical way.
As you look for your offsets if you pass this bill, we
would be concerned that the offsets would count against the
allocation to the subcommittees, with regard to this
jurisdiction. In other words, are you taking money out of one
pocket and putting it into the other pocket of Indian country?
That doesn't solve the problem. You know, that is an issue that
we have constantly been challenging the Administration and the
Congress with regard to. We raise it with regard to potential
impact with regard to this proposal.
We believe that this bill moves us off of this contract
support cost issue, which we believe is an administrative
matter, and moves us on to the serious problems of solving the
needs of our communities, to improve health and to improve job
opportunities and to deal with the elders and children programs
and educational programs and so forth, so that we can focus in
on those issues. You will never fund our total needs, but what
we do want you to do is fund fully the programs that you have
authorized in a way that does not become a detriment to the
tribes or enforce us to divert our moneys to cover these
expenses, because these expenses are real costs to the tribal
government, and we have to cover them some way. So, usually, we
will have to divert moneys from other projects, economic
projects and so forth, in order to cover these administrative
responsibilities.
So, we have worked very hard over the last number years, we
will continue to work with you and the Congress to persuade you
on how to resolve this issue. We believe this bill goes a long
way in that direction to resolve this matter. And we believe
that we can address many of the issues that concern us about
the bill. They are in our written testimony and we encourage
you to take a look at some of the suggestions. But, we believe
that the bill goes a long ways to solving this problem.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify and we appreciate
the opportunity to continue to work with you on this subject
matter, and we do appreciate your championing our cause. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of W. Ron Allen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.040
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I yield first to Mr.
Hayworth.
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think we
should note for the record that four members of leadership of
the Native American Caucus are here on the dais today and we
want to thank our friends from Indian country and beyond, who,
again, offer compelling testimony from the front lines,
personal experience, the real frustrations with the inability
to reconcile this problem. And, again, I thank my friend from
Michigan and I thank all of those, who have testified this
morning, as to our needs to make this a priority and solve this
problem. Especially, I am pleased to see Lt. Governor Narcia
and others from the Gila River Indian community here with us
today.
Lt. Governor Narcia, I am familiar with your community's
dilemma concerning prior years pre-award and startup costs. Do
you believe that H.R. 4148 will remedy this problem once and
for all?
Mr. Narcia. Congressman Hayworth, it's a pleasure to see
you again. We thank you for your advocacy and support for the
community on this issue in the past. With your indulgence, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to refer this question to our Health
Care Corporation President, Mr. Franklin Jackson.
Mr. Jackson. We believe that H.R. 4148 addresses the legal
concerns with reimbursing the community with startup costs.
This provision in the bill will require the Indian Health
Service to pay the community and other similarly situated
tribes prior years award and startup costs on the same basis as
Indian Health Service has reimbursed these costs with tribes
prior to and after Fiscal Year 1999.
And it is my understanding that under the Indian Health
Service's new contract support policy, tribes will not have to
wait for four or five years, as we did for reimbursement of
these costs which are necessary to efficiently and responsibly
manage local programs.
This will eliminate for other tribes, what has been a
financial burden for our health care corporation.
Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, sir. I think it's safe to say
that's been a severe burden for you and your health care
corporation.
Mr. Jackson. It has been.
Mr. Hayworth. I thank you for that testimony, Mr. Jackson.
Again, Lt. Governor, thank you.
Whether it's Arizona, Alaska, Oklahoma Cherokee, or Native
Americans throughout the nation, again, I thank those who come
to testify with their compelling stories, and it is our mission
to make sure that the rest of our friends in the U.S. Congress
understand how important it is to move forward on that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Lt.
Governor Narcia, please give my best to Governor Don Antone,
and former Governor, Mary Thomas.
Principal Chief, Chad Smith, I have one of your citizens of
your sovereign nation working for me, Kim Teehee here. She does
a great job. She is a wonderful person.
And Ron Allen, Ron, you've been a mentor of mine for so
many years, I'm just always grateful to you and glad that
you're here.
And I don't want to neglect you, Mr. Williams. I don't know
if we've chatted before, but I feel very close to this issue
and very close to you at the table there.
Ron and I had the occasion of spending some time with the
President of the United States last summer, flying around the
country and out to Pine Ridge, and looked at the housing out
there. I appreciated that very much.
I think this is a great bill. It's really a--you know, I
think we do our best work in this Congress when we do it in a
bipartisan way.
In the last few years, we really have been approaching
Indian legislation in a bipartisan way, and I think that this
is--this would really make a real difference in Indian country
for health care. It's very important.
You know, if Government's role is to promote human dignity,
health care is an essential part of that, and we have a real,
as I say, moral obligation.
I look forward to working with--as we say, we have three of
the officers of the Native American Caucus right up here, so
you have a very sympathetic audience. But I think we are
effective enough to influence the others, and I just really
have no questions.
I think you've presented compelling reasons why we should
proceed this way, and I thank you very much for it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. I have just a couple
of questions. I think Mr. Smith or maybe Mr. Williams mentioned
that Native Americans have the highest rate of diabetes of any
ethnic group in the country.
