[Senate Hearing 112-32]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-32
S. 546, THE LITTLE SHELL TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS RESTORATION ACT OF
2011; S. 636, A BILL TO PROVIDE THE QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE TSUNAMI AND
FLOOD PROTECTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND S. 703, THE HELPING
EXPEDITE AND ADVANCE
RESPONSIBLE TRIBAL HOMEOWNERSHIP ACT OF 2011
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-350 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, gpo@custhelp.com.
0COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Loretta A. Tuell, 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 April 14, 2011................................... 1
Statement of Senator Akaka....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 5
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 3
Witnesses
Causley, Cheryl A., Chairwoman, National American Indian Housing
Council........................................................ 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Cleveland, Hon. Bonita, Chair, Quileute Tribe.................... 36
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 38
Gottschalk, K. Jerome, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights
Fund........................................................... 24
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 27
Laverdure, Donald ``Del'', Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Sinclair, Hon. John, President, Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa
Indians of Montana............................................. 20
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Skibine, George T., Deputy Assistant Secretary For Management,
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Tippeconnie, Robert, Southern Plains Area Vice President,
National Congress of American Indians.......................... 56
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 57
Appendix
Cherokee Nation, prepared statement.............................. 74
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, letter and Tribal Council Resolution
No. 210411-A................................................... 71
S. 546, THE LITTLE SHELL TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS RESTORATION ACT OF
2011; S. 636, A BILL TO PROVIDE THE QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE TSUNAMI AND
FLOOD
PROTECTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND S. 703, THE HELPING EXPEDITE
AND ADVANCE RESPONSIBLE TRIBAL
HOMEOWNERSHIP ACT OF 2011
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
This afternoon, the Committee will hold a legislative
hearing on three bills that will have, without question, a
significant impact on the lives of individual Indians and will
improve how tribes are able to use their own resources.
The first bill, S. 546, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa
Indians Restoration Act of 2011, was introduced by Senator
Tester. In fact, if I recall correctly, this is the first bill
that Senator Tester introduced when he became a United States
Senator. This bill would extend recognition to the Little Shell
Tribe of Chippewa Indians and make them eligible for all the
rights and privileges afforded to federally-recognized tribes.
Senator Tester has been a great champion of this bill, and
I am sure he will have more to say about the importance of the
bill in his opening statement.
The second bill we will discuss today is S. 636, the
Quileute Indian Tribe Tsunami and Flood Protection Act. Senator
Cantwell introduced this bill, that will allow the Quileute
Tribe to settle long-standing boundary issues and move their
people to safer ground outside a tsunami and flood zone.
And the third bill we will discuss is S. 703, the Helping
Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of
2011. This legislation is known as the HEARTH Act. I was
pleased to be an original co-sponsor of this bill with my
partner, Vice Chair and good friend, Senator Barrasso. The
HEARTH Act will streamline the leasing process for tribes and
individuals. This will help tribes use their resources in a
more efficient way, and to provide economic development,
education, housing and other opportunities for their members.
Today we will hear from the Administration, the affected
tribes and Indian organizations on these bills. I encourage any
other interested parties to submit written comments to the
Committee. The hearing record will remain open for two weeks
from today.
Senator Barrasso, I would like to ask you for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
thank you for holding the hearing today, and I greatly
appreciate your willingness to direct the Committee's attention
to my bill, S. 703, commonly referred to as the HEARTH Act.
I want to thank you and Senators Tester and Johnson and
Thune and Udall for agreeing to co-sponsor this piece of
legislation. As you know, this Act has been a priority of the
Committee for a number of years now. During the 111th Congress,
the Committee approved by voice vote a virtually identical
bill. This Act provides Indian tribes with an alternative
process for long-term leases of lands, a process that would not
require the Secretary of the Interior to approve leases of
surface lands. I think that would eliminate a lot of red tape.
I must say, Mr. Chairman, with regard to S. 546, the bill
which would recognize the Little Shell Tribe, I understand and
appreciate how important this measure is to Senator Tester, and
I know it is important to the Little Shell members who support
it. I do feel compelled to reiterate the comments that I made
at the Committee's business meeting last week with regard to
the Chairman's Native Hawaiian bill. In my view, the
significance of recognizing a tribal group is far-reaching for
the tribe, for its members and for the United States.
That is why we have an exacting administrative recognition
process to determine which native groups should be recognized
by the Federal Government and which native groups should not.
The Executive Branch is better suited, in my opinion, than the
Congress to perform the factual and historical analysis
necessary to reach the right decision in these cases. That has
been and continues to be my position on the tribal recognition
bills that have been referred to the Committee.
In this particular case, I understand that Little Shell has
pursued the recognition process and is now appealing a negative
decision by the Department. I don't know if it is good policy
for Congress to second-guess the Department in these difficult
decisions, and for those reasons I cannot support this bill.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our witnesses for
traveling long distances to be here today, and I look forward
to hearing their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now I would like to call on Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank Ranking Member Barrasso for his honest thoughts about the
recognition bill. I do want to get into a little bit of the
history to refresh and maybe give some additional information.
But most importantly, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing not only on the Little Shell bill, but
also on the HEARTH Act. I think the HEARTH Act is critically
important to folks in Indian Country, particularly in the west.
As we have discussed in past years, Federal recognition of
the Little Shell Tribe of Montana is long overdue. They have
been a part of Montana's history and culture for generations.
The tribe is recognized by the people of Montana, our State
government, all of our tribal governments, in fact, the
Montana-Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council just faxed me a letter
of support yesterday. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that we could
include that in today's Committee record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Tester. The Native American Rights Fund and other
national Indian advocacy groups also recognize them as an
American Indian tribe. Apparently, the only group who doesn't
recognize the Little Shell of Montana is the U.S. Department of
the Interior. And actually, in 2000 they did recognize them.
That was the year they issued a positive decision stating that
in its petition for Federal recognition, the tribe met all
seven of the mandatory criteria. Let me repeat that. In the
year 2000, the Department of the Interior found the Little
Shell Tribe of Montana had met all seven of the mandatory
criteria.
But the Department wanted more paperwork, so the tribe
submitted 10,000 pages of additional documents and the agency
reversed their decision. That is why we are here today.
So Mr. Chairman, I understand the Department of the
Interior is doing a lot of important things. I have friends all
over that Department, some of them here today. For the most
part, we work very, very well together. But on this issue, I
think we can do better.
So let me be clear about one thing. I would much rather
have the tribes get recognition through the administrative
process, as the Ranking Member indicated. These critical
decisions should be based on history and science and culture,
rather than the politics of today.
However, we do have alternative ways for recognition of
tribes, because the administrative process isn't always
perfect. It doesn't always work the way it was intended, and
the Little Shell Tribe is a good example of one of the few
times Congress should override the administrative process. We
have held hearings on past versions of this bill, and the
broken recognition process in general.
People familiar with the Little Shell are well aware of
their efforts to gain recognition. Early in the late 1800s,
early 1900s, Congress appropriated money to purchase a land
base for the tribe, but the BIA didn't do it. In 1934, after
Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act, the BIA told
Little Shell it couldn't recognize them because the tribe had
no land base.
In 1940, the BIA told them that although they deserved
recognition, the agency didn't have the money any more. And if
you fast forward to 1978, six months before BIA even issued its
final regulations that created the Federal acknowledgment
process, the Little Shell Tribe submitted its application. For
14 years, this homeless, impoverished Indian tribe in rural
Montana collected documents and other evidence to prove their
historical evidence. Despite their persistence, and a lot of
help from good advocates, the administrative process failed
them once again.
In 2009, nine years after the announcement of a preliminary
positive decision, and collecting even more evidence of them as
a tribe, the BIA changed its mind and wrongly denied their
petition for recognition. My bill simply seeks to right that
wrong. Mr. Chairman, the bill simply requires the Department of
the Interior to treat the members of the Little Shell Tribe the
same way they treat every other American Indian Tribe in our
State and in our Nation. Recognizing the Little Shell Tribe of
Montana is the right thing to do, and from my perspective, it
is long overdue.
So I want to thank you again for holding this hearing, and
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Tester, for your
opening statement.
Senator Cantwell, I recognize you for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you and Vice Chairman Barrasso for holding this important
hearing, particularly on the Quileute Tribe Tsunami Protection
bill, and for doing so so quickly.
I also want to thank all the witnesses for coming here
today, especially Chairwoman Bonita Cleveland for coming all
the way from La Push, in my home State of Washington, to
testify on the second panel. She not only had to fly 2,000 mile
but also had to drive four hours and take a ferry ride to get
here from the Quileute Reservation.
The Quileute reside on a one square mile reservation
surrounded by the Olympic National Park, and bluffs. And the
Quileute have one of the most beautiful beaches in the world.
While the setting may be very picturesque, the tribe faces
danger every day. Because of the small size of the tribe's
reservation, most of their tribal facilities, including their
day care center, elder center, tribal office and home sites sit
directly in the path of a potential tsunami.
Just a few weeks ago, in the early morning, the Quileute
tribe evacuated several hundred people to higher ground because
of the potential tsunami caused by the large quake in Japan
hours earlier. Fortunately, the tribe had hours of advance
warning to start the evacuation and the tsunami that eventually
arrived was small.
However, a tsunami caused by an earthquake on the Cascadia
Subduction Zone Fault, just off Washington coast, would arrive
much more quickly and without warning. So the tribe would only
have minutes to evacuate hundreds of people.
In an effort to help itself, the tribe has moved as many
people to higher ground as possible. But there is very little
usable space left within the reservation that is not within a
tsunami flood zone. So there is no safe, buildable land on the
reservation.
The goal of this legislation is to help the tribe move all
of its tribal facilities out of the tsunami zone and away from
the threat of flooding from the river. And this sensible
legislation would increase economic opportunity and safeguard
the Quileute families and their property from the devastating
tsunami and floods. This legislation is the product of
government-to-government negotiations between the Quileute and
the National Park Service, with the goals of helping the tribe
and moving forward in the region.
Included in this legislation, through negotiations with the
tribe and the Park, is an agreement that fixes the northern
border of the reservation, and ensures Park visitors access to
some of the most beautiful beaches on the Washington coast.
Helping the Quileute Tribe move their facilities 800 feet up
and out of the tsunami zone is the primary purpose of this
legislation. However, it will ensure visitors access to Second
Beach, Rialto Beach, and preserve thousands of acres of Olympic
National Park as wilderness.
Again, I thank the Chairman and the Vice Chairman for
holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from the
Department of the Interior on this legislation.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell, for
your opening statement.
With that, I welcome the witnesses. I know that many of you
have traveled far to be with us today, and we greatly
appreciate your willingness to testify in this hearing. We will
have three panels to hear from today, so I ask that you limit
your oral testimony to five minutes. Your full written
testimony will be included in the record.
I welcome our first panel of witnesses to the Committee
today. Mr. Donald Laverdure, the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior.
And Mr. George Skibine, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Management, at the Department of the Interior.
I understand that Mr. Laverdure will testify on the HEARTH
Act and the Quileute legislation, and Mr. Skibine will testify
on the Little Shell legislation. Mr. Laverdure, will you please
proceed with your testimony?
STATEMENT OF DONALD ``DEL'' LAVERDURE, PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Tester. My name is Donald ``Del'' Laverdure, and I'm
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at
the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be here today
to present the Department's views on these two bills.
The first is S. 636, which is a bill to provide the
Quileute Indian Tribe tsunami and flood protection through
conveyances of land from the National Park Service. And the
second bill, S. 703, is the HEARTH Act, the Helping Expedite
and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act.
First, on the Quileute bill, the Department supports S.
636. We know that the Quileute is a smaller, federally-
recognized tribe in the State of Washington. The tribe's
current reservation consists of approximately 880 acres and is
home to approximately 375 residents. The reservation is
bordered to the north by the Quileute River and to the east and
south by Olympic National Park. Most of the reservation is
located within the flood zone. And much of the tribal
infrastructure, as described earlier, including their
administration buildings, schools, the elder center and
housing, is within the tsunami zone.
