[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 40 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1993

                                 ______


                          HON. BILL RICHARDSON

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 14, 1994

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, in introducing a bill to amend 
section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act.
  This bill is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Indian 
Reorganization Act to prohibit any Department of the United States from 
promulgating regulations which classify or diminish the privileges and 
immunities of an Indian tribe relative to any other federally 
recognized Indian tribe. I have developed this legislation to address a 
recent policy development in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau 
of Indian Affairs has taken the position that there are two 
classifications of Indian tribes, historic Indian tribes and created 
Indian tribes. Historic Indian tribes are Indian tribes that still 
possess inherent sovereign authority of their members and their lands. 
Created Indian tribes are Indian tribes that only possess those 
authorities that are expressly conferred by the Secretary of the 
Interior. The Bureau of Indian Affairs cited the provisions of the 
Indian Reorganization of Act of 1934 in support of this authority to 
divest certain Federally recognized Indian tribes of their sovereign 
powers.
  This distinction between historic and created Indian tribes was first 
presented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in testimony before my 
subcommittee during hearings on H.R. 734, a bill to provide relief to 
the Pascua Yaqui Indian tribe of Arizona. The Bureau of Indian Affairs 
took the position that the Pascua Yaqui Indian tribe was a created 
Indian tribe and therefore did not have the inherent authority to 
regulate law and order on their reservation. Their position was not 
persuasive then nor is it persuasive today. There is no basis in law or 
policy for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' position on historic and 
created Indian tribes.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been a longstanding principle in Federal Indian 
law that Indian tribes possess all inherent sovereign authorities not 
expressly divested by the Congress. The policy that has been developed 
in the Bureau of Indian Affairs flies in the face of this longstanding 
principle. In fact, policy is in direct conflict with the very act that 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs has cited as authority for this 
distinction, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This law was passed 
by Congress to provide stability for Indian governments and has formed 
the basis for future statutes which enhanced tribal self-governance and 
self-determination.
  Mr. Speaker, there is great danger in a policy that recