[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, October 8, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-66
__________
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://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
89-825 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, October 8, 2003....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 2
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia, Prepared statement of.......... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Benjamin, Melanie, Chief Executive, Mille Lacs Band of
Ojibwe, Onamia, Minnesota.................................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Marshall, Clifford Lyle, Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Hoopa,
California................................................. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Matt, D. Fred, Chairman, Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes, Pablo, Montana..................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Moore, Jacob, Special Assistant, Congressional and
Legislative Affairs, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, Scottsdale, Arizona............................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE''
----------
Wednesday, October 8, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard Pombo
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Pombo, Hayworth, Osborne, Rehberg,
Renzi, Pearce, Bishop, Kildee, Pallone, Christensen, Inslee,
Tom Udall, Rodriguez, Baca and McCollum.
The Chairman. The Committee on Resources will come to
order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
issue of tribal self-governance. Under Rule 4(g) of the
Committee Rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are
limited to the chairman and Ranking Minority Member. This will
allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and help members
keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other members have
statements, they can be included in the hearing record under
unanimous consent.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. President Nixon heralded the beginning of a
new era in which Indian self-determination without termination
would be the guiding Indian policy of the Federal Government.
This policy was embodied in the ``Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act,'' which is also known as Public Law
93-638. Under this Act, tribes can opt to carry out by contract
the services and programs the Federal Government provides to
Native Americans.
While a good start, a number of tribes observed problems in
implementing the Act, such as cumbersome Federal regulations
that prevented tribes from tailoring services and programs to
suit the special needs of their members. Moreover, a 1987
investigative series published in the Arizona Republic revealed
gross waste, fraud and mismanagement in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
These factors gave rise to a series of actions and laws
establishing tribal self-governance. Under self-governance
arrangements, tribes effectively step into the shoes of the
Federal Government and carry out the various Federal programs,
services and functions in a manner that best works for tribes
and their members. It enables participating tribes to serve
their members according to their unique political, social,
economic and cultural circumstances, with maximum efficiency
and effectiveness.
Tribes are the governments for their Indian members. Self-
governance thus represents what I believe is a Republican
philosophical precept, holding that local government best
represents and serves the people.
The purpose of today's hearing is to hear from several
tribes that have been involved in self-governance since it was
formalized in the late 1980s. The Committee is interested in a
status check on the self-governance experiment.
How successful has it been in serving their members and
managing their assets? Are there problems, and how can Congress
address them on a government-to-government basis with the
tribes? What does the future hold for self-governance?
This is a fairly open-ended hearing, and I think our
witnesses are eager to tell the story of their experiences.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Pombo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Richard W. Pombo, Chairman,
Committee on Resources
President Nixon heralded the beginning of a new era in which Indian
self-determination without termination would be the guiding Indian
policy of the Federal Government. This policy was embodied in the
``Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,'' which is
also known by its Public Law 93-638. Under this Act, tribes can opt to
carry out by contract the services and programs the Federal Government
provides to Native Americans.
While a good start, a number of tribes observed problems in
implementing the Act, such as cumbersome Federal regulations that
prevented tribes from tailoring services and programs to suit the
special needs of their members. Moreover, a 1987 investigative series
published in the Arizona Republic revealed gross waste, fraud and
mismanagement in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
These factors gave rise to a series of actions and laws
establishing Tribal Self-Governance. Under Self-Governance
arrangements, tribes effectively step into the shoes of the Federal
Government and carry out the various Federal programs, services and
functions in a manner that best works for the tribes and their members.
It enables participating tribes to serve their members according to
their unique political, social, economic and cultural circumstances,
with maximum efficiency and effectiveness.
Tribes are the governments for their Indian members. Self-
Governance thus represents what I believe is a Republican philosophical
precept holding that local government best represents and serves the
people.
The purpose of today's hearing is to hear from several tribes that
have been involved in Self-Governance since it was formalized in the
late 1980's. The Committee is interesting in a status check on the
Self-Governance experiment.
How successful has it been in serving their members and managing
their assets? Are there problems, and how can Congress address them on
a government-to-government basis with the tribes? What does the future
hold for Self-Governance?
This is a fairly open-ended hearing, and I think our witnesses are
eager to tell the story of their experiences.
______
The Chairman. I would now like to recognize Mr. Kildee for
an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I would like to submit a statement on behalf of the
Ranking Democrat, Mr. Rahall.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Kildee. Second, I will be very brief.
I never leave home without two things. As a matter of fact,
I was at the French Embassy one night and one of my Indian
friends asked me--I always carry this Constitution, which does
not grant you your sovereignty but recognizes your sovereignty,
that the Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce
with foreign nations and among the several States and with the
Indian tribes. These are the three sovereignties recognized by
the Constitution.
I also carry John Marshall's very famous decision, Wooster
versus Georgia, in which he says the Indian Nations have always
been considered as distinct, independent, political
communities, retaining their original, natural rights as the
undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial. The
very term ``Nations,'' as it would generally apply to them,
means people distinct from others. He goes on to say we applied
the words ``treaty'' and ``nation'' to Indians as we have
applied them to the other nations of the Earth. They are
applied to all in the same sense.
Those are very important documents to show that the Indian
tribes in this country have a retained sovereignty, a
sovereignty that existed long before the European settlers came
here. Congress' job in that government-to-government
relationship is to protect and help you use all the
accoutrements of sovereignty.
I thank you for being here today, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II, Ranking Democrat,
Committee on Resources
Mr. Chairman. Self-governance is about empowerment--choice--
respecting sovereignty--and a true government-to-government
relationship. At its most basic, self-governance is about power and
control over one's homeland--something to which all humankind aspires.
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act was
first enacted just before I came to Congress, so I have had a bird's
eye view of its implementation and have been actively involved in its
evolution. My basic observation of the history of the Act is that each
step of the way we have been faced with nervous Federal employees and
patient Indian tribes.
In the early days Indian tribes came forward to enter into what is
known as ``638 contracts,'' which provided them with the ability to
administer Federal programs to their members. Though a very good
concept, we quickly learned that the rules set up by the BIA were often
over-restrictive, and the paperwork cumbersome.
It was not long before Indian country was proposed for a program to
permit a tribe to enter into annual funding agreements which would
include resources for the management of multiple programs and the
flexibility to address priorities as they arose.
Congress has amended the original Act a number of times bringing us
to the current self-governance authority that exists for Department of
the Interior and Department of Health and Human Services programs.
To paraphrase the long-time former Chairman of this Committee, Mo
Udall, who used to say about America in general, I say--Indian self-
governance may not be perfect but we are not finished with it yet.
In TEA-21, I, along with the gentleman from Alaska Don Young,
authored self-governance-type language introducing the concept of
direct funding to Indian tribes through the Department of
Transportation and was immediately hit with resistance from reluctant
Federal bureaucrats fearful of dealing with Indian tribes on a
government-to-government basis.
But what they do not understand is that we will not give up, as we
have heard all the nervous ``buts'' before.
Everyone in this room has heard:
LBut there are too many tribes to deal with;
LBut the tribes will not know how to handle the money;
LBut the tribes will not know how to manage the programs
correctly;
LBut our agency regulations are not set up to deal with
individual Indian tribes;
and, maybe my all-time favorite misconception
LBut the Federal trust responsibility only lies with the
BIA and IHS.
I reject these misconceptions and the success of the self-
governance tribes proves them wrong every single day. I hear over and
over again how Indian tribes who have taken over programs either
through ``638 contracts'' or self-governance compacts are providing
better services to their members with less money than was spent under
Federal administration.
I believe the overall success of this program is due to the fact
that it was initiated by Indian country and has been negotiated on a
government-to-government basis throughout.
Certainly, we need to provide more funding for the compacts and,
yes, we need to work on making regulations consistent. But as I just
said, we are not finished yet.
To those who question the future of the Federal trust
responsibility, Congress has made its intent clear that self-governance
does not diminish this responsibility. Generations of treaties, laws,
court cases and Executive Orders has framed the trust responsibility
which the right to self-govern does not erase.
I look forward to our working together as we continue down this
road of Indian self-governance. And to those tribes who choose not to
participate in these programs, I will continue to work to ensure your
choice leads to better quality of direct services provided by Federal
agencies.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
I would like to welcome our first panel: D. Fred Matt,
Melanie Benjamin, Clifford Lyle Marshall, and Jacob Moore. To
introduce our first witness, I would yield to Mr. Rehberg.
Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing. I think it is important to draw attention
to many of the things that are going so very positively with
the Native Americans throughout America. This gives us an
opportunity to showcase and highlight one of our tribes in
Montana, one I am particularly proud of.
We hear a lot about Native Americans' entrance into the
gaming industry and that is essentially their commerce, their
vision for their families' future and their communities'
future. But we have a tribe in Montana that hasn't made it
through gaming but has one of the foremost technology companies
in the Nation, in the world. In fact, they have parts in the
tanks that are in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places. They
develop it, they manufacture it, and they are a tremendous
hiring opportunity for their tribe. As well as industries, they
have S&K Technologies. They have a natural resource management
second to none. I have a commitment from the leadership in the
House to look at opportunities to look at pilot programs to
allow them to go in and clean up dead and dying trees in the
forest. They are the ones that can, in fact, do that.
So I am really proud to have Fred Matt here to talk a
little bit about the things that are going on very positively
with his tribe up in the State of Montana. I thank you for
allowing me to point that out, to draw attention to him, and
welcome, Fred.
The Chairman. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF D. FRED MATT, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED SALISH AND
KOOTENAI TRIBES; ACCOMPANIED BY ANNA WHITING SORRELL, COUNSEL
Mr. Matt. Thank you for that kind introduction.
I want to start off by saying I hope you will bear with me
because I am going to read my statement. Those who helped me
prepare this know that I have a tendency to ramble, and when I
ramble, I don't think you want to hear me ramble because, for
one, your time is too valuable. So I want to make sure I stick
to all the points and identify those things that we are doing
right on our reservation.
So, with that, Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, and
honored members of the House Resources Committee, I am Fred
Matt, the Chairman of the Salish and Kootenai Tribal Council.
As Denny mentioned, I have traveled from the beautiful Flathead
Reservation where we have just recovered from an unprecedented
hot summer season and we are in the process of a drought right
now.
While we did not experience any major fires on our
reservation, our council was forced to take some drastic
measures throughout the summer to protect our natural
resources. We literally had fires all around us in Glacier Park
and in the Bitterroot Valley. Let me tell you, it's really a
welcoming season right now in the fall, to where our fire
season is winding down.
I am honored to provide this testimony on tribal self-
governance as our tribes are proud of our successes in managing
the programs of the Federal Government. Our success began with
the self-determination law when it was passed. After President
Nixon proposed this policy, we were one of the first tribes in
this country to exercise the opportunities provided in Public
Law 93-638. Since 1975, when we began the management of the BIA
Education Programs, we haven't looked back. Today, I am proud
to report that the tribes I represent manage under self-
determination more Federal programs than any other tribe in
this Nation. We do so with excellent evaluations, clear
financial audits, and with few, if any, complaints.
Just last week we began the 11th year of operating a full
health care delivery system for the Indian Health Service for
nearly 10,000 users. This includes dental services, pharmacy
services, and public health nursing. We have developed
contracts with doctors, specialists and hospitals throughout
western Montana. With extremely limited funds, less dollars
than are received by the Federal Prison System on a per capita
basis, the services to the prisons, we have designed a system
to meet our unique needs.
We manage the same range of programs provided at any BIA
agency, except the programs that are under the direction of the
Tribal Council. This includes all the educational programs,
social service programs, law enforcement, tribal courts and,
since 1989, we have operated a Safety of Dams program
responsible for the rehabilitation of 17 dams located on our
reservation.
We have been extremely successful. We have repaired dams
quicker and cheaper than the Bureau of Reclamation. For
example, one of the first dams was the Black Lake Dam, which
was completed with a savings of $1.3 million.
My personal favorite success story in self-determination
contracting is the Mission Valley Power. We manage a power
utility that provides electricity to nearly 22,00 Indian and
non-Indian customers on our reservation. Today, I am proud to
report that Mission Valley Power offers some of the lowest cost
and most stable electric rates throughout the Northwest.
We have an independent utility board and active consumer
council. Our conservation program has won several awards, and
our safety record is outstanding. In addition, the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes set a goal to create a number of
employment opportunities for our tribal members as electrical
linemen. This goal was accomplished with the graduation of ten
tribal member linemen who are employed in this industry, and we
have five apprentices currently.
In the area of trust reform in the Department of Interior,
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' efforts in trust
reform began when we entered into the first self-determination
contract, and it continues with self-governance in our self-
governance compact. Early on, we recognized the need to improve
trust services. We didn't wait for a judge to tell us what we
needed to do, but recognized that we were the ones best suited
to take on the task.
We got busy developing a model program. It includes the
management of trust resources, such as land leasing, homesites,
businesses, business leases, forest management, agriculture,
and grazing permits. In addition to these services from the BIA
agency, we have assumed the management of the IIM accounts from
the Office of Special Trustee and we operate a land titles
records office from the Northwest Regional Office in Portland.
Through the opportunity provided to the tribal self-
governance that allows for redesign and reallocation of funds,
we have developed a trust resource system with local control
and where decisions are made by those impacted. In our tribally
designated system, we manage the trust resources programs that
generate revenue, the IIM accounts we receive and the revenue,
and then we record the documents. It works and we're proud of
it.
While we are proud of our programs, we recognize that the
cornerstone to any tribal economic development is a strong
tribal government. Tribal self-governance has done that for
CSKT, as we know we have a number of highly successful tribal
enterprises that Denny has alluded to. S&K Technologies is one
of the five largest 8(a) Federal Indian contractors.
As I conclude, I want to tell this Committee of our next
step in tribal self-governance. We are in the midst of
negotiating an Annual Funding Agreement with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for the management of the National Bison Range
Complex. Our efforts to assume management of this complex began
in 1994 when Congress authorized the management of DOI programs
to tribes that have a significant historic, geographic, or
cultural tie. We have all three with the Bison Range. The Range
is located in the heart of our reservation, entirely on land
reserved for us under the Hellgate Treaty of 1855. The bison at
the Range are descendent from a herd raised from two tribal
members, Charles Allard and Michael Pablo.
Finally, a study conducted by the Service documents the
number of cultural sites on the refuge. After nearly a decade,
we are close to reaching an agreement. After a 90-day public
comment period, the signed agreement will be sent to this
Committee. We look forward to working with you during that
period.