Recent tsunamis in the Pacific Ocean, including the one
which struck Japan last month and created a huge disaster,
clearly demonstrate the risk faced by the tribe and its
citizens and the need to move housing and infrastructure
inland. Therefore, this legislation would make available to the
Quileute Tribe 785 acres of land currently within the boundary
of Olympic National Park, in order to facilitate the tribe's
move to new lands on higher ground and away from the frequent
flooding and tsunami risk that the tribe must currently contend
with.
S. 636 also seeks to protect the natural resources of the
land removed from the park, to encourage agreements between the
National Park Service and the tribe on matters related to the
land, and to designate approximately 4,100 acres of Olympic
National Park lands as wilderness. The National Park Service
has worked collaboratively with the tribe over many years to
address numerous issues. As such, the Department supports S.
636 in its balance of tribal safety and protection of park
resources as well as visitor access.
That concludes my statement on S. 636.
The Department also strongly supports S. 703, the HEARTH
Act, which would amend certain sections of 25 U.S.C. Section
415, also known as the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act, to permit
tribes that choose to develop their own leasing program to
approve and enter into certain leases without prior express
approval from the Secretary of Interior. Under this
legislation, willing tribes would initially submit their own
leasing regulations to the Department for approval.
Following secretarial approval of such leasing regulations,
tribal governments would process leases for tribal trust land
at the local level pursuant to their own laws, and without a
requirement for further approval by the Secretary. This has the
potential to significantly reduce the time it takes to approve
leases for homes and small businesses.
Pursuant to the HEARTH Act, leases would be limited to an
initial term of 25 years, but could be renewed up to two
additional terms of 25 years each. The HEARTH Act also requires
the Department to review tribal leasing regulations within 120
days, but does provide us with the flexibility to extend this
time period in consultation with the applicant tribe.
The HEARTH Act also ensures that the Department will retain
the authority to fill its trust obligation, to protect tribal
trust lands through the enforcement or cancellation of leases
approved under tribal regulations or the rescission of
secretarial approval of tribal leasing regulations where it is
appropriate. At the same time, the HEARTH Act ensures that the
United States will not be liable for losses incurred as a
result of leases approved under their own tribal leasing
regulations.
Finally, the HEARTH Act would require the BIA to prepare
and submit a report to Congress regarding the history and
experience of Indian tribes that have chosen to assume this
responsibility for operating certain Indian Land Title and
Records Office, or LTRO, functions from the Bureau. Such review
would include consultation with the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of Native American Programs, and
those tribes managing LTRO functions. The Department agrees
with the factors to be considered in the review.
Again, the Department strongly supports S. 703, and wants
to continue our conversations with the Committee on further
refinements to the text of the bill. In closing, I look forward
to working with this Committee in continued support of tribal
nations. This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverdure follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald ``Del'' Laverdure, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
S. 636
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 636, a bill to provide the Quileute Indian Tribe
tsunami and flood protection, and for other purposes.
The Department supports S. 636. This legislation would make
available to the Quileute Indian Tribe 785 acres of land currently
within the boundary of Olympic National Park in order to facilitate the
tribe's move to new lands on higher ground, away from the frequent
flooding and the tsunami risk that the tribe currently must contend
with. The legislation also seeks to protect the natural resources of
the land removed from the park, to encourage agreements between the
National Park Service and the tribe on matters related to the land, and
to designate approximately 4,100 acres of Olympic National Park as
Wilderness.
The Quileute Indian Tribe is a small, Federally recognized tribe in
the State of Washington. The Quileute Indian Reservation, established
in 1889, is located on the Olympic Peninsula along the Pacific Ocean.
The reservation is bordered to the north by the Quillayute River and to
the east and south by Olympic National Park. It consists of
approximately 880 acres and is home to about 375 residents. Most of the
reservation is located within the flood zone and much of the tribal
infrastructure, including their administrative buildings, school, elder
center, and housing is within the tsunami zone. Recent tsunamis in the
Pacific Ocean, including the one which struck Japan last month, clearly
demonstrate the risk faced by the tribe and the need to move housing
and infrastructure inland.
The 785 acres of land within Olympic National Park that would be
held in trust for the tribe under S. 636 are in two parcels. The
northern parcel, known as Thunder Field, is comprised of approximately
510 acres along the south side of the Quillayute River. A 275-acre
parcel, 220 acres of which are designated wilderness, lies immediately
south of the current reservation boundary. There are no park-owned
facilities or trails in this area, and there are few opportunities for
park visitors.
In addition to providing for the 785 acres to be held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of the Quileute Indian Tribe, and to
excluding this land from the boundary of Olympic National Park, S. 636
also would:
designate approximately 4,100 acres of new wilderness within
Olympic National Park as additions to the existing Olympic
Wilderness;
provide for placing in trust for the benefit of the tribe
the approximately 184 acres of non-Federal land that the tribe
has recently acquired;
express the intent of Congress regarding preservation,
protection and alteration of the 785 acres, and cooperative
efforts between the National Park Service and the tribe.
provide specific restrictions on the use of the 785 acres in
order to protect the land's resources; and
provide for continued public access and use of park and
tribal lands at Second Beach, Rialto Beach, and along the
Quillayute and Dickey Rivers.
The National Park Service has worked collaboratively with the tribe
over many years to address these issues. As such, the Department
supports S. 636 and its balance of tribal safety with protection of
park resources and visitor access.
S. 703
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name
is Del Laverdure and I am the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be
here today to present the Department's views regarding S. 703, the
Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH)
Act.
This Administration continues to support tribal self-determination,
and we recognize that tribal control over tribal resources is intrinsic
to this policy.
We understand that tribal homelands are essential to the health,
safety, and welfare of the First Americans, and that it is important
for Indian tribes to have the ability to determine how their homelands
will be utilized. This is why the Department is in the process of
revising our own regulations governing leasing on Indian lands. Our
revisions will streamline the process by which leases of Indian lands
are approved, thereby promoting homeownership, economic development,
and renewable energy development on tribal lands.
The HEARTH Act is consistent with this effort, and we are pleased
to strongly support this legislation. S. 703 would amend certain
sections of 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415 (the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act) to
permit tribes that choose to develop their own leasing program to
approve and enter into certain leases without prior express approval
from the Secretary of the Interior. Under this legislation, willing
tribes would initially submit their own leasing regulations to the
Secretary of the Interior for approval. Following Secretarial approval
of such leasing regulations, tribal governments would process leases
for tribal trust land at the tribal level, pursuant to their own laws,
without a requirement for further approval of the Secretary. This has
the potential to significantly reduce the time it takes to approve
leases for homes and small businesses.
Pursuant to the HEARTH Act, leases would be limited to an initial
term of 25 years, but could be renewed for up to two additional terms
of up to 25 years each. Tribes could also approve leases for public,
religious, educational, recreational, or residential purposes for a
term of up to 75 years where permitted by tribal regulations. Tribal
leasing regulations would not apply to mineral leases or leases of
individual Indian allotments.
As noted above, under S. 703, tribes that desire to develop and
implement their own regulations governing leasing would be able to
submit tribal regulations for approval by the Secretary of the
Interior. The Secretary would be required to approve tribal regulations
that are consistent with the Department's own regulations governing
leasing on Indian lands. The HEARTH Act requires the Department to
review tribal leasing regulations within 120 days, but does provide us
with the flexibility to extend this time period in consultation with
the affected tribe.
The HEARTH Act ensures that the Department will retain the
authority to fulfill its trust obligation to protect tribal trust lands
through the enforcement or cancellation of leases approved under tribal
regulations, or the rescission of Secretarial approval of tribal
leasing regulations, where appropriate. At the same time, the HEARTH
Act ensures that the United States will not be liable for losses
incurred as a result of leases approved under tribal leasing
regulations.
Finally, the HEARTH Act would require the BIA to prepare and submit
a report to Congress regarding the history and experience of Indian
tribes that have chosen to assume responsibility for operating certain
Indian Land Title and Records Office (LTRO) functions from the BIA.
Such review would include consultation with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Office of Native American Programs, and those
Indian tribes managing LTRO functions. The Department agrees with the
factors to be considered in the review.
We anticipate that the HEARTH Act will ultimately reduce the costs
of implementing tribal leasing programs for the Federal Government by
allowing willing Tribes to assume control of leasing on tribal lands.
By increasing efficiency in the implementation of tribal leasing
programs, the HEARTH Act will go a great distance in promoting
homeownership, economic development, and renewable energy development
by restoring tribal authority over tribal lands. The Department
strongly supports S. 703 and wants to continue our conversations with
the Committee on further refinements to the bill text. In closing, I
look forward to working with this Committee in continued support of
Indian tribes.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on S. 703. I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very, very much for your testimony.
Mr. Skibine, will you please proceed with your testimony?
STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. SKIBINE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Skibine. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Tester. My name is George Skibine, I am the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Management, Indian Affairs at Interior. I am here
today to provide the Administration's testimony on S. 546, the
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2011.
Essentially, the Department is not opposed to enactment of
S. 546. We recognize that Congress has the authority to
recognize American Indian groups as Indian tribes with a
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
S. 546, the Little Shell Tribe, if enacted, would
acknowledge the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of
Montana. This group is Petitioner Number 31 in the Federal
acknowledgment process and has submitted its letter of intent a
long time ago, back in 1978. I just want to point out that in
1978, I was in the second year of my career at Interior. I was
a much younger man, just almost as good looking as Mr.
Laverdure here. Those days are gone, so I am making that point
to say that this has been a very long process for the Little
Shell Band, and one that is, because of its length, is a cause
of concern for our boss, Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk.
At any rate, the decision became final in 2009. It is not
actually final for the Department, it was final for the
Assistant Secretary. But under our regulations, the Little
Shell Band filed a request for reconsideration before the
Interior Board of Indian Appeals in 2010. And from what I
understand, all briefings before the Board have been completed,
and a decision should be coming fairly closely.
In its final determination, the Department denied Federal
acknowledgment to the Little Shell Tribe because the evidence
showed, in our view, that the group failed to meet three of the
seven mandatory criteria. Nevertheless, having not been
acknowledged, the tribe is seeking Congressional redress at
this point. We agree that this Congress should only exercise
this option sparingly, and only in instances where there is an
overriding reason to bypass the regulatory process. But I think
Senator Tester in his opening comment specified that this
perhaps was one such instance.
This concludes my comments on S. 546. We would like to work
with the Committee as the bill moves forward regarding some
technical issues we have with some of the findings in the bill.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Skibine follows:]
Prepared Statement of George T. Skibine, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Management, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
George Skibine. I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management--
Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior (Department).
I am here today to provide the Administration's testimony on S.
546, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of
2011.
The recognition of another sovereign is one of the most solemn and
important responsibilities delegated to the Secretary of the Interior.
The Department believes that the Federal acknowledgment process allows
for the uniform and rigorous review necessary to make an informed
decision establishing this important government-to-government
relationship. However, we also acknowledge that under the United States
Constitution, Congress has the authority to recognize American Indian
groups as Indian tribes with a government-to-government relationship
with the United States. For this reason, we do not oppose enactment of
S. 546.
Background
In 1978, the Department promulgated regulations for the Federal
process for groups seeking acknowledgment as Indian tribes. These
Departmental regulations are found at Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (25 CFR part 83) ``Procedures for Establishing
that an American Indian Group exists as an Indian Tribe.''
To be acknowledged under the Department's Part 83 regulations,
petitioning groups must demonstrate that they meet each of seven
mandatory criteria. The petitioner must:
1. demonstrate that it has been identified as an American
Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900;
2. show that a predominant portion of the petitioning group
comprises a distinct community and has existed as a community
from historical times until the present;
3. demonstrate that it has maintained political influence or
authority over its members as an autonomous entity from
historical times until the present;
4. provide a copy of the group's present governing document
including its membership criteria;
5. demonstrate that its membership consists of individuals who
descend from an historical Indian tribe or from historical
Indian tribes that combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity and provide a current membership
list;
6. show that the membership of the petitioning group is
composed principally of persons who are not members of any
acknowledged North American Indian tribe; and
7. demonstrate that neither the petitioner nor its members are
the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly
terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship.
A criterion shall be satisfied if the available evidence
establishes a reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts
relating to that criterion. A petitioner must satisfy all seven of the
mandatory criteria in order for the Department to acknowledge the
continued tribal existence of a group as an Indian tribe under the Part
83 regulatory process.
The Department's acknowledgment process provides the thorough and
deliberate evaluation which must occur before the Department
acknowledges a group's tribal status. These decisions must be fact-
based, equitable, and thus legally defensible. While Congress may grant
recognition to Indian tribes, the Department's position is that
legislative action should be reserved for those cases where there is an
overriding reason or reasons to bypass the Department's regulatory
process.
S. 546, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act
S. 546, the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act
of 2011 would acknowledge the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of
Montana. This group, Petitioner #31 in the Department's Federal
acknowledgment process, submitted its letter of intent to the
Department in 1978, and completed documenting its petition in 1995. A
Final Determination against the federal Acknowledgment of the Little
Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana was issued on October 27,
2009, and published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2009, 74 Fed
Reg. 56861. The decision is not final and effective for the Department
because the Little Shell Tribe filed a request for reconsideration
before the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) on February 1, 2010.
All briefings before the IBIA have been completed, and the matter is
ready for a decision.
In its Final Determination, the Department denied Federal
acknowledgment to the Little Shell Tribe because the evidence showed
that the group failed to meet three of the seven mandatory criteria in
25 CFR Part 83. Having been denied acknowledgment as an Indian tribe
through the Department's regulatory process, the Little Shell Tribe now
has turned to Congress for federal acknowledgement, since there is no
other avenue to obtain tribal status. It is the position of the
Department that Congress should use its power to recognize American
Indian groups through legislation sparingly, and only in instances
where there is an overriding reason to bypass the Department's
regulatory process.
In closing, if the Congress chooses to move forward with S. 546, we
would like to work with the Committee on clarifying some issues related
to the Department's findings.
This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Skibine.
Let me ask this question to Mr. Laverdure. Can you describe
the steps that would be taken following enactment of this
legislation to transfer the lands into trust for the Quileute
Tribe? And comment on how long you think the process would
take.
Mr. Laverdure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In truth, in the
language of the bill, it appears that the language would
require mandatory acquisition as opposed to discretionary. And
the transfer of those lands should, I couldn't give a specific
time period, but it should move expeditiously because they are
already in Federal title, and the transfer would be from the
National Park Service over to the Bureau of Indian Affairs on
behalf of the Quileute Nation.
The Chairman. When you say expeditiously, can you give me a
time frame on that?
Mr. Laverdure. I wish I could, Mr. Chairman, other than to
say that we will move it as fast as we can, assuming the bill
passes.
The Chairman. Mr. Laverdure, if the HEARTH Act is enacted
and tribes seek the authority it grants, is the Department
prepared to put in place the internal processes to make sure
the leasing regulations are reviewed in a timely manner?
Mr. Laverdure. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the Department
is undergoing consultation on the revision of our existing
leasing regulations, which have been agricultural regulations
and non-agriculture. And during this consultation period, we
have had three sessions recently in the last few weeks. We are
going to take a revision of these 50-year old regulations so
that they reflect modern times for economic development,
residential leasing and the like.
Because of the significant changes, all of that will help
us expedite and implement the HEARTH Act, should it be passed
by Congress and signed by the President.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Skibine, at a hearing before this Committee in November
2009, you stated that the Department is committed to reforming
the acknowledgment process and is currently exploring ways to
improve that process. Can you please provide the Committee with
an update on your efforts to reform the acknowledgment process?
Mr. Skibine. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this
question. When Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk was before this
Committee for confirmation, he made a commitment at the
instigation of some of the members of the Committee to take a
very hard look at the current process for acknowledgment and to
essentially see what could be done. So he instructed me to
start working on this process.
And what we did over the past two years is develop
potential appropriate amendments to the regulation in 25 C.F.R.
Part 83 that would essentially streamline the process. We are
trying to get a regulation that will have a definite beginning
and where there will be a definite ending, so we will know
exactly how long this process will take. Obviously, it is
taking too long right now.
So that is what we are developing. We are looking at the
standard for review of the seven mandatory standards. We are
taking a look at the standards themselves to see if those
should be changed because of the issue that we have found with
implementation of the standard. What I propose is to shorten
the process by eliminating review before the Interior Board of
Indian Appeals, which is where Little Shell is now. But that
process in the past could take two or three years, in addition
to where they are right now.
So we are trying to eliminate that, and instead provide
some sort of administrative forum before the Assistant
Secretary makes a final decision. What I have found is in
effect that, I think some of the groups that are petitioning
also feel that it is not a fair process, or necessarily
impartial. We want to inject an individual in there that would
essentially be submitting a recommended decision to the
Assistant Secretary that would be outside of the process right
now.
Also what I want to do is eliminate the endless extensions
that are granted under the current regulations. Granted, they
are granted both to the petitioner and to the Government. But
essentially what I have seen is that tends to lengthen the
process considerably.
So these are the kinds of things that we are looking to do.
A draft has been developed by the staff. It is now under review
by our political group. Mr. Del Laverdure is recused from the
Little Shell matter, but in his official capacity as Principal
Deputy he would be involved in that process of looking at the
regulations overall. And potentially, then afterwards there
would be some consultation with Indian tribes, then a proposed
rule in the Federal Register and eventually a final rule.
I think Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk is committed to have
that process completed before the end of the first term of the
Obama Administration.
The Chairman. I am glad to hear you say that you also
consulted with the tribes. Is this normally the practice of
working on issues like this, to consult with the tribes?
Mr. Skibine. Yes. We have a consultation policy at the
Department of the Interior, and in Indian Affairs, where we
definitely consult with Indian tribes on matters affecting
them. So yes, we would do that normally.
The Chairman. Mr. Skibine, can you tell me who the Obama
Administration named as the lead person handling Federal
recognition decisions at the Department?
Mr. Skibine. The Assistant Secretary, Larry Echo Hawk, is
the decision maker for Secretary Salazar on acknowledgment
decisions. If he is recused from that matter, and he is recused
from the Little Shell matter because of a family conflict, then
essentially, at the time the decision was left to me as I was
then the Acting Principal Deputy. Now Mr. Del Laverdure is the
Principal Deputy, but he is also recused from Little Shell,
because of family issues, I suppose, and as a result, that is
why I am here before you today.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much for revealing that
you do pay attention to the relationships. I really want to be
sure we can cut back the persons that are handling this.
Let me call on Senator Tester for his questions.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
both Del and George for being here today. Del, it is always
good to see you, whether it is here or back in Montana. I
appreciate your service.
The same with you, George. I appreciate your Service very,
very much, even though we have a disagreement. Now that I know
you are the decision maker, now we really know where to put the
blame.
[Laughter.]
Senator Tester. I would just say this. Back in 2000, in my
opening statement I talked about the Department of the Interior
got a positive finding for the Little Shell. They met seven out
of seven. And I think if I heard your testimony correctly, they
didn't meet three out of seven.
Have those seven things changed?
Mr. Skibine. No, they have not.
Senator Tester. Okay, so what has changed? Did somebody
blow it in 2000 and make a wrong decision? Have the facts
changed around it? What has changed that ten years ago, a
decision could be made that they met the criteria, and ten
years later, they barely made half of them?
Mr. Skibine. I think that what happened is that the staff
at Interior, in examining the petition after 2000, and after
the submission of comments, decided that in looking at the
evidence that several departures from precedent that were made
by Assistant Secretary Gover in his 2000 determination were in
the opinion of the staff not warranted. And they went at length
to explain why they didn't feel those departures were
warranted.
That is why in the end there was a change in the decision.
Senator Tester. Yes, but the change wasn't made in 2000,
was it?
Mr. Skibine. No. The decision in 2000 was a proposed
decision. Then it went out for comment. And in the Federal
Register notice, in fact, the Secretary at the time did ask for
comments on the departure from precedent. In the end, we felt
that the departure from precedents were not warranted, and that
is why the final decision came about.
Senator Tester. Can you tell me what the three things they
didn't meet, what were they if you can tell me briefly?
Mr. Skibine. Yes. The first one is that the petitioners
were not identified as an Indian entity since 1900 on a
substantially continuous basis. That is criterion A. The second
one, that the Little Shell did not provide sufficient evidence
of a distinct community from historical time to the present.
And third, that the petitioner did not provide sufficient
evidence of a political influence from historical time to the
present.
Now, I want to point out that because the decision is
pending before the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, so the
decision is not final for the Department, it is sort of an
appeal process, I feel uncomfortable----
Senator Tester. I understand that. I won't pin you down on
that, we can wait until later. Hopefully, it won't be
necessary, but we can wait until later.
So when the facts are gathered, back in 2000 when the facts
were gathered from the Little Shell and anybody else you are
gathering facts from, and the information is sorted through,
who makes the decision on those facts, you or the staff?
Mr. Skibine. The ultimate decision maker is me as the
Acting Principal Deputy at the time.
Senator Tester. Who is the real decision maker?
Mr. Skibine. Well, the fact is this. The fact is that the
staff of the Federal acknowledgment team essentially puts
together the final decision package. They have a team of very
qualified doctors in various fields. And essentially, the final
decision, it is a document that is over 25 pages long with
appendices.
Senator Tester. Is this full-time staff, or are these folks
that work outside on a contract basis?
Mr. Skibine. They are full-time staff.
What I have found is, in fact, that by the time the
decision comes to the Assistant Secretary, it is, in this
particular case, we spent months going back reading and reading
it again and going back to the staff. But in effect, it is
essentially well nigh impossible to change that finding.
Senator Tester. It is impossible?
Mr. Skibine. It is practically impossible. Because I am not
an expert on history, on genealogy and stuff like this. So this
is why, when we are proposing revisions to these regulations, I
think we need to somehow alter the process to provide for a
decision maker to have a somewhat more of a view from----
Senator Tester. So is part of the process sorting through
the information, was any political appointee involved in that
process?
Mr. Skibine. No, they were not.
Senator Tester. These were all hired folks?
Mr. Skibine. Right.
Senator Tester. Okay. So you talk about the fact that it is
very, very difficult to overturn or to undo what they have
done. And I get that.
Let me talk about the Indian Board of Appeals. Who serves
on that?
Mr. Skibine. There are administrative law judges that are
appointed, they are not political appointments. They serve as
the judges in the Office of Indian Appeals.
Senator Tester. Who staffs them?
Mr. Skibine. They have attorneys, career attorneys who
staff them.
Senator Tester. Are any of the people that staff them, or
any of the people on the Board of Indian Appeals part of the
group that makes the initial decision whether to recognize or
not recognize?
Mr. Skibine. No.
Senator Tester. Okay. So all these folks are outside the
agency that you contract with them?
Mr. Skibine. Yes.
Senator Tester. That are on the Indian Board of Appeals?
Mr. Skibine. That is correct.
Senator Tester. How often are they turned over? Are they
turned over per Administration or every two years or what?
Mr. Skibine. The board members?
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Skibine. The Interior Board of Indian Appeals judges
are permanent appointments.
Senator Tester. They are permanent appointments. So they
were there in 2000?
Mr. Skibine. Well, I don't know that. I am not sure, maybe
some of them were. I cannot answer that question.
Senator Tester. Okay. You could probably find me that
answer, couldn't you?
Mr. Skibine. Of course.
Senator Tester. Okay. I would like to have that.
Can you answer me if the Interior Board of Indian Appeals
has ever reversed a negative determination on recognition?
Mr. Skibine. I think they have. I think what they do is
remand the matter back to the Assistant Secretary if they have
issues with that.
Senator Tester. Could you tell me when they have done that?
Mr. Skibine. I can provide that answer, but I am not
familiar with the specific times when this has happened.
Senator Tester. Okay. The reason I ask is because I don't
believe they ever have. So if I am wrong on that, I would love
to get the right information.
Okay, first of all, I appreciate the fact that you are not
opposed to the bill. And I also appreciate the fact that you
came out with the decision, even though I think it was an
incorrect decision. Ultimately, in the end, it still is ironic
to me that a decision, first of all, there was a land base that
was meant to be acquired back in 1908, 1914 and 1925, BIA never
did it. And this has been going on far longer, far longer than,
and John Sinclair, the last time he was here to testify, his
dad started this. Maybe even before that, maybe it was his
granddad.
And every political entity in the State of Montana, every
tribe thinks this is the right thing to do. We have people that
have been disqualified because they have to be connected with
Little Shell somehow. And all this stuff just doesn't make any
sense if they haven't been around forever. And they have been
around forever. But we will continue this process, and I also
appreciate the fact you are trying to streamline this process,
because I think it is very, very tough. So that is good.
Has the Department ever reversed a positive proposed
finding on Indian recognition?
Mr. Skibine. You mean besides Little Shell?
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Skibine. I am not aware of any, but I can also find
that information.
Senator Tester. That would be good.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I took so
much time.
The Chairman. Thank you. We will have a second round on
these questions, Senator Tester.
Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Laverdure, thank you so much for your testimony.
You are in support of this legislation S. 636, is that correct?
Mr. Laverdure. That is correct.
Senator Cantwell. And you believe that we have settled any
concerns or the reservation and the northern boundary and all
of that?
Mr. Laverdure. All their concerns have been met.
Senator Cantwell. Good. That is all I actually had, Mr.
Chairman. I will quit while we are ahead. My questions are for
the next panel. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell.
Mr. Skibine, let me follow up with a question that has been
around for a while. This Committee and the Congress have a
successful record of restoring and recognizing Indian tribes.
Yet we have heard over the years many times about the
administrative process as to how lengthy, burdensome, expensive
and non-transparent it is. Will you tell the Committee what you
are doing to rectify this process?
Mr. Skibine. Well, as I think I have, in one of the
questions earlier, what I said is we are in the process of
revising the regulations in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, and in order, in
the revisions, we have a draft that is now under review by the
political team. The impetus, what we are trying to do,
essentially, is to make it a finite process where there is a
definite beginning, there is a definite end. We are trying to
shorten the time frames, so that it doesn't take so long. We
are trying to eliminate some of the extensions that occur under
current regulations. We are trying to also hopefully eliminate
a BIA review, because that is an additional process that can
take several years.
And because, frankly, in my opinion, the review by the IBIA
of an Assistant Secretary's decision, that is the only time
that the Interior Board of Indian Appeals reviews decisions
that are made by the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. In
all other cases, the IBIA can only review decisions of regional
directors or underlings, but not of the Assistant Secretary. So
it is unique and not the common practice for the Board to
review those decisions.
We are also looking at the burden of proof. We want to
clarify what the burden of proof is for meeting the standards.
And I think we are also looking at, taking a very close look at
the standards themselves, 1 through 7 or through A to whatever,
especially the first three. The first one requires
identification on a substantially continuous basis since 1900.
I think the precedent indicates that this has to be every 10
years, it has to be identification from a non-Indian entity. In
other words, we are taking a look at this to see if that really
belongs in there. And then we are taking a look at what is in
the other two standards also.
So hopefully, by the time we are done, we will have a
process that will be shorter, clearer and will essentially be
easier to address for the petitioners.
The Chairman. Federal recognition decisions are supposed to
be made using ``reasonable likelihood standard.'' When you say
that the Department has ``uniform and rigorous review,'' aren't
you heightening the standard, when the regulations clearly
state that the conclusive proof is not required?
Mr. Skibine. No, the conclusive proof is not required. And
I agree with that. We are in fact taking a look at that burden
of proof to see whether in fact that should be changed. And
that is one of the things we are taking a look at.
But even under the existing standard, conclusive proof is
not required. The question is, it is not technically a legal
standard that operates in other areas of the law. So should we
replace that with a more certain standard that is more
understandable for everyone, like preponderance of the
evidence, which is not the normal standard.
The Chairman. Yes. Well, as you can tell, we are trying to
zero in on how we can move some of these decisions along. You
point out that others with other knowledge and skills maybe
need to be part of the process. Do you think, and I am trying
to get at this, but do you think the process is so broken for
tribes in seeking recognition that it is time for Congress and
this Committee to step into the role of recognizing tribes?
Mr. Skibine. Well, this Committee, first of all, you do
have the authority to recognize tribes. That is why this bill
is before you. On the other more substantive policy issue, I
think that would be a question for our political leadership to
respond to.
The Chairman. Thank you. I thank you so much for your
answers here, and I am looking forward to working together with
you in trying to expedite the process. And as you can tell, I
am trying to find out the best we can as to maybe how we can
improve it. I am sure you are, too. I certainly want to keep
trying on this, and look forward to working with you on trying
to bring this process about.
Thank you very much for your statements.
I would like to invite the second panel to the witness
table. Today, we have John Sinclair, President of the Little
Shell Tribe; Kim Gottschalk, from the Native American Rights
Fund; and Bonita Cleveland, the Chairperson of the Quileute
Nation. I want to say welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for
being here, and we look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Sinclair, will you please proceed with your statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SINCLAIR, PRESIDENT, LITTLE SHELL TRIBE
OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MONTANA
Mr. Sinclair. Good afternoon, I want to thank you and
Senator Barrasso for bringing this legislation, as well as the
rest of the Committee. I would also like to express my deep
gratitude to Senator Tester for bringing this bill, and to
Senator Baucus for co-sponsoring S. 546.
On behalf of the Little Shell Tribe of Montana, I thank you
for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 546,
legislation to confirm a government-to-government relationship
between the Little Shell Chippewa Indians of Montana and the
United States. My name is John Sinclair, and I am honored to
serve the Little Shell Tribe, as my father and my grandfather
have done before me.
Congress began work on recognizing our tribe in 1908, more
than 100 years ago. In that year, and again in later years,
Congress appropriated money to buy land for the tribe. A
primary purpose for this land base was to allow the tribe to
organize as a recognized tribe.
Of particular importance after Congress passed the Indian
Reorganization Act in 1934, Congress again appropriated money
to purchase land for the Little Shell Tribe. Despite Congress'
intent that Little Shell organize on that land, it never
happened because the money was spent to purchase land for the
already-recognized tribes. We are asking that Congress finally
complete the process it started in 1908 by enacting S. 546.
There are two other tribes, the Little River Band and the
Little Traverse band of Ottawa Indians, that have been
recognized by Federalization on the basis that the BIA began,
but never finished, organizing them under the IRA. We deserve
and are overdue for the same kind of recognition legislation.
However, there are even more reasons for Congress to enact
special legislation for Little Shell. In 1982, Congress enacted
the Pembina Judgment Act, which allocated funds now worth $3
million which were conditioned on our Federal recognition. Even
the BIA has said that this unique situation could justify
special recognition legislation for Little Shell. In the words
of the final determination, referring to both the previous
efforts to organize under the IRA and the distribution of the
judgment funds, the Bureau said, ``Congress could direct that
they be used to purchase land for the group, as contemplated in
the 1930s, should Congress choose to recognize the Little Shell
petitioner.''
These circumstances mean that Congress can and should enact
S. 546. This is our last chance. Little Shell and Congress have
been having this conversation now for more than 100 years. For
too long, we have been refugees in Montana, waiting for the
United States to fulfill its promises.
Our neighbors, both Indian and non-Indian alike, all have
recognized that we are a tribe. All seven recognized tribes in
Montana support us. The two tribes in neighboring Wyoming, the
Wind River and Northern Arapaho, support us. The State of
Montana supports us. Our local counties support us. They know
us better than the staff at the Bureau's Office of Federal
Acknowledgment. We urge Congress to fulfill its promises and
join those who know us best by enacting S. 546.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sinclair follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Sinclair, President, Little Shell Tribe
of Chippewa Indians of Montana
Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, our friends Senator Tester
and Senator Baucus, and honorable members of this Committee on Indian
Affairs, on behalf of the Little Shell Tribe of Montana, I thank you
for the opportunity to testify in support of legislation that would
confirm the federal relationship between the Little Shell Tribe of
Chippewa Indians of Montana and the United States.
My name is John Sinclair and I have the honor of serving as
President of the Little Shell Tribe. Before me, my father and my
grandfather also served our Tribe working to realize our people's
federal recognition. The Little Shell Tribe is organized under our 1977
Constitution. Our government consists of an elected Tribal Council (two
year term) and Executive Board (four year term) and our tribal
enrollment encompasses about 4,500 members. As a landless tribe my
people are largely settled on the fringes of rural towns in Montana on
the Front Range and along the Highline, as well as in the cities of
Great Falls and Helena.
The Little Shell Restoration Act of 2011 (S. 546) cosponsored by
Senator Tester and Senator Baucus would finally end our long struggle
for federal recognition, for which so many of my people have fought
tirelessly over the past century. The Restoration Act is consistent
with Congress' and the Department of the Interior's historical
commitments to acknowledge our people and establish a land base for us.
The need for congressional action has become absolutely necessary since
the Department abandoned its July 24, 2000 proposed positive finding
that the Tribe had met all the seven mandatory criteria of the Part 83
regulations and should be recognized. On October 27, 2009 the
Department reversed this decision and found that the Tribe had not met
the burden of proving all the regulatory criteria of recognition. I am
here before you today, as I have been a number of times in the past, to
urge that you exercise your plenary authority over Indian tribes and
recognize the United States' political relationship with the Little
Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians. We are Indians, we are a Tribe, and
all we desire is the same recognition that you offer our sister tribes.
Little Shell of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act of 2011, S. 546
The proposed Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians Restoration Act
of 2011 would afford my people the federal recognition that has long
been promised to us. S. 546 provides that we will be a duly recognized
tribe just like our sister tribes in Montana and across the United
States. The Act instructs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 200
acres in trust so that we can finally have a tribal land base. It also
explicitly states that we are eligible to acquire additional lands
under section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, an important
provision given the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar.
The Act would also right the wrong that was inflicted against us by the
Department's flawed decision not to recognize our Tribe based on the
imperfect process established under the Part 83 regulations.
Previous Congressional Efforts to Confirm the Federal Status of The
Little Shell Tribe
Congress has been aware of the Little Shell Tribe's dilemma for
years and several times has voiced its desire to legislate a solution
for us. In 1934 Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA),
which provided a mechanism for groups of Indians like ours to organize
and apply for land. In December 1935, the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs took steps to organize our people under the IRA. The
Commissioner proposed a form to enroll our people, stating:
It is very important that the enrollment of homeless Indians
in the State of Montana be instituted immediately, and it is
proposed to use this form in the determination of Indians who
are entitled to the benefits of the Indian Reorganization Act.
BIA Letter, December 23, 1935. This effort resulted in the
Roe Cloud Roll, named after Dr. Henry Roe Cloud, an Interior
official who played a large part in the project. Once the roll
was complete, the Field Administrator clearly stated that the
purpose of the roll was to settle our people and bring them
under active federal supervision:
The landless Indians whom we are proposing to enroll and
settle on newly purchased land belong to this same stock, and
their history in recent years is but a continuation of the
history of wandering and starvation which formerly the Rocky
Boy's band had endured.