Can someone tell me why that is? Why do Native Americans
have a higher rate of diabetes than any other group in the
country?
Mr. Allen. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just in a very
pragmatic way explain. You know, Dr. Trujillo is probably one
of the best ones to answer that, because they have spent so
much time studying the genetic conditions of Indian people and
why the Indian people have such a high propensity for diabetes.
We know that it is true that we have a higher level of
diabetes than any other ethnic group in the United States, and
it is prevalent throughout the United States. It is as
prevalent in Alaska as it is throughout the other parts of
Indian country.
And it's a problem we've been wrestling for many, many
years. We have not had any overwhelming success in beating it,
but we are moving aggressively forward in educating our
communities about the fact that genetically, our people, you
know, have a higher propensity for diabetes and because of
that, they have a better understanding of how to counter it
throughout their lives.
So it is a problem we are constantly wrestling with. And
how well we're wrestling with it, Dr. Trujillo and his staff
will probably know how well we're being successful in beating
it back within our communities.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, if I could help, from my
perspective, it's not a medical perspective. The increase in
diabetes in Alaskan villages is on the upward spiral.
And I expect a tremendous cost for diabetes in the next ten
to 20 years to increase dramatically. The change in traditional
diet from traditional foods to sugar is one of the main reasons
that I have observed, change in diet, change in lifestyle, but
I think diet has to be the biggest one.
As stated, why the article startled me in the paper, and
the amount of money spent on sugar, is because for so many
years, the lack of clean water to drink, and the average use in
our villages which I represent of maybe 50 gallons of water per
family per day, instead of the 250 gallons per day of the
normal family----
Obviously, the water is going for cooking and food and
clothing and doing those necessary things, and it's not going
for drinking.
That's just one small answer to the question. I think the
government commodities where my wife comes from in South
Dakota--there is a history of government commodities and change
in lifestyle and change in diet has had a tremendous impact.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, sir. Dr. Trujillo?
Dr. Trujillo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are seeing a
great rise of the incidence and also the consequences secondary
to diabetes across the Nation among American Indians and Alaska
Natives.
Unfortunately, we are now even diagnosing adult onset
diabetes, which is called Type II Diabetes, in individuals of
the ages of 14, 11 and 10. We also have individuals throughout
the Nation who have the end stages of diabetes, and being on
dialysis at age 14 and 15.
Unfortunately, the problem is secondary to numerous
factors: One is probably--some genetic propensity for
development of the diabetes, but primarily it's secondary to a
change in lifestyle, the change in diet, activity, and other
associated factors. Smoking and cardiovascular diseases are
also on the rise, as are other chronic diseases.
There is no tribe throughout the United States and Alaska
that is not untouched by diabetes at the present time. We have
had some special funding from Congress, secondary to the
knowledge that we need additional resources and services.
These funds now are assisting tribes and the Indian Health
Service at educating people throughout the Nation of what might
be able to be done to avoid or help individuals who are now
diagnosed with diabetes.
The difficulty will be is that we are seeing a rise of the
diagnosis of diabetes. In 5, 10, 15, 20 years, individuals who
are now being diagnosed will have the consequences of this
disease and end-stage problems difficulty in seeing, probably
blindness, difficulty in end-stage renal disease, probably
dialysis or consequently problems with cardiovascular and
peripheral vascular disease with loss of limbs that the
Chairman from Cherokee mentioned today.
It is a scourge of American Indians and Alaska Natives
presently and very similar to the TB that we saw earlier in
this century.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Doctor. Is this--would you say
this, at least in part, is due to health care programs that
have been grossly underfunded for much of this century, the
lack of education and just the lack of attention paid to that
particular issue?
Dr. Trujillo. The areas of public health are essential in
the prevention. The education, health education and the way
that we might be able to prevent the disease is essential. For
those who may have inherited propensity for the disease the
difficulty is in getting associated care and obtaining adequate
care, tertiary care, especially for individuals who have severe
disease, throughout the nation.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Doctor. I have some--I don't have
any--basically, I guess, not for the last 250 years, Native
Americans on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, which I represent,
but on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, we have a much higher
than average rate of diabetes. And it's just interesting that--
which could be the quality of the water, diet, smoking, a whole
range of things.
But we will work as a group together with all of you to
ensure that this eventually becomes a thing of the past.
Dr. Trujillo. Yes. We are seeing a rise of diabetes in all
populations throughout the nation, but unfortunately, American
Indians and Alaska Natives lead in that unfortunate disease at
the present time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Doctor. Yes, sir, Mr.
Narcia.
Mr. Narcia. Mr. Chairman, in talking about diabetes, the
Gila River Community has the unhappy distinction of having the
most--the highest rate of diabetes per capita of any group of
people in the world.
And at this time, we're looking to find solutions to this
problem. We are in the process of establishing a diabetes
center for our people with the help of Congressman Hayworth,
and hopefully we can start resolving some of these issues.
