[Senate Hearing 111-923]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-923
H.R. 4347, TO AMEND THE INDIAN SELF-
DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT TO PROVIDE FURTHER SELF-
GOVERNANCE BY INDIAN TRIBES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 18, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-293 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JON TESTER, Montana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Allison C. Binney, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David A. Mullon Jr., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 18, 2010................................ 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 5
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Franken..................................... 3
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 5
Witnesses
Allen, Hon. W. Ron, Tribal Chairman/CEO, Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe; Chairman, Self-Governance Communication and Education
Tribal Consortium; and Chairman, Title IV--DOI Amendments
Tribal Workgroup; accompanied by: Geoffrey Strommer, Partner,
Hobbs, Strauss, Dean and Walker................................ 13
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 16
Micklin, Hon. Will, First Vice-President, Central Council of
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska...................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Skibine, George, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; accompanied by
Sharee Freeman, Director, Office of Self-Governance............ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Appendix
Boren, Hon. Dan, U.S. Representative from Oklahoma, prepared
statement...................................................... 39
Reffalt, William C., Vice President/Issues Coordinator, Blue
Goose Alliance, prepared statement............................. 40
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to:
Hon. W. Ron Allen............................................ 43
Hon. Will Micklin............................................ 49
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan
to:
Hon. W. Ron Allen............................................ 41
Hon. Will Micklin............................................ 45
Written questions submitted to George Skibine.................... 50
H.R. 4347, TO AMEND THE INDIAN
SELF-DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION
ASSISTANCE ACT TO PROVIDE FURTHER SELF-GOVERNANCE BY INDIAN TRIBES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:42 a.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. We will now turn to the hearing. The hearing
itself that we have scheduled for today will come to order.
This Committee is holding a hearing on H.R. 4347, the
Department of the Interior Tribal Self-Governance Act of 2010.
This is a piece of legislation that makes changes in the self-
governance program at the Department of the Interior.
The Indian Self-Determination Act I think has been one of
the most important pieces of legislation for tribes and for
tribal sovereignty. This legislation allows tribes to take
control of programs that were previously administered by the
Federal Government. When tribes administer these programs, it
gives them the ability to provide jobs in their communities and
decide themselves the best way to deliver services and programs
to their tribal members.
Today we have over 300 Indian tribes that are participating
in the self-governance program with either the Department of
the Interior or the Indian Health Service at Health and Human
Services. Although the program has been successful for tribes
over the past several years, Congress, tribes and the
Administration have been discussing ways to improve the self-
governance process. H.R. 4347 is the result of many of those
discussions.
The bill would improve the contract negotiation process
between the tribes and the Department of the Interior. It would
streamline funding processes and it would provide deadlines for
the Department to respond to tribes.
The bill passed the House of Representatives by unanimous
consent in September and appears to have a good level of
support from both Congress and the tribes. The Administration
has expressed still a few outstanding concerns about the bill.
So I thought it was important to hold a hearing to get their
views. But I hope we will be able to move quickly on this bill
following the hearing, because time is running very short in
this session.
Mr. George Skibine is here with us today on behalf of the
Department of the Interior to present the agency's views on the
bill. We will also hear from Ron Allen, who represents several
self-governance organizations and who has been working on this
issue for a number of years. Finally, we will hear from Will
Micklin, who will represent the Central Council of Tlingit and
Haida Tribes of Alaska. The Central Council was one of the
earliest groups to take advantage of self-governance, and will
discuss their experiences with the program and make
recommendations for how to proceed and how this process could
be improved through this legislation.
I want to mention that I have a statement for the record
from Congressman Dan Boren who introduced the bill in the
House. He has been a big supporter in making changes to the
self-governance program. Congressman Boren's statement will be
entered in the official record, and I will also encourage any
other interested parties who wish to include written comments
or even submit written comments here to this Committee to do
so.
We will keep the hearing record open for two weeks from
today.
And with that, I want to welcome the witnesses. I know that
my colleague, Senator Barrasso, has some comments. I would
recognize comments from anyone else on the Committee as well.
Senator Barrasso?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding what may be your last hearing as Chairman of this
Committee. I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for
your many years of public service and for your dedication to
the people of North Dakota and Indian Country.
In all my time in this Committee, and it has only been a
little over three years, you have consistently demonstrated the
strongest possible commitment and dedication to our often
complex and challenging business. While we have not always
agreed on the methods for meeting the challenges of Indian
Country, we have always agreed on the fundamental goal:
improving the health, the safety and the lives of our Nation's
Indian people. And recognizing our common goal, you have always
embraced the non-partisan, bipartisan spirit which has become a
part of the institutional history of the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs.
And I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that I really
appreciate that. I appreciate your hard work. I congratulate
you on your many successes as Chairman of this Committee. And
those include, but are by no means limited to your work in
advancing public safety, in advancing health and education in
Indian Country. It has truly been an honor to work with you on
those issues. Although I know that there is still work to do in
the last days of this Congress and in your office, I just want
to express my heartfelt thanks and my appreciation to you
today. I would ask that the members of this Committee, as well
as the members of the audience, join me in thanking you for
your incredible service.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Well, Senator Barrasso, now I am profoundly
embarrassed at those excessive--does anyone else have any
comments, other than about the Chairman?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I would just say to you,
I have had the opportunity to work with Senator McCain as
either Chair or Vice Chair, Senator Murkowski, Senator
Barrasso. But more importantly, with so many other members of
this Committee, who come to this Committee really understanding
that we have the First Americans living in third world
conditions in too many parts of this Country. We are dedicated
and determined and have been for a long, long while to make
changes that give them opportunity.
So it has been a very proud moment for me in this part of
my life to work on these issues. I intend in other ways to
continue the work with Native Americans. I really appreciate
the work of the people who have come to this Committee and made
a big difference on the Committee.
Senator Franken?
STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. I was going to make a similar statement
about the Chairman, though not one that would pull applause and
a standing ovation, which the Ranking Member so effectively
did. But similar sentiments.
I would like to talk about the principles of self-
determination and self-governance. They are a major cornerstone
of Federal Indian policy today. There is no question about it.
No one knows the needs of a sovereign Indian tribe better than
the tribe itself.
Minnesota tribes are the national leaders in self-
determination and self-governance. Mille Lacs and Red Lake were
two of the first ten tribes to establish self-governance
compacts with the Federal Government in the 1980s. They have
been running their own programs for years.
The first meeting I ever had was with Fond du Lac, and the
first with the tribes in Minnesota. Karen Diver, the Chair of
Fond du Lac, the first thing she said to me was, you got to
know sovereignty. And she pointed me to a study written at the
Kennedy School, which I went home and immediately read, about
all the benefits of sovereignty.
We need to make sure that the Federal Government is an
effective partner to tribes like Red Lake and Mille Lacs. This
means everything from providing technical support,
appropriating adequate funding for contract support costs and
making sure the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service makes decisions and responds to tribes within a
reasonable amount of time.
The bill under consideration today seeks to address some
longstanding issues that have made it difficult for tribes in
Minnesota to run their own programs effectively. Mille Lacs,
the Mille Lacs band and the Red Lake Nation helped craft this
legislation language in earlier Congresses. They are eager to
see this bill move forward, and I am looking forward to hearing
your thoughts on the bill today.
I apologize, I am going to have to leave early because I
have to go to another hearing. But I will submit my questions
for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, not to embarrass you,
but it has really been an honor being on this Committee with
you as Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Franken, thank you very much.
Before I call on Senator Tester, let me just say that I
neglected to mention Senator Inouye and Senator Ben Nighthorse
Campbell. I should have. I have been enormously proud to serve
with them while they were Chair of this Committee. All of them
have done a wonderful job. It is part of the wonderful
privilege of serving here to be able to serve with people like
that. So let me be sure to mention Senator Inouye and Senator
Campbell.
Senator Tester?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do also want to
associate myself with the remarks of the Ranking Member. I
think he said it very well. On behalf of the seven reservations
in Montana and the eight, nine, ten or eleven tribes, depending
on how we want to count, I want to say thank you. When I go
back to Montana, they say thank you to you, and for the good
work that you have done.
I remember the hearing we had on Crow on health care, and
the little girl that was, well, enough said. I will just say
that I appreciate your work in the many, many areas on this
Committee as Chairman. I think if you look at the work that was
accomplished by this Committee under your leadership, it is
very, very impressive.
I also want to talk about self-governance, self-
determination, the bill we are going to hear about today. It
has had a positive effect in Indian Country, but that does not
mean we do not need to work to make it better. Absolutely,
unequivocally, there are some issues with it, I think, that
Native Americans have, that taxpayers have, that quite frankly
the folks that implement it have. I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses today. I want to thank you for taking time
to be here, so that we can make this better.