Finally, I ask for your continued support in our efforts of
tribal self-governance. The DOI is moving forward to fulfill
the court's orders, but do not allow them to do that in a
manner that will harm our ability to manage programs through
self-governance. Their current reorganization plan has the
potential of negatively impacting our tribes by centralizing
the decisionmaking in Washington, D.C., and at the regional
office. It could strip the advances we have made over two
decades.
Our experience shows that our tribes, when given the
opportunity, we can meet or exceed any Federal expectation. As
you know, we have secured language in the Senate Interior
Appropriations bill authorizing a 1-year demonstration project
that will allow us to continue operating our trust programs.
Chairman Pombo, thank you for your letter of support in
this project. We urge your continued support as we deal with it
in this Committee. Thank you again for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matt follows:]
Statement of D. Fred Matt, Chairman, The Tribal Council of the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, The Flathead Indian
Reservation
Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall and honored Members of the
House Resources Committee, my name is Fred Matt, and I am Chairman of
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) of the Flathead
Nation. On behalf of my Tribal Council, I am pleased to provide
testimony regarding our Tribes' experience exercising the opportunities
afforded them by P.L. 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended. This oversight hearing on
``Tribal Self-Governance'' is quite timely and I appreciate this
opportunity to share our Tribes' experience.
When the authorizing legislation was enacted in 1975, a new era in
Federal Indian Policy was affirmed that significantly changed the
relationship between the United States of America and the governments
of the Tribal Nations across this great Country. In Section 3, the
Declaration of Policy contained in P.L. 93-638 it states:
``The Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of
the Federal Government's unique and continuing relationship
with, and responsibility to, individual Indian tribes and to
the Indian people as a whole through the establishment of a
meaningful Indian self-determination policy which will permit
an orderly transition from the Federal domination of programs
for, and services to, Indians to effective and meaningful
participation by the Indian people in the planning, conduct,
and administration of those programs and services. In
accordance with this policy, the United States is committed to
supporting and assisting Indian tribes in the development of
strong and stable tribal governments, capable of administrating
quality programs and developing the economies of their
respective communities.''
CSKT is proud to report to the House Committee on Resources that
the aforementioned policy is a success and our Tribes are a shining
example of that success. The Indian Self-Determination Policy was
conceived of during the tenure of the Nixon Administration; even though
it did not become law until after the President left office. It was
without question his greatest legacy in the views of tribal
governments. It is a policy that has been supported and reiterated on a
bipartisan basis by every White House and Congress since it was
proposed over 25 years ago. It was the beginning of the end of the
paternalism and the ``Washington-knows-best'' procedures that had been
so detrimental to tribal governments and it signaled the beginning of a
policy that is Indian country's version of the ``best government is
that which is closest to the people.''
CSKT immediately seized the opportunity provided in the legislation
and began planning to manage the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Education Programs, including scholarships, the Employment Assistance
and the Johnson O'Malley Program; and by the end of 1975, we had
assumed management and operation of these education programs. Shortly
thereafter we added BIA Law Enforcement and Tribal Court to CSKT
management. Since those initial agreements were effectuated, our Tribes
haven't looked back. After a year-long Tribal study in 1979 on the
services provided by the BIA Social Services Program that included
foster care and child protective services, CSKT assumed its management.
From that time forward, we contracted to perform many other BIA
Programs, or portions thereof, including Forestry functions such as
Forest Development and Dwarf Mistletoe Control and Natural Resource
Management such as Wildlife and Land Management programs.
One of the BIA Programs we assumed in 1989 was the Safety of Dams
(SOD) Program, to eliminate or ameliorate the SOD concerns at 17
locations on the Flathead Reservation as identified by the Department
of Interior National Dams--Technical Priority Rating listing. Our SOD
Program provides investigations, designs and SOD modifications to
resolve the concerns of the dams on the list. The Tribes' SOD Program
has been extremely successful. Dams have been modified and at a cost
significantly lower than originally estimated by the BOR. For example,
the Black Lake Dam was completed in November 1992 at a savings of
approximately $1.3 million. The Pablo Dam SOD Modification Project was
completed in February 1994 at a savings of nearly $140,000. The first
phase of the McDonald Dam SOD Program has been a ``model'' Program,
which has been used by other tribes across this nation. The CSKT SOD
Program continues to succeed after nearly 15 years of Tribal
Management.
The CSKT management of Mission Valley Power (MVP) is another early
success story for CSKT in P.L. 93-638 contracting within the Department
of the Interior (DOI). In the 1980s, the CSKT notified the DOI of our
intent to contract for the Power Project within the Flathead Agency
Irrigation Division. The Power Project provides electrical services to
the Flathead Reservation Area that includes Indians and non-Indians.
After heated debates and even attempted congressional intervention,
then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Ross Swimmer signed the
P.L. 93-638 contract transferring the management and operation of the
Power Project to the CSKT and our management continues today. We are
proud to report that MVP offers some of the lowest cost and most stable
electric rates throughout the Northwest. We have an independent Utility
Board and an active Consumer Council as integral parts of our
management of the utility. Our Utility Conservation Program has won
several awards and our safety record is deemed outstanding. In
addition, the CSKT set a goal to create a number of employment and
training opportunities for our Tribal members as electrical lineman.
This goal was accomplished as to date there have been ten (10) Tribal-
member lineman graduates who are fully employed in this technical
industry and five more apprentice linemen are in training.
Our P.L. 93-638 contracting efforts extended to the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) when in 1977 CSKT formed the Tribal
Health Department to perform an array of Indian Health Service programs
such as Community Health Nursing and the Community Health
Representative Program. Over the years, the CSKT assumed management of
the Mental Health Program, the Medical Social Work Program, the Health
Education Program, and the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program.
Our efforts with Self-Determination continued through 1987 when
Congressman Sidney Yates conducted an oversight hearing of the Interior
and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee after a series of
articles appeared in the Arizona Republic newspaper. Our late Tribal
Chairman Michael T. Pablo attended that hearing and when asked he
responded that tribes should be given increased responsibility in
managing and operating Federal programs. The BIA responded in December
1987 with the submission of a list of ten tribes, including CSKT for
consideration of a demonstration project. The identified 10 Tribes
proposed to Congressman Yates a planning phase and this initial phase
was funded in Fiscal Year 1988. On September 15, 1988, P.L. 100-472
Title III of the Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1988 was
enacted and Tribal Self-Governance under P.L. 93-638 were born. We have
been an active participant from the start.
As one of the initial Tribes identified in the Self-Governance
Demonstration Project, our Tribes' approach through the planning
process has been to work toward the program agreement, such as a
compact, with a phased and careful approach that would affirm the
establishment of a new government-to-government relationship with the
United States. We are committed to instituting and implementing
policies to strengthen our capacity as a Tribal government in order to
achieve the maximum degree of self-governance possible within the
Federal system of the United States. The following principles apply:
1) Affirmation of a government-to-government relationship between
our Tribes and the United States is not simply a funding relationship
and not just with the BIA;
2) The role of CSKT Tribal government and the Federal Government
will evolve over time but must reflect the Hellgate Treaty of 1855 and
all other agreements between CSKT and the United States;
3) The Trust Responsibility requirement that the United States
must protect the trust resources of the Tribes to the highest degree of
fiduciary responsibility is not reduced by Tribal participation in
Tribal Self-Governance; and
4) In our efforts in Tribal Self-Governance, CSKT will perform
functions of determining the resources, exchange of information and
achieve the highest level of accountability as determined by the CSKT
Tribal Council.
These principles formed the foundation as we moved forward from
P.L. 93-638 Self-Determination contracting to Tribal Self-Governance
compacting in October 1993 when the CSKT entered into Tribal Self-
Governance compacts and Annual Funding Agreements (AFA) with the DOI
and the DHHS.
In September 1992 the Tribal Council, at the request of the Tribal
Health Department Head, the Tribal Human Services Department Head and
the IHS Flathead Service Unit Director, directed the completion of a
Tribal study to consolidate the services of the three entities. The
study commenced in October 1992 with staff interviews and data
evaluation. As the Tribal Council analyzed the information gathered in
the study, the Congress extended the P.L.93-638 Title III Tribal Self-
Governance opportunities to DHHS--IHS. The Tribal Council notified the
IHS that we intended to negotiate a compact and an AFA for all of the
services provided at the Flathead Service Unit, including the Pharmacy
Program, the Dental Program and all administrative functions. In
addition, since the majority of the health care was provided through
the Contract Health Services Programs (CHS), including the payment of
health care claims, CSKT intended to assume the management of the CHS
Program and the services provided to IHS by the Fiscal Intermediary.
Agreements were reached and at the beginning of Fiscal Year 1994,
(October 1, 1993), the CSKT began the operation and management of a
consolidated health care delivery system known as the Tribal Health and
Human Services Department that is responsible for the health care
services of nearly 10,000 eligible IHS beneficiaries.
As we start our 11th year of operation under this AFA, we recognize
that our current system is ``At-Risk'' as it is tremendously
underfunded and health care costs continue to rise as do the number of
eligible beneficiaries. Both aspects of operating this program are
beyond our control. In 1991, the CSKT, the IHS and the Congress engaged
in lengthy and oftentimes difficult discussions regarding our funding
crisis. With the assistance from the IHS and the Montana Congressional
delegation, the CSKT were able to avert the reassumption of the health
system by the IHS with the implementation of a Business Plan for Health
Care Delivery. However, our System remains at risk even though we limit
services according to the approved Business Plan. The funds we receive
from IHS are seriously inadequate. A study by the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights in July 2003 documented that the an individual Medicare
beneficiary health care cost $5,915, a Veteran's medical benefit cost
$5,214 and a Federal prisoner's medical care cost $3,879 while an
individual IHS beneficiary received only $1,914. In CSKT's analysis as
a CHS dependent health care unit, we receive even less than the average
IHS beneficiary with the individual beneficiary utilizing our System
costing less than $1,188 per user. As we celebrate 10 years of Tribal
health care management, we are proud that we have been able to provide
quality care to users with significantly less funds than Medicaid /
Medicare and even the Federal Prison System. However, we urge this
Committee to seek additional funds for IHS to bring parity to Native
Americans, as it is well-documented that our health needs for diabetes,
substance abuse, cancer, heart disease far exceeds the national
average.
With the Tribal Council's decision to negotiate a Tribal Self-
Governance compact and AFA for health care services, they decided it
was also time to move our relationship with DOI to Tribal Self-
Governance. In April 1993 the Tribal Council notified the BIA Northwest
Regional Office of our intent to negotiate a Tribal Self-Governance
compact and AFA for all the P.L. 93-638 contracted programs, services,
functions and activities. The transfer from contracting to compacting
in DOI was completed and at the beginning of Fiscal Year 1994 (October
1, 1993), the CSKT began operating and managing the BIA according to
the new agreements.
It was clear to the Tribal Council that the opportunities provided
in Tribal Self-Governance complemented our authority as a sovereign
government. It was recognized that certain governmental functions must
be provided by the Tribes and that we must assume responsibility and be
held accountable for the delivery of these governmental functions. P.L.
93-638 provided the vehicle to promote our Tribes' self-governance and
would assist in the building of Tribal government infrastructure and
promote economic self-sufficiency. The late Michael T. Pablo, CSKT
Tribal Chairman, articulated this vision clearly as he became a
national advocate for our efforts and other Tribes' efforts for Self-
Governance.
To fulfill this vision, the CSKT immediately notified the BIA of
our intent to negotiate an Agreement to transfer the management of the
BIA Roads Maintenance and Construction Program to the Tribes. This
agreement was complete in early 1994, and the CSKT began laying asphalt
soon thereafter. We are proud to report that we have laid many miles of
roads since we began in 1994 and continue to actively plan, design and
construct roads throughout our 1.25 million acre Reservation.
All Forestry Program functions were added to the CSKT Tribal Self-
Governance Agreement in Fiscal Year 1996 after a year-long Tribal study
to assume the management of these services. The CSKT also at this time
transferred fire pre-suppression activities and agreed to continue
managing fire suppression activities through other agreements. In
Fiscal Year 1997 the CSKT intended to assume all of the remaining
functions provided at the BIA--Flathead Agency including Individual
Indian Monies Program (IIM) and other administrative functions and the
Northwest Regional Office Title Plant functions. However, the final
Fiscal Year 1997 agreement only included the certain additional
administrative functions. The CSKT decided to leave the BIA Agency
Superintendent in place to facilitate the delivery of the inherent
Federal functions. It was determined that a local Federal official,
with sufficient delegated signatory authority, would improve the
delivery of the services under Tribal management. The arrangement
remains in place today. Our efforts to assume the Title Plant, also
known as the Land Title and Records Office, were completed mid year in
1997.
Our efforts to assume management of the IIM Program proved to be
much more difficult. At the same time we began seeking to manage this
Program, a class-action lawsuit (the so-called Cobell case) was filed
in Federal court seeking remedy for account holders resulting for years
of mismanagement of the accounts by the DOI. A number of issues
developed in our efforts to assume management of this Program. The
first is the result of the transfer of the IIM Program from the BIA to
the Office of the Special Trustee--Office of Trust Funds Management
(OTFM). Since the Program no longer resided in the BIA, Tribal
assumption would be under a different set of Federal regulations than
those regulations for all other non-BIA programs in the DOI. The non-
BIA regulations are more restrictive and cumbersome. Although the CSKT
were eventually able to assume management of the IIM Program in 1997,
it was an agreement with significantly reduced authority for the CSKT
to redesign to improve the Program. We are proud to report that the
CSKT continues to operate the IIM Program. In the annual audit and
evaluation conducted for OTFM by external evaluators, we have received
excellent reviews. The Federally run programs have just recently begun
such reviews.
With the assumption of the IIM Program, the Regional Office Land
Record and Title Office and all other BIA Programs with the exception
of the Federal signatory authority and the Flathead Indian Irrigation
Project, the CSKT became the first Tribe in the Country to bring under
Tribal Management the full range of DOI services. In 2003, no other
Tribe exercises the authorities provided in P.L. 93-638 to the same
extent as the CSKT. We are quite proud of our efforts in this area and
for our efforts within the larger DOI.
Our efforts in Tribal Self-Governance have transcended to other
areas, especially as the Congress has extended similar authority for
other Federal Government programs. For example in 1998, the CSKT became
the first Tribe in Montana to administer the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program through an agreement with the State of
Montana and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Tribal
Council adopted a revised organizational structure for service delivery
to ensure all the Tribal programs, based on income that a family
requires to achieve economic self-sufficiency are consolidated in one
Tribal department, known as the Department of Human Resources
Development (DHRD). This was a major move as most other Tribal TANF
Programs were generally added to the existing General Assistance
Program. Within a year of administering TANF, our Tribes moved quickly
to consolidate several funding sources including TANF into a Public Law
102-477 Plan, as approved and administered by the BIA. The benefits of
this move were tremendous including fewer administrative reports, more
time for intense client services, and less administrative overhead.