But at this point, our people are very frustrated with the
care, the research that's been done. We're the most researched
people in the world, the Pima people. And it's sad, because we
see children as young as less than 10 years old, having
diabetes.
And our people are also frustrated with the research that's
been done in the past where it targeted not the diabetes that's
not--that applies to our people, but to the non-Indians, which
studies that were done by the Indian Health Service or the
Public Health, so, you know, I'm glad you're very aware of this
deadly disease that's plaguing our people. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Narcia. Just a couple of
quick questions. I know someone needs to catch a plane, so I'll
try to expedite this.
Mr. Allen in your testimony you state that the Federal
Government finally settled $80 million worth of liabilities to
tribes which only covered up to the year 1993. Has the Federal
Government made any commitment to finalize a settlement to the
present date?
Mr. Allen. They are currently in the middle of negotiating
a settlement. Part of that settlement is a way that they would
calculate the indirect cost rate and the contract support
responsibilities of Interior with regard to the tribes.
And, of course, the settlement is dealing with the other
Federal agencies who have underfunded this indirect cost rate.
So, we're looking for a compromise solution, and my
understanding is they're having good success in the
negotiations, and they have had discussions, preliminary
discussions with IHS to try to address their responsibility as
well.
And we hope that we'll get that thing resolved as far as
the past settlement issues, and try to move this thing forward.
But it doesn't solve this problem as well as this bill does,
going into the future.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. So, would you say that this bill--my
next question was going to be, what can Congress do to ensure
this full settlement up to the year 1999? You feel this bill
will do that?
Mr. Allen. This bill would significantly contribute to
closing the book on what the obligations are, including
addressing the matter within the OMB circular in terms of
having very specific guidelines as it addresses how you expend
these resources from OMB's circular perspective.
We believe that it would resolve it once and for all, and
make it very unequivocally clear that this is how we're going
to pay for this, these funds associated with these contracts.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. And, Mr. Smith, in your written
testimony, you express support for transferring responsibility
for contract support cost issues from the Division of Financial
Management to the Office of Tribal Programs.
What is your source of criticism of the Division of
Financial Management?
Mr. Smith. Last year, IHS had a circular which said that
all contract support costs requirements should be determined by
the local area office in negotiations with each tribe.
Disagreements only were to be moved up the chain of command
to the Division of Financial Management. We followed that
procedure and negotiated a hard number at the Oklahoma Area
Office.
Despite complete agreement between us and the area Office,
the Division of Financial Management personnel stepped in and
unilaterally reduced our requirements by $2.7 million.
The only reason that the Division of Financial Management
did this is because the bulk of the $2.7 million was not in the
Cherokee Nation's indirect cost pool, a way of saying that the
DFM disagreed with the agreement that we had with the Office of
Inspector General for how we account for our funds.
By making this reduction, DFM would have us eliminate
virtually the entire administrative structure for the Cherokee
Nation Health Department.
Mr. Gilchrest. And one more followup to that: Your
testimony indicates that the Cherokee Nation has never received
any so-called direct contract support costs funding from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
In fact, last year the Assistant Secretary acknowledged
before this Committee that the BIA has never paid such costs.
What has the impact been on the Cherokee Nation?
Mr. Smith. The Cherokee Nation operates over $13 million
worth of BIA programs, employing 158 individuals who would
otherwise be employed by the Bureau. When the Bureau employed
these people, it covered their Workers Compensation and
Unemployment Insurance benefits.
When the positions were transferred to us, those benefits
were held back. Using IHS's historic estimate that these costs
ran about 15 percent of salaries, the Bureau has shorted the
Cherokee Nation by over half a million per year for a total of
$5 million to date.
Let me clear with the Committee: To cover the Workers
Compensation shortfall, we have had to reduce our BIA programs
by the same amount, a half a million dollars a year.
This Catch 22 will be remedied by H.R. 4148.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Gentlemen, thank you
very much for your testimony, and we look forward to working
with you on this bill to see it passed as soon as possible.
Thank you very much.
Now, there's a little--as far as I can see, slight
alteration in the next panel. Ms. Woolsey, the Congresswoman
from the great State of California, and Mr. Greg Sarris,
Chairman, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Novato,
California. Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Sarris, welcome.
Ms. Woolsey, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE 6TH DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; AND MR. GREG
SARRIS, CHAIRMAN, FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA,
NOVATO, CALIFORNIA
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN C. WOOLSEY
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I'd
like for the record to show that two of the four leaders of the
Native American Caucus are still with us today, so thank you
for your interest in our Native Americans and for sticking in
here with this.
I'm pleased to be here today to testify in support of H.R.
946, the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act. It's also a great
privilege to sit here with Dr. Greg Sarris, who is the Chair of
the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. He was supposed to
be on Panel II. Thank you for putting him next to me so he can
catch a plane. He's barely going to make it.
Together, we've worked for several years on this bill. And
on behalf of Greg and on behalf of the tribe, I appreciate your
hearing us today, and allowing us to speak.
The bill before you today, H.R. 946, seeks to correct a
decades-old wrong by restoring Federal recognition for the
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.