I always think back to Chairman Carl Venne of the Crow, who
passed away here a year or maybe it has been two now, who said,
all I want is the tools to be able to be successful, and then I
want you to just get out of the road, and we will go. I think
that is what this is about, giving Indian Country the tools
they need to be successful, and they will solve the problems.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too want
to add my thanks for the many visits that you paid to the
Pacific Northwest. I think you ate a lot of salmon, and we
appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. And you visited many of our Indian
Country sites with the leadership from surrounding tribes
participating. There is nothing that really replaces that on
the ground visit and experience, to see some of the challenges.
I want to personally thank you for your dedication to Indian
health care, and the fact that we were able to be successful in
moving very important legislation there, and for your continued
dedication on making sure that we improve the governance of
Indian Country.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today,
particularly Ron Allen from the Jamestown S'Klallam. They were
one of the first of nine tribes to really take advantage of
Indian self-determination. And today, that small group has now
grown to something like 282 federally-recognized tribes. The
number could be even higher, if this legislation is passed and
the barriers to expand self-governance that are in the Title IV
of the Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act are
eliminated.
So while there are a large number of tribes taking
advantage of the flexibility and efficiency of these compacts
with the Department, we obviously have to do more in this area.
So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and their
input on this. The changes that this bill would make to Title
IV, including the requirement of the BIA to respond to final
offers within 60 days, negotiate in good faith and require
amendments to compacts should be agreed to. I think these
provisions and many other changes are common sense changes
needed to fully implement the original goals that we had for
self-determination.
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing, and
moving this legislation through the process.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Udall?
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. Let me also
associate myself with all the comments that have been made from
our colleagues, including Ranking Member Barrasso, on your
performance and your accomplishments here. I think you should
be incredibly proud. The 12 years I have been in Congress,
Chairman Dorgan, we have been fighting for that Indian Health
Care Improvement Act, and always back and forth between the
House and the Senate.
I think you and the members of this Committee have finally
gotten that done, and the Tribal law and Order Act and water
settlements. And I know that you are still working now to the
very end to see that we get some of these other things done,
which are kind of pending out there in the lame duck.
So congratulations on what I think has been one of the most
productive periods for Native American legal and legislative
accomplishments.
Let me just say on the issue of self-governance, I really
look forward to the witnesses. This is a good set of witnesses
that I think can tackle this issue.
One of the major points for me on self-governance is how
far we have come. If you look, Ron, we were just at the
National Congress of American Indians in Albuquerque. That
Congress was started as a result of the assimilation and
termination policies of the Federal Government back in 1944. If
you look over the years, we have had dramatic improvements in
self-governance, the development of tribal leaders. The tribes
should be so, so proud of that. We look forward to working with
all of you to further improve and make sure that we give you
the tools to move forward.
So thank you very much, Chairman Dorgan, once again.
The Chairman. Senator Udall, thank you very much.
Mr. Skibine, welcome. You have testified many times before
this Committee on a range of issues. You have done a lot of
good work down at the Department and we welcome you today.
You are accompanied by Sharee Freeman, who is the Director
of the Office of Self-Governance. You are the Acting Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. We appreciate
both of you being here. We will hear your testimony. The
written testimony of all three of the witnesses will be
included in the record in full, and we would ask all to
summarize.
Mr. Skibine, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE SKIBINE, ACTING PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED
BY SHAREE FREEMAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SELF-GOVERNANCE
Mr. Skibine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman
Barrasso, members of the Committee.
It is a pleasure for me to be here today to appear before
you and discuss the Department of Interior's views on H.R.
4347, the Tribal Self-Governance Act, H.R. 4347, which seeks to
amend both Title I and Title IV of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
Let me begin by saying that the Administration and
Secretary Salazar and Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk are very
strong supporters of the self-determination and self-governance
program and what it has done for Indian tribes. As stated
earlier, the program started with just a few tribes, not that
long ago, and now it has 260 some tribes that participate.
At Interior, Sharee Freeman, our Director of Self-
Governance, administers the program out of her office here in
D.C. with fairly limited staff. I think she has done an
incredible job in doing that, given the amount of millions of
dollars that pass through her office to go to Indian tribes.
So the Administration's strong support has meant that we
tried over the years, and I have at numerous times met with
Chairman Allen and members of his Title IV task force to
essentially try to come to agreements in amending Title IV for
the purposes that the tribes want them to do. We started in the
middle of the Bush Administration to have meetings. They
weren't really going anywhere for a while, and then we made a
push for it, and I think we almost got there after numerous
meetings with the self-governance tribal group.
But at the time, the Bush Administration was really opposed
to making mandatory compacts with non-BIA agencies. That was
really one of the pushes of the initial bill. It was a non-
started for the Bush Administration, so we were really unable
to do that. When the bill was re-introduced in the House here,
I think that provision was gone in terms of that. And many,
many of the provisions that we objected to were taken out.
There was a pilot project that the Administration opposed when
we testified in front of the House. That has been removed. So I
think we have come a long way.
At the end of the session, the House passed a substitute
bill that although taking some of our objections into
consideration injected additional provisions which we had not
agreed to. As a result, there have always been a few of the
provisions in there on which the tribes and the Administration
have simply not come to agreement. So we were not very far, but
essentially there is still some work to do.
So even though today we cannot support the bill as passed
by the House, I think that we are fairly close and I think we
would like to work with the tribes to be able to come to an
agreement. We met with members of the staff here before this
hearing and essentially articulated to the staff what our
concerns were, concerns with the bill as passed by the House.
So essentially, that is where we are right now. It is close,
but it is not quite there.
The Chairman. Mr. Skibine, in your testimony, you say you
met with our staff, told us what the concerns were. Summarize
the concerns.
Mr. Skibine. Yes, I will summarize some of the concerns
that we have. For instance, we have a concern with the fact
that the declination criteria of Title V that pertains to IHS
were inserted in the bill. And that in fact, there is a 60-day
time frame imposed on the government in order to approve a
funding agreement, or list why, under the IHS declination
criteria, it cannot go forward with it.
Right now, for BIA, the tribe can choose to include in its
funding agreement any provisions of Title I. So usually the
declination criteria in Title I are included. On this bill, we
have 90 days to approve or not. And it is deemed approved if we
don't do anything after 90 days. We believe that the 90 day
time frame that we have used for the past 25, 30 years in self-
governance, the determination that was passed is more
appropriate.
I think the problem that we have with the IHS criteria is
that right now, for non-BIA agencies, the entering into self-
governance compact and funding agreement is discretionary, by
and large discretionary. So if it doesn't work, they don't do
it. But I think that by requiring those agencies to, at 60
days, to disapprove or approve a final offer under specific
declination criteria really makes it quite quasi-mandatory for
them to do something.
So I think there is some real concern, especially with the
non-BIA agencies, over the import of that particular provision.
I think in Indian Affairs, we prefer having the existing
declination criteria and I think we also prefer to have the 90
days.
Some of the other concerns we have are that the bill
requires a turnaround of 10 days from apportionment of the
funds to the tribe. And although we understand that IHS does
that, at the Department, our financial system is not geared up
or designed to be able to do that. So we would not be able to
comply with that provision. We think that it is not, at this
point, essentially, we can't really support something that we
cannot comply with because of the way our financial systems are
devised.
Another provision that is an issue is the issue with
regulations. I think one of the time frames in the regulation
says that the authority to regulate, to issue regulation,
expires after, I think it is 24 months. I think that we have 18
months to come up with proposed regs. So we think it will be
impossible, based on past experience, to come up with final
regulations six months after coming up with proposed
regulations.
Our experience with negotiated rulemaking, both with 638
and self-governance, is that it takes an incredible amount of
time to come up with these regs based on consultation with
tribes. And that in effect, we would like to have a broader
time frame.
I remember that when I was involved in the negotiation
rulemaking with 638 tribes, we also had a deadline in the Act,
and we couldn't meet it. We had to come back to Congress to
amend the Act just to provide more time. So that is a problem.
Now, we also, I think, we have a problem with some of the
reports that are required in the legislation. One of these
reports, which I have told the self-governance tribes is a
problem, is that we have to come up with a report identifying
the amount of funds that we spend for inherently Federal
functions. I think that practically, we would never be able to
come up with this figure. Plus, it would be costly.
So we think that to minimize cost and to make it more
acceptable to the Administration, a provision that requires
that and some other reports is unnecessary.
Finally, although we have identified to the staff some
other provisions, we have a concern from the non-BIA agencies
in the section on construction. I think that with non-BIA
agencies, especially Bureau of Reclamation, that the Bureau
would like more involvement and ability to monitor construction
contracts.