Out of the land purchase funds authorized by the Indian
Reorganization Act, we are now purchasing about 34,000 acres
for the settlement of these Indians and also to provide
irrigated hay land for the Indians now enrolled on Rocky Boy's
Reservation. The new land, if devoted wholly to that purpose,
would take care of only a fraction of the homeless Indians, but
it is our intention to continue this program through the years
until something like adequate subsistence is provided for those
who cannot provide for themselves. The first step in the
programs is to recognize those Indians of the group who may
rightfully make claim of being one-half degree, which is the
occasion for presenting the attached applications. The fact of
these people being Indian and being entitled to the benefits
intended by Congress has not been questioned.
Roe Cloud Roll applications, 1937 (emphasis added). Even
though the appropriation of funds for the Little Shell people
was clear acknowledgment of our status as a tribe, one
desperately in need of the federal protection extended to other
tribes, the Department of the Interior was never able to
fulfill this promise. The limited resources available to
acquire land were expended for tribes already recognized.
In 1940, Senator James Murray formally requested that the
Department fulfill the federal government's promise to acquire land for
the Little Shell Band. Assistant Commissioner Zimmerman responded that
his office was ``keenly aware of the pressing need of the landless
Chippewa Cree Indians of Montana. The problem thus far has been dealt
with only in a very small way. I sincerely hope that additional funds
will be provided for future purchases in order that the larger problem
remaining can be dealt with in a more adequate manner.'' Unfortunately,
despite the efforts of Congress the funds were never appropriated and
the problem was never dealt with in anything resembling an adequate
manner.
Final Determination Against Recognition of The Little Shell Tribe
On October 27, 2009, over thirty years after our initial petition,
the Office of Federal Acknowledgment issued their final determination
against acknowledgment of my people. Only an appeal to the Interior
Board of Indian Appeals has prevented that decision from becoming
effective. It could be years before the IBIA rules. Despite the fact
that the Proposed Finding was in favor of recognition, that no
substantive negative comments were received, and that we submitted
thousands of additional pages of evidence to support our position, the
OFA chose to reverse their decision. Their previous decision had taken
into account historical circumstances as required by the regulations,
and concluded that certain departures from precedent were justified.
The Tribe was encouraged to submit additional information, not as a
condition of being recognized, but merely to narrow what were viewed as
the necessary departures from precedent. Imagine our surprise then,
when OFA totally reversed its judgment and chose to strictly construe
the requirements of the regulations so as to conclude that we failed
criteria (a) recognition by outsiders during the period 1900-1935); (b)
community from historical time to the present; and (c) the exercise of
political authority from historic times to the present. Significantly,
the finding concluded that our additional work had shown that 89
percent of our people trace from a historic tribe, thus meeting
criterion (e) without any need to depart at all from precedent. In sum,
we were told that we met the requirements, we worked in good faith to
help the department, and then we were hit with a total reversal of
policy. Is it any wonder that the Tribe has lost faith in the
acknowledgment system?
My people have spent the past thirty years fighting for our
recognition through the lengthy and burdensome administrative
recognition process imposed by the Department under the Part 83
regulations. In the course of this pursuit we have been truly lucky to
have the assistance of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), a legal
aid organization devoted to the protection of indigenous people's
rights in the United States, pro bono. They agreed to work on our
petition because, as an organization familiar with tribes and tribal
rights, they had faith in Little Shell as an Indian tribe. NARF has
expended over $1 million to retain historians, genealogists, and other
expert consultants to provide the very technical and arcane information
that the Office of Federal Acknowledgment often requires.
The lengthy process also inflicts an immeasurable human cost,
wherein the acknowledgment torch is passed from one generation to
another. The task of securing professionals to assist us with our
petition and the collection of documents from repositories across the
United States, Canada and England was itself demanding, but it paled in
comparison to the demands of providing for my people without the
protection of federal recognition, without a land base. It is
heartbreaking that now after nearly 30 years in the administrative
process, in the politically charged atmosphere of Washington, D.C., the
Department has reversed its proposed favorable finding and decided not
confer federal acknowledgment. Now, we must look to Congress once again
to enact legislation to confirm federal recognition of the Little Shell
Band, recognition that Congress has presumed for generations was
appropriate for Little Shell.
Congressional Action Is Absolutely Necessary
Congress has plenary power with regard to tribes in the United
States. It is Congress then who has the final power and authority to
recognize or terminate a relationship with a tribe, not the Department.
Congress has not relinquished that authority to the Department of the
Interior. The administrative regulations were adopted by the Department
without benefit of legislation. As a result, Congress can and should
act for the Little Shell since the administrative process cannot and
has not worked for us. That is what the Little Shell people ask this
body to do now through S. 546.
Congress has enacted similar legislation for other tribes which,
like Little Shell, have a history of congressional efforts to
reorganize the tribe. Congress enacted such legislation for tribes such
as the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians and the Little River
Band-tribes, like us, whom the Department attempted to recognize in the
1930s but because of the lack of appropriations, recognition was never
completed. The Department of the Interior noted this unique history,
even in its Final Determination against federal acknowledgment:
Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs and,
considering two historical factors, could recognize this
petitioner as an Indian Tribe. First, the Department initiated
action under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 that
affected the ancestors of a significant majority of the
petitioner's members. And second, Congress passed the Act of
December 31, 1982 (96 Stat. 2022), conditionally allocating
certain trust funds to ``the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa
Indians of Montana'' petitioner.
Notice of Final Determination, 74 Fed. Reg. 56861 (Nov. 3, 2009).
The Department went on to note that more than $3 million remains in
trust under the allocation act and offered that ``Congress could direct
that they be used to purchase land for the group, as contemplated in
the 1930s, should Congress choose to recognize the Little Shell
petitioner.'' Id.
The existence of this judgment fund is another circumstance unique
to Little Shell. As the Department noted, Congress allocated a portion
of the settlement to the Little Shell Tribe. Some of these funds were
distributed to our tribal members but roughly $3 million is still held
in trust by the Secretary of the Interior pending possible federal
recognition of our Tribe. The existence of this fund means that money
is finally appropriated and available to purchase land for the Little
Shell and the only thing that is needed is Congressional direction and
permission to do so.
It is also important to note that the proposed Congressional action
to confirm federal recognition of the Little Shell Tribe enjoys broad
support in Montana. My people enjoy the support of all the federally
recognized tribes in Montana. I'm proud to state that not one negative
substantive comment was received after the Department issued their
initial proposed finding in favor of recognition of my Tribe. The
support of the other tribes in Montana is indicative of the merits of
our recognition. Who is in a better position to perceive who is a
``real tribe'' in the State of Montana, the other tribes of Montana or
a career bureaucrat sitting in Washington, D.C.? Our sister tribes in
Montana have intimate knowledge or our culture and history that spans
the many years that we have resided in the same territory as them.
We are also grateful to have the support of the State of Montana as
well. Governor Schweitzer and the Montana State Legislature, by Joint
Resolution, have expressed their support for our federal recognition.
Hill, Cascade, Glacier and Blaine County as well as the City of Great
Falls, the local governments most directly impacted by our recognition,
have expressed their support of legislation to recognize the Little
Shell Tribe. In fact, the State of Montana recently provided us with
land from which we can provide essential governmental services--
something the federal government had promised to do throughout the
twentieth century but has yet to accomplish.
Our neighbors, both Indian and non-Indian alike, have all
recognized that we are a ``tribe.'' Many of them have petitioned
Washington in support of our cause over the last century. They still
stand with us today. Congressional recognition of our Tribe would not
stir local animosity nor would it provoke strong sentiments against our
cause. It would provide a sense of relief and closure for my people and
for our friends in Montana who have tirelessly supported our cause and
watched our plight over the past century.
Conclusion
Distinguished Senators, it is to you that I make my people's final
appeal. For too long we have been refugees without a homeland in our
own aboriginal territory, unable to provide proper schools for our
children or healthcare for our elders. Throughout this ordeal I have
watched as tribal members have passed away without realizing our dream
of recognition and I have seen new tribal members born without the
protections that federal recognition entails. All I ask is that this
body make good on the promises that have been made to the Little Shell
Tribe over the past century and acknowledge your recognition of my
people.
I thank you for your time and for your consideration of S. 546. I
am more than happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Sinclair.
Mr. Gottschalk, will you please proceed with your
testimony?
STATEMENT OF K. JEROME GOTTSCHALK, STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIVE
AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
Mr. Gottschalk. Chairman Akaka and Senator Cantwell, thank
you for the opportunity to speak today in support of S. 546. My
name is Kim Gottschalk, I am an attorney at the Native American
Rights Fund. We have been honored to represent the Little Shell
Tribe in its administrative quest for recognition for more than
20 years.
I want to focus on just two very basic points in my talk
today. One, that the summary of final determination against
recognition of the Little Shell Tribe in no way means that they
are not a tribe that should be recognized. And I think Mr.
Skibine testified today they do not oppose it. I am somewhat
puzzled as to why they are not supporting the bill. But that is
point number one.
Point number two, I do not think that this is even an
instance of bypassing the administrative procedure in any way.
I think this has been contemplated by them from the very
beginning because they know that the regulations do not fit the
situation.
The Federal acknowledgment regulations, as they exist,
propose a one size fits all, cookie cutter approach to Federal
recognition that does not fit the historical reality of the
Little Shell Tribe, who through a long part of their history
were a tribe that hunted buffalo; they were migratory for large
parts of the year. And when the buffalo played out, they were
subject to immense economic, social and geographic disruption.
Well into the 20th century, Little Shell members lived on
the absolute fringes of society in abject poverty. They were
referred to as trash heap Indians, breeds, half-breeds, and
other similar non-complimentary terms. When faced with this
historical reality and the paper-driven approach adopted by the
regulations, you can see why there is not a good fit. This
situation is not calculated for the Little Shell people to
produce a paper trail or for outside observers to penetrate
into their social situation.
When faced with this situation, Assistant Secretary Gover
said, okay, what do we do with this? The evidence clearly shows
that they are an Indian tribe. We have to interpret these
regulations with some flexibility and common sense. An example
would be the requirement that you be recognized as an Indian
entity by outsiders. The fact that they were recognized as
individual Indians isn't good enough. They expect the dominant
society to have penetrated to the underlying social and
political reality of the tribe, to recognize an entity.
The same is true of showing community throughout history,
political authority throughout history. Secretary Gover made
the determination that you take the evidence that clearly
establishes such patterns of community and political authority
in certain time periods, and you presume, make a reasonable
presumption, a reasonable likelihood that those persisted
during other time periods. That is the reason for the positive
proposed finding.
I would like to point out that at the time this was going
on, the Director of Federal Acknowledgment, Mr. Lee Fleming,
wrote a memo to his superior in connection with Little Shell.
He opposed coming out with a favorable finding, and I would
just like to quote two short sentences: ``Another alternative
would be to recommend legislation to acknowledge this
petitioner. This recommendation would be based on a finding
that because of the unique and complicated nature of its
history, this petitioner is outside the scope envisioned by the
regulations, but nonetheless merits tribal status.''
This is a natural follow-on from that conclusion. They had
a choice to either be flexible and adopt a common sense
approach to the regulations or adopt a mechanistic approach and
realize that they were confessing that the regulations didn't
fit the situation. That is the situation we are in now. I want
to make very clear that we did a lot of work on this after the
proposed finding. We satisfied the Office of Federal
Acknowledgment that 89 percent of Little Shell members trace to
the historic Band of Chippewa Indians. This is well above the
80 percent guideline accepted by the Department for this
criterion. So there is no doubt you are dealing with Indians
and you are dealing with an Indian tribe.
I feel I must address a couple of matters very briefly that
Mr. Skibine mentioned. One of which is, he said they put out
for comment after the proposed finding for comments on the
departures from precedent, and then they changed their mind on
the departures from precedent. The implication might be that
there were some comments received that caused that change.
There were no such comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gottschalk follows:]
Prepared Statement of K. Jerome Gottschalk, Staff Attorney, Native
American Rights Fund
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Gottschalk, for your
testimony.
Ms. Cleveland, will you please proceed with your testimony?