This law and the opportunity to consolidate services for the benefit of
the clients is true self-determination where Tribes can design services
unique to each Tribe and their needs. The success of this model has
resulted in increased employment opportunities for our Tribal members
that were not previously available
When the Congress originally enacted the Indian Self-Determination
and Educational Assistance Act in 1975, one of the stated purposes was
to increase Tribal economic self-sufficiency by authorizing Tribes to
manage Federal programs. Nearly three decades later, the CSKT has
proved this to be true. Today, the CSKT is the largest employer in
northwest Montana. We employ over 1,000 individuals in a variety of
capacities from lawyers, doctors, dentist, engineers, scientists and
teachers. Our goal is to employ qualified individuals to ensure the
highest quality of service is provided. We manage multiple budgets,
from a variety of Federal, state and private sources that exceed $180
million per year.
The opportunities provided under this Act provided the CSKT with
the ability to build a strong governmental infrastructure needed to
move into other areas. Our Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) Section 17
corporate structure has indirectly benefitted from our success in
Tribal Self-Governance. S&K Electronic is rated in the top 10% of
employers in the State of Montana. S&K Technologies has received nearly
half-a-billion dollars in contracts and has satellite offices
throughout the nation in states such as Georgia, Texas, Ohio and
Washington. Our S&K Development manages a great resort located on the
shores on beautiful Flathead Lake. With just these few examples and
there are more, it is clear the Federal policy of Indian Self-
Determination is a success and must continue or expand in the future.
The logical next step for the CSKT is to contract for operations at
the National Bison Range Complex (NBRC). The Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act's Title IV program--the Tribal Self-
Governance Act of 1994--authorized Tribes to enter into agreements for
non-BIA programs administered by the Secretary of the Interior, which
are of special geographic, historical or cultural significance to the
requesting Tribe. We notified the DOI of our intent to enter into an
agreement to assume management of the NBRC in December 1994 and to this
day we continue to seek its management. The NBRC is located entirely on
our Reservation, on land reserved in the Hellgate Treaty of 1855. The
Tribes, as a result of that treaty, ceded over 20 million acres of what
is now western Montana and reserved for ourselves and future
generations the 1.25 million acre Flathead Indian Reservation along
with the agreement that our lands and the rights described in the
treaty would be protected forever. The agreement was breached when
Congress, without Tribal approval, removed nearly 18,500 acres in the
heart of our reservation in 1908, created the NBRC and transferred the
land to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Although the Tribes
received a minimal payment of $1.56 cents an acre and then another
settlement later, we never consented to sell the land. The land on
which the Ninepipe and Pablo Refuges (ancillary FWS properties
associated with the NBRC) are located is Tribally owned with the DOI
holding an irrigation easement and the FWS holding a secondary easement
of refuge purposes. The bison that reside on the NBRC are descended
from a herd originally raised by tribal members Charles Allard and
Michel Pablo. And finally, in a study commissioned by the FWS a number
of cultural sites are located on the NBRC. Clearly, the concept the
Congress set forth in the law is met and exceeded as the three criteria
of historic, cultural and geographic connections are all fulfilled by
our relationship with the National Bison Range Complex.
The CSKT again notified the DOI of our intent to enter into an
agreement to manage the NBRC on February 26, 2003, according to
regulations published in the Federal register to guide this negotiation
process. In a press statement released jointly by the CSKT and the FWS
following negotiations in September 2003, both sides stated that
significant progress is being made toward the development of an
agreement. We look forward to joining in partnership with the FWS to
submit a signed agreement for this Committee's 90-day review. We are
sure this Committee will agree that, with our history of conservation
and our professional capacity as managers, assuming certain duties at
the NBRC is a sensible next step.
As we conclude our testimony we express concern that the proposed
DOI reorganization may well have a negative effect on Tribal Self-
Governance. CSKT is particularly concerned about the proposed
reorganization in specific areas as follows:
Impact on Self-Governance and Self-Determination--It is our
experience that when programs, services, functions or
activities move from the BIA to another part of the DOI
structure there is a negative impact on tribal opportunities to
manage and operate them under P.L. 93-638. Such programs are
deemed to be ``non-BIA programs.'' As stated earlier in this
testimony, there are different regulations for BIA-operated
programs and all other non-BIA programs within DOI. The
regulations governing tribal assumption of non-BIA programs
fail to meet the intent or spirit of tribal self-determination
by including what we believe are unnecessary governmental
restrictions and retained Federal control. The most glaring
example of DOI resistance to tribal assumption of DOI programs
outside the BIA can simply be found in the few number of self-
governance agreements in existence after nearly a decade since
1994, when the Self-Governance amendments were enacted. Those
that have been enacted are unnecessarily narrow in scope.
We also point to the resistance we faced from the Department during
the previous Administration when we endeavored to assume the management
of the IIM Program.
It is CSKT's utmost concern during this time of trust reform that
Tribes do not lose the opportunity to manage and operate the trust
resources programs. We have done an excellent job operating the trust
programs and have audits and evaluations to prove it. We should not be
punished for DOI's mismanagement over the past century.
1) Funding for the Trust Programs and Funding for BIA--The BIA is
extremely underfunded. For example, the Intertribal Timber Council
reports that BIA receives one-tenth the amount of funding that the U.S.
Forest Service receives to manage Federal land. It is unreasonable to
think that the BIA can manage tribal resources with such substantially
fewer dollars on a per-acre basis. BIA programs must receive full
funding that is equivalent to funding received by other Federal
agencies to provide similar functions.
Another concern is where the funding will come from for the
multiple layers of oversight DOI is proposing and how the oversight
will apply to Tribal Self-Governance Agreements.
2) Guarantee No Diminishment of the Trust Responsibility--In our
efforts in Tribal Self-Governance there has not been a reduction in the
Federal trust responsibility to our Tribes.
3) Signature Authority at the Local Level--For Tribes to operate
efficiently, the provision of Federal functions should be at the local
level--not centralized in Washington, D.C., or some other centralized
location. As we said earlier, tribal government is the most effective
when the decisions are made locally and not by a Federal bureaucrat.
4) Information Technology and Security--As a result of the
computer shutdown in the DOI due to security breaches, it is clear that
major changes are imminent and needed with the BIA information
technology systems, including appropriate security safeguards. Tribes
that operate the trust programs and require access to BIA IT systems
must be considered in its development and must receive the same level
of funding that the BIA receives.
5) Increased Reporting--As DOI attempts to meet the requirements
set forth by Judge Lamberth in the Cobell litigation, there is a
perceived need for increased reporting. Although the CSKT is willing to
account for our activities, it must be done in logical manner not at
``the spur of the moment,'' which often creates busy work and without
proper justification to the purpose for the reason the data in needed.
Although we fully understand and support the need for TRUST REFORM,
Tribal Self-Governance is a reform model that is tried and tested and
has been deemed to be quite successful. Our efforts were motivated by
the need to improve the services provided by the BIA and IHS. For over
10 years, we have documented success. To secure the opportunities the
Congress has provided Tribes through Tribal Self-Governance; the CSKT
has joined with other Tribes and are seeking the establishment of
demonstration project to showcase alternatives to some aspects of newly
proposed trust procedures and processes through Fiscal Year 2004
Interior Appropriations. The Senate Interior Appropriations bill
includes this language in Section 134. After discussions last week, it
appears the Tribes and DOI are close to an agreement. We want to thank
Chairman Pombo for his recent letter of support to Chairman Taylor of
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on this demonstration project.
We urge the Committee's continued support for it.
I am proud to be a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes. Our Tribes have much to be proud of and I hope we can count the
Congress's continued support of our efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
To introduce our next witness, I would recognize Ms.
McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is an honor for me to welcome here today a tribal leader
and a friend from Minnesota, Melanie Benjamin, Chief Executive
of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. Ms. Benjamin has served her
people as chief executive proudly for 3 years. During that
time, she has been an effective voice for supporting her
community, not only in Minnesota but around the country as
well.
Ms. Benjamin stands up for tribal sovereignty and self-
determination. She speaks about the need to maintain
government-to-government relations between the United States
and all tribes. In her testimony, you will hear how tribal
self-governance has improved the lives of the Mille Lacs Band
and other Native Americans.
Mr. Chairman, the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe for a long time
has called the southern shore of Minnesota's Lake Mille Lacs
its home. During that time, they have endured incredible
hardships, but they have also many successes. It is because of
leaders like Melanie Benjamin that the Mille Lacs Band has a
very bright future.
Recent economic developments on their reservation have led
to greater self-sufficiency, not only for the tribe but for the
surrounding towns and townships in the area. They are
strengthening their culture by teaching their Ojibwe language
to their children. They make sure that their children have a
good education. I was very proud to be at the ceremony for
opening up the school when they built a wonderful school for
their children to attend on the reservation.
Tribal leaders all over the country are working hard, but I
am very proud of the tribal leaders in Minnesota who continue
to work with the State to provide for a cleaner environment.
Chief Executive Benjamin will be the first to tell you there is
much more work to be done, but under her leadership, I am
confident that we will find a way for us to get the work done
in a good, affirmative, government-to-government relationship.
Mr. Chair, I truly am honored to welcome Ms. Benjamin here
today.
The Chairman. Ms. Benjamin.
STATEMENT OF MELANIE BENJAMIN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MILLE LACS BAND
OF OJIBWE; ACCOMPANIED BY TADD JOHNSON, COUNSEL
Ms. Benjamin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the Committee. My name is Melanie Benjamin and I am the Chief
Executive of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.
As one of the first tribes to enter into a self-governance
compact, it is an honor to be here today to talk about tribal
self-governance. Under the leadership of my mentor, Arthur
Gahbow, the Mille Lacs Band was one of the first tribes to
envision what self-governance could mean. From day one, we have
been involved in the self-governance policy.
We first began contracting for Federal programs in the
1970s under the Self-Determination Act. Self-determination was
an exciting new era in Indian affairs, but as more tribes
contracted for programs, the BIA just grew larger and larger.
The contracting rules were constraining. Regulations were
inflexible, with little room for creativity with our programs.
I recall someone quoting a study, finding that only about 10
cents of every dollar appropriated ever made it to the
reservations.
Around 1987, a small group of tribes, including Mille Lacs,
began talking about a demonstration project, allowing tribes to
prioritize and reallocate their BIA money. Of course, there
were concerns. There is a story of a congressional staffer
asking a tribal leader a question like this: ``If you are
allowed to spend Federal funds based on your own tribal
priorities, what would stop you from buying a fleet of Cadillac
cars?'' The tribal leader replied, ``I wouldn't do that, for
two reasons. First, I would be skinned alive by my own people.
Second, if I survived, I wouldn't be reelected.''
This is what self-governance is about. It isn't just
creating new authority for tribes; it's about accountability.
Self-governance ushered in a new era when tribes were finally
treated as grown ups among this Nation's family of governments.
More than 15 years later, I'm not aware of a single Cadillac
purchase with self-governance funds.
What began in 1988 as a movement by just a few tribes now
involves more than 200. Through our Annual Funding Agreements
with the BIA and the IHS, we receive our fundings and determine
their allocation. In addition, we have been able to contemplate
new initiatives that may have been impossible without self-
governance. We have developed an infrastructure to support our
expanding economy, including a housing initiative, new roads,
new sewer lines and so forth.
These initiatives directly meet Band members' needs. Self-
governance has meant real change for the Mille Lacs Band.
First, we now can redesign programs as we see fit. If we have a
better way to provide chemical dependence treatment by using a
``sweat lodge'', we can do it.
Second, we can also reprogram funds if our needs change.
For example, if we have a very dry season, as we recently did,
we can reallocate funding toward fire protection.
Third, we participate in rulemaking. Title IV was the first
Indian law that required negotiating rulemaking.
Fourth, we are using our funds more efficiently. We
determine our own local needs and then we dictate how we use
funding, not a Federal official in Minneapolis or Washington,
D.C.
Finally, our compacts reflect a true government-to-
government relationship. The Mille Lacs Band first compacted
for 30 BIA programs in 1990. Thirteen years later, our self-
governance budget has only grown by less than 3 percent per
year, or less than 35 percent for the entire 13 years. In
contrast, the BIA budget has more than doubled in the same 13
years.
When we entered into self-governance, we believed our self-
governance budget would grow at the same rate as the BIA. This
has not been the case. Congress needs to allow self-governance
to grow proportionately with the BIA to continue to work and to
be successful.
In 1987, a few bold tribal leaders wanted a Federal Indian
Policy that was similar to treaty making. They started with BIA
and IHS compacts. Today, my colleagues and I look into the 21st
century Federal Indian Policy and ask, will we stay on track?
What is left to accomplish in the evolution of self-governance
policy?
The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe has always wanted to have all
of our Federal dollars--not just those from Interior and HHS--
but all of our dollars rolled into one Annual Funding Agreement
with the United States. This includes funds from all other
Federal Departments--Labor, Justice, Education, and all funds
that currently flow through State programs. It would be our
honor to be included in the demonstration project that moves
this policy to the next level.
I appreciate your time and refer you to my written
statement in which we address our concerns about trust
responsibility. I also have Tadd Johnson with me, formerly of
this Committee. We would be pleased to take any questions you
might have.
``Mii Gwetch''. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Benjamin follows:]
Statement of Melanie Benjamin, Chief Executive,
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Melanie Benjamin and I am Chief Executive of the Mille Lacs Band of
Ojibwe. We are a Federally recognized tribe of 3,593 members located in
East Central Minnesota. As one of the first six tribes to enter into a
Self-Governance compact with the United States government, it is an
honor to be here today to talk about Tribal Self-Governance. Today, I
will address the history and benefits of Self-Governance, and some of
our policy concerns with the direction of current Federal Indian policy
in relation to Self-Governance and the Federal trust responsibility.
The History of Self-Governance
Under the leadership of my mentor and predecessor, Arthur Gahbow,
the Mille Lacs Band was one of the first tribes to envision the concept
of Self-Governance: the ability of tribes to plan, implement and
administer programs that best meet the needs of a tribal membership.
Self-Governance was Art Gahbow's dream and, as a result of his hard
work, the Mille Lacs Band was one of the pioneer tribes. From day one
we have been involved in Self-Governance policy. Today, I am a delegate
on the Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee that provides policy
recommendations to the Director of Indian Health Services.
In the 1970s, tribes were allowed to contract for Federal programs
and services that would benefit their memberships under Public Law 93-
638, the Indian Self-Determination Act. By the 1980s, however, a
growing Federal bureaucracy was not adequately addressing the
uniqueness of the different tribes and made it difficult for us to
administer our programs. As someone who used to administer Self-
Determination contracts, I can tell you that the rules and regulations
were very constraining. We had to report to low-level bureaucrats in
order to run simple programs.