So with that, I think that will essentially summarize my
comments, unless, Sharee, you have anything to add at this
point. And Sharee will be pleased to answer any of the
questions that you may have.
The Chairman. I have a lot of questions, actually.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Skibine follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Skibine, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning, Chairman Dorgan, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and Members
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Department of the Interior's Tribal Self-
Determination and Self-Governance programs and H.R. 4347, the
Department of the Interior Tribal Self-Governance Act. H.R. 4347 seeks
to amend both Title I and Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA or Act) (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.). While
the Administration supports the principles of self-determination and
self-governance, we cannot support the bill, H.R. 4347, as passed by
the House, as it poses significant practical and legal problems with
regard to appropriate management of federal funding and programs.
President Obama recognizes that federally recognized Indian tribes
are sovereign, self-governing political entities that enjoy a
government-to-government relationship with the United States
government, as expressly recognized in the U.S. Constitution. Secretary
Salazar too is a strong supporter of the principle of tribal self-
determination, the principles of ISDEAA, and is committed to working to
fully enable tribal self-governance.
Funding agreements under this Act have helped to strengthen
government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. We support
appropriate strengthening of the existing ISDEAA to make it work better
for the Federal government and for Indian tribal governments. Self-
governance tribes have been good managers of the programs they have
undertaken. Many times, tribal governments add their own resources to
the programs and are able to fashion programs to meet their needs and
the particular needs of their members. Tribal governments are often
better suited than the Federal Government to address the changing needs
of their members. Indian tribal governments have often observed that,
when they are working under self-governance compacts and funding
agreements, they are not viewed by the Federal government as just
another Federal contractor, and that their work under funding
agreements reflects a true government-to-government relationship
characterized by mutually agreed-to responsibilities and tribal
empowerment to make a program work.
On June 9, 2010, the House Natural Resources Committee held a
hearing on H.R. 4347, and on September 22, 2010 the bill passed the
U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation deals, not only with
funding agreements between tribal governments and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), but also funding agreements between tribal governments
and non-BIA bureaus and offices within the Department. We are
interested in discussing how to improve Title I and Title IV, but under
this legislation, as passed by the House, the Secretary has little
ability to maintain appropriate oversight of the programs that tribal
governments assume from the Federal Government.
The Department recognizes and appreciates that Indian tribal
governments have worked diligently over the past decade to amend and
improve Title IV of the ISDEAA. We recognize the need for this program
to evolve to improve and increase the frequency of funding agreements.
Since the House hearing in June on H.R. 4347, the Department has met
and cooperated with legislative staff and tribal government
representatives to discuss the Department's concerns with the bill.
These efforts include:
Four meetings or conference calls with legislative staff;
E-mail correspondence with legislative staff;
Two conference calls with representatives of tribal
governments, and;
One meeting with both legislative staff and tribal
government representatives.
We note, and appreciate, that the bill, as passed by the House,
addresses some of the issues raised by the Department in earlier
testimony. We request an opportunity to continue working with the
Committee and tribal government representatives to discuss the
Department's concerns. With further dialogue and information exchanges,
this bill could be significantly improved.
My statement will begin with a brief discussion of the history of
the ISDEAA. I will then discuss some examples of successes that the
Department has recently had under the enacted ISDEAA. Finally, I will
conclude with a discussion of general and specific concerns with the
bill.
Background
In 1988, Congress amended the ISDEAA by adding Title III, which
authorized the self-governance demonstration project. In 1994, Congress
again amended the Act by including Title IV, which established a
program within the Department to be known as Tribal Self-Governance.
The addition of Title IV made self-governance a permanent option for
tribes. These amendments, in section 403(b), authorized federally
recognized tribes that meet criteria established for the program, to
negotiate funding agreements with the Department for programs,
services, functions or activities administered by the BIA. Within
certain parameters, the amendments authorized funding agreements with
other bureaus of the Department. In 2000, the Act was amended again to
include Titles V and VI, making self-governance a permanent option for
tribes to negotiate compacts with the Indian Health Service (IHS)
within the Department of Health and Human Services and provided for a
study to determine the feasibility of conducting a Self-Governance
Demonstration Project in other programs of that department.
In total, current law allows federally recognized Tribes and tribal
consortiums to assume programs administered by the Department's bureaus
and offices, subject to negotiations, when the programs are available
to Indian tribes or Indians because of their status as Indians. The law
also provides the Secretary with discretion to include other programs
under his administration which are of special geographic, historical,
or cultural significance to the participating tribal government
requesting a compact.
Tribal participation in self-governance has progressed from seven
tribes and total obligations of about $27 million in 1991 to an
expected 100 agreements including 260 federally recognized tribes and
obligations in excess of $420 million in FY 2011. This figure includes
funding from BIA and other Federal funds that pass through BIA. Other
Department bureaus and offices also fund agreements under the authority
of the ISDEAA, also known as P.L. 93-638.
These self-governance funding agreements allow federally recognized
tribes to plan, conduct, consolidate, and administer programs,
services, functions, and activities according to priorities established
by tribal governments. Under these agreements, tribal governments
provide a wide range of programs and services to their members such as
law enforcement, education, and welfare assistance. Many of the funding
agreements include trust related programs such as real estate services,
appraisals, probates and natural resource programs such as forestry,
fisheries, and agriculture. Under tribal self-governance, tribal
governments have authority to redesign or consolidate many BIA
programs, services, functions, and activities other than construction.
In addition, self-governance tribes can reallocate certain funds during
the year and spend carry-over funds in the next fiscal year without
Secretarial approval. As a result, these funds can be used with
relative flexibility to address each tribal government's unique
condition. Self-governance tribes are subject to annual trust
evaluations to monitor the performance of trust functions they perform.
They are also subject to annual audits pursuant to the Single Audit Act
Amendments (P.L. 104-156) and OMB Circular A-133. In addition, most
self-governance tribes have included language in their funding
agreements indicating that they will work with the Department to
provide applicable data and information pursuant to the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.
What makes these funding agreements unique is that Title IV of
ISDEAA allows participating tribal governments to re-design many
programs for their members and set their own priorities consistent with
Federal laws and regulations. This authority allows tribal leaders to
respond to the unique needs of their tribal members without seeking
approval by Departmental officials.
Successful Departmental Self-Governance programs
Many tribal governments have successfully implemented self-
governance programs to meet their unique needs. For example, the
Chickasaw Nation in 2006 provided education services to over 7,200
students. In addition, 945 students participated in remedial education
and tutoring and 82 percent of the students receiving tutoring gained
one grade level or more. Scholarships were provided to 181
undergraduate students and 43 graduate students. The Tribe's tribal
district court heard 1,118 cases, and collected almost $50,000 in court
fees and over $32,000 for restitution and child support. In January
2006, the Tribe's Supreme Court and district court were audited by BIA
and received excellent ratings. The Tribe also provided career
counseling, skills assessment, aptitude testing, and other employment
readying services to 1,320 clients. The Tribe coordinated a job fair
that attracted 53 vendors and over 500 job seekers. The Tribe's police
department implemented a new computer system which has aided in
multiple dispatching methods and improved data collection,
investigation, and crime analysis and reporting. This example is just
one of many where Tribes have been successful in directly administering
federal programs.
Section 403(b)(2) of Title IV of ISDEAA authorizes other bureaus
within the Department to enter into funding agreements with tribal
governments subject to such terms as may be negotiated between the
parties. The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG) has
successfully implemented Annual Funding Agreements (AFAs) since 2004 to
perform activities in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge in the
interior of Alaska. The CATG is a consortium that represents the Tribal
governments of Arctic Village, Beaver, Birch Creek, Canyon Village,
Chalkyitsik, Circle, Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Government of Fort
Yukon, Rampart, Stevens Village, and Venetie. Members of these Tribes
live near or within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, the third
largest of the more than 540 conservation units in the National
Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge was established in 1980, and
includes more than 8.5 million acres of wetland and boreal forest
habitat along 300 miles of the Yukon River, north of Fairbanks, Alaska.
It is internationally noted for its abundance of migratory birds.
CATG has been able to successful negotiate agreements to fund
activities including: (1) wildlife harvest data collection; (2) Yukon
Flats moose management; and (3) maintenance of Federal property in and
around Fort Yukon. Public use (including sport and subsistence hunting,
fishing, and trapping) is not affected by these agreements. Consistent
with Title IV, management authority remains with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) as required by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act.
The agreements between the Grand Portage Band of Chippewa and Grand
Portage National Monument show how the self-governance program works in
the National Park Service (NPS). Grand Portage National Monument and
Grand Portage Band of Chippewa have had 11 years of successive base
contracts for all maintenance, design and construction at the monument.