STATEMENT OF HON. BONITA CLEVELAND, CHAIR, QUILEUTE TRIBE
Ms. Cleveland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the Committee, on behalf
of the Quileute people, thank you for allowing us to speak with
you today about how our children and elders could be killed in
a tsunami unless we move our village to higher ground.
Wa-ta-lich-ta asoos ta. Thank you, thank you, thank you
from the bottom of our hearts. With me today, Mr. Chairman, I
have our tribal council representatives, Mrs. DeAnna Hobson,
Mrs. Carol Hatch, and our Executive director, Mr. Bill Peach,
our legal advisor, Harold Bailey, and Jackie Jacobs.
Although the Japanese tsunami is a very recent reminder of
the destruction that happens after an earthquake in the ocean,
our people have been living for decades among decades with the
fear of a tsunami and our flooding. Our tribal council has
prepared today to share a video with you and your Committee. If
we could do that.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Cleveland. So as you have just seen from the video, our
community knows that our school children, our elders will not
get out in time. Our children are really worried, and I want to
share with you a piece of artwork from one of our students that
shows their fear.
Because our village is located on only one square mile, Mr.
Chairman, and we are between the Pacific Ocean and the Olympic
National Park, we have nowhere else to go. There is only one
road in and one road out of La Push. This road is usually under
three to four feet of water when flooded. For decades my uncles
have negotiated with the Olympic National Park to try and bring
resolution to the dispute over the boundary of our reservation.
Finally, last year, we were able to reach an agreement with the
Park to settle this dispute. We would like to express our
deepest appreciation to the Park Superintendent, Karen Gustin,
for her hard work and her understanding of the dangers our
tribe faces.
Senator Cantwell's legislation would allow the Quileute
Tribe a permanent way out of the danger zone. For the many
visitors to the Olympic National Park, including the Twilight
fans, the bill will ensure permanent access to our beautiful
beaches through the trailhead owned by the tribe. Senator
Cantwell's bill will also return our people a cultural and
sacred site that we know as Thunder Field. Our people have
utilized Thunder Field for many, many cultural activities,
gathering our berries and placing our canoes to fish.
An organization that understands our way of life is the
National Congress of American Indians. I would like to express
my appreciation for the NCAI to be here today with us. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to submit two NCAI resolutions passed in
2008 and 2011.
We have enjoyed a very close working relationship with the
City of Forks, and we have consulted with the town of Forks on
this bill. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to submit for the
record a letter from Forks supporting this bill also.
The time has come once again to make a difference for our
people who have always had such close cultural ties with the
land base since the beginning of time. Without this bill, Mr.
Chairman, the tsunami could be very dangerous to our people.
Mr. Chairman, I have been so honored to represent my people
today before you. I hope the words and the video show our
urgent and desperate need. Wa-ta-lich-ta asoos ta. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cleveland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bonita Cleveland, Chair, Quileute Tribe
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms.
Cleveland.
I know that it has been a long and difficult struggle for
the Little Shell Tribe to try to obtain Federal acknowledgment.
Mr. Sinclair, can you discuss the toll that this process has
taken on the Little Shell Tribe?
Mr. Sinclair. The toll is that we have not been able to
supply the services that would help us to overcome the racist
attitudes that have held us back for so long. One of the
reasons that we don't fit into this cubby hole that the OFA
process tried to put us in is because we have not been able to
use our resources we have to educate our children so that we
can do something like that, educate our children, keep our
people healthy. It is just something that without the support
of groups like NARF and Patton Boggs, we wouldn't be able to be
here today. It is sad that we have to depend on charity from
others, but that is just kind of the lot that we have been led
into.
The Chairman. Mr. Gottschalk, your testimony highlights
several flaws and inconsistencies within the Federal
acknowledgment process. What recommendations do you have to
improve this process? And do you think the process can be
improved, or does Congress need to act?
Mr. Gottschalk. I believe Congress probably will need to
act. There are many things that need to be improved. You
yourself raised the issue of transparency with Mr. Skibine. I
would like to point out that after our last submissions were
made, the Bureau sent a researcher out for more than three
weeks to do additional on the ground research. There was no
provision in the regulations that allowed us to have that
information and comment on it prior to final decision.
To add insult to injury, when we asked for the information,
we were required to pay $5,000 for copying costs. We have
appealed that decision, but it hasn't been decided. So we had
to put up that money to get the documents that related to our
very petition for recognition, plus no opportunity to comment
on them. That to me is not transparency.
One of the people that they interviewed was an expert on
Metis people, and Little Shell in particular. We used him in
our IBIA appeal to write a document on our behalf. And his
testimony was totally positive. We saw no reflection of it in
the outcome, in the final determination. That does not instill
confidence in the process. I think there has to be recognition
of the fact that the requirements are extraordinarily onerous.
I think criteria A, which says that outside observers must
consistently recognize the group as an Indian entity, cannot
possibly be a requirement. It could be possible evidence of the
existence of community or political authority. It can't
possibly be an independent requirement, because that would mean
if a tribe met all the substantive requirements to be a tribe,
they were in fact a tribe, but outside observers didn't notice
that, then they are not a tribe.
Can that really be the state of our law today? And yet that
is one of the seven mandatory criteria in the Federal
acknowledgment regulations. I think it needs to be simplified.
It needs to have more transparency and it needs to involve
tribes more. There has to be an opportunity perhaps for give
and take, perhaps for direct examination, cross examination of
the experts in OFA. Those are my thoughts for right now.
The Chairman. Thank you for your answers.
Ms. Cleveland, I want to say thank you so much for showing
us the video, to show us where the tribe's reservation is
located. It was a very powerful showing of how precarious your
situation is.
Ms. Cleveland. Yes.
The Chairman. Can you tell us what type of warning the
tribe would get in the event of a tsunami and how the
evacuation plan would be carried out, with only one road, as
you mentioned, in and out of the reservation?
Ms. Cleveland. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have an evacuation
tsunami warning that goes off for our village that can be
heard, sometimes can be heard and sometimes cannot be heard. So
we have had several evacuation warnings and it has taken our
tribal members approximately six to seven minutes to get out of
the lower village. And that is loading the children in the
buses. These are practice warnings, may I remind you. And we
won't get out in time from the lower village.
The Chairman. And as you mentioned, there is just one road
in and out?
Ms. Cleveland. Yes. We have one road into our village and
one road out. If we were hit by a tsunami and that road was
destroyed, we would have no way out. We would be trapped.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your responses.
Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for asking these questions. I think you do see by the video the
precarious situation that the Quileute are in. Thank you,
Chairperson Cleveland, for your testimony and bringing the
spirit of the Quileute people to this hearing room today.
I wanted to ask, you have done a good job of showing the
impact of the Pacific, and we probably didn't emphasize enough
for people about this most recent warning system was in Japan.
But obviously something that would happen on the Cascadia
Subduction Zone, right off our coast would be an immediate
impact. That is why you are emphasizing the time to evacuate
would be very minimal.
But can we also talk about the Quileute River, and its
impact? Because I know that it is also part of your boundary
area. And with the heavy rains and the fact that you are right
next to a temperate rain forest, you have a lot of issues with
flooding from the river. Could you comment on that, channels
for the river and how that impacts the reservation and how
moving to a bluff would alleviate that issue?
Ms. Cleveland. Yes. We are impacted by the river, our lower
village, we are on one square mile. And our lower village is
surrounded on one side by the river, and then the other side is
surrounded by the Pacific Ocean. Behind us, we are surrounded
by the Olympic National Park. So during the winter months, our
river is overflowing into people's homes and we are having to
move the people out of their homes, they are flooded. Their
homes are flooded, every winter, winter after winter after
winter this is occurring with our tribal people. And it really
impacts our people and it creates a hardship for them because
they have nowhere to go. They have to move in with relatives,
to higher ground somewhere else until we can get their houses
cleaned up again, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cantwell. So this land trade with the Department of
the Interior will allow you to relocate to that higher ground.
But it also preserves or actually, I would say probably even
enhances the continued access of a larger community to the
magical places of La Push and Rialto and everything else for
the region, is that correct?
Ms. Cleveland. That is correct, yes it is.
Senator Cantwell. So could you comment a little bit about
the importance of that and continuing to have access to those
places that you get to enjoy every day?
Ms. Cleveland. I guess number one priority would be giving
us access to higher ground and it would allow people safety and
protection and being able to live at ease. And it would allow
people to enjoy the beautiful beaches that we are surround by
and able to continue our fishing on the rivers, as we have done
for centuries.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Again, thank you, and could
you just emphasize, you mentioned the Twilight tribe. Could you
expound on that for a minute? Some people may have one
impression, so maybe you could comment.
Ms. Cleveland. Our tribe is known for the movie, Twilight.
We have a lot of tourism that comes to our community because it
is a famous movie that is out there, Twilight. They come and
tour our village to see the actors that were in the Twilight
movie. So we have many, many visitors that come to our village
to stay. This would protect all the tourists also.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell.
I want to say thank you to this panel for coming here and
testifying on these bills. As you know, we are trying as a
Committee to try to move the decisions on these as we can.
Thank you for helping us with the information you have given
us, and also to work on a process of speeding up some of the
decision making that we face now.
So thank you very much for your testimony.
I would like to invite the third panel to the witness
table. For the third panel, we have Robert Tippeconnie, from
the National Congress of American Indians, and Cheryl Causley,
Chairperson of the National American Indian Housing Council.
Thank you very much for being here at this hearing. We look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Tippeconnie, please proceed with your statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT TIPPECONNIE, SOUTHERN PLAINS AREA VICE
PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
AMERICAN INDIANS
Mr. Tippeconnie. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka. My name is
Robert Tippeconnie, from the Comanche Nation. I am also the
Southern Plains Area Vice President of the National Congress of
American Indians.
The National Congress of American Indians strongly supports
S. 703, the HEARTH Act, because it promotes tribal self-
determination and the management of tribal lands, and would
allow tribes to lease their own lands without the delay and the
bureaucracy that happens within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The legislation is also optional. So each tribe may elect
to go under this Act or not. Many tribes desire to manage their
own lands and promote economic development and are in the best
position to do that, to decide for themselves whether the Act
suits their needs.
We attached the National Congress of American Indians
resolution, PSP 09-0116, in support of the legislation. The
provisions of the legislation are straightforward. A tribe
would be able to lease its own land without approval of the
Secretary of the Interior if the lease is executed under tribal
government regulations that are approved by the Secretary of
the Interior.
Tribal leasing regulations must be consistent with the
Secretary's leasing regulations and must provide for an
environmental review process. NCAI supports the legislation and
offers one suggestion for clarification. The waiver of Federal
liability could include situations unrelated to the lease. For
example, a Federal surveying error could result in a trespass
of a third party. We therefore believe the intention here is to
exempt the U.S. from liability for the terms of the lease,
because the Secretary of Interior would have no role in
reviewing those terms.
We would urge, therefore, the Committee to consider
narrowing the Federal waiver of liability appropriately.
National Congress of American Indians supports this legislation
and in the future, we would encourage the Congress to continue
to develop more legislation that will support tribal self-
determination and in the management of tribal lands.
On S. 636, the bill to provide the Quileute Tribe with
tsunami and flood protection, this hearing also includes the
consideration of this bill. We support the legislation and we
attach a recent resolution from the National Congress of
American Indians. The Quileute Tribe and their members live in
a very exposed area, as we have heard, on the northwest coast,
and have a great need for an immediate solution following the
tsunami that caused catastrophic damage in Japan.
The geographical situation of the Quileute creates a
similar risk for disastrous events. And we urge the Congress to
act now, while the need for action is fresh in our minds.
NCAI views passage of S. 636 as another step in fulfilling
the Federal trust responsibility and inclusion of Native people
in national emergency preparedness that all citizens should
have in this U.S. Country. Thank you for your favorable support
for this timely legislation.