The inflexibility of the Indian Self-Determination Act left little
room for creativity and experimentation. More troublesome was the fact
that Self-Determination was not cost-effective for tribes who already
had scarce resources to administer programs. I recall someone quoting a
study that only about ten cents of every dollar appropriated ever
actually made it to the reservations.
In 1987, tribal leaders formed the Alliance of American Indian
Leaders. It was the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution
and tribal leaders such as Roger Jourdain of the Red Lake Band of
Chippewa, Wendell Chino from Mescalero Apache, Joe De La Cruz of the
Quinault Nation, and our own Arthur Gahbow came together in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to seek a change in Federal Indian policy.
Within a year, the Alliance drafted a new title to the Indian Self-
Determination Act, the Title III Self-Governance Demonstration Project.
In its consideration of the Demonstration Project, there is a story
of a Congressional staffer asking a tribal leader a question something
like this: ``If you are allowed to spend Federal funds on your own
tribal priorities, what would stop you from buying a fleet of Cadillac
cars?'' The tribal leader replied, ``I wouldn't do that for two
reasons. First, I would be skinned alive by my own people. Second, if I
survived, I would not be reelected. This is what Self-Governance is
about. It is not just creating new authority for tribes, but also
letting them be accountable for the consequences of their mistakes.
More than fifteen years later, I am not aware of a single Cadillac
purchased with Federal funds.
In 1988, Title III of Self-Governance became law. Around 1990, the
Mille Lacs Band and five other tribes formed the Six Tribe Consortium
and entered into the first Self-Governance Compacts under the
Demonstration Project. In 1994, Self-Governance became a permanent
program in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and in 2000 became permanent
law in the Indian Health Service and the Department of Health and Human
Services. What started as a movement by a very small number of tribes
more than a decade ago now sees more than 200 Self-Governance tribes.
There are 35 Federally recognized tribes in our region, 9 of which are
Self-Governance.
The Benefits of Self-Governance
The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Self-Governance Compact is with the
Department of Interior and we receive Self-Governance funds through our
Annual Funding Agreements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Indian Health Service. Once received, we make the determination of how
our Self-Governance funds will be allocated. This is the essence of
Self-Governance: the empowerment of tribes to make allocations based
upon tribally identified priorities that reflect membership needs. For
the Mille Lacs Band, those priorities have typically been health,
education, housing, and natural resources. More recently, economic
development has also been identified because it is a means to provide
more opportunities for Band members and their families.
Based upon these priorities, Self-Governance has allowed us to
contemplate new initiatives that may not have been possible without
Self-Governance status. The Mille Lacs Band has been able to develop an
infrastructure that supports our expanding economy. For example, we
have a new Housing Initiative to provide new homes for our Band
members, new sewer lines for those homes, and new roads that allow the
safe transportation of our children to their schools. We are also
developing and expanding our environmental programs to include water
quality testing and other monitoring measures that will better manage
and protect our natural resources.
What Self-Governance means for the Mille Lacs Band specific to
program operations are five-fold. First, we can now redesign programs
as we see fit. If we have a better way to provide chemical dependency
treatment by using a sweat lodge, we can do it. Second, we can also
reprogram funds as we see fit based on changing needs. For example, if
we have an exceptionally dry season as we recently had, we can allocate
more funds to fire protection. Third, the Mille Lacs Band can
participate in rulemaking. Title IV was the first Indian law that
required negotiated rulemaking and for the first time brought Federal
and tribal officials together to develop the rules. Fourth, we are
using our funds more efficiently. Our local needs determined by us
dictate the use of our funds, not a Federal official located in
Minneapolis or Washington, D.C. Finally, our compacts with the Federal
Government reflect a true government-to-government relationship that
indicates we are not viewed as just another Federal contractor.
For example, years ago the Mille Lacs Band needed business and
governmental expansion to accommodate our economic growth. We signed
Memorandums of Agreement with a number of Federal and state agencies
for this development to occur. The Mille Lacs Band became the lead
agency and started a business that now employs 1200 people, and
established new schools, clinics, a government center and elderly
assisting living units. These developments would not have happened
without the authorization provided under Self-Governance.
Self-Governance has also played a role in promoting new
partnerships between the Mille Lacs Band and other entities. We are a
rural community located on the southern shores of Lake Mille Lacs, one
of the largest lakes in the State of Minnesota. We have recently joined
forces with local municipalities to build a state-of-the-art wastewater
treatment plant utilizing the latest technology that benefits both Band
members and our surrounding neighbors. Many of our Band members engage
in traditional fishing and wild ricing activities and for their health
we want to ensure the integrity and water quality of Lake Mille Lacs.
The new treatment plant will help ensure the continued protection of
our greatest natural resource. Though the plant does not utilize Self-
Governance funds, we believe it is an example of what our Self-
Governance status can lead to.
The direct and derivative benefits of Self-Governance cannot be
emphasized enough. But for Self-Governance, we might not have the
relative success that we enjoy. There was a time not long ago when the
Mille Lacs Band struggled with great poverty and was unable to meet the
basic needs of our membership. We have come a long way since then and
strongly believe Self-Governance played a significant role in our
progress.
This is not to say that Self-Governance is the panacea to a tribe's
problems, but rather Self-Governance is a means for tribes to realize
their potential. Self-Governance is the tool that allows tribes like
the Mille Lacs Band to build capacity that ultimately benefits a tribal
membership. While Self-Governance has done much to benefit tribes more
than any other Federal Indian policy, I want to bring to your attention
some concerns the Mille Lacs Band has with current Federal policy
towards the tribes.
A Disproportionate Self-Governance Budget
The Mille Lacs Band first compacted for 30 programs from the Bureau
of Indian Affairs in 1990 with funds that amounted to approximately
$603,698.00. Programs varied from natural resources to substance abuse.
Thirteen years later, our Self-Governance budget is approximately
$817,426.00 for the same 30 programs. This growth is less than 3% per
year, or less than 35% for the entire thirteen years. In effect, we are
doing more with less funds because our Self-Governance budget does not
reflect the increasing costs of administering those 30 programs.
Consequently, there may be a day when administrative costs of a program
will far outweigh the function and program activity. In contrast, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs budget has more than doubled in the same 13
years.
When we entered into Self-Governance, we believed that our Self-
Governance budget would grow at the same percentage rate as the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. This has not been the case. Though Congress had
appropriated funds to establish Tribal Self-Governance, it has not
allowed Self-Governance to grow proportionately with the BIA or United
States as a whole since its inception. Despite this fact, many tribes
continue to seek Self-Governance status each year, which is a clear
indication of the success of Self-Governance.
For Self-Governance to continue to work and be successful, changes
must be made and implemented for tribes to remain in Self-Governance.
Otherwise, Self-Governance may fail and tribes will be reabsorbed into
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Mille Lacs Band is willing to offer
assistance and participate in the redress of this budget problem.
Self-Governance and the Federal Trust Responsibility
The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe and all Federally-recognized tribes
have a unique relationship with the United States. Our treaties with
the United States established a government-to-government relationship
that exists to this day. The United States' Federal trust
responsibility arises out of the treaties, Federal statutes, Executive
Orders, and Supreme Court decisions. From this Federal trust
responsibility flows a trust obligation of the United States to the
tribes.
It is the Mille Lacs Band's position that the Federal trust
responsibility is very broad in scope and not limited to fine
distinctions in legal definitions. However, the Department of
Interior's BIA reorganization and the Department of Health and Human
Services ``One'' Department Initiative indicate that the Federal trust
responsibility is being re-defined in a manner that tribes strongly
disagree with. This development in new Federal Indian policy is heading
in the wrong direction and will be detrimental to many tribes.
In Public Law 106-260, the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of
2000, the following language addressing tribal sovereignty, the
government-to-government relationship, and the Federal trust
responsibility reads in relevant part:
The Congress finds that--
(1) The tribal right of self-government flows from the inherent
sovereignty of Indian tribes and nations;
(2) The United States recognizes a special government-to-
government relationship with Indian tribes, including the right of the
Indian tribes to self-governance, as reflected in the Constitution,
treaties, Federal statutes, and the course of dealings of the United
States with Indian tribes;
...
(5) Although progress has been made, the Federal bureaucracy, with
its centralized rules and regulations, has eroded tribal self-
governance and dominated tribal affairs;
...
(6) Congress ... finds that transferring full control and funding
to tribal governments, upon tribal request, over decision making for
Federal programs, services, functions, and activities (or portions
thereof)--
(A) is an appropriate and effective means of implementing
the Federal policy of government-to-government relations with
the Indian tribes; and
(B) strengthens the Federal policy of Indian self-
determination, and
It is the policy of the Congress--
...
(A) To enable the United States to maintain and improve its
unique and continuing relationship with, and responsibility to,
Indian tribes;
(B) To permit each Indian tribe to choose the extent of its
participation in self-governance in accordance with the
provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act relating to the provision of Federal services to
Indian tribes;
(C) To ensure the continuation of the trust responsibility
of the United States to Indian tribes and Indian individuals;
(D) To affirm and enable the United States to fulfill its
obligations to the Indian tribes under treaties and other laws;
(E) To strengthen the government-to-government relationship
between the United States and Indian tribes through direct and
meaningful consultation with all tribes;
(F) To permit an orderly transition from Federal domination
of programs and services to provide Indian tribes with
meaningful authority, control, funding, and discretion to plan,
conduct, redesign, and administer programs, services,
functions, and activities (or portions thereof) that meet the
needs of individual tribal communities; [and]
(G) To provide for a measurable parallel reduction in the
Federal bureaucracy as programs, services, functions, and
activities (or portions thereof) are assumed by Indian tribes
``.
25 U.S.C. Sec. 458aaa.
The Trust Responsibility provision of the Self-Governance Act
specifically addresses the duty of the Secretary: ``The Secretary is
prohibited from waiving, modifying, or diminishing in any way the trust
responsibility of the United States with respect to Indian tribes and
individual Indians that exists under treaties, Executive orders, other
laws, or court decisions.'' 25 U.S.C. Sec. 458aaa-6.
The above statutory language illustrates that Congress clearly
intended to continue its Federal trust responsibility to the tribes and
maintain the government-to-government relationship between the United
States and tribes by expressly stating such. Despite the Mille Lacs
Band and other Self-Governance tribes assuming more authority and
control over compacted programs, Self-Governance law and policy never
intended to diminish or waive the Federal trust responsibility but
rather preserve it.
That was our understanding of Self-Governance as it relates to the
Federal trust responsibility at the time we entered into our compacts,
and this is our understanding today. This very understanding by the
Mille Lacs Band leadership in 1990 was the primary reason we assumed
Self-Governance, because we believed that all of our trust resources
and assets would always be protected. In the event the Mille Lacs Band
would be unable to adequately protect a trust resource or asset, the
law provides trust resource and asset protection for us.
Under the Self-Governance Reassumption provision, the law provides
that, if our trust resources face imminent jeopardy or endangerment,
meaning immediate threat and the likelihood of significant devaluation,
degradation, damage or loss of a trust asset, the Secretary may
reassume program operations upon a finding of imminent jeopardy. 25
U.S.C. Sec. 450m and Sec. 458aaa-6; 25 C.F.R. pt. 1000 at 78727 (2000).
Operation of this provision ensures that our trust resources are always
protected under the Federal trust responsibility.
Today, the ongoing Bureau of Indian Affairs reorganization and the
establishment of the Office of the Special Trustee appear to be re-
defining the Federal trust responsibility through administrative
action. Tribes, including the Mille Lacs Band, have been opposed to the
BIA reorganization since before its implementation, yet the
reorganization continues despite our objections in the name of ``trust
reform.''
One of the many aspects of the reorganization is the removal of all
trust functions from the BIA to the Office of the Special Trustee. More
troublesome is that the Special Trustee's office is moving in the
direction of limiting its trust responsibility to more limited duties.
If such a concept becomes actual policy, we will have resources that
may not meet the proposed limited standards, thereby leaving these
resources unprotected and vulnerable to non-Federal interests.
Therefore, the Mille Lacs Band seriously questions what measure of
trust responsibility we can expect from the Office of the Special
Trustee in regard to our trust resources and assets under our Self-
Governance compacts.
Another ``reorganization'' the Mille Lacs Band is concerned with is
the ongoing One Department Initiative of the Department of Health and
Human Services that seeks to streamline the delivery of services. We
interpret this to mean a reduction in staff and resources, although in
the 1990s the Indian Health Service had already downsized significantly
in order to increase the delivery of direct medical services to tribes.
Part of that downsizing was the transfer of resources and operations to
tribal management, which many other agencies had not undertaken to do.
Consequently, there has been a 60% reduction in administrative staff in
the Central Office Headquarters and the Area Offices in the past six
years.
It must also be pointed out that as a direct result of more tribes
entering into Self-Governance each year, more IHS administrative
reductions will occur. To have more downsizing occur now is
unreasonable and will impact the IHS's ability to help tribes address
the significant health disparities that exist in our communities.
Indian Health Service has a unique place within the DHHS and is a
direct extension of the Federal trust responsibility that addresses
Indian health care. We fear that the Indian Health Service will become
lost in the HHS One Department Initiative, which has direct bearing on
the trust responsibility to tribes and the provision of critical health
care delivery.
Specific to HHS, a recommendation to address tribes' concern is to
elevate the position of the Indian Health Service Director to that of
Assistant Secretary of Indian Health. Such an elevation would assure
tribes that Indian health issues would be addressed and improve the
coordination efforts between the various health and human services
agencies that serve tribes and their communities.
Generally, the Mille Lacs Band maintains the position that the
Federal trust responsibility is very broad in scope and should not be
limited in any manner. If the trust responsibility is limited to
certain duties, the Mille Lacs Band further maintains that such a
proposed policy overlooks our treaties with the United States and is in
direct contravention of existing policy that defines the trust
responsibility and relationship between the United States and tribes.
The Promise of Self-Governance
If the existence of Self-Governance as we know it today ceases to
be, there would be the elimination of many crucial programs that
function to improve our Band members' lives. The worst-case scenario is
a return to the terrible poverty conditions we once knew not very long
ago. It would mean being the poorest of the poor, the lowest in
educational achievement, and poorest in health conditions. We cannot go
back to such a harsh life.
It is a sad fact that my grandparents and many other Band member
families suffered tremendously for a lack of resources prior to Self-
Governance. It has only been under Self-Governance that the Mille Lacs
Band has been able to rise above extreme poverty and improve lives on
the reservation. The elimination of manipulative systems and reduction
of Federal bureaucracy has allowed us to prosper and provide for our
members.