There have been 13 amendments to the base contract plus 68 additional
projects for GIS, sewage lift stations, trail work, exhibits, parking
lots, landscaping, signage, mortar work, generator and roof repair, and
more. The tribe manages roughly one quarter of the annual
appropriations made to NPS for the Grand Portage National Monument. As
of September 2009, $4,514,173 has been transferred and used for
projects
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) also presents case examples
of successful implementation of Self-governance compacts under the
current law. In FY 2009, Reclamation had annual funding agreements with
five Tribes, totaling about $67 million, which includes funding from
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-5). One of
these funding agreements is with the Chippewa Cree Tribe (CCT) of the
Rocky Boy's Reservation. Reclamation's Montana Area Office in the Great
Plains Region and the CCT have been working together under a series of
self-governance Annual Funding Agreements (AFAs) under Title IV of
ISDEAA to implement on-reservation water resource development as
provided for in the CCT's 1999 water rights settlement act. Under these
AFAs, the CCT assumed responsibility for planning, designing, and
constructing dam enlargement and rehabilitation for Bonneau, Brown's,
and East Fork Dams and Towe Ponds, as well as providing for future
water development. The CCT created the Chippewa Cree Construction
Company, which has successfully completed much of the work carried out
under these AFAs, providing training and jobs for tribal members in the
process. Reclamation's role has been to provide administrative
oversight and technical assistance. The working relationship between
the CCT and Reclamation has been cordial, productive, and carried out
in a professional manner. As of August 2009, the CCT completed all of
the work at Bonneau, Browns, East Fork Dams and Towe Ponds. At this
time, all of the facilities are operational and are full or
substantially full. Another successful working relationship between
Reclamation and the CCT under Title IV involves ongoing work on
features of the Rocky Boys/North Central Montana Water Project, a rural
water system.
Department Concerns with H.R. 4347
Over the past decade, Indian tribal governments have been
diligently seeking to amend and improve Title IV of the ISDEAA Tribal
self-governance program. The Department recognizes the need for this
program to evolve so as to build on these successful efforts and to
increase the number of funding agreements.
The goal of H.R. 4347 is to make the administration of the
Department's Tribal Self-Governance program consistent with the
administration of the IHS Self-Governance program. \1\ Less apparent
are the reasons for insisting that the Interior Department's and IHS's
Tribal Self-Governance programs be consistent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See H.R. 111-603 at 18 (Sept. 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress extended the self-governance program to IHS programs so
that tribal governments would have more autonomy in the management and
delivery of tribal health care programs that serve tribal members. \2\
IHS's primary mission is to provide federal health services to American
Indians and Alaska Natives. Additionally, the IHS provides other
services to American Indians and Alaska Natives, including facilities
construction, water and sanitation services, scholarships for health
professionals, and health services to urban Indians. The Department's
responsibilities are also multifaceted and vary with the mission of the
bureau or office. However, there are distinct different in the
Department's responsibilities. For example, the Reclamation's mission
is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the
American public. \3\ The National Park Service's mission is to preserve
unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the
national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of
this and future generations. \4\ While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people. \5\ Unlike IHS, which is dedicated to providing health
services to American Indians and Alaska Natives, these non-BIA bureaus
serve many constituent groups and interests through diverse programs
and projects, which affects how these other bureaus are structured and
how they carry out their programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See http://info.ihs.gov/TrblSlfGov.asp (last visited Nov. 12,
2010).
\3\ See http://www.usbr.gov/main/about/mission.html (last visited
Nov. 12, 2010).
\4\ See http://www.nps.gov/legacy/mission.html (last visited Nov.
12, 2010).
\5\ See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/alpena/mission.html (last
visited Nov. 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fundamental question is whether Title V is the appropriate model
for administering Title IV programs. The Department believes that the
way Title V programs are administered would not work well for Title IV
programs.
For example, Title V has limited grounds for declination of a
funding agreement. The enumerated list is also known as ``declination
reasons.'' Currently, Title IV uses the declination reasons set forth
in Title I. H.R. 4347 would change the declination reasons for Title IV
to the declination reasons provided in Title V. \6\ This is problematic
because the declination reasons in Title V may work for health care
programs but do not necessarily work well for programs administered by
the Department. The four declinations permitted under Title V include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 458aaa-6(c)(1)(A).
1. If the ``the amount of funds proposed in the final offer
exceeds the applicable funding level to which the Indian tribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is entitled under this part,'' or
2. If the ``the program, function, service or activity (or
portion thereof) that is the subject of the final offer is an
inherent Federal function that cannot legally be delegated to
an Indian tribe''
3. If the or ``the Indian tribe cannot carry out the program,
function, service, or activity (or portion thereof) in a manner
that would not result in significant danger or risk to the
public health'' or
4. If ``the Indian tribe is not eligible to participate in
self-governance.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 458aaa-6(c)(1)(A).
The Secretary, in analyzing tribal government's proposals to carry
out programs, may have valid grounds, beyond these four declination
reasons, for rejecting the tribal government's final offer. The
Secretary may determine, for example, that the final offer does not
adequately fulfill the mission of the non-BIA bureau or office. The
Title V declination reasons do not acknowledge such a concern.
In fact, the first declination reason in Title V does not apply to
non-BIA programs, where there is no ``applicable funding level to which
the Indian tribe is entitled.'' Moreover, the third declination reason
in Title V permits declination only if the proposed manner of carrying
out the non-BIA program would ``result in significant danger or risk to
the public health.'' While that may be a valid criterion for evaluating
tribal proposals to assume health care programs from IHS, it is an
inadequate criterion for evaluating tribal proposals to assume programs
to construct dams or irrigation projects, survey endangered species or
to administer national parks. The only declination reasons that H.R.
4347 offers to non-BIA bureaus and offices are that the tribal
government proposes to assume an inherently Federal function or that
the tribe is not eligible to participate in self-governance. This
severe limitation on the Secretary's ability to reject a tribe's final
offer deprives the Secretary of the necessary authority to influence
how Federal programs that are not for the benefit of Indians because of
their status as Indians are to be carried out.
Other provisions that the Department finds problematic include, but
are not limited to:
Section 405. Funding Agreements
The Department is concerned with the reduced ability for the
Secretary to provide adequate safeguards, particularly in
construction carried out for Title I eligible programs by non-
BIA bureaus. When Reclamation is responsible for the
construction of, or major repairs to, a large dam, whether the
effort is carried out under Title IV or otherwise, the
Secretary should have the flexibility to require reasonable
measures to ensure tribal and public safety. To address this,
Section 405(b)(3) should be modified to closely parallel
Section 405(b)(2) providing the Secretary the discretion to
require additional terms for construction under Section 408,
especially when there are potential health and safety concerns
or post-construction Secretarial liabilities or
responsibilities, such as liability under the Safety of Dams
Act.
Section 407. Provisions related to the Secretary
Section 407(d)(2) requires the Secretary to show by clear and
convincing evidence the grounds for rejecting a final offer
from a tribal government. This heightened burden of proof
handicaps the Secretary's ability to negotiate agreements with
tribal governments that best fulfill the missions of non-BIA
bureaus and offices. This burden should be ``by a preponderance
of the evidence.''
Section 408. Construction
The legislation should be clarified to state that specific
construction provisions under Section 408 provisions in Section
405 (Funding Agreements), Section 406 (General Provisions) and
Section 409 (Payment).
Construction projects can vary from very simple to very
complex. Thus the minimum amount of oversight, reviews and
inspections should be subject to negotiations for each project.
As such we recommend that the minimum amounts be removed from
the legislation.
Section 413. Funding Needs.
The Department expressed concern with this provision in its
testimony on June 9, 2010. As a result, the House Natural
Resources Committee made slight changes to this section.
Nonetheless, the Department remains concerned with this
provision because it could potentially limit the discretion of
the Secretary to reallocate funds among different programs as a
result of changing priorities and the emergence of new critical
needs. Furthermore, identifying shortfalls could make the
Department vulnerable to lawsuits for the identified funding
shortfalls.
Conclusion
While we appreciate the effort made to address some of the concerns
raised by the Department, we continue to have significant concerns with
the bill. In particular, given the breadth of the Department's
responsibilities, this legislation could significantly hinder the
Department's ability to accomplish its statutory mandates through its
multiple bureaus and offices by limiting Secretarial discretion and
allowing for the transfer of certain functions that should
appropriately be maintained at the Federal level. We would like to
continue to work with this Committee and tribal governments to expand
compacting opportunities and improve our program.