Composed primarily of the California Coast Miwok and
Southern Pomo tribes in my Congressional District, which you
know, Mr. Chairman, is north of San Francisco, across the
Golden Gate Bridge.
Joe Saulque, who chaired the Advisory Council on California
Indians, stated that lack--no, not lack--luck often determined
whether a tribe got recognized.
And I am so glad that with today's hearing, we are going to
take luck out of the equation by taking the first step in
restoring the tribe's status, because it is the right thing to
do. It should not be based on luck.
The tribes of the Graton Rancheria are a rich part of the
San Francisco Bay Area's cultural heritage. The earliest
historical account of the Coast Miwok peoples whose traditional
homelands include the California communities of Bodega,
Tomales, Marshall, and Sebastopol, located along the West Coast
of my District, dates back to 1579.
Today there are approximately 380 members of the Federated
Indians of Graton Rancheria.
In 1966, the U.S. Government terminated the tribe's status
under the California Rancheria Act of 1958. Almost two decades
later, the Advisory Council on California Indian Policy was
established by the Congress to study and report on the special
circumstances facing California's tribes, those whose status
had been terminated.
The Council's final report, which was submitted to Congress
in September 1997, specifically recommended the immediate
restoration of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.
Following this report's recommendations, the tribes
promptly decided on a course of action for the restoration.
Since then, I've been working with them on the bill.
And it's the bill that's before you today. This consensus
bill restores Federal rights and privileges to the tribe and to
its members.
As is typical with restoration legislation, it reinstates
political status and makes tribal members eligible for benefits
such as Native American health, education, and housing
services.
These are services, as you know, that are available to all
other Federally-recognized tribes. A unique aspect of H.R. 946,
however, is that it specifically contains a clause that
restricts gaming, gaming on land that is taken into trust for
the tribes.
This non-gaming clause is at the express request of the
tribe, and is the basis for the broad and bipartisan support
that this bill enjoys throughout my Congressional District.
It is also key to my support for the tribe's restoration.
As most of you know, I'm privileged to represent an area with
unparalleled natural beauty. Open space, controlled growth, and
quality of life are defining characteristics and values for the
residents of Marin and Sanoma Counties.
Greg Sarris, and the tribes recognize and appreciate this
because they live there also. They are also acutely aware of
the growing pressure on restored Indian tribes to establish
gaming as a means of economic independence.
Their sovereign decision--and I repeat, sovereign
decision--to choose other means of economic vitality is out of
respect for preserving the current character of the North Bay,
and a commitment to our community that their quest for
restoration is not to establish gaming.
And, most importantly, it is a request for their right to
self-determination. As the Federal representative for the area
where their tribal land will be established, I'm very proud
that this bill addresses their wants and needs as well as the
rest of the residents of the vicinity.
Interesting enough, my office recently received a visit
from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians that are located
near San Bernardino, California.
They operate gaming on their lands, but they were proud to
learn that the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria were
asserting their right to make a sovereign decision about their
tribe's future.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record, a
statement of support for H.R. 946 from this particular tribe.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, it's been a long
journey for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and on
behalf of their hard work and the support they have received
from the local community, I ask that this Committee hold the
markup of H.R. 946 and bring this bill to the Floor for
consideration so that we can restore the deserved recognition
that they request.
I thank the Committee again for the opportunity to testify
in support of restoration for the Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria, and I look forward to a continuing working
relationship with this Committee on their behalf. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Lynn C. Woolsey
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.043
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. We will do our best
to expedite the bill.
Mr. Sarris?
STATEMENT OF GREG SARRIS
Mr. Sarris. First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
rearranging the order of speakers here right now. It took a lot
of fried bread sales from my people to get me here today, and
I've got to catch a plane back.
Let me give you a little bit of background, everybody here,
about the tribe. The Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria
were called by the 1920's 1930's, Coast Miwok or Southern Pomo
by linguists and anthropologists.
At pre-contact time, we were approximately 5,000 people of
many--several dozen bands of Indians who interacted as one
group.
Today we have 380 enrolled members. Of those members, 380
members, we are all descendants of 12 survivors.
We were first contacted by, of course, the Spanish, who put
us in the missions. The northernmost missions were in our
territory, and then the Mexicans who established an elaborate
slave trade situation that enslaved virtually all our men and
traded them as far as Mexico, back and forth on the ranchos.
In 1850, when California became a State, one of the first
pieces of legislation that was enacted by the State of
California was the Act for the Government and Protection of
Indians which, in essence, legalized Indian slavery.
It stipulated that Indians became the rightful property of
whomever's land they were on. We were bought and sold until
that law was repealed in 1868, three years after the Civil War.
For the next 50 years, we lived as indentured servants on
whomever's ranch we were on.
In the early part of the 20th Century, the BIA began
purchasing small tracts of land for the so-called homeless
Indians of California. They did not designate us by tribes, but
by areas in which we resided on small rancherias or privately-
owned property.
We were still generally referred to by the derogatory term
of digger Indians. In 1920, after looking up and down the coast
at our territory, 15.45 acres were purchased in Graton for our
members. Seventy-five members moved on in 1920.