In conclusion, the primary purpose of both bills is to
empower Indian tribes to control their own lands. The National
Congress of American Indians supports this purpose very, very
strongly. We thank you for your diligent efforts on behalf of
Indian Country and on these and many other issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tippeconnie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Tippeconnie, Southern Plains Area Vice
President, National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, thank you
for the opportunity to provide our views on this important legislation.
NCAI supports the legislation, and we appreciate today's hearing
because it will draw more attention to the bill. NCAI particularly
appreciates the Committee's attention to the longstanding problems of
land management and economic development on Indian lands.
The bill has been titled as an Indian housing bill, but it is
broader legislation. It is essentially a set of amendments that would
expand the Navajo Leasing Act of 2000 to all federally recognized
tribes. NCAI strongly supports the bill because it promotes tribal
self-determination in the management of tribal lands, and would allow
tribes to lease their own lands without the delay and bureaucracy of
approval within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The legislation is also
optional; each tribe would decide for itself whether or not to take
advantage of the Act. Many tribes desire to manage their own lands and
promote economic development, and are in the best position to decide
for themselves whether this Act suits their needs. We attach NCAI
Resolution PSP-09-016 in support of the legislation.
The provisions of the Navajo Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. 415(e), and
this legislation are straightforward:
1) Leases on tribal land do not require approval if they are
executed under tribal government regulations approved by the
Secretary of Interior;
2) Tribal leasing regulations must be consistent with the
Secretary's leasing regulations, and must provide for an
environmental review process;
3) The terms of tribal leases can be expanded considerably--up
to 25 years with 2 renewals for business or agricultural
leases, and up to 75 years for public, religious, educational,
recreational or residential leases;
4) Direct payment to the tribe is permitted, but the tribe must
provide documentation of lease payments to the Secretary;
5) The United States is not liable for losses sustained by any
party to a lease executed pursuant to tribal regulations;
6) Interested parties may petition the Secretary to remedy any
violations of the tribal leasing regulations.
NCAI supports the legislation and offers one suggestion for
clarification. Under the trust responsibility section of the
legislation, it states that the ``The United States shall not be liable
for losses sustained by any party to a lease executed pursuant to
tribal regulations under paragraph (1).'' We do not believe that such a
broad waiver of federal liability was intended, because it could
include situations unrelated to the lease. For example, a surveying
error by the Bureau of Land Management could result in a trespass by a
third party. We believe the intention here is to exempt the U.S. from
liability for the terms of the lease, because the Secretary would have
no role in reviewing those terms. We would urge the Committee to
consider narrowing the federal waiver of liability appropriately.
As a final note, NCAI supports this legislation because it is an
extension of existing law that can be made rapidly available to
encourage tribal self-determination in surface leasing and because it
is voluntary to each tribe. In the future we would encourage Congress
and the Administration to continue to develop more comprehensive
legislation that will support tribal self-determination in the
management of tribal lands.
S. 636, A Bill to Provide the Quileute Tribe with Tsunami and Flood
Protection
This hearing also includes consideration of S. 636, legislation to
assist the Quileute Tribe. NCAI also supports this legislation, and we
attach our recent resolution. The citizens of the Quileute Tribe have
lived on the northwest coast for thousands of years. Due to current
boundary limitations the tribal population resides within a coastal
flood plain which includes a community school, elder center, and tribal
administrative buildings. Passage of S. 636 would enable the Tribe to
move up to a safer location.
Quileute citizens have expressed the need for an immediate
resolution following the tsunami that caused catastrophic damage to
Japan. The geographical situation of Quileute people creates similar
risks for disastrous events, and we urge Congress to act now while the
need for action is fresh in our minds.
NCAI views passage of S. 636 as another step in fulfilling the
federal trust responsibility and inclusion of native peoples in the
national emergency preparedness that all citizens should have in this
great country. Thank you for your favorable support for this timely
legislation.
Conclusion
The primary purpose of both bills is to empower tribes to control
their own lands and NCAI supports this purpose very strongly. We thank
you for your diligent efforts on behalf of Indian country on these and
many other issues.
ATTACHMENTS
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Tippeconnie, for
your testimony.
Ms. Causley, will you please proceed with your testimony?
STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. CAUSLEY, CHAIRWOMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN
INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL
Ms. Causley. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka.
I want to thank you for your leadership in introducing S.
703. My name is Cheryl Causley, and I am the Chairwoman of the
National American Indian Housing Council.
NAIHC is the only national non-profit organization solely
dedicated to advancing housing, physical infrastructure and
economic development in American Indian, Alaska Native and
native Hawaiian communities. I am an enrolled member and
director of housing for the Bay Mills Tribe of Chippewa
Indians.
Mr. Chairman, you have my prepared statement, so let me
just highlight a few things regarding S. 703, better known as
the HEARTH Act, that we think are most important.
On tribal trust lands, one of the biggest barriers to home
ownership is the delay in getting a residential lease approved.
We believe this is simply unacceptable and if passed, the
HEARTH Act is a step in the right direction to address this
problem.
As I mentioned in my written testimony, the Indian Home
Loan Guarantee Program, also known as Section 184, which is
administered by HUD, guarantees loans for Native American
individuals, families, tribes and tribal housing programs that
are made to private sector lenders. The goal of this program is
to address lack of mortgage lending in tribal communities.
While this program has been very successful off-
reservation, I need to point out that due to lease delays, only
18 percent of these loans have been provided on tribal trust
land. In addition, when we have tribal members qualify for a
conventional mortgage, delays in the leasing process often
result in mortgages being closed with a much higher interest
rate, sometimes adding thousands on the terms of the overall
mortgages for our people.
Because real property on Indian lands cannot be sold, there
is no real estate market to speak of, and land leasing is often
the only and the best way to generate capital for capital-
starved tribal economies. The bill, if enacted, gives tribes
the freedom to choose whether to tribalize the surface leasing
program or continue to go through the secretarial approval
process. As it did last year, we expect the Congressional
Budget Office to find this bill will be a zero cost proposal
and in fact, may save money by transferring activities from the
Federal to tribal governments.
In my recent visits with many Congressional offices, I have
received the same message: Congressional leaders believe in our
mission and would love to help us, but with limited Federal
resources, they seek solutions with little or no cost to the
Federal Government. Members of this Committee, the HEARTH Act
is exactly that, a solution to overcoming a barrier to home
ownership in tribal communities with little or no cost to the
Federal Government.
Finally, NAIHC's official position, supported by
resolutions from the Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest Indians
and the United Southern and Eastern Tribes, is to support an
efficient environmental review process. We feel that an overly
burdensome process is an imposition on tribal authority and
sovereignty, and will slow down rather than expedite the tribal
surface leasing process. In the 111th Congress, NAIHC held a
series of meetings and negotiations with officials of the BIA,
the Interior's Solicitor's Office, HUD, leadership from the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and Congressman Heinrich,
the sponsor of the original HEARTH bill.
The result was language on the environmental review portion
that has been included in S. 703. It is this language that
NAIHC fully supports.
The goal of the HEARTH Act is to put tribes in the decision
making role and expedite surface leasing so development can
occur in tribal communities. These are the most important
elements as we see, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Causley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cheryl A. Causley, Chairwoman, National American
Indian Housing Council
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My
name is Cheryl Causley and I am the Chairwoman of the National American
Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), the only national Indian non-profit
organization dedicated to advancing housing, physical infrastructure,
and economic development in tribal communities in the United States. I
am also the Executive Director of the Bay Mills Housing Authority and
an enrolled member of the Bay Mills Indian Community.
I want to thank Vice Chairman Barrasso and Chairman Akaka for their
leadership in introducing S. 703, and for the opportunity to appear
today and provide my views regarding the ``Helping Expedite and Advance
Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act'' (S. 703), which was introduced
in the Senate on March 31, 2011.
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
Despite recent improvements in the delivery of housing assistance,
Indian housing is still substandard when compared with housing
available to other Americans. An estimated 200,000 housing units are
needed immediately in Indian Country and approximately 90,000 Native
families are homeless or under-housed. Overcrowding on tribal lands is
almost 15 percent, and 11 percent of Indian homes lack complete
plumbing and kitchen facilities.
Before I present my views on S. 703, allow me to describe the
framework in which Indian tribes provide housing and housing related
community development through the Native American Housing Assistance
and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA).
NAHASDA is grounded in the solid foundation of Indian Self-
Determination. Enacted in 1996, NAHASDA was a result of the combined
efforts of Indian tribes, tribal housing authorities and Federal
policymakers who came together to lay out a new vision for building
strong tribal communities by providing quality and affordable housing
and related physical infrastructure.
The objective of NAHASDA is to consolidate into a single block
grant, once-disparate Federal housing funding programs, and to assign
tribes the responsibility of program decision-making rather than the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
While the delivery of housing has improved since 1996, many
challenges remain, including working with Indian tribal trust lands
which are held in common and cannot be collateralized to attract
private capital. In most tribal areas, inadequate or non-existent
physical infrastructure and weak economic conditions in general hinder
if not rule out a robust housing sector.
Without a doubt, NAHASDA is the single biggest source of housing
capital for Indian people and its success is dependent on how tribes
can adequately address these other challenges.
Indian Trust Lands and the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955
Most Indian tribal land is held in trust or restricted status by
the United States for the beneficial ownership of Indian tribes or
individual Indians. Trust lands may not be sold but may be leased for a
variety of purposes under applicable law. The Indian Long-Term Leasing
Act of 1955 (the 1955 Act) requires the approval of the Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary) for certain types of leases of Indian trust
and restricted Indian lands. Any lease that is not approved by the
Secretary is invalid.
Timely processing of lease documents is critical not only for
housing but also for Federal loan guarantee programs. One program--the
Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program--also known as the Section 184
Program, addresses the lack of mortgage lending in tribal communities
by offering mortgage financing to eligible Native American individuals,
families, tribes and tribally-designated housing entities. The Section
184 Program, administered by HUD, guarantees these loans that are made
by private sector lenders.
Because tribal trust lands may not be foreclosed upon, borrowers
are obliged to have a valid leasehold, which is also subject to the
approval of the Secretary. In the event of a default, the physical
structure and leasehold interest are subject to foreclosure. The
requirement of secretarial review and approval for these leases, in
this instance, is time-consuming and is a contributing factor to the
low homeownership rate in Native communities.
Current law authorizes leases for up to 25 years with an option for
one additional 25-year term for a total 50-year term for ``public,
religious, educational, recreational, residential, or business purposes
. . .'' NAHASDA authorizes lease terms for ``housing development and
residential purposes'' for 50-year terms, but retains the requirement
of secretarial approval to render the lease valid.
The Secretary, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
administers the land leasing process which can become lengthy, taking
months--and sometimes years--hindering housing, infrastructure, and
related economic development on trust lands. Because of these delays,
and the desire by individual Indian tribes for more authority and
tribal control in the leasing of their own lands, 45 Indian tribes have
sought relief from the 1955 Act by petitioning Congress for specific,
tribe-by-tribe Federal legislation.
Most recently, the Navajo Nation succeeded in amending the 1955 Act
to develop and manage its own surface leasing ordinance. The amendments
were made in 2000, and as a result the Navajo Nation may enter into
lease agreements and renewals of leases without the Secretary's review
or approval.
The HEARTH Act
In 111th Congress, the HEARTH Act was introduced in the House of
Representatives by Representative Martin Heinrich and introduced in the
Senate by Senator Byron Dorgan. During its review and consideration by
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the bill was modified to
include provisions related to tribal environmental review that were
negotiated by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs leadership, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Department of the Interior's
Solicitor's Office, Representative Heinrich, and the NAIHC.
The bill as modified was passed by the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs and it is this version that the NAIHC supports.
In March 2011, Vice Chairman Barrasso, together with Chairman Akaka
and Senators Tester, Udall, Thune, and Johnson introduced S. 703, the
HEARTH Act of 2011. The House companion bill, H.R. 205, was introduced
by Representative Heinrich in January 2011.