On a broader note, I would like to reiterate this Administration's
commitment to restoring the integrity of the government-to-government
relationship with Indian tribal governments. Many challenges face our
Native American communities. This Administration is committed to
working with this Committee and with tribal governments so that,
together, we can create opportunities for these communities to thrive
and flourish.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Mr. Allen, welcome. Ron Allen is the Tribal
Chairman and CEO of James S'Klallam Tribe, the Chairman of the
Board of the Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal
Consortium, and a couple of other chairmanships. You have been
very active, and you have been in front of this Committee many
times. We appreciate your coming back.
STATEMENT OF HON. W. RON ALLEN, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN/CEO, JAMESTOWN
S'KLALLAM TRIBE; CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, SELF-GOVERNANCE
COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION TRIBAL CONSORTIUM; AND CHAIRMAN,
TITLE IV--DOI AMENDMENTS TRIBAL WORKGROUP; ACCOMPANIED BY:
GEOFFREY STROMMER, PARTNER, HOBBS, STRAUSS, DEAN AND WALKER
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators. I
definitely appreciate the opportunity to come and testify on
this self-governance legislation. I too share the Indian
Country's deep appreciation for your leadership. So we thank
you, and you heard our deep appreciation to you when you talked
to us at NCAI. We definitely are looking forward to working
with you further after you move on to the next chapter in your
career.
Self-governance is one of the best success stories of the
Federal Government with respect to advancing tribal
sovereignty. Senator Franken made the comment about the
Minnesota tribes saying start with sovereignty and move from
there. Yes, we are sovereign governments.
How do you implement the sovereignty in terms of advancing
the interests of our people? This legislation started in its
pilot phase in 1988. And yes, my tribe was one of them. Now, we
have 260 or so tribes in the BIA, 330 some odd tribes in IHS.
It is a movement. And it is not a program. There is one thing
you need to understand: it is not a program. It is implementing
our governmental authority over all programs that we serve our
community. We are acting as governments.
We are no longer contracting with you because of some
treaty obligation or some moral or ethical obligation you have
to the Indian people of this Nation. We are governments, and we
have always been governments. What we want is control over our
destiny. We want control over our ability to become self-
reliant again. We always were in historical times and we want
to be here in modern times, in the 21st century.
We have nothing but success. I could be waving a book that
we wrote with all kinds of examples, from Alaska to Florida,
criss-crossing Indian Country, of the success of self-
governance.
So this legislation is simply an amendment, a technical
amendment, to require the Federal Government, in terms of how
we are able to negotiate with them and to take over these
Federal programs that are intended for the benefit of our
tribes and our people. That is what this is about.
I appreciate your accepting our testimony. We have
addressed a lot of the issues that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and Department of Interior have raised. We feel we have
answered it. This subject matter, for this amendment, for Title
IV, has been going on for 10 years. And we deeply appreciate
the fact that we are really close, finally close to matching in
principle the Title V and moving the agenda forward.
I think it is important to recognize, as we talk about
these different issues within this legislation, this amending
legislation, that we have worked diligently with the Committee
on both the Republican side and the Democratic leadership
staff, as well as the Administration. To the credit of George
Skibine and his leadership, we have gotten a lot of traction on
this over the last year and a half or so. That is good. A lot
of those issues are off the plate. There were a lot of them. We
have spent countless hour working through these issues.
I am a little frustrated as I hear issues that I felt that
we put to rest that are back here on the table. We don't feel
they should be. Our answer to that real quick question would be
that we urge that the Committee actually consider that we feel
we have answered these questions and issues that are being
raised by the Bureau, because the majority of this is the BIA
and not the non-BIA. And if there are legitimate issues that
the Administration wants to raise, then we feel we can come
back in a technical amendment and correct it.
You have never passed a perfect bill. It has never happened
in the history of America. So why is it that we have to have
the perfect bill to address Indian Country? Why is it? We have
consistently said to you that we are the most regulated people
of America. Why is that? Why do we have to have a higher
standard in terms of how the Federal Government meets its
obligations to our communities?
So when you talk about the final determination, we just
want a very clear determination on in terms of when we
negotiate. You have an obligation to get back to us. With
regard to Prompt Payment Act, well, quite frankly, yes, 10
days, IHS can do it. We have over a billion dollars that are
contracted out with the tribes. They do it, and you have the
Prompt Payment Act. So it is not 10 days, it is 10 days plus 14
days. So there is no reason why you can't get the money.
We carry those Federal programs out. So we have to go
borrow money to carry out Federal functions. I don't see you
giving us any recourse on that issue. So we will get the money
to you when we can get the money to you, but meanwhile, you
guys go out there and do your job that you are supposed to be
doing.
So there are those kinds of issues that are out there.
Reporting requirements, the Federal Government and its agencies
report to you all the time. All we are doing is asking them to
report to you how well this program is being administered and
implemented. We think it is very reasonable that the stuff that
we are asking with regard to self-governance is being admitted
into the record.
I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I am definitely here to
answer questions. As a chairman of one of the lead tribes, I am
very dedicated to making this happen. I am very dedicated to
finding common ground. Indian Country knows common ground is
essential for success. All we want to do is keep moving this
agenda forward to allow us to move our agenda forward to take
care of our future generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman/CEO, Jamestown
S'Klallam Tribe; Chairman, Self-Governance Communication and
Education Tribal Consortium; and Chairman, Title IV--DOI Amendments
Tribal Workgroup
The Chairman. Mr. Allen, thank you very much.
Finally, we will hear from the honorable Will Micklin, who
is the First Vice-President of the Central Council of Tlingit
and Haida Tribes of Alaska in Juneau, Alaska. Mr. Micklin,
thank you very much. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILL MICKLIN, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT, CENTRAL
COUNCIL OF TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS TRIBES OF ALASKA
Mr. Micklin. Greetings from Alaska. My name is Will
Micklin, my Tlingit name is Yaan Yaan Eesh. I am of the Wolf
Tribe, Teikweidee Clan of the Kaat Hit House of the Tongass
Tribe of Ketchikan. I am a Sealaska shareholder and a member of
the Alaska Native Brotherhood Camp 14.
I am elected Vice-President of the Central Council of
Tlingit Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, federally-recognized
tribe from Southeast Alaska with 28,000 enrolled members. Our
18 communities in Southeast Alaska span Hydaburg in the south
of Prince of Wales Island to Yakutat near Mt. Saint Elias in
the north. Our headquarters are in Juneau, Alaska.
I am an eight-term tribal Assemblyman and two terms on the
Executive Council. Today I am Acting President in place of
President Edward Thomas, who is outside the Country on
vacation.
Tribal self-governance is a goal for which the Congress and
Indian tribes long have expressed strong support. Amending
Federal law to increase tribal self-governance authority
creates many benefits for all parties involved, ranging from
reduced reporting costs to increased program flexibility and
innovation and implementation.
The key to meaningful tribal self-governance is the respect
for the capacity of tribal governments to carry out Federal
functions and implement Federal policies. If it is authentic, a
Federal policy that honors government to government relations
with Indian tribes is one that trusts the corrections inherent
in elected tribal leadership. Tribal accountability and
effectiveness is enhanced if Federal officials properly
restrain their role in tribal self-governance. All of this
improves the services delivered to our people.
Central Council is deeply invested in making tribal self-
governance a success. In 1987, Central Council was among the
initial group of 10, the so-called demonstration tribes, who
worked with the Congress to draft what became the self-
governance statute. Central Council's President Thomas, along
with Chairman Ron Allen here today, shaped the original law at
each stage of its development, from the study and planning
language in the fiscal year 1988 appropriations bill to the
Title III demonstration language that originated with this
Committee in the early 1990s to Title IV, which likewise
originated here in 1994.
Tlingit and Haida was the first tribe to enter into a
multi-agency agreement under Public Law 103-477, more or less
the son of self-governance, which allowed us to consolidate
employment and training funding from various Federal sources
into a single, coordinated tribal program. We are proud of the
active role our tribe has been able to play in the movement
toward expanded self-governance, and our people are eager to
make every contribution we can toward furthering that movement.
In 1992, our initial compact and funding agreement, one of
the first in the Country, and the first in Alaska, completely
closed an entire agency office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and transferred its funding and responsibility to Central
Council and other tribes in our region. Where the BIA employees
before delivered our services, we assumed responsibility to
serve ourselves. Central Council did step into the shoes of the
Federal Government.
Ours was the very first multi-tribal compact that provided,
by mutual agreement, with some of the IRA tribes in Southeast
Alaska, Central Council administration of programs that
directly benefitted these tribes and their tribal members. For
the past 25 years, Central Council has pushed hard to see self-
governance fulfill its promise of devolving paternal Federal
power and conveying resources to the tribal government level
where they can be exercised most efficiently and cost-
effectively with the greatest accountability to the tribal
citizen and public taxpayer. In our experience, tribal self-
governance is the cure for debilitating Federal dependence,
giving rise to healthy tribal governments that fulfill the
promise of self-sufficiency.