Unfortunately, of those 15.45 acres, only three were
inhabitable; the rest were virtually up and down, so many of
our members could not stay there.
In 1958 when they came by and did a census at the height of
the harvest season, when no one was around, they found three
families and with the Rancheria Termination Act, offered those
three families or three designees, the right to buy the land,
and, in essence, terminate the rancheria as trust land and,
therefore, terminate us as--our tribal status as a recognized
tribe.
That was not settled until 1966, at which point there was
one family left, and that family got the land. We were then, as
Lynn mentioned, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, terminated,
effectively as a tribe, without the vote or the consensus of
the rest of the members.
Due to taxes and what have you, that family was able to
hold on to only one acre of that land. A woman, the daughter of
the designee, who still lives on the land, has given it to us
as a token to restore to trust status, the tribal lands, and,
in turn, restore us as a tribe.
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey mentioned the issue of gaming.
We worked closely with both the Democrats and Republicans there
who did not want development on the land.
I, for one, and I think I can speak for many people of my
tribe, feel strongly that Indian people should have the
sovereign right to game. It isn't that issue; it's working
together with our group, that we did not want to develop the
land for casinos or any other purposes.
What we are asking is for our rights to be returned; that
is, our rights to health benefits, education benefits, and
housing benefits that are afforded all other recognized
American Indian tribes.
And as I mentioned, we were terminated in 1966. As you
know, since that time, American Indians have made some
significant gains in terms of health and education. We would
like access to some of that, and we would like once again to be
restored as a people and have rights that we once had so that
we might not be as we were before 1920, simply homeless Indians
of California. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sarris follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.047
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Sarris. How many--that's an
interesting but sad story that's covered, I guess, several
centuries, to descend to 12 survivors and now, I guess, ascend
to 380, which is quite remarkable.
How many acres does the bill set aside?
Mr. Sarris. Approximately one acre, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. One acre?
Mr. Sarris. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, where are the 380 enrolled members? Do
they live in the area?
Mr. Sarris. They live throughout Sonoma and Marin, southern
Sonoma and Marin Counties, in and around Santa Rosa in private
homes. We have no place to live. We've been gathering in front
rooms and garages for our meetings.
Mr. Gilchrest. You're asking for one acre?
Mr. Sarris. One acre.
Mr. Gilchrest. Even if you wanted a casino, it would be a
pretty small casino.
Mr. Sarris. Mr. Chairman, unless we could get an architect
that could build an 87 story casino on one acre, it's unlikely.
Mr. Gilchrest. So, one acre, which will be a site for,
among other things, family reunions, I guess?
Mr. Sarris. Family reunions and a place from which we can
educate the larger community about who we are, and, again,
house historical information and the things that we would like
to keep as a tribe for our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, will the--so, there are 380 people that
consider themselves southern Pomo or Indians of Graton?
Mr. Sarris. Yes, Coastal Miwok.
Mr. Gilchrest. So, do they all--they're in the area.
They're all working. There is no--we're not talking about a
Navaho Indian Reservation here, the Sioux Indian Reservation,
or anything like that.
So, the specific designation would do what for the people
that are disbursed? They would receive the same benefits as the
other Federally-recognized tribes?
Mr. Sarris. Once again, we would have access to health
benefits, many of which you heard about this morning earlier.
We have no access to that, and yet we have the same problems in
high incidence of diabetes and so forth.
We cannot get the help from any other Indian agencies.
Also, we would be able to apply for scholarships and
fellowships as Indians, where at this point we cannot because
we're not recognized as a Federal tribe.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where would you have access to health care,
a traditional doctor's office, a health care facility?
Mr. Sarris. We have a health clinic, Sonoma Indian Health
right in there that's enjoyed by other tribes.
Mr. Sarris. I see. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
really the main benefit, aside from the fact that you are
sovereign and you have a retained sovereignty, we're not giving
it to you, we're recognized that retained sovereignty, and
that's John Marshall's decision that you hold a retained
sovereignty.
We are not giving it to you by this bill; we're recognizing
that retained sovereignty, and that's a very, very important
distinction there, a very substantive distinction.
The main gain that you would get by that recognition would
be access to Indian Health Service and education. Were you in
Michigan--when I was in the Michigan Legislature, I introduced
a bill that any Michigan Indian can go to any Michigan public
college without paying tuition. It's called the Indian Tuition
Waiver Act.
And that was--I know that's probably not the law in
California, but there are certain rights that accrue to you
when you are a recognized Federal tribe. Again, I want to
emphasize recognition, not granting your sovereignty,
recognizing your retained sovereignty.
That's a--I carry with me wherever I go, I carry John
Marshall's decision and I carry the Constitution. John
Marshall's decision talks about the retained sovereignty, and
this talks about your--the three types of sovereignty.
I will just read this: Congress shall have the power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several
states, and with Indian tribes, recognized as the three
sovereignties.
That's very important. Whether you have one acre or like
the Navaho, you are--the fact that you have that sovereignty
recognized, that you exercise your natural rights as a
sovereign people, and that's very important. That's why this
bill is very attractive to me.