Our relative success under Self-Governance is a good thing, but it
does not mean our fundamental relationship with the United States
should change. The government-to-government relationship should remain
in place and should continue to recognize our sovereignty and right to
self-determination. Altering current policy poses the risk of
relegating us back to a ward status, much like a child, that knew no
success by any measure.
Today, we are able to chart our own destiny as determined by our
Band membership, not a Federal official or agency. The Mille Lacs Band
can create a promising path for our children to follow who in time will
also chart the Band's destiny. Self-Governance permits us the means to
create a better world for many generations to come.
Conclusion
The vision of those tribal leaders in 1987 was bold. They wanted
tribes and the United States to have a relationship that was more like
the original one, back in the treaty-making era. The tribal leaders
wanted a real government-to-government relationship with the United
States, seeking the closest thing to a treaty they could find and
settled on a ``compact.'' Fifteen years later, those Self-Governance
compacts have become a hallmark of progress for tribes and tribes are
living that vision. Tribal leaders today look ahead to 21st Century
Federal Indian policy and ask, will we stay on track? What is left to
accomplish in the evolution of Self-Governance policy?
The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe has always wanted to have all of our
Federal dollars, not just those from Interior and HHS, but all of our
dollars rolled into one annual funding agreement with the United
States. This includes funds from all other Federal Departments: Labor,
Justice, Education, and all funds that currently flow through state
programs.
I am told that the jurisdiction of the House committees make such a
bill difficult to pass. Also, dealing with all affected agencies and
the state would be an enormous challenge. But if any member of the
House has the courage to take on this task, the Mille Lacs Band would
like to work with you. It would be our honor to be included in a
demonstration project that moves this policy to the next level.
I appreciate your time and would be pleased to take any questions
you might have.
Mii Gwetch.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Next we have from my home State Clifford Lyle Marshall,
Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe.
STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD LYLE MARSHALL, CHAIRMAN,
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE
Mr. Marshall. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
today about the Self-Governance Program. I am Clifford Lyle
Marshall, Chairman of the Hoopa Valley tribe of California, the
largest land-based tribe in California.
My invitation to testify referred to self-governance as an
experiment. Originally, self-governance was referred to as a
project; later amendments to the Self-Governance Act designated
it as a program. Regardless, whether it's an experiment or a
program, it is the most successful piece of legislation in
advancing tribal government, developing tribal infrastructure
and advancing tribal self-sufficiency.
I thank the Committee for having this hearing because for
the past two-and-a-half years most of what has been talked
about in regard to Indian affairs is the Cobell case and the
Department of Interior's trust reform proposal. The impression
is that everything in Indian Country is bad, broken,
mismanaged, has gone haywire, or run amok. I hope to express to
you today that in many places in Indian Country, on many
reservations, as the tribal leaders today will testify, very
positive things are happening. I sense that many Members of
Congress are not familiar with the Self-Governance Program, so
I thank you again for giving us the opportunity to reintroduce
the positives achieved through the Self-Governance Program.
In 1988, Congress passed the Self-Governance Act, an
amendment to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975. It did
so because tribes and tribal leaders were complaining
vehemently about the shortcoming of 93-638 contracting. In
spite of the intent of the Self-Determination Act, which
allowed tribes for the first time to manage programs on their
respective reservations, the BIA remained in complete control
of programs by dictating contract terms and through heavy-
handed oversight that took 80 to 90 percent of the Federal
funding off the top of Indian program funding. More
importantly, the programs designed by the BIA were not meeting
the needs of the Indian communities. Tribes sought flexibility
to adjust budgets and redesign programs.
In 1988, 10 tribes with a history of managing 93-638
contracts received a 2-year grant to design their own programs,
draft their own compacts, and self-governance was born.
Today, almost 50 percent of the tribes compact under the
Self-Governance Program. The Hoopa Tribe was one of the first
tier of tribes and was the first to have its compact signed in
1990. Before 1988, however, the tribe had contracted most BIA
programs under 93-638. Through self-governance, the Hoopa Tribe
has assumed management authority over all Federal programs on
its reservation.
Currently, the tribe manages 53 programs. Hoopa was the
first to compact health care with the Indian Health Service in
California, and now has a hospital, a dental clinic, and the
only ambulance service and emergency room within 70 miles of
the reservation.
One of the first priorities under self-governance was to
establish the first tribal court in California and assert
jurisdiction over Indian child welfare cases. The tribe then
established its own law enforcement department for resource
protection and to enforce fish regulations. Hoopa's law
enforcement program is now the only one in the State that is
cross deputized by the county, which gives them the authority
to enforce State criminal law on the reservation. This
relationship has been in existence for the past 8 years. The
tribe has just passed its own civil traffic code.
We have compacted resource management and manage our forest
lands under a 10-year forest management plan approved by the
BIA that exceeds environmental standards required by Federal
law. This plan has allowed our timber to be ``smart wood''
certified, a certification that allows lumber products produced
from our timber to be exportable to Europe.
The tribe also owns and operates its own logging company,
creating seasonal employment and additional revenue from annual
timber harvests. We also have our own nursery to grow trees for
replanting. Forestry management includes forestry protection,
and the Hoopa Tribe has created its own wildland fire
protection program. All tribal firefighters meet the same
qualification requirements of the United States Forest Service.
When Hoopa assumed forestry management, we also took over
the BIA roads department. Though the reservation contains over
100 miles of roads, the tribe receives $113,000 a year for
roads maintenance, not enough to maintain five miles of road.
To maintain and upgrade our forest roads neglected for decades
by the BIA, a percentage of our annual timber sales goes toward
road maintenance. Two years ago, the tribe invested in an
aggregate plant that now helps subsidize the roads program by
paying the salaries of roads department employees with revenues
generated from the sale of sand, gravel, road base and cement.
Hoopa has its own Tribal Environmental Protection Agency,
TEPA, that ensures that our resource management programs
perform in compliance with Federal EPA regulations. TEPA is
also responsible for enforcement of the tribe's solid waste
ordinance. The tribe has compacted realty from the BIA regional
office. Through tribal ordinances, the tribe assigns land to
tribal members for housing, agriculture, and grazing.
The tribe created a public utilities district that has
spent the past 10 years laying a reservation-wide water system.
We are now in the process of developing a reservation-wide
irrigation system, using river water as the source, and are in
the beginning stages of designing a reservation-wide sewer
system that is projected to be needed in the next 10 years.
The tribe has its own fisheries department that monitors
in-stream habitat and salmon populations in the Trinity River
basin. This is a well-respected program that also contracts
with the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service for collection of fisheries enhancement data.
We also have a housing authority, a human services
department that provides alcohol and drug abuse counseling, as
well as family crisis counseling, and an education department
that encompasses preschool to a junior college branch campus.
We plan to break ground on a new early childhood development
facility in this next fiscal year.
By allowing us the flexibility to design our own programs,
we have created this system for ourselves in just the last 14
years. We have done this with planning and sound fiscal
management. As we look forward to our future, our focus is on
the development of our lands for future housing needs and the
development of tribally owned economic enterprises that will
create an independent economic base and job opportunities for
our people. We have completed two feasibility studies, one for
a specialized sawmill that will produce specialty cutting for
export markets and create 50 jobs locally. The other is a
modular home plant that will not only create as many as 150
jobs, but also provide affordable housing to our tribal members
and others in our surrounding communities.
We are not sure today what the DOI's trust reform proposal
is. Hoopa is concerned that the DOI, the Department of
Interior, is planning to take us all the way back to a system
that existed before self-governance. They are proposing to
design the program for us, they're going to set the standards,
the processes and procedures, and they are going to fund their
program by taking money off the top of tribal program funding.
We are concerned that the flexibility of self-governance
which has allowed tribes to create their own successes will be
eliminated, that the processes that tribes have developed
through relationships with their respective regional and agency
offices over the past 10 to 15 years will be replaced with
something that will not work.
DOI and OST are saying that they have to do this because of
the Cobell case. This is clearly not correct by our reading of
the case. The last Cobell order clearly defines the trust as
individual IIM accounts and limits its order to that. The order
also requires the Department of Interior to manage the trust in
compliance with tribal law and ordinances. Who has such
ordinances? The answer is self-governance tribes.
Let me say why I believe that the liability issue that has
been raised is overstated in regard to self-governance tribes.
First, the BIA and DOI have never been sued by a self-
governance tribe for mismanagement of a compacted program. Such
an admission of tribal mismanagement would immediately destroy
their compact. Second, under self-governance, the BIA can take
back any compacted program simply by declaring the program in
``imminent jeopardy.'' Finally, audits and trust evaluations
are conducted annually, allowing a complete disclosure of
tribal management of compacted programs. The BIA is sued by
direct service tribes for their mismanagement. I have heard
more than a few leaders of direct service tribes--no offense
intended--say they would never compact because they would lose
the ability to sue for mismanagement.
Self-governance tribes are the ones that have a clear track
record for management. The DOI really has no track record of
developing successful programs for tribes. Self-governance
tribes have been the true trust reformers. We have used the
flexibility of self-governance to address our people's needs,
our own issues, concerns and problems. We have created
successful programs that have become models for other tribes.
We have taken over underfunded programs and created success
with innovation and hard work. We have been able to match every
dollar that we received from the BIA compact with three dollars
from other sources and with our own tribal funds. By assuming
trust management, many of us are doing a cleanup of decades of
BIA mismanagement.
Let me conclude by saying that self-governance is the most
successful program in the history of Federal Indian policy
because tribes have made it a success. Seven tribes in
California, along with three other tribes, have asked Congress
to create a new pilot project that will preserve the working
relationships and agreements that they have created with their
respective regional offices since 1990. This proposal is in the
Senate Interior Appropriations bill, section 134. I ask that
you support section 134 and preserve the most successful models
of tribal self-governance in Indian Country today.
Solutions, problem solving and success for Indian Country
won't be created within the beltway. Solutions come from tribal
communities that understand their own needs. The Self-
Governance Program has allowed tribes to make decisions, find
their own solutions, and create their own successes. I ask that
you take into consideration what has been accomplished under
the Self-Governance Program as you consider DOI's proposals for
trust reform.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
Statement of Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today about the Self-
Governance program. I am Clifford Lyle Marshall, Chairman of the Hoopa
Valley Tribe. My invitation to testify referred to Self-Governance as
an experiment. Originally, Self-Governance was referred to as a
project; later amendments to the Self-Governance Act designated it a
program. Regardless, whether it's an experiment or a program, it is the
most successful piece of legislation in advancing tribal government,
developing tribal infrastructure, and advancing tribal self-
sufficiency.
I thank the Committee for having this hearing because, for the past
two-and a-half years most of what has been talked about in regard to
Indian affairs is the Cobell case and the Department of the Interior's
Trust Reform proposal to address the Court's order in that case. The
impression is that everything in Indian Country is bad, broken,
mismanaged, has gone haywire, or run amok. I hope to express to you
today that in many places in Indian Country, on many reservations as
the tribal leaders today will testify, that very positive things are
happening. I sense that many members of Congress are not familiar with
the Self-Governance program. So I thank you for giving us this
opportunity to re-introduce the positives achieved through the Self-
Governance Program.
In 1988 Congress passed the Self-Governance Act, an amendment to
the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975. It did so because tribes and
tribal leaders were complaining vehemently about the shortcomings of
93-638 contracting. In spite of the intent of the Self-Determination
Act, which allowed tribes for the first time to manage programs on
their respective reservations, the BIA remained in complete control of
programs by dictating contract terms and through heavy-handed oversight
that took 80 to 90 % of the Federal funding off the top of Indian
program funding. More importantly the programs designed by the BIA were
not meeting the needs of the Indian communities. Tribes sought
flexibility to adjust budgets and redesign programs.
In 1988, 10 tribes with a history of managing 93-638 contracts
received a two-year grant to design their own programs, draft their own
compacts and self-governance was born. Today, almost fifty percent
(50%) of the tribes compact under the Self-Governance Program. The
Hoopa Tribe was one of the first tier of tribes and was the first to
have its compact signed in 1990. Before 1988, however, the Hoopa Tribe
had contracted most BIA programs under 93-638. Through Self-Governance,
the Hoopa Tribe has assumed management authority over all Federal
programs. Currently the Tribe manages fifty-three (53) programs. Hoopa
was the first to compact health care with Indian Health Service in
California and now has a hospital, a dental clinic and the only
ambulance service and emergency room within 70 miles of the
reservation.
One of the first priorities under Self-Governance was to establish
the first tribal court in California and assert jurisdiction over
Indian Child Welfare cases. The tribe then established its own law
enforcement department for resource protection and to enforce fishing
regulations. Hoopas Law enforcement program is now the only one in the
State that is cross deputized by the County which gives them the
authority to enforce state criminal law on the reservation. This
relationship has been in existence for the past eight years. The tribe
has just passed its own civil traffic code.
We have compacted resource management and manage our forest lands
under a ten-year forest management plan approved by the BIA that
exceeds environmental standards required by Federal law. This plan has
allowed our timber to be ``Smart Wood'' certified, a certification that
allows lumber products produced from our timber to be exportable to
Europe. The Tribe also owns and operates its own logging company
creating seasonal employment and additional revenue from annual timber
harvests. We also have our own nursery to grow trees for replanting.
Forestry management includes forestry protection, and Hoopa created its
own Wildland Fire Protection Program. All tribal fire fighters meet the
same qualification requirements of the United States Forest Service.
When Hoopa assumed forestry management, it also took over the BIA
roads department. Though the reservation contains over one hundred
miles of roads the Tribe receives $113,000 a year for roads
maintenance, not enough to maintain five miles of road. To maintain and
upgrade our forest roads neglected for decades by the BIA a percentage
of annual timber sales goes towards roads maintenance. Two years ago
the Tribe invested in an aggregate plant that now helps subsidize the
Roads program by paying the salaries of roads department employees with
revenues generated from the sale of sand, gravel, road base, and
cement.
Hoopa has its own Tribal Environmental Protection Agency (TEPA)
that ensures that our resource management programs perform in
compliance with Federal EPA regulations. TEPA is also responsible for
enforcement of the Tribes solid waste ordinance. The Tribe has
compacted realty from the BIA Regional office. Through tribal
ordinances the Tribal assigns land to tribal members for housing,
agriculture, and grazing.
The Tribe created a public utilities district that has spent the
last ten years laying a reservation-wide water system. We are now in
the process of developing a reservation-wide irrigation system using
river water as the source, and are in the beginning stages of designing
a reservation-wide sewer system that is projected to be needed in the
next ten years. The Tribe has its own fisheries department that
monitors in-stream habitat and salmon populations in the Trinity River
basin. This is a well-respected program that also contracts with the
Bureau of Reclamation and United States Fish and Wildlife Service for
collection of fisheries enhancement data.