Tlingit Haida's experience with tribal self-governance has
not been without challenges. An unfounded fear on the part of
the Federal bureaucracy has fueled bureaucrats' constant
battles with tribes' advance guard in negotiations of our
agreements and battles with our rear guard to compel
bureaucrats to honor our agreements. Rules have been changed by
Federal officials arbitrarily and capriciously, without notice
or consultation. Negotiations have simply stalled without end
or consequence for bad faith actions.
Payments have been delayed for months and years. For
example, between 1996 and 2000, Interior failed to deliver to
us a total of $953,781 in contract support cost funding that
its own negotiators, in applying the Uniform Federal Rules, had
determined were due us for our operation of BIA-funded
programs. We had to meet the shortfall with earnings from our
tribal trust fund. Using tribal trust fund dollars to meet
Federal contractual obligations resulted in lost opportunities
to address the many problems facing our people. Every year,
Interior has failed to delivery timely the funding it agreed to
deliver, forcing us to borrow funds n order to meet even our
basic payroll obligations.
We have to fight every step of the way, because the law
provides very little language to a tribe and oceans of
discretion to the Federal bureaucrats that enable them to
delay, obstruct, frustrate and eventually diminish tribal
initiatives. These fights are costly for us in terms of time,
money and opportunity. The delays in time and loss of
opportunity for our tribal self-help efforts are so significant
that we are compelled to seek a fix for each problem.
Tlingit Haida joined with other tribes over the past 10
years to shape and reshape this bill to blunt objections from
wave after wave of Federal bureaucrats. We began a decade ago
with what we thought would be a simple task of asking Congress
to replicate the law reforms regarding health self-governance,
which Congress imposed on the Indian Health Service in Title V
in the year 2000. If it worked for IHS, why not for BIA? That
remains our central message.
And it is the basis of our request today. We have worked
for years with each Administration to pare down this bill to
the bare minimum. Today the House-passed bill reflects great
compromise on the part of tribes. We have conceded point after
point to the Interior Department.
If there are any changes to the House-passed H.R. 4347,
which the Senate or the Department believe are necessary, they
can be made in the form of technical amendments next year after
enactment of this bill this year, but not now. It is imperative
that in the coming days, the Senate pass and send on to the
President the House-passed H.R. 4347.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to present this
testimony on behalf of Central Council and its tribal citizens
we serve. We commend you and this very distinguished Committee
for the valuable time you are dedicating to this very important
issue in the final hours of Congress.
On a personal note, and on behalf of President Ed Thomas, I
thank you, Chairman Dorgan, for your years of service and
commitment that you have given to Indian Country, among your
other commitments in the United States Senate. Your dedication
and that of your most able staff will be long-remembered. And
as you leave for us in Indian Country a legacy of significant
accomplishments, including, I hope, Senate passage of H.R.
4347, I wish you well as you move on to ever-greater success
and personal satisfaction. Tribal self-governance is the single
most important Federal Indian law reform that I have seen in my
lifetime. I hope you and your colleagues see fit to lay H.R.
4347 on the President's desk for signature into law before the
end of this year.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Micklin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Will Micklin, First Vice-President, Central
Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
The Chairman. Mr. Micklin, thank you very much. That too is
my hope. My hope is that we are able to move on this
legislation. We will have several weeks, perhaps, in December
in the lame duck session. My hope is that we will resolve
whatever remaining controversy exists and pass this
legislation. This is a very important piece of legislation.
Mr. Skibine, you have come before this Committee in many
different ways. I was thinking as you were speaking of the
times when Senator McCain was Chairman and I was Vice Chairman
and you would come, and I actually felt sorry for you from time
to time. You are smart, you are dedicated, but you would come
to us and you would have to explain to us why things weren't
happening when we were told they were going to happen.
You explained to me one day in a hearing why, after 17
years, there were not yet rules and regulations on off-
reservation gaming. And I said, I don't understand, 17 years? I
can understand missing things by a month or a week or perhaps a
year. But 17 years?
A couple of years ago, actually five years ago, on the
issue of Federal recognition, you came to this Committee and
indicated that you felt that you would move forward on rules
and regulations on the issue of tribal recognition, Federal
recognition of Indian tribes. And I think two years ago you
said to us that you had specific ideas moving through the
pipeline.
I tell you that because that is why it seems to me those
who wish to advance the interests of self-determination and
make it work are not persuaded at all that they can be
protected, unless in law we impose time limits on Interior.
They have simply experienced unacceptable practices with
respect to not getting things done.
So when I asked you during your testimony specifically to
tell me what are the differences and what do you object to, and
you went through the list of being required to by 60 days,
being required to by 90 days, being required to in a certain
period of time to develop rule and regulations, I thought,
well, man, I am on their side on that. I would want to require
you too as well.
So give me, if you can, the defense of the Department in
meeting time deadlines, in doing things necessary in a timely
way. We appreciate working with you, but this Committee has
never been very impressed with the glacial pace of the
Department on a whole range of issues.
Mr. Skibine. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. First, I want to
say, we did pass off-reservation gaming regulations.
The Chairman. And I know why you passed them, because we
put a lot of heat on the chair you were sitting on. When I
asked the question, why has it taken 17 years, but I appreciate
the fact that once we prodded and prodded, it got done.
Mr. Skibine. Yes, that is true. And we are very close on
moving forward on Federal acknowledgment regulations, amending
that, too. So that was a pledge that hopefully we can fulfill
before too long.
On the time frame, I think that we in Indian Affairs, we
have a time frame. Because usually the funding agreements
include the declination criteria in Title I, which is a 90-day
time frame. I think what we wanted it to be is to stay
consistent with what the Bureau of Indian Affairs does now with
respect to self-determination contracts.
The problem I think we are concerned with for the time
frame is because often, if the documents or the proposal goes
somewhere where it is not supposed to go, another agency, and
does not reach the Office of Self-Governance, then we will have
a problem in that, by the time we get it, we might have much
fewer time. And that I think is something that, first of all, I
have certainly experienced that with the approval of compacts
on gaming, where we have 45 days, and if not, it is deemed
approved.
And if that is sent to an agency or it is misplaced
somewhere, we can altogether miss it. And in fact, we did that,
and it got us into a lot of hot water with respect to some
California compacts a few years ago.
So we prefer, just to be on the safe side, to have a longer
time frame. I think overall with respect to the 90 days that
self-determination contracts operate on, that pretty much has
worked. Right, Sharee?
The Chairman. Well, but the only point I am making, I won't
go beyond this, is that I have sat here in this chair, and my
colleagues have as well. I know that on tribal recognition, you
have applications down there from 25 years ago that have never
been acted on. On the issue of taking land into trust, you have
things down there that have been sitting on your desk for 15
years with no action. And I have had to hold hearings to find
out what is going on.
So the only point I am making is, the objections you raised
about imposing time deadlines on the Interior Department come
from a long line of failures of the Department proceeding
expeditiously to make thoughtful and constructive judgments
about issues that have been presented to it. So I really think
that the record that has been compiled, I don't want to injure
your opportunity to make the right decision. But the evidence
suggests that it takes far too long in virtually every area.
So to the extent that we pass legislation, the House
already has, to the extent that we pass legislation, if there
are really substantive objections other than, this is going to
press us to have to move ahead with some dispatch, that is not
much of an objection to me. I say, do it, do it right and do it
expeditiously so that we can get some answers on some of these
issues.
I have a couple of other questions as well, but I have to
step in the back to take a conference call. It is only going to
take about eight minutes, but it is very important. One of my
two colleagues will chair, just for a moment. Senator Tester
indicated he would be willing to chair.
Let me call on Senator Cantwell to inquire and then Senator
Tester will follow, and I will be back to ask additional
questions. Senator Tester, thank you very much. Senator
Cantwell, why don't you proceed.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Allen, in the Northwest we have some of the first
tribes, as I mentioned, to be included in the program. We also
have tribes that want the compact to be more flexible, as you
were discussing. But they haven't because of those barriers
that exist in Title IV.
What do you think is the number one barrier to tribes in
thinking about taking over those BIA functions under Title IV?
And how does the legislation help us with that?
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for always
being supportive of our effort on self-governance. Of our 29
tribes in Washington State, I think it is somewhere in the
neighborhood of 18 to 20 of them are self-governance. There are
a couple who are wanting to negotiate.
But if there is an impediment, the subject matter that Mr.
Skibine is raising is one of the examples of the final
determination. We go into negotiations, we identify what we
think is our fair share in each of these categories and
negotiate until either we get to a common ground or we get a
difference of opinion, and then we make a final offer.