I will be candid, however. I have some concerns about
limiting the sovereignty in the area of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act. Mr. Sarris, have you--have other Indian tribes
in California expressed any concern about the fact that you're
willing yourself to not exercise that right under IGRA?
Mr. Sarris. There has been some concern, yes, from some
tribes mentioned, but the majority of the tribes nonetheless
support our move. In fact, we have letters of support from the
neighboring Pomo Tribes.
Another thing I should mention is that as a result of
Proposition 1 A in California, one of the provisions or
stipulations is that tribes cannot establish gaming on newly
acquired trust land. So if we were to establish or find a
larger tract of land where we could have gaming, we couldn't
have it.
But more importantly for us, also part of the provision of
Proposition 1 A is that non-gaming tribes can share, have
profit sharing in the profits from the gaming tribes. But
unless you're recognized, you cannot have access or we will not
have access to the profit sharing with the gaming tribes.
Mr. Kildee. Let me ask you this, because I really am
anxious to recognize your sovereignty.
If this legislation was silent about IGRA, would the
California law still forbid you then to have gaming on that one
acre of land or is that something lawyers have to sort out
later?
Mr. Sarris. Well, technically no. I mean technically we
could have gaming on the one acre but in fact we have made an
agreement with the woman living on there that we would not do
that on her one acre that she has retained. She has expressed
that she did not want that in any way and only wanted her
home--you know, there is a little home, her little home that
she has retained there--used for historic and cultural
purposes.
Mr. Kildee. But that land would become your land and it
would be sovereign land?
Mr. Sarris. The one acre, yes, sir.
Mr. Kildee. One acre would be sovereign land. I am just
asking these questions because I am really anxious to recognize
your sovereignty. You know, we have had tribes in Michigan. I
helped get the recognition of five different tribes. We have 12
tribes in Michigan, pretty small tribes.
One was--two, three were down to zero acres of land and I
helped get them land also, maybe only about 300 acres but--
which by Western standards but obviously not California
standards was a fairly good chunk of land, so there are other
instances where land has been--Burt, the land in Michigan was
illegally taken from the Indians. Burt Lake, 1901, the Governor
put them back on the tax rolls for that band and after one year
when they did not pay their tax, did not tell them they were
back on the tax rolls, they were illegally put back on,
confiscated their land because the lumber barons wanted it.
They came in--this was 1901, this is not, you know--my dad
was 18 years old. He remembers when it happened. They came in
and the Sheriff burned down, chased the Indians off the land,
burned down their village so they could not return. Some
terrible things have happened to Indians and I think that we in
the Congress have not just a legal but a moral obligation to
right these wrongs as much as we can.
I certainly appreciate both of you testifying here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Mr. Sarris,
Congresswoman Woolsey, thank you very much for your testimony
and we will do what we can to--I guess you are not going to use
that for grazing too many horses or cattle, but maybe you can
expand it later on. Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when
you just said expand it later on, that is exactly why we want
that language to stay in the bill for recognizing the
sovereignty and what the tribe wants, and that is no gaming, no
matter if they expand it or not, and that is important to the
community, it is important to me, and it is important to them,
and I would hope we could have a markup and keep the language
intact as the bill is drafted now.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will work with you, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sarris. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir.
Our next panel will be the Honorable Kevin Gover, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC., Ms.
Madonna Archambeau, Chairwoman, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Marty,
South Dakota, Mr. Arthur ``Butch'' Denny, Chairman, Santee
Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, Niobrara, Nebraska.
Welcome. Mr. Gover, you have double duty today. You can
testify on both bills at this time, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN GOVER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, DC.; MS. MADONNA
ARCHAMBEAU, CHAIRWOMAN, YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE, MARTY, SOUTH
DAKOTA; AND MR. ARTHUR ``BUTCH'' DENNY, CHAIRMAN, SANTEE SIOUX
TRIBE OF NEBRASKA, NIOBRARA, NEBRASKA
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN GOVER
Mr. Gover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am under a very
severe time constraint at this point. Let me be very brief.
First, on the Santee bill, we have two concerns with the
legislation.
First, it is not yet clear to us just how the values for
the compensation were established. We certainly support the
idea of compensation. We think it is a continuation of the
Congress's work over the last few years to compensate all the
tribes that were affected by the Missouri Basin projects, and
therefore we support the notion of compensation.
No one has yet told us what the basis of these particular
amounts is and why it is the United States who ought to provide
those particular amounts.
In addition, the bill would further a practice that we have
objected to before by establishing a fund that is sort of off
budget, and we would still prefer that these compensation acts
be put on the budget and be dealt with in a more
straightforward way than has been true in the past.
Finally, we strongly recommend a prohibition on per capita
payments from these funds. Our experience with per capita in
Indian communities, has not been a favorable one. We think that
the money is better spent in the hands of the tribal government
on community-wide projects as opposed to one-time payments to
individual Indians that we have every confidence will have
little impact in the community and soon will leave the
community.