We also have a housing authority; a human services department that
provides alcohol and drug abuse counseling as well as family crisis
counseling; and an education department that encompasses pre-school to
a junior college branch campus. We plan to break ground on a new early
childhood development facility in this next fiscal year.
By allowing us the flexibility to design our own programs, we have
created this system for ourselves in just the last fourteen years.
We've done this with planning and sound fiscal management. As we look
forward to our future, our focus is on the development of our lands for
future housing needs and the development of tribally-owned economic
enterprises that will create an independent economic base and job
opportunities for our people. We have completed two feasibility
studies, one for a specialized sawmill that will produce specialty
cutting for export markets and create 50 jobs locally. The other is a
modular home plant that will not only create as many as 150 jobs and
also provide affordable housing to our tribal members and others in our
surrounding communities.
We are not sure what the DOI's trust reform proposal is. Hoopa is
concerned that DOI is planning to take us all the way back to the
system that existed before Self-Governance: they're proposing to design
the program for us; they're going to set the standards, the processes
and procedures, and they're going to fund their program by taking money
off the top of tribal program funding. We are concerned that the
flexibility of Self-Governance which has allowed tribes to create their
own successes will be eliminated, that the processes that tribes have
developed through relationships with their respective regional or
agency offices over the past 10-15 years will be replaced with
something that will not work.
DOI and OST are saying that they have to do this because of the
Cobell case. This is clearly not correct by our reading of the case.
The last Cobell order clearly defines the Trust as individual IIM
accounts and limits its order to that. The order also requires the DOI
to manage the Trust in compliance with tribal law and ordinances. Who
has such ordinances? The answer is Self-Governance tribes.
Let me say why I believe that the liability issue is overstated in
regard to Self-Governance tribes. First, the BIA or DOI have never been
sued by a Self-Governance Tribe for mismanagement of a compacted
program. Such an admission of tribal mismanagement would immediately
destroy their compact. Second, under Self-Governance the BIA can take
back any compacted program simply by declaring the program in
``imminent jeopardy.'' Finally, audits and trust evaluations are
conducted annually allowing a complete disclosure of tribal management
of compacted programs. The BIA is sued by Direct Service tribes for
their mismanagement. I've heard more than a few leaders of Direct
Service tribes say they would never compact because they would lose the
ability to sue for mismanagement.
Self-Governance tribes are the ones that have a clear track record
for management. The DOI really has no track record of developing
successful programs for tribes. Self-Governance tribes have been the
true trust reformers. We have used the flexibility of Self-Governance
to address our people's needs, our own issues, concerns and problems.
We have created successful programs that have become models for other
tribes. We've taken over underfunded programs and created success with
innovation and hard work. We have been able to match every dollar that
we receive from the BIA compact with three dollars from other sources
and with our own tribal funds. By assuming trust management, many of us
are doing a cleanup of decades of BIA mismanagement.
Let me conclude by saying that Self-Governance is the most
successful program in the history of Federal Indian policy because
tribes have made it a success. Seven tribes in California, along with
three other tribes, have asked Congress to create a new pilot project
that will preserve the working relationships and agreements that they
have created with their respective regional offices since 1990. This
proposal is in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill, Section 134. I
ask that you support Section 134 and preserve the most successful
models of tribal self-governance in Indian Country today.
Solutions, problem solving and success for Indian Country won't be
created within the Beltway. Solutions must come from tribal communities
that understand their own needs. The Self-Governance program has
allowed tribes to make decisions, find their own solutions, and create
their own successes. I ask that you take into consideration what has
been accomplished under the Self-Governance program as you consider
DOI's proposals for trust reform. Thank you for your time.
______
The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Hayworth.
Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
My colleagues, I certainly echo very much what Chairman
Marshall told us. The subject of this hearing today, tribal
self-governance, is by and large a success story. Though
redistricting has taken many of the sovereign tribes out of
what used to be my district, my colleague, Mr. Renzi, now in
the newly constituted 1st District, represents many of my
former constituents.
I am very pleased that remaining within the bounds of the
new 5th Congressional District of Arizona is the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Here to tell us the story of
economic diversity, the successes, the challenges confronted by
the Salt River Pima community is my friend, the Special
Assistant for Congressional and Legislative Affairs, Jacob
Moore.
Jacob, welcome.
The Chairman. Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF JACOB MOORE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, CONGRESSIONAL AND
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
Mr. Moore. Thank you. Thank you for the kind introduction.
Good morning.
Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the
Committee and distinguished guests, on behalf of President Joni
Ramos and Vice President Leonard Rivers of the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community, we thank you for the opportunity to
testify today.
My name is Jacob Moore, special assistant on congressional
and legislative affairs. I am here to share with the Committee
the concept of self-governance, some of the successes resulting
therefrom, and to emphasize the importance of section 134 of S.
1391, the Senate Interior Appropriations bill, which was just
mentioned by Chairman Marshall from the Hoopa Valley Tribe.
The community, currently comprised of over 8,300 members,
predates Arizona as a State. Yet, in the last 50 years, urban
growth has come to our boundaries, forcing the community to
explore ways to protect our history, our culture, and our way
of life. Today, we are surrounded by metropolitan Phoenix and
are bordered by the cities of Tempe, Scottsdale, Mesa and
Fountain Hills.
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community is a
contemporary but still traditional community that is concerned
about our physical, social, economic and spiritual well-being.
We are fortunate that our community recognizes the importance
of planning for a world that the next seven generations of our
people will inherit. The advantage of long-term planning
enables us to make better decisions.
Our road to self-governance began at the same time
President Richard Nixon launched self-determination in 1970.
That action, as you know, led to the Indian Self-Determination
and Educational Assistance Act of 1975. We entered into our
first contract in 1970 to assume control of our Police
Department and have not looked back since. This initiative set
us on track for self-determination and self-governance. Since
that initial contract, we have grown to be an active and strong
self-governing tribe, and enjoy a reputation as such among our
peers.
In the 1980s, we were the first tribe in the Nation to
develop a major retail development on our land--and it wasn't a
casino. To accomplish this, we brought together more than 300
landowners and a developer and created the Pavilions Shopping
Center adjacent to Scottsdale. We could not have done this
without the opportunities available under the Indian Self-
Determination and Educational Assistance Act.
Subsequently, as a part of self-governance, we have taken
over management of our own resources. We have established a
realty data base and a compatible geographic information
system. As a result, we can track ownership of every
fractionated piece of land owned by heirs of original allottees
and tribally owned lands. We can show landowners exactly where
their land is with the use of digitized aerial maps and provide
a current inventory of their land interests on the same day of
the request. Equally significant, we can issue lease payment
checks to members in a timely and accurate manner.
Under the spirit and intent of self-governance, we have
expanded our economic development opportunities. The Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community operates 11 successful
enterprises that include such diverse industries as
construction materials, telecommunications, entertainment,
tourism, alternative energy, waste management and commercial
property development. The revenues realized from these
enterprises allow us to supplement the limited resources
received from the Federal Government toward fulfilling its
trust obligations. Even with the additional tribal funds, there
is still an unmet need in the delivery of basic services and
infrastructure in Indian Country, including the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
Today, we have more than three decades of experience with
self-determination and self-governance. From the original ten
demonstration projects in 1987, the program has grown to over
260 tribes that are participating in self-governance in one
form or another.
Self-governance has proven to be a viable means to allow
tribes to obtain more autonomy in decisionmaking and management
of their resources. Self-governance allows tribes to develop
and grow in a way that is consistent with their traditional
values and cultural integrity. The self-governance program
allows tribes the flexibility to utilize and maximize limited
Federal resources in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
While accomplishing all of this, self-governance tribes have
met and oftentimes exceed the level of trust accountability
practiced by the U.S. Department of Interior. This is evidenced
in successful annual audit reports, the EDS report, and the
Department of Interior's As Is report.
In the context of the current trust reform effort and the
U.S. Department of Interior's reorganization plan, we need to
ensure that the embodiment of self-governance is not
diminished. Since the trust reform plan has focused primarily
on issues involving direct service tribes and self-
determination contract tribes, as distinguished from self-
governance tribes, self-governance tribes must be able to
continue to operate within the principle that has guided their
success.
The demonstration project proposed under section 134 of S.
1391, the Senate Interior Appropriations bill, will allow the
current self-governance tribes to continue to operate under a
system that has proven successful while allowing trust reform
to continue. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community has
always, and will continue to maintain, trust standards that
meet or exceed those of the Federal Government. Much like the
empowerment realized under self-governance, our trust standards
reflect our commitment to the well-being and continued
existence of our community through a balanced relationship with
the Federal Government that works.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and thank you
for your continued support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Statement of Jacob Moore, Special Assistant on Congressional and
Legislative Affairs, The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, Members of the Committee and
distinguished guests, on behalf of President Joni M. Ramos and Vice
President Leonard Rivers of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community (Community), we thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. My name is Jacob Moore, Special Assistant on Congressional &
Legislative Affairs. I am here to share with the Committee the concept
of self-governance, some of the successes resulting therefrom and to
emphasize the importance of Section 134 of S. 1391, the Senate Interior
Appropriations bill.
Our Community, currently comprised of over 8,300 members, predates
Arizona as a State. Yet, in the last 50 years, urban growth has come to
our boundaries, forcing the Community to explore ways to protect our
history, culture and way of life. Today, we are surrounded by
metropolitan Phoenix and are bordered by the cities of Tempe,
Scottsdale, Mesa and Fountain Hills.
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community is a contemporary,
but still traditional, community that is concerned about our physical,
social, economic and spiritual well-being. We are fortunate that our
Community recognizes the importance of planning for a world that the
next seven generations of our people will inherit. The advantage of
long-term planning enables us to make better decisions.
Our road to self-governance began at the same time President
Richard Nixon launched self-determination in 1970. That action, as you
know, led to the Indian Self-Determination & Educational Assistance Act
of 1975. We entered into our first contract in 1970 for our Police
Department. This initiative set us on track for self-determination and
self-governance. Since that initial contract, we have grown to be an
active and strong self-governing tribe and enjoy a reputation, as such,
among our peers.
In the 1980s, we were the first tribe to develop a major retail
development on our land. To accomplish this, we brought together more
than 300 landowners and a developer and created the Pavilions Shopping
Center. We could not have done this without the opportunities available
under the Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act.
Subsequently, as a part of self-governance, we have taken over
management of our own resources. We have established a realty database
and a compatible geographic information system. As a result, we can
track ownership for every fractionated piece of land owned by heirs of
original allottees and tribally owned lands. We can show landowners
exactly where their land is and provide a current inventory of their
land interests on the same day of the request. Equally significant, we
issue lease payment checks to our members in a timely and accurate
manner.
Under the spirit and intent of self-governance, we have expanded
our economic development opportunities. The Salt River Indian Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community operates 11 successful enterprises that
include such diverse industries as construction materials,
telecommunications, entertainment, tourism, waste management and
commercial property development. The revenues realized from these
enterprises allow us to supplement the limited resources received from
the Federal Government toward fulfilling its trust obligations. Even
with additional tribal funds, there is still an unmet need in the
delivery of basic services and infrastructure in Indian Country
including the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
Today, we have more than three decades of experience with self-
governance. From the original 10 demonstration projects in 1987, the
program has grown to over 260 tribes that are participating in self-
governance in one form or another.
Self-governance has proven to be a viable means to allow tribes to
obtain more autonomy in decision making and management of their
resources. Self-governance allows tribes to develop and grow in a way
that is consistent with traditional values and cultural integrity. The
self-governance program allows tribes the flexibility to utilize and
maximize limited Federal resources in the most efficient and cost-
effective way. While accomplishing all of this, self-governance tribes
have met, and oftentimes exceeded, the level of trust accountability
practiced by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This is evidenced in
successful annual audit reports, the EDS report, and the DOI's As Is
Report.
In the context of the current trust reform effort and the U.S.
Department of the Interior's reorganization plan, we need to ensure
that the embodiment of self-governance is not diminished. Since the
trust reform plan has focused primarily on issues involving direct
service tribes and self-determination contract tribes, as distinguished
from self-governance tribes, self-governance tribes must be able to
continue to operate within the parameter that has guided their success.
The demonstration project proposed under Section 134 will allow
current self-governance tribes to continue to operate under a system
that has proven successful while allowing trust reform to continue. The
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community has always, and will continue
to maintain, trust standards that meet or exceed those of the Federal
Government. Much like the empowerment realized under self-governance,
our trust standards reflect our commitment to the well-being and
continued existence of our Community.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank the entire panel
for your testimony. To begin with, I would like to ask just
kind of a general question of the entire panel.
When we look at what the next step is, where do we go from
here, what kind of changes would you like to see put into
effect that would help give you a better opportunity to manage
and for self-governance? We can start with Mr. Matt.
Mr. Matt. As I alluded to in part of my verbal testimony,
we are looking right now at the opportunity of developing an
AFA for the National Bison Range, which is right in the heart
of our reservation, so that's outside of the normal umbrella, I
guess, of what we're used to dealing with at BIA and those
programs. We got that developed to the point where it works
well and we do a good job, but this is kind of outside of that.
So we're looking at other programs and that happens to be one
of them.
The Chairman. So what you would like is to have the
opportunity to broaden or expand the areas that you can compact
with and begin to take over?
Mr. Matt. Yes, sir, that's exactly right.
The Chairman. Ms. Benjamin?
Ms. Benjamin. I will have to also say that I think the
opportunity to have compacting with the other Federal agencies
as well would be a benefit to the Mille Lacs Band. In addition,
my testimony talked about when there are those costs that
increase for the BIA, they also increase for the tribal sides
as well. Those two.
The Chairman. Let me just follow up on that. You said in
your testimony that the BIA budget had doubled during a 13-year
time span, I believe you said. How did your funding change
during that same 13-year span?
Ms. Benjamin. We are about 3 percent each year that there's
been an increase overall. For the 13 years, it's been 35
percent total. So we're smaller. Our increases are smaller than
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, cost increases, things of that
sort.
The Chairman. Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall. There was a provision in the Self-Governance
Act Amendment that provided the tribes would be able to compact
with Interior programs. Up to this point, it has been limited
to the BIA. So we do enter into compacts, but it is not based
on treaty right because there's a fiduciary obligation of the
tribe to protect those rights.
Fred is very concerned about the buffalo range, and we're
very concerned about maintaining fisheries habitat on the river
that runs through our reservation.