If we don't have a definitive time frame for them to
respond to us, or to decline it, then it doesn't allow us to
move in negotiation forward. So on the one hand, we have less,
I think we have less trouble in the Northwest than some of our
sister tribes elsewhere in terms of identifying what the
numbers are. But that is a big issue. We would say to you that
on this declination time frame, over at IHS, theirs is 45 days.
And they wanted the 90 too, then they wanted 60. And we
appealed to you for 45. You concurred with us. It has not been
a problem over there.
The issue is that the law allows for us to mutually extend
it if we require more time. So sometimes you get caught up in
the dates and the time frames, and it is more the legal
argument coming from the Department or the Administration than
it is necessarily the programmatic people. Because we have
worked out many of these issues.
But that declination process and burden of proof are issues
that help us move the agenda forward. So if you look at the 260
tribes that are in today and ask, why aren't there more, why
aren't more jumping in, this is part of the problem. It is the
process and the definitive requirements of the Department to
negotiate with the tribes and respond to us, so that we can
move the negotiations forward.
Senator Cantwell. Could you describe what you think self-
governance has meant economically, how many jobs have been
created, what it has done for the economic opportunities within
Indian Country?
Mr. Allen. I always refer to self-governance as empowering
the tribes to move our governmental affairs forward to serve
our people. A good example would be my tribe. When we
negotiated back in the early 1990s, when the law became
permanent, we negotiated for a number that probably had had us
at around a very small staff of 35 or so FTEs. Over the years,
we have taken on more and more programs, and we probably
increased our base by maybe 30 percent or something along that
line.
But today, because of the flexibility of self-governance
and the ability to move these resources and leverage these
resources, our budget has increased exponentially. We currently
have a staff of around 180 people. Our economic development has
flourished as a result of our ability to move money into
categories that will allow us to plan and develop economic
development, plan and development programs that serve our
community, leverage other resources that are out there, whether
it is Federal or State or private sector, to allow us to expand
our governmental base.
So our governmental base, because of self-governance, which
is simply a base, rarely for most of us it is a small component
of our base, but it has allowed us to leverage and increase
jobs and create stability, which is, for us, it has increased
jobs, but it has also stabilized our FTEs with our operation.
Senator Cantwell. What do you think that is, time,
predictability? What elements allowed you to use self-
governance to grow economically? What attributes of that? Is it
predictability? Is it the ability to plan and be able to jump
on economic opportunities in a more rapid fashion?
Mr. Allen. It is mostly the flexibility of the resources.
The Federal Government historically has categorized where they
feel that the tribes need assistance. They have all these
different categories of where these resources can be available.
And historically, it is like a silo. So you can only use these
monies for this program or that program or that program or that
program, A, B, C, D. Then it did not allow the tribes to use
those monies where they really needed them or how they could
use them with more creativity to be able to expand our
operation.
That is probably the greatest benefit. So if we need to
develop our political or legal infrastructure to create
economic development on our reservation, so it creates better
certainty for the private sector to conduct business on an
Indian reservation, then the infrastructure is that certainty
they are looking for, the due recourse with regard to
investment on a tribal reservation. It allowed us to use monies
that we may not, that were dedicated for one area, we can use
it for another area more effectively, to advance that
particular program.
Often, I do want to footnote here, a lot of people were
concerned, including people in our respective communities, you
are going to take natural resources, you are going to put it
over in economic development. You are going to take social and
community monies and you are going to put it over in economic
development. So you are going to undermine those programs and
services, education and so forth.
That is not what has happened. If you look at all our
different programs, you will see they have been enhanced. But
it is little kinds of tweaks that allow us that flexibility in
how we use those resources, relative to the other resources
that are available to the tribe, to allow us to advance
economic development and other agenda items, including cultural
enhancement. Cultural enhancement, which has always been very
difficult for tribes to restore and preserve and advance, and
those programs have flourished immensely.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tester. [Presiding] Mr. Skibine, I want to follow
up a little bit on what the Chairman was talking about. You had
expressed some concern for the time frames in the bill and the
accountability, you didn't say this, I did, the accountability
that those time frames are going to require if passed. I just
want to reiterate that the record is there, you are not the
only agency, by the way, there are others, but the record is
there to indicate that we in the legislative branch of
Government need to do something to make sure that things get
done.
And I don't know if it falls on you or people you supervise
or people above you that supervise. But quite honestly, I think
the reason that language is in here is because there are plenty
of examples to show that we haven't moved like we should.
Now, I know the last Administration didn't fill a lot of
positions that needed to be filled. But we are not in the last
Administration any more. We are in this Administration. I think
they have done a good job of filling and putting some good
quality people, yourself included, in the Department.
I have a question for you, not related to that, but others.
I am just saying, it is not going away. There is no reason that
Indian tribes should have to suffer because we have people in
the agencies that aren't buckled down and getting after it.
The bill includes a provision to require the Secretary to
negotiate in good faith. Isn't that required in every
negotiation that Government enters in? Why is that language
specifically in here? Can you give me an idea?
Mr. Skibine. Well, of course, it is a requirement for the
Department and the Government to negotiate in good faith.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Skibine. So I am not sure why that provisions would be
in there.
Senator Tester. Are you aware of any violations where your
agency did not negotiate in good faith?
Mr. Skibine. No.
Senator Tester. How about you, Mr. Allen? Do you know why
that is in there?
Mr. Allen. Yes. It will vary from region to region, but
with self-governance, it is about transferring Federal
functions to the tribal government.
Senator Tester. I got you. Go ahead, keep going.
Mr. Allen. But the Federal Government does not want to let
go. The reality is, it doesn't want to let go of those
programs. It believes it is essential to protect our interests.
The problem is that, George referred earlier to the
inherent Federal functions, or essential governmental functions
that only the Federal Government can administer, versus what we
can administer. Now the question for a tribe, we are
negotiating in good faith, we want them to put the numbers on
the table and the programs that we should have access to in
good faith, so that we can actually negotiate for the numbers.
If they resist, or they don't provide us the information, or
they withhold information, how can we negotiate in good faith?
We don't know what we are negotiating for.
Senator Tester. But this provision requires the Secretary
to negotiate in good faith. You are going to negotiate in good
faith, the Secretary is going to negotiate in good faith. I
just don't understand why that language is in there. I just
don't get it. I think it is a given, that is all.
We talked about non-BIA programs, the BOR in particular was
concerned about their ability to monitor. Is there some
contracts that have gone awry? Is it just that they don't want
to, and I know you can't answer for BOR or any other agency
outside of yours, but is it just what Mr. Allen said, that they
don't want to give up, they want to keep their finger on it? Or
is there a reason? Is there some examples where there has
been----
Mr. Skibine. I don't think there are some examples. But I
think that essentially, what I think the Bureau of Reclamation
feels is that building dams may be very different from building
detention facilities. Whereas in Indian Affairs, our director
of facilities I think is comfortable with the provisions in the
current bill, I think in BOR, they feel that they need more
input.
Senator Tester. I want to give either Mr. Micklin or Mr.
Allen an opportunity to respond to that. Because building a dam
is different than building a detention facility or school or
whatever it might be. Do you want to respond to that, either
one of you?
Mr. Allen. I will lead off, and then Willie can add to the
response. First of all, when we first began this negotiation,
we wanted clarifications on the non-BIA agencies with regard to
what our ability to access those resources are. It became too
complicated and political, quite frankly. So we chose to step
away from the non-BIA agencies and left it as the current law
is. So the majority of this bill, 90 percent of this bill, if
not more, is in the BIA and not the non-BIA.
But going to your point, the compacts that currently exist
with Bureau of Reclamation, Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
and Parks, there aren't very many of them, because it has been
very difficult for us to negotiate those compacts. They have
been very resistant to that happening. But there have been no
problems that we know of, no managerial mismanagement problems.
Every one that the tribe has taken over has been run
exceptionally well with no discernible problems at all. But
that arena is very difficult for us to penetrate.
On construction, there are very clear requirements to meet
the Federal standards and the EPA requirements.
Senator Tester. Can I ask what happens if you don't meet
those standards?
Mr. Allen. Just like any other contract, it stops until you
meet the requirement.
Senator Tester. All right, sounds good.
Mr. Micklin, do you want to respond to that, about non-BIA
agencies, and if there has been problems in your neck of the
woods?
Mr. Micklin. I can say that in H.R. 4347, the tribes have
conceded this point, in that there is no mandatory contracting
provisions in here. This is almost entirely a BIA bill. But our
contacts with the non-BIA agencies, when we have approached
them about doing those things that come naturally to us with
our historical expertise, our cultural ties and affinity with
public lands, they have looked back to us across the table as
though they were stricken.