The HEARTH Act will offer capable and willing Indian tribes the
authority to enact their own tribal leasing regulations and to
negotiate and enter into certain leases without the approval of the
Secretary. It will go a long way in strengthening tribal self-
determination and tribal economies at the same time.
As both H.R. 205 and S. 703 provide, it is crucial that any such
proposal be made available to Indian tribes on a voluntary basis,
leaving the decision as to whether to participate with the tribes
themselves.
In addition, the HEARTH legislation directs the BIA to prepare and
submit to the Congress a report detailing the history and experience of
Indian tribes that have chosen to assume responsibility for
administering the Indian Land Title and Records Office (LTRO) functions
from the BIA.
Conclusion
The NAIHC strongly supports S. 703 because it respects and fosters
Indian tribal decision-making, expedites what can often be lengthy
Federal administrative processes, and will improve the delivery of
Federal housing assistance and expand economic opportunity in tribal
communities.
Thank you and if you have questions I would be happy to answer
them.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Causley.
Mr. Tippeconnie, the National Congress of American Indians
has supported the HEARTH Act in the past, and has taken a
position that it will reduce the Federal costs involving
approving leases for tribes. Can you describe how this
particular legislation will reduce Federal costs?
Mr. Tippeconnie. The area in which costs can be reduced is
the fact that it takes years. If you look at the record of
circumstances, I can think of a tribe in the northwest who
attempted to get a lease, it took over a year and a half. Now,
expenses are made on the side of the nation, the Indian nation,
as well as on the side of the Federal Government. Because they
have to affect time, effort and staffing to review these
things.
And of course, I would say from the National Congress of
American Indians' posture that it is very, very expensive to
the Indian nations themselves. And it is a real difficult
thing, because the result may be, in the effort to attempt to
get a lease, one of the tribes, again, Swinomish of the
northwest, they were hopeful to gain a million dollars a year
in a lease. And that lease took over one and a half years to
kind of work on.
Well, what we find out in Indian Country, those persons
that want to do business with a nation, they don't have that
time. They are looking at a place where they can effect some
return on their investment as well as that is what the Indian
nations are attempting to do.
The Chairman. Mr. Tippeconnie, can you describe to the
Committee how the current bureaucratic delays in the leasing
process have affected economic development opportunities for
the tribes?
Mr. Tippeconnie. Yes. As I cited earlier, I cited the
Swinomish taking that time where they could have, hopefully,
gained a million dollars revenue to the nation. But because it
was taking such time delays to get approval from Interior, they
lost out on that.
Also there have been the wind power opportunities in the
Plains area, like on the Rosebud in the Dakotas. They too,
wanting to effect leases, there comes a point when the parties
that want to venture or work with Indian nations just lose
patience. Because again, you can't sit on these financial kinds
of matters. They are very, very necessary to effect quickly.
So that is a result, it is just too much time. If the
nations had this law passed, you can see that it expedites. It
is in the hand of the Indian nation itself and can be hopefully
expedited in time.
The Chairman. Ms. Causley, in your testimony you state that
an estimated 200,000 housing units are needed in Indian
Country. In your opinion, how will enactment of the HEARTH Act
help to address the need for housing units in Indian Country?
Ms. Causley. For tribal members who are qualified to go out
and obtain a mortgage, what we do is we take them in, we
usually do some type of credit counseling and we fit them into
a slot. I hate to put it that way, but that is what we do in my
particular office. We see if they are better for a rental
program, if they can obtain a conventional mortgage, if they
need a 184 program, or perhaps a USDA product.
If we go the conventional mortgage route, or even the 184
route, the time constraints on our reviewing the mortgage and
the leasehold process really, really affects the bank's
interest. You also have the time involved of the housing
authority staff trying to put these products out. When you are
talking two and three years in some instances, they are on the
phone the majority of the time saying, ``where are we with this
lease,'' and the progress is stopped.
So the quicker administratively that we can put forth these
things, the more houses we can put on the ground and the more
interest we can get from the banks.
The Chairman. Thank you for your responses. Would you have
an idea of why there is such a delay on these decisions on a
lease?
Ms. Causley. I think there is so much housing needed
throughout Indian Country, and they are severely understaffed,
undermanned. They have other situations that they have been
dealing with. It is just a slow, cumbersome product that I
believe the majority of our tribes, if they wish, could do much
more efficiently.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just
want to follow up on the lead that you had set with these
questions. It is a concern when you hear the shortage of
200,000 housing units and the impact on economic activity and
opportunities, as well, as you both testified.
If I could ask you, Mr. Tippeconnie, we talked about how
this has affected economic opportunities. Do you think if we
got this passed, it would actually be able to expand economic
activity?
Mr. Tippeconnie. Oh, yes, I could envision that. Because
those that would like to venture in a relationship of economic
opportunity to the nations, they can see the time frame may be
considerably reduced, and that they have a party that they
directly relate to. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. So the overall question then is, can you
kind of characterize what interest there is out there among
Indian tribes in taking advantage of the HEARTH Act, if we are
able to get this successfully passed and signed into law?
Mr. Tippeconnie. I think there is a great anxiousness. If
you go across the Country, every tribe is attempting, I can't
speak and say just generally, every tribe, but I would like to
imagine that they do, as we hear it, they are wanting a diverse
enterprise or economic opportunity. Some don't have that, and
some sit, as I mentioned, with wind power opportunities or
energy options. They would like to see those expedited.
So if it is in their hands, you can see the party with whom
they were working, they are more of a willing partner. Because
time is of the essence when you get into financial
relationships.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Causley, I saw you shaking your head.
Is there anything you would like to add to that?
Ms. Causley. Investors have a very, very short time frame.
They are also dealing with short terms of tribal governments.
So when they come and they offer you a product, it is necessary
that you are able to say, ``yes, I can do that and I can do it
now.'' Otherwise, you will not maintain their interest for very
long. And the same goes for bankers.
Senator Barrasso. In your written testimony, I think you
did a very nice job of explaining that the BIA's ``land leasing
process can be lengthy, taking months and sometimes years,''
and you went on to say ``hindering housing infrastructure and
related economic development on trust lands.''
I don't know if you could maybe provide the Committee
either now or maybe later in writing some details on the causes
of such a time-consuming land leasing process, and thoughts
that you have on that.
Ms. Causley. The current leasing process is so overly
burdensome. We all have to support the HEARTH Act, because it
creates an efficient means for tribes who have capacity to
basically operate and manage their surface leasing process on
their tribal lands. It is time for the Federal Government to
support tribal self-determination, allow tribes the opportunity
to achieve our own visions for our communities. And they can't
do that without complete tribal control.
We believe the overly burdensome environmental review
process defeats the goals of the HEARTH Act, and requires a
tribe to fully implement a NEPA-like process for every
residential lease, even those homes that are privately
financed. It is an imposition on tribal authority, on
sovereignty, and will slow down, rather than expedite, home
ownership on tribal land and any kind of economic development.
Senator Barrasso. I want to ask a question for both of you
to respond to. The long-term leasing act limits the authority
of most Indian tribes to enter into surface leases with the
approval of the Secretary to a primary term of up to 25 years,
and then a one-time renewal of up to 25 years. So for decades,
Indian tribes have sought and obtained from Congress some
exemptions from the Act's restrictions on the duration of these
leases. The Act has been amended a number of times over the
years to add the names of Indian tribes to a list of tribes
authorized to enter into the surface leases, with the approval
of the Secretary, for a term as you know up to 99 years.
The HEARTH Act would authorize tribes to enter into
business and agricultural leases without the approval of the
Secretary, which is what we want, for a primary term of up to
25 years and then two renewal terms of up to 25 years each, so
for an additional 50 years. Do you believe that restriction of
the two 25 year terms, is that an appropriate number for us to
look at?
Mr. Tippeconnie. Of course, it always depends upon the
tribe itself. Because if you look into the circumstances, I
think the term is a great option. It gives the nation that
flexibility to continue with some enterprise or some financial
relationship.
But again, I would say, it is dependent. And of course, it
would take due diligence on the part of the nation to be sure
that when they enter into something that they would extend
beyond. Of course, when you get into these relationships,
financial, they want more than the 25 years, especially when
you look at something that is very profitable, it is really an
enterprise that will generate a great return to both parties.
They want a term that is greater than the 25 years. And of
course, if they could extend and they are successful in the
marketplace, each of us in that relationship, then certainly
the longer term is greater.
Senator Barrasso. I will ask another part of the question,
because you've made me think about this, and you can respond to
the whole thing, just give me your best thoughts. Do you
anticipate that there are tribes which have the authority to
enter into the surface leases for that term of up to 99 years,
if they would be discouraged from taking advantage of the
HEARTH Act? I would be happy to hear from either or both of you
on that.
Ms. Causley. I don't think they would be discouraged.
Currently right now, the BIA is going through some revisions of
the residential leasing regulations. And NAIHC has been working
with them on those year terms. So hopefully our member tribes
and the tribes at NCAI and all of the ones that have set forth
their resolutions can come to an agreement and we will all push
forward with the same number.
Senator Barrasso. Is there anything else that you would
like to share with the Committee? We will make this part of the
permanent record, anything we may not have asked that you would
like to share with us?
Mr. Tippeconnie. One thing I would like to share is the
fact that the Secretary's regulations, you somewhat have to be
in compliance with. So we would hope we have a relationship in
that effort.
But also, I want to express the fact that there is this
environmental process. And I want to make the point that Indian
nations are very strong about that as well. If we get into
something that is necessary to be smart in the eyes of our
adjoining public as well as our own Indian nation and our
peoples, I just want to bring on the record that yes, we will
be smart about that.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Causley, anything else on your mind
that you would like to share with us?
Ms. Causley. I would just like to go back to the 2009
testimony of a Navajo man that actually provided testimony on
this Act. He stated right now that we have a lot of what he
referred to as our soccer moms and dads leaving the reservation
Because we have no place to bring them back to, because it is
so difficult to gather housing that they qualify for. They are
not low income, we can't help them. If they cannot get a lease
and build their own, they are not coming back.
Unlike other places, we tend to teach our youth from our
examples and our teachings are more than just books. We need to
find a way to keep our talented young role models within our
communities and back home. And I appreciate you helping us do
that.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, I think we have certainly
heard, through your leadership, a compelling case for support
of the HEARTH Act, which we have multiple co-sponsors on this
Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Causley. Thank you for all your support.
The Chairman. I want to thank my partner, friend and Vice
Chairman for his part in this. We will look forward to working
with him.
I also want to thank our witnesses for participating in
today's hearing. I know many of you have traveled a long way,
and we thank you for that. I also want to thank the
Administration for providing their views on these very
important bills, and for us to continue to try to find ways of
working together, and trying to improve the processes that are
now in place.
I appreciate your testimony on the struggle you have faced
in trying to bring Federal recognition to your tribes. As you
are probably aware, I am fighting for the native people of
Hawaii to receive recognition and have the same rights as
federally-recognized tribes. So I fully understand how
important this legislation is to the people of Little Shell
Tribe, and I look forward to working with Senator Tester on
moving this bill.
I also understand the concerns of the Quileute Tribe and
their people. I want to thank you for coming here today to
share your story with the Committee. In Hawaii, we are all too
aware of what it is like to live under the threat of a tsunami,
and to deal with the devastating effects. This is an important
bill and we look forward to working with Senator Cantwell to
move the bill through Congress.
As we have heard today, the HEARTH bill will improve the
ability of tribes to manage their own resources. I really want
to thank Senator Barrasso for his leadership on this bill. I
will continue to work with him on this bill that is so
important to tribes across our Country.
I want to remind any interested parties that the hearing
record will remain open for two weeks for any additional
comments or questions they may have. And also for the members,
as well.
So again, thank you for all your valuable testimony and
responses. I look forward to continuing to move these bills
that are important to the people of America as well as the
Senators that are on the Committee. Thank you very much. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
______
Prepared Statement of the Cherokee Nation