The Chairman. One of the major issues that you have dealt
with is water and water rights. You said that you're working
with the Bureau now on some stuff----
Mr. Marshall. Reclamation, yes.
The Chairman [continuing]. That you would like to see that
expand.
Mr. Marshall. Well, the contracts that we have with the
Bureau of Reclamation, we didn't get them through compacting.
We got them basically by banging on their door until they
listened to us, proving ourselves as being competent managers.
But as we assert our rights at times, there tends to be some
conflict of interest and then we run into a discussion of
whether or not we should be allowed to contract or not.
Our argument is that our fishing right is a treaty
obligation, as Mr. Kildee said. It is between two nations, and
there is an obligation to protect that fishery. As such, we
feel we should be entitled to contract for the management of
that resource, or to protect that treaty right.
The Chairman. Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. I would echo some of the statements that were
made earlier. Contract support cost is certainly an issue. The
lack of increases in contract support costs is a disincentive
for tribes to become involved in self-governance. Not all
tribes are as fortunate as, say, Salt River or other tribes
that have additional opportunities for development.
There are tribes that struggle. The idea of taking over
programs when, in fact, they know in the long run they're going
to have to do more with less, is not an incentive to look at
self-governance. So having additional contract support is
useful.
As mentioned earlier, it is again the idea of being able to
compact not just the programs that are within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs or Indian Health Service, but the other agencies
that also have some component of tribal affairs involved.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To all of
you, I say thank you. And to Chief Executive Benjamin, I would
say ``Mii Gwetch''. But I speak Ojibwe with a Michigan accent.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kildee. Let me ask you this question. Do you believe
that the trust responsibility should be maintained as tribes
assume control over more Federal programs? I ask that in this
context. It would seem that one of the essential areas that
might want to be retained in the trust responsibility is to
protect sovereign tribes from State government. John Marshal's
decision really was based upon that, because the Carolinas and
Georgia were infringing upon the rights.
What should the relationship be between the trust
responsibility and your self-governance? Should there still be
a role for trust responsibility?
Mr. Matt. Anna, do you want to help me out with that?
This is a staff person that I brought with me and failed to
introduce. She has worked intimately with our programs. Maybe
you would have a better short answer than I would.
The Chairman. Please identify yourself for the record.
Ms. Sorrell. My name is Anna Whiting Sorrell. I work for
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.
Our tribes absolutely believe that the trust responsibility
needs to be maintained. In this world today, our relationship
is a government-to-government relationship. We have been
willing to take on these responsibilities as a tribe with less
resource, knowing we're going to have to do more and more. So
it's very important for us that we keep that responsibility in
place.
Maybe as time moves on we may consider a different
demonstration at a different time, but at this point we would
fully support that maintaining of the trust responsibility.
Mr. Kildee. Ms. Benjamin.
Ms. Benjamin. There is an inherent Federal trust
responsibility. I think we have to maintain that, and even
though we want to expand our self-governance responsibilities,
we still feel that inherent Federal responsibility is still
there.
I would also like to introduce Tadd Johnson, who I
mentioned was formerly of this Committee, to also comment on
this question.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee, when the Self-
governance Act was originally conceived of back in 1987-88, the
Department of Interior at the time sent a concept up to the
Hill that essentially said the tribes would take over the
program but there wouldn't be a trust responsibility included
in the package. For the tribes at that time, it was a non-
starter. I think that's the position for most tribes today.
So the trust responsibility is based on treaties and
statutes and Executive orders in the course of dealings with
the United States, and it is firmly embodied in the legal
history of the tribes and needs to stay in place. Any expansion
that is made of self-governance also needs to include the trust
responsibility
Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. Trust responsibility was created by Justice
Marshall in the trilogy, Marshall's trilogy, which included
Wooster versus Georgia, when he defined tribes as sovereign
dependent nations, and defined the United States relationship
with tribes. Through the course of history, it is the trust
responsibility that has kind of shaped our history.
The Department of Interior, in presenting trust reform, has
said to us there is a conflict between trust responsibility and
sovereignty. Certainly there is as tension, but self-governance
I think is closest to resolving that tension.
When we talk about the government-to-government
relationship on the one hand, which is a recognition of tribes
as nation, and the trust responsibility relationship, which is
defined more as a trustee-beneficiary relationship, the
conflict that is perceived with self-governance is as managers
we are managing the trust. That was the debate that happened
when self-governance was created--can the beneficiary be
trusted to manage the trust. Under this idea that tribes are
nations, I think the United States chose to accept a risk with
this experiment.
Tribes have a very brief history of self-governance. If you
look at the Indian Self-Determination Act, we have been
managing our own affairs for barely 25 years. Before the
Education Assistance Act, very few Indians went to college.
Today, my programs on my reservation are managed. My forestry
program, I have a tribal member who is a licensed forester. My
fisheries program, I have a tribal member who is a fisheries
biologist. My health care program, I have a tribal member who
is a doctor. It goes like that.
Will there be a time when tribes can stand as independent
sovereign nations in this country, or at some level where they
can function independently entirely of the United States? I
don't know, because we weren't left with a whole lot to work
with.
But trust responsibility is about trust duties, trust
obligations, of the United States keeping its word that it gave
to Indians when it treatied with them or when it entered into
agreements with them. I think when we talk about trust
responsibility, we're talking about the United States keeping
its word and meeting the obligations and the promises it made
to Indians throughout the course of this Nation's history.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Moore, if you could respond.
Mr. Moore. It is always hard to follow Chairman Marshall,
who articulates it so well. But he is absolutely correct. I
think history will confirm that an agreement was made on a
government-to-government basis, that made certain promises in
exchange for vast tracts of ancestral lands, that stated that
health, education and welfare would be provided to Native
peoples.
There wasn't a time set on that. Again, whether it's our
parents or our grandparents or our great-great grandparents,
those were commitments that they understood were made, not only
for my future but for the future of our children.
Since that time, there have been misguided policies and
bureaucracies within various departments that deal with Indian
affairs that have clouded that issue. So that becomes an issue
of whether or not it can be provided by the Federal Government
or whether the tribes, through self-governance, can manage
those programs. But beyond that, the commitment still remains
the same, and that's what we hold to.
Mr. Kildee. I think I agree with all of you, that I really
believe the trust responsibility should never be a patronizing
trust responsibility but it should retain its protective
nature. Very often we need that, even today. It wasn't just
back in the time of Andrew Jackson or John Marshall, although
that's where we really find a basis for this in Supreme Court
decisions. But it is right now in Florida, with the Seminoles.
It's in California with people talking about Indian sovereign
nations as if they're social clubs, not sovereign nations,
during that last campaign. They aren't social clubs. You're
sovereign nations. If there is to be retained a trust
responsibility, it should be to protect your sovereignty, not
to be a patronizing role.
I really appreciate your responses. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Any further questions? Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to direct this to Chief Executive Melanie
Benjamin. If others want to comment after her, I would be very
interested in hearing your thoughts.
One of the comments that you made and you elaborated more
on in your testimony, Ms. Benjamin, dealt with the
reorganization that you would like to see really take the
tribes as a partner in moving forward, and that's dealing with
health.
You mentioned the ability for tribal elders working to find
ways into combining traditional medicine as well as the
advances that have been made with modern medicine in addressing
alcoholism with the use of ``sweat lodges.'' But we also know
that not only in Minnesota, where it has been identified, but
throughout the country, diabetes has really made many of our
elders' lives not as productive as they could be. I know we
have even identified diabetes, unfortunately, very early in
many children, Native American children in particular.
One of the things in your testimony that, yes, there will
be some downsizing as more self-governance takes place, but the
downsizing has to be done in consultation with the tribes to
make sure the support staff is there in the Federal health
department to do research and guidance and to work with the
tribes in partnership in addressing these health issues, which
were not addressed for years and have now been brought up to be
discussed, but still continue to be a major failure on the part
of the Federal Government working to address issues such as
diabetes.
I would like to have you elaborate more on why your self-
governance is the best way in which to bring medicine that will
be effective not only to our elders but for future generations.
Ms. Benjamin. First off, I would like to thank you for
those kind words during my introduction. I was very
appreciative of that.
For traditional healers on the Mille Lacs reservation, we
are a very traditional people where, along with, of course, a
lot of other tribes across the country, we practice a lot of
our traditional ceremonies and things of that sort. One of the
important components when we look at health is the traditional
healer. We have established a relationship on the reservation
with the traditional healers and western medicine practitioners
as well. They work hand in hand.
The majority of our elders will go to the traditional
healer first and get that guidance and the treatment they need.
Then they will also go to the regular doctors for that
treatment.
I had an interesting story with our doctor, who was dealing
with an elder. She couldn't find what the problem was with the
elder, so she conferred with our traditional healer and talked
about the symptoms the patient had and things of that sort. The
traditional healer said, ``Well, did you look in this area?''
for whatever that was. So she went back and actually used that
suggestion and they were able to find out what the ailment was.
We believe strongly in that and that really works for us.
Under self-governance, we are able to redesign and
reallocate those funds, because we want to make sure the people
of the Mille Lacs Band get the best services we can provide for
them. This is one of the ways.
Also, in terms of diabetes, we also have a real strong and
aggressive program that we're looking to educate for preventive
medicine, exercise because, as you stated, the youth are now
being diagnosed with diabetes and we're very concerned about
that. So that is one example.
I think a lot of times people don't realize that's how
self-governance has an impact as well in some of those cultural
ways of how we govern and how we live.
The Chairman. Any further questions? Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I missed
a lot of the testimony because we had another hearing in
another committee that I'm on. I wanted to just ask two
questions, if I could.
It seems to me there's sort of a theoretical and practical
side to this issue of expanding self-governance and compacts
and how that impacts the trust reform responsibility. You can
kind of look at it philosophically or you can look at it
practically. Generally speaking, I think that most tribes feel
they would like to see more self-governance, more compacts, but
at the same time they don't believe that that should end the
Federal trust responsibility. But practically speaking, it
seems like it does.
In other words, if I could ask a question of Chief
Executive Benjamin, it seems to me if we take your idea, which
I read in your statement, about all dollars being rolled into
one Annual Funding Agreement with the United States, that
practically speaking, even if there remained a trust
obligation, there wouldn't be much practically left of that.
I guess my question is, let's say you adopted your proposal
and you had this Annual Funding Agreement. What trust
responsibility would be left? I mean, would there be some kind
of oversight responsibility, where maybe, if you're not doing
the right thing, we could take it back? What would be left of
the trust responsibility?
Ms. Benjamin. I think we talked about that earlier, and
also about the kind of legal requirements of that relationship
between the sovereign nations and the Federal Government. It
talks about there are legal requirements that we have to adhere
to, and those are still in place with the treaty signings, the
Executive orders, contract agreements and those sorts of
things. I guess that kind of leaves us with those guidelines
that we have to fall within. Again, it is because of that
government-to-government relationship, what the Federal
Government agreed to when dealing with Indian nations.
Mr. Pallone. So it would essentially be a sort of oversight
responsibility, that if the tribe wasn't doing something
properly pursuant to the guidelines, we could take that
responsibility back; it would be in that nature?
I mean, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.
Ms. Benjamin. Yes.
I think the question, too, has legal implications to that,
so I would ask Tadd Johnson to respond as well.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pallone.
We came upon some of those issues when we were negotiating
the rules on Title IV. We asked the Interior Department
Solicitor to provide a legal opinion on what were the
inherently Federal functions that the United States and
Department of Interior had to perform.
It's an analysis that can be done. There are certain
functions, obviously, that only the United States can perform.
Then there are things that the tribes can perform.
Those can be separated out if you take a long, hard look at
them.
One of the practical problems with the suggestion is
probably just getting it through the House of Representatives.
If you try to roll all the programs into one compact, it
probably gets referred to six different committees or
something, so a demonstration project would probably take a
long time to get through on that idea.
But we just wanted to keep that idea alive. It was
something that got discussed many, many years ago, and that was
the long-term vision of self-governance. Whether it will get
there or not, we're not sure, but we're going to keep plugging
at it.
Mr. Pallone. Again, I wanted to ask this question of
Chairman Matt. If I understood it--and again, I'm looking at
the written testimony--there was concern that the BIA's trust
reform changes might limit opportunities for compacts or for
tribal self-governance. I think your testimony says it may move
programs into categories of non-BIA programs and the
regulations are harder to give tribes opportunities to
administer in those programs.
I know it's a little technical, but can you give me an
example? In other words, what are they doing with these trust
reforms that would limit self-governance opportunities? I know
it's kind of technical, and I don't really understand it. Maybe
you do, or somebody else.
Mr. Matt. I will try to address that a little bit, but I
would like to have Anna expand on it.
As I sit here listening to the questions, there is one
simple answer I would like to convey to this Committee. The
beauty of self-governance is that it gives us the flexibility
to design programs that meet the needs of the individual
tribes. You have five tribes sitting at this table that we
represent, but across Indian Country, there is 500 tribes. They
are all uniquely different. We all are at different stages in
our lives that would allow us to either compact or contract, or
if we choose or not to choose. But it helps us design programs
that have unique elements in it such as this lady just talked
about earlier.
That's really the beauty of it. It helps us design programs
that meet the needs, and we take it on in stages as we go, as
we grow up, so to speak in this idea.
With that, I will let Anna directly answer your question
and how that impacts us.
Ms. Sorrell. In our testimony that Chairman Matt provided,
we clearly were able to describe a system that we put in place.
What we tried to do was take the funds that come from a variety
of sources, one of those mainly from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
As to your particular question, we have had the experience
already. Right now the regulations that Mr. Johnson refers to,
there is a set of regulations that were negotiated with the
tribes and the Department of Interior. Some of those
regulations apply to BIA programs, and others apply to non-BIA
programs. It is a technical distinction, but it is extremely
important to tribes.
What the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the
Special Trustee are doing, they are beginning to separate out
programs, and as those programs are separated, they fall under
different categories. When we began our negotiations to operate
the IIM accounts in the Office of the Special Trustee, we had
to negotiate a separate agreement, under different guidelines
that are much more restrictive. They do not allow for the
redesign; they do not allow for the reallocation to supplement
the programs into a single delivery system.
On our reservation, there is one tribal government. That
tribal government needs to have the opportunity to design the
single program, not a program that is appropriate in the
Bureau, and then a different one that's appropriate for the
Office of the Special Trustee, but a single program.
Our fear in the reorganization, they have developed
separate stovepipes that go up with separate functions. As they
separate out from one program to another, it's going to force
us to renegotiate under stricter guidelines, different
guidelines, that really allow the Federal Government to
centralize those services, not to the tribes but to Washington,
D.C., or the regional area.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Any further questions? Mr. Baca.