On the Graton Rancheria restoration, we do support the
bill. I want to make that clear. We agree. This tribe was
wronged when it was terminated. That wrong needs to be righted.
Our only concern really is with the gaming provision, and
it is not that we wish to force gaming onto a community that
does not want it, including this tribe. If the tribe chooses
not to game, more power to them. We have absolutely no
objection. We support their right to make that decision.
Our concern indeed is not even with this particular tribe.
If they don't want gaming, that is fine with us. The problem is
that what tends to happen in these matters, and frankly this
bill is an extension of this phenomenon, is that if we put it
in one restoration bill, it will be in every restoration bill,
and we think that's wrong.
The tribes that were terminated were grievously wronged by
the United States. The terms for readmission to the family of
Federally-recognized tribes should not be the waiver of their
right to conduct these gaming activities, and we object to
that.
I think that there are other ways to accomplish the
objective of preventing gaming, with the tribe's consent, on
the particular parcel that we are talking about or even in a
particular area, without establishing the precedent that I have
every confidence will show up in every restoration bill.
There are a couple dozen California tribes that are in the
same boat. Each of them undoubtedly will be coming to the
Administration and to the Congress asking for restoration. They
should be granted restoration, but as I say, the price of
admission should not be to give up so important a right on a
blanket basis.
That, Mr. Chairman, summarizes my testimony. We have
examined the evidence surrounding the Graton tribe. We are
confident that these are the successors to the historical
Graton Rancheria, and we very much support their restoration to
Federal recognition.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gover follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.049
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Gover. Ms. Archambeau.
STATEMENT OF MS. MADONNA ARCHAMBEAU
Ms. Archambeau. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee for this opportunity----
Mr. Gilchrest. I'm sorry, Ms. Archambeau. Just 1 second.
Mr. Gover, if you need to leave, we will understand.
Mr. Gover. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do need to
leave. It's a doctor's appointment with my daughter otherwise.
I would be happy to stay.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. We will make sure that the
testimony of Ms. Archambeau gets to you so she may have
answered some of your questions.
Mr. Gover. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Ms. Archambeau.
Ms. Archambeau.--opportunity to speak on behalf of my
tribe.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Madonna Archambeau and I serve as
elected Tribal Chairwoman for the Yankton Sioux Tribe. Our land
is located in the southeastern corner of South Dakota.
Accompanying me this afternoon is Deborah DuBray, our
consultant attorney, who has worked with our tribe on this
legislation.
In addition, I have asked Dr. Michael Lawson to accompany
me as well. Dr. Lawson is a respected historian who has
developed an expertise on the Pick Sloan program and its impact
on Indian tribes. Dr. Lawson has done extensive work on the
tribe's claim which serves as a basis for H.R. 2671.
They are here to assist me with questions from the
Committee.
First, let me express my sincere appreciation for the
Committee's consideration of H.R. 2671. We have been working
several years now to relieve some of the harm that our tribe
has suffered as a result of the construction of the Fort
Randall Dam on the Missouri River.
I am honored to be here today to speak in support of this
legislation. Now I would like to make a few points regarding
H.R. 2671.
The construction of the Fort Randall Dam and Reservoir on
the Missouri River destroyed an important part of my tribe's
traditional way of life. The Missouri River bottom lands were
rich with game and plants and used for traditional foods. We
used the plants for ceremonies and medicines, the trees and the
bottom lands we used for lumber and fuel.
We lost tribal land when the bottom lands were flooded but
much of our traditional way of life was taken from us too.
Our tribe lost acres and acres of rich productive
agricultural land. We lost 3,260 in total acres due to the
construction of the Fort Randall Dam and Reservoir, and we lost
the entire community of White Swan.
It was the practice of the United States to move the Indian
communities flooded by the dam construction to higher ground to
be re established, but our tribal community of White Swan was
not relocated. It was simply destroyed, the families dispersed
elsewhere. The community was never replaced. This was and still
is a great loss to our people.
My tribe and the Santee tribe did not have the same
opportunity to negotiate and obtain settlements by acts of
Congress as other Missouri River tribes did. Our land was taken
by condemnation proceedings in District Court. As a result, my
tribe and the Santee suffered great inequities in the initial
settlements or taken land.
Congress enacted equitable compensation legislation for
four other upstream Missouri River tribes whose losses were
similar to ours. H.R. 2671 is similar legislation. H.R. 2671
will provide the tribe an annual interest payment from a trust
fund established to compensate the tribe for losses and bring
some equity to the issue of the Pick Sloan taking.
The income will assist the tribe with its economic
development and needs and help strengthen culture and social
programs. This is a turn that will help the tribe move forward
toward a great self determination in tribal affairs.
I would like to present the Committee, the members, a copy
of the letter written by South Dakota Bill Janklow in
supporting this legislation. The Governor and the tribe did not
always agree on tribal matters but we are in agreement of this
bill. Our tribal members support this bill. It will help heal
some of the wounds our tribal elders have suffered.
The bill directs our tribal council to develop a plan in
the interests of payments to be used. Our tribal plan will
include programs and benefit all the tribal members, our
elders, and our young.