And our feeling is that they are very jealous of their
discretion and they are wanting to retain their inherent
discretion to do what they like with their own programs, and
not bother with tribes who are trying to contract programs and
services that not only benefit the Federal Government by
accomplishing those works, as well as any other Federal
contractor or the public agency, but benefit the tribe and the
tribal citizens as well.
So we think there is much to be gained down the road with
additional contracting. But we have let them keep their
discretion, because it is not part of H.R. 4347 today. I wish
it was, but it is not.
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Allen. Can I add one more point? On this topic, in
construction, which confuses a lot of people, the way the
current law reads and the way the current regulations read, and
these amendments allow for the resumption. If an agency, BOR,
has gone awry and we are not meeting certain standards, then
they can reassume it.
Senator Tester. Okay, very good point. First of all, I want
to thank the witnesses for testifying today, and your answers
to the questions. I, as the Chairman has expressed, would love
to see this get done now. I think it is important. I think any
time we can empower Indian Country, it is beneficial to
everybody. And I think it is a decent bill.
Although you say it may not be perfect, Mr. Allen, you are
right, it may not be perfect. But with the exception of the
ones I write, that is always the way it is.
[Laughter.]
Senator Tester. I would just say, remind you that the
record will remain open for two weeks for further comments. I
look forward to working with the Chairman and with the folks on
this panel and others to get this bill across the finish line.
With that, we will adjourn the hearing. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dan Boren, U.S. Representative from Oklahoma
Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, Members of the Indian
Affairs Committee:
Thank you for setting this House-passed legislation for hearing. I
hope it leads to greater understanding of this very important piece of
legislation. The issue of Tribal Self-Governance is crucial to many
Indian tribes, but as a Representative of more than 200,000 Native
Americans it is personal to me. I've devoted many hours to shaping and
pushing this legislation through the House process, and discussing with
tribal representatives and Department of the Interior officials the
changes that were needed to remove objections and get it passed. I hope
the Senate will now see fit to pass it before the year's end and send
it on to the President for signature into law.
H.R. 4347 amends Title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975 to provide greater legal authority to
Native American tribes as they pursue, at each tribe's option, tribal
self-governance. It transfers authority and responsibility from the
federal program bureaucracy to the tribal program administration. This
bill gives tribes the ability to better negotiate with the Department
of the Interior, strengthening the self-governance program and
eliminating wasteful practices in the Federal Government.
The self-determination approach was born in the late 1980s upon the
revelation that only a small percentage of federal money appropriated
for the benefit of Indian country actually made it out of the
bureaucracy and into the hands of the tribes. The result was a myriad
of well-intentioned approaches that culminated in 1994 with the birth
of Title IV of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance
Act. Title IV was enacted to accomplish three primary goals: (1) to
place the Federal Government's Indian programs firmly in the hands of
the local Indian people being served; (2) to enhance and empower local
tribal governments and their governmental institutions; and (3) to
correspondingly reduce the federal bureaucracy. Title IV was designed
to reduce federal micromanagement and to empower tribes, at their
choosing, by giving them the control necessary to maximize the services
to their people. We now have an opportunity to amend the language of
this program to more efficiently and effectively run the self-
governance program.
The self-governance program has been a tremendous success for
participating tribes across the country. In 2004 the Government
Accountability Office noted in a prepared report on Indian economic
development that those tribes that participated in self-governance
programs had greater gains in employment levels from 1990 to 2000.
Through years of rule making and implementation, it is clear that self-
governance works, and works well.
The self-governance program has worked so well, in fact, that many
of its principles were applied to the Indian Health Services Title V
program. The result of that application has been higher quality medical
access, lower costs, and more efficiency. Despite all the evidence that
the principles of Title V work, the Federal Government has yet to make
them applicable to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Title IV program. H.R.
4347 brings parity between the two programs, applying lessons learned
in Title V to the relevant areas of Title IV. It will streamline the
self-governance system and eliminate wasteful spending on the part of
the Federal Government.
The core principles of this bill are simple. First, tribal
sovereignty and the right of a nation to control its own destiny is the
most efficient approach to federal spending dollars. It takes money out
of government bureaucracy and puts it directly in the hands of the
Indian Tribes, allowing them to create jobs and invest in the
infrastructure from which we all benefit. Second, the enormous rewards
that come from allowing local control over local programs far outweigh
the concerns about paring down government control. These points, in
addition to the fact that H.R. 4347 gives Indian Tribes more control of
their own destiny, make it an immensely important piece of legislation.
H.R. 4347 is the result of years of negotiation between many
concerned parties and stands to benefit both the Indian Tribes and the
Federal Government. In fact, this bill reflects significant compromise
on the part of both the tribes and the Federal Government. To quote the
late, great Cherokee Nation Chief Wilma Mankiller, ``The success of
self-governance has been nothing short of astounding.'' I sincerely
hope that we can work together to improve and protect this landmark
program.
Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of this
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement to
your committee. I look forward to working with you to see that the
amendments to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistant
Tribal Self-Governance Act, which is of great importance to Indian
Country, are soon enacted into law.
______
Prepared Statement of William C. Reffalt, Vice President/Issues
Coordinator, Blue Goose Alliance
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee,
the Blue Goose Alliance (BGA) appreciates this opportunity to submit
testimony for the record regarding H.R. 4347, a bill to amend the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) and for
other purposes. We confine our comments to the provisions in Title 4
affecting Annual Funding Agreements (AFAs) with non-BIA agencies of the
U.S. Department of the Interior.
We make note that testimony given on behalf of the Department of
the Interior raised serious concerns regarding the non-BIA portion of
H.R. 4347 but they did not elaborate on those concerns. The primary
concerns of the BGA were made known to the committee prior to the
November hearing conducted on the bill. We requested that the bill be
amended to 1) remove the definition stated in Section 401(7) and, 2)
delete the provisions contained in Section 411 of H.R. 4347 and insert
the disclaimer language from Section 403(k) of the current Self-
Governance Act.
The requested amendments would retain current law, which provisions
were inserted in 1994 as a safeguard of the public interest in assuring
that inherently federal functions of the U.S. Government would remain
fully under control of federal officials charged by law to implement
them and, in addition, that when the laws governing the missions and
functions of the agencies to be involved in an ISDEAA Annual Funding
Agreement do not permit the type of agreement provisions sought by the
tribe, then they shall not be allowed. The provisions of H.R. 4347
would insert a new legal standard that, frankly, does not exist in
current laws governing conservation of lands and renewable resources on
the public lands of America.
Further, the primary law governing the National Wildlife Refuge
System was modified in 1976 and again in 1997 with restrictions on
joint management and delegation of management programs within units of
the Refuge System. We believe those restrictions are vital to the long-
term integrity of the Refuge System and its ability to provide a
perpetual stream of benefits to the American people.
Mr. Chairman, the provisions that permit annual funding agreements
between qualified Indian tribes and non-BIA agencies in the Department
of the Interior have already resulted in an aggressive implementation
within the Department that has at times gone beyond having tribal
participation in functions, activities, services, etc., and delegated a
level of control to them that intruded on inherent federal functions,
or at a minimum delegated a level of participation that exceeded the
intent of authorizing legislation of the agency.
Given that the programs, functions, services and activities
involved in the non-BIA agencies were established to benefit all
Americans, including Indian peoples, it is very important that an
appropriate, nationally coordinated federal role is continued. As an
example, major programs of the National Wildlife Refuge System involve
multiple international treaty obligations that were intended to be
fulfilled through the operation of the System. Thus, provisions
assuring that inherently federal functions remain under full control of
federal employees are vital to those long-standing international
commitments of our Nation.
We further believe that the Senate Committees having jurisdiction
directly affecting those non-BIA agencies should have continuing
opportunities to review provisions in the ISDEAA that could have far-
reaching effects on the missions involved as well as on the
expenditures of appropriated moneys. Inserting a new and additional
administrative overhead onto the programs involved in AFAs might bring
inefficiencies at a time when all federal expenditures require the
closest scrutiny to assure maximum efficiency.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Blue Goose Alliance, a private,
non-profit organization dedicated to the integrity and welfare of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, urges the Committee to restore the
protective language it previously inserted and passed in the non-BIA
title of the self-governance statute. We believe the public interest
would best be served by the amendments we have proposed.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity to submit comments. We
appreciate your efforts to gather information on the proposed bill and
hope that our comments are received in the constructive and beneficial
manner intended.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to
Hon. W. Ron Allen
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to
Hon. W. Ron Allen
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to
Will Micklin
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to
Will Micklin
______
Written Questions Submitted to George Skibine *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Response to written questions was not available at the time this
hearing went to press.