Mr. Baca. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for having this hearing today, especially as we look at the
continued needs, not only for the self-governance and the trust
responsibility, but especially as we look at what's happening
in California right now with the new Governor who talks about
sovereignty and has the ability to go and tax each of the
sovereign countries.
What impact, if at all, will that have on any of the
sovereign nations right now as we look at additional dollars
coming up in terms of self-governance? Will that have any
impact based on some of the decisions that may happen in
California?
I believe in California alone, when I look at the
sovereignty in that area, most of the tribes contribute a lot
more than even any additional tax. Will that then reduce any
additional moneys or moneys that are allocated to some of the
tribes in California or other areas? Can anyone answer that?
Mr. Marshall. I'm from California, so I'll try.
When I introduced myself as Chairman of the Hoopa Tribe--
and Hoopa is a nongaming tribe. That doesn't mean it doesn't
have a casino. It has a small one, with less than 80 machines.
It either makes or loses $100,000 a year. But it employs 40
people and keeps 40 families off of welfare. It allows them to
live normal lives. We have a closed game because we're too
remote to draw, and we generate income from other places,
basically timber revenues.
The State compact provides for gaming revenue sharing, and
we benefit from that. A lot of things we have done, from
renovating tribal facilities, fixing leaking roofs on
facilities that were built back in the 1970s, contributing to
our preschool facility, building our dental clinic, we have
used gaming revenue sharing dollars to do that with.
There are casinos and there are casinos. There are large
casinos in the San Diego area. They produce a lot of revenue.
They also create a lot of jobs, and they donate a lot of the
money to----
Mr. Baca. On the average, they create about 1,500 jobs or
more locally in the area; is that correct?
Mr. Marshall. I believe that Mark Maccaro from Pachonga was
saying that the casinos in total create over 40,000 jobs in
California. They are very sensitive to impacts. If there's an
impact on a highway, they want to fix it. They've got the money
to do it. I think it really takes away from the history that
occurred to Indians in California. We are from the largest
reservation in California, and I wouldn't compare mine to
Fred's. I mean, Fred has a huge reservation compared to mine.
But I think mine is just as pretty.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Marshall. Most land bases in California are very small.
They were set aside simply just large enough for a farm or
large enough for a home, and families grew. So there is no
other opportunity. They aren't going to build an industrial
park. There is no land base for it. It can't rely on natural
resources. So gaming was an answer.
I know ``Arnold'' is talking about taxation. California is
a Public Law 280 State, where the Federal Government
transferred law enforcement to the State back in the 1950s. We
have a law enforcement program because the law enforcement that
was being provided by the State, in our opinion, was
inadequate. Tribes had to make up the difference. They still
see us as separate and apart from them.
Mr. Baca. That would be a change if he does tax on the
compact that was originally signed, and also not keeping its
word, right?
Mr. Marshall. We're going to see Arnold get mad. We're
going to see--Excuse me, it's Governor Schwarzenegger.
Mr. Baca. Governor-elect.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Marshall. Right, Governor-elect Schwarzenegger. He was
upset with some of the gaming tribes and he said some things.
Hopefully he will take the time to sit back and reflect on
that. I think he is not aware of the unique relationship
between tribes as nations and the United States. I think, now
that he's there, he will get an education.
Mr. Baca. I agree with you.
If I can, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but it's
shocking that the tribes only receive one-third of the money
they need for programs such as welfare, courts, land
management, assistance to the elderly, the health area, such as
diabetes, education and the infrastructure.
I know that Honorable Melanie Benjamin in her testimony
mentioned that the studies showed only 10 percent of every
dollar appropriated actually makes it to the reservations,
which means we should actually be funding at a higher level and
we should not rely on casino moneys to provide a service that
we ask the government to provide anybody else. We should be
doing the same thing.
How can we straighten the principle of financial
responsibility and government-to-government relationships,
which is question number one, and how can we get tribes more
involved in the decisionmaking process as to where the money
should go? That's open to anyone.
Mr. Matt. I'll try to take the first cut at that.
Again, for the very nature of why we're here today, that's
a way, if there's any funding during our agreement or
negotiating part of our compacts, if we can get the adequate
resources, it is our experience that, with what we have, we
have done a better job. We clearly can go down the line here
and prove that, with the limited funding that we receive, in
some cases after we've negotiated compacts, traditionally that
money starts shrinking. We still do a better job.
Mr. Baca. If I may just interject here, you're absolutely
right. Isn't that correct, that when we fund other agencies
outside of a sovereign nation, that we allow them to run and
govern their own money? And yet, we're somehow questioning
you--I mean, it seems like we should apply the same principle.
Mr. Matt. There again, in part of my written testimony I
allude to where, if we were to fund our health care system the
same as we do the prison system in the State of Montana, we
would have triple the resources that we need.
Mr. Baca. Right, and allow you to be competitive, as well,
to keep the individuals that we're educating in each of the
fields, isn't that correct? I mean, it becomes difficult when
you're competing with the outside, and yet, in terms of the
revenue and in terms of hiring people, whether it's in health,
education, or services, unless you receive the funding and are
competitive, people are going to leave. And yet the services
aren't provided. So we should be providing an equal and level
playing field on both sides, right? I mean, I think that's
where you were going.
Mr. Matt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Marshall. If I may, one of the things that was brought
up earlier was Wooster. But the Supreme Court has said that
treaties are to be interpreted as the Indians would have
understood them. That requires some dialog. What is the
Indians' understanding of the treaty obligation, or of the
trust responsibility, those duties and obligations owed to
tribes by the United States?
Self-governance, as an experiment, is an experiment in
dialog. It's an experiment in negotiation. It's an experiment
where tribes have the right, the opportunity, to sit down at
the local level with the agency, or with the regional office,
as we do it, and say this is what we want to do and this is
why. That dialog then turns into agreements, so that we meet
the trust duties as we understand them, and the United States,
through its local representation, provides the funding that's
available.
I think we cut the middleman out, the bureaucracy out. In
self-governance, we don't have the same bureaucracy that
existed before, where somebody is designing the program,
somebody is overseeing every step that we take.
We do trust evaluations. A national program, that says
trust duties are going to be performed this way, takes away all
the flexibility. We have designed programs. Part of the
designing of the program is an agreement, and how those
programs are going to be evaluated, because our program is
different than Fred's program. So a ``one size fits all''
solution is not going to be there.
The solution for us, what has worked for us, is the
flexibility to work with the agencies at the local level, who
understand us and understand what we mean when we say these are
our needs, and are willing to give us the opportunity to
provide the service that, in essence, is meeting their trust
responsibility to us, not us taking over the obligation to do
it.
Mr. Baca. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for taking the
responsibility. I know you have always been a friend to Native
Americans as well.
The Chairman. Any further questions? Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Executive Benjamin, you referred to the possibility
at some time of funding from a variety of agencies. Could you
expand on that and tell me how you think we could make that
work and why that makes sense?
Ms. Benjamin. Again, the Mille Lacs Band's position is that
we know our people the best, and we understand what their needs
are. We want to be able to have that flexibility under the
self-governance model, where we would then determine what our
priorities are for the Band. I think self-governance is a good
model to start from in those different areas, labor and
education, those types of things.
The other issue, too, is the block granting, where a lot of
the funds go through the State and through the tribe. We would
also like to have that opportunity to block grant those funds,
and we wouldn't have to have the State as a middleman for some
of those issues.
Some years ago we did do a study on that with Gore, and it
went just to a certain level and then we were unable to pursue
it any further from that. But I think from the testimony today,
it proves that when we have that flexibility to provide those
services based on our priorities, our people are better off. We
can render a better service for them.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Marshall. There are a number of programs within
Interior that perform trust obligations. The Bureau of Land
Management performs the trust obligations of surveys, mineral
management, oil and natural gas management. Tribes have hunting
and fishing rights on lands adjacent to the reservations
managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service provides the protection of fisheries and is meeting a
trust obligation to protect tribal fishing rights. So those are
programs that we want to work with to ensure the treaty
obligations and the rights that our tribes exercise are
protected. So expanding it to those programs to actually
provide the service is what we would be interested in
contracting.
Mr. Matt. I would just say that Anna reminded me that we
always try to do things at the reservation level to serve our
membership better. We are in this constant sort of
reorganization mode to do that. We have a Department of Health
and Human Services, DHRD, where there's a variety of different
funding sources--labor, the Indian Health Service and
Interior--that funnel down through this program so that we meet
the needs of our membership. It works very well, but it is
different funding agencies that come through that office. So it
does work good.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
The Chairman. Any further questions? Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Just one brief question.
This has been a very good hearing, by the way. I think it
is a very important hearing.
As sovereign tribes, as you negotiate with the Federal
Government on self-governance, you sit there as equals with the
Federal Government. Because of treaties or Executive Orders,
you sit there as equals with the Federal Government to
determine what you want as your responsibility, and what you
want to hold the Federal Government to as its responsibility. I
think it's very important that both sides recognize that this
is true negotiations between sovereigns, so you get what you
feel you need as your responsibility, and hold the Federal
Government to what you feel should be their responsibility. I
think that's very, very important.
Let me ask you this question: Are there any programs that
you believe should remain within the administration of the
Federal Government, or should tribes eventually assume
management of all Federal programs? Or is that something that
will unfold with various tribes in different ways?
Ms. Benjamin. I think it's your statement that we will
probably evolve into that process as we move ahead and look at
our successes, and we also can maybe look at areas where we may
have some adjustments to make. I guess I have to agree with
your statement, that we will probably evolve into that as we go
along and as we grow and more tribes are involved in this
process, if they so desire.
Mr. Kildee. I think that involvement is extremely
important, having been here in Washington 27 years, to
constantly remind people, whether it's the Indian Health
Service or the BIA, that you are sovereigns dealing with a
sovereign. You're not going there in any lesser position, so
they don't come in and exercise greater sovereignty than what
you have. You have real genuine sovereignty, and as I say, not
granted to you but retained by you and upheld by our courts,
something you had long before my European ancestors landed
here.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. You know, we had a hearing last week on the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, so the health care issues
are very much in mind at the Committee right now. I know,
Chairman Matt, you testified that your tribe receives
substantially less funding for health program than the Federal
Government's Medicare program, and even the Federal Prison
System. You asserted that you were able to provide quality
care.
I just wondered how the tribe manages that, in light of
what we're trying to accomplish in improving Indian health
care.
Mr. Matt. I will start again by just saying, with
creativity, that is one of the things that we have been
successful with on our reservation, getting into creativity and
how we manage that. Maybe for more of a technical explanation,
Anna is truly our right-hand person here and she is involved
with everything. She could probably give you a better idea.
Ms. Sorrell. I wanted to say that, although Chairman
Marshall says that he thinks Hoopa is just as beautiful as
Flathead, once you've been to Flathead, you will understand
that you're truly in God's country. As a result of that, we
have over 10,000 users. Our tribal membership on the
reservation is about 4,500, but we serve 10,000 eligible
beneficiaries.
Our funding has not increased at the same level as our
beneficiaries or our users. Partly that is a result of our
highly successful Salish Kootenai College. We have the only
all-Indian Job Corps center, so that brings people to our
reservation.
We have a very unique system in that, when IHS first
formed, we did not have a direct care facility built. So we are
the largest tribe in this country without a direct care
facility. In fact, we purchase all of our care on the open
market, or the majority of our care on the open market. So we
have more medical providers within a 100 mile radius, per
capita, than persons in Boston, which is one of the highest
levels. So we have had to develop a relationship, a contractual
relationship, with the providers. There are two hospitals, two
private care facilities on our reservation. We have had to
enter into contracts with those.
But what we have experienced through self-governance is
that health case isn't a service. It's a business. We need to
figure out how best to manage that business. Through our self-
governance, we have been able to build a governmental
infrastructure that has allowed us to deal with those health
care businesses in a business-like manner. We actually have a
business plan developed by an actuarial on how to deliver that
care, how we get our primary care, how we refer people to
specialists, how we enter into those hospitals. So we have this
whole plan that's in place.
Then it is supplemented, as Chairman Benjamin has talked
about, with those kinds of services in our communities, whether
that be substance abuse or the delivery of mental health
services, in a way that really respects and honors our tribal
traditions.
One thing that I would like to say is that self-governance
tribes are certainly at a disadvantage in terms of operating
the contract health care program. For a number of years, we
have been seeking assistance from self-governance tribes and
from Congress and the Indian Health Service, because when you
assume the management of contract health care, it's a limited
budget.
If you get a major accident or you have a major outbreak of
illness that requires you to go to the hospital, or a number of
people to go to the hospital, it could bankrupt your health
care system. One accident in September can cost $500,000. For
many tribes, that is the entire contract health service budget.
So tribes that take on that responsibility don't have anywhere
to get additional funds to support that. If it remains in IHS,
they have the whole system to draw on, but self-governance
tribes are limited to their individual pool.
So we have been asking and looking at ways to really reduce
or minimize the risks that allow tribes to really take on that
function, but also have the protection to ensure that tribes
are not brought into bankruptcy as a result of it.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
If I could just say, without the other tribes getting mad
at me, when you're talking about ``God's country'', in August I
had a chance to drive up through the Mille Lacs, and when I got
to the tribal headquarters and looked out at that lake, which
was so beautiful, I really thought I was in God's country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I don't think we ought to get into that.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I have to give equal time to Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Kildee had a follow-up question.
Mr. Kildee. I have been to all three of the tribes, but I
have yet to go to the Hoopa Valley Tribe. I will have to go up
to your sovereign nation and visit that. But I have been to the
other three.
Let me address this to Tadd. You are familiar with both
ends of the two sovereignties there. How do you suggest we
handle the need for increased funding for contract support
costs?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kildee, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, I think some good oversight by the Committee would
be helpful. I think a hearing on contract support would
certainly be helpful, and a message to the Departments with
regard to the shortage in that area. Certainly a strong joint
message from the Chairman and Ranking Member to the Departments
is usually very helpful in matters like that.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this has been an
excellent hearing. We ought to appreciate the fact that you
have called this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I want to thank our witnesses. It has been an educational
hearing for myself and I think for members of the Committee. As
we move forward with this, we will continue to rely on you and
others to provide information to the Committee so that we can
help the Interior Department with their administration of the
Federal laws. As a Committee, we will continue our oversight
responsibility, and if there is a necessity of legislation to
be passed, it will be this Committee that takes on that chore.
I want to thank you for your testimony. This is one of
those issues that I really do believe we need to move forward
on. I think as the testimony we have had here today
illustrates, this is an opportunity, in many cases an
opportunity, but I think in other cases a necessity for the
tribes to take more self-governance and begin to move forward.
I think it is something that is extremely important. So I want
to thank you.
If there is no further business, the Committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]