Mr. Chairman and Committee members, this bill, H.R. 2671,
is very important to the future of the Yankton Sioux tribe. For
these reasons, I ask the Committee to support us in our efforts
to obtain equitable compensation in the past inequities.
In closing, I want to thank Congressman Bill Barrett and
his staff for their work in support of our efforts and I thank
the members of this Committee and I respectfully ask the
members to support our bill and take positive action in
recommending its passage to the full House of Representatives.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Archambeau follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.052
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Archambeau.
We do have a vote on, but we have time to hear Mr. Denny's
testimony. You may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR ``BUTCH'' DENNY
Mr. Denny. OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am Chairman Butch
Denny of the Santee Sioux Tribe in Nebraska. I am pleased to
appear before the Committee today to provide some views from
the perspective of the Santee Sioux tribe in support of H.R.
2671.
I will summarize my remarks from my written statement.
The Santee Sioux reservation is located in northeast
Nebraska. The Missouri River borders our reservation's northern
boundary. I have attached a map to my written statement for
reference to the areas we are talking about. I need not repeat
the testimony of Chairwoman Archambeau but to say that the
Santee tribe suffered similar losses as a result of
construction of the Gavins Point Dam.
Our tribal land was taken in a similar and swift manner
through condemnation proceedings in District Court, resulting
in the same inequities to the Santee as was experienced by the
Yankton Sioux tribe. In 1952, almost 3 months before the Fort
Randall Dam was completed, the Army Corps of Engineers began
the construction of the Gavins Point Dam, whose water flooded
part of our reservation. The Santee, as other Missouri River
tribes, lost a way of life that centered on the river bottom
lands.
Our bottom land environment was similar in many ways to the
other community of White Swan that once existed on the Yankton
Sioux reservation. This is why we have joined the Yankton Sioux
tribe in seeking an equitable remedy for past unfairness in the
initial taking of our tribal lands.
We base the justification of our claim on the same history
and treatment by the United States. The Santee tribal land base
is small, our tribal membership is small, and our claim is
small, but our tribal loss due to the construction of the
Gavins Point Dam is great. The dams and reservoirs have
provided many benefits to the non-Indian people in surrounding
communities in the Missouri River Basin through flood control,
irrigation, hydroelectric power, and recreation. It is the
Indian tribes who paid most for these benefits with their
lands, and the Indian tribes who have yet to reap the benefits
of the dam projects.
There are minimal jobs on our reservation. This bill will
aid us in developing economic opportunities for our members.
This bill will aid us in addressing our housing, education,
culture and social welfare needs. Many of our tribal elders are
passing on. Soon there will be no elders to remember the
traditional life along the rivers long ago. Our tribal elders
believe that a just and equitable settlement is possible. The
Santee tribal members unanimously support this bill.
One cannot measure the cost of the loss of tradition, the
loss of a way of life along a free flowing river, so we must
look at the cost of measurable things, the acres of land
flooded, the cost of relocation and the like. The Santee lost a
total of 1,007 acres to the Gavins Point Project. The Santee
settlement claim is minimal in comparison to others that have
been enacted before us. The Santee Trust Fund will be
capitalized with $8 million and only the interest of the Trust
Fund that would be paid to the Santee. The annual interest
payments will greatly assist our tribe to develop programs
through a plan developed by the tribal council.
As Chairwoman Archambeau stated, we have been working
several years on this bill. With the Committee's support, it is
the hope of the Santee Sioux tribe that H.R. 2671 will be
enacted this year.
At this time Chairwoman Archambeau and I would like to
offer an amendment that will clear up a few inaccuracies in the
funding of the bill. I would like to conclude by saying that we
are grateful to Congressman Barrett for his support and for his
staff, who have worked tirelessly with our tribes on this and
other matters.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Arthur ``Butch'' Denny
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.056
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Denny, I apologize for the time
constraints. We will--we will probably be gone for quite some
time on this vote and I didn't want to keep people waiting
here.
Your testimony is highly regarded. Our goal here is to
ensure justice. If there was any way for us to create a time
machine and go back to 1944, the dam would not have been
created. You would have kept your land, so it is just and right
for you to be compensated.
Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Well, I basically concur in your statements
too. I think we should remedy past injustices, and we are
probably going over for several votes right now. we may have
some questions in writing for our own background here, but I do
very much appreciate your seeking justice.
If we are going to be seekers after justice, we have to
pursue our own justice.
Mr. Denny. OK. One thing I would like to add is that we at
no time ever felt is that we should give this money out as a
per capita payment. It would be used for infrastructure.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
Ms. Archambeau and Mr. Denny, thank you very much for your
testimony and everybody else that accompanied you here today.
We will work with you on this issue.
Mr. Denny. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
I ask unanimous consent that the statement by Mr. Miller be
submitted into the record.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable George Miller, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.058
Mr. Gilchrest. I wish you all safe travel. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.073
[Prepared statement of William Janklow follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.074
[Prepared statement of Honorable Bill Barrett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8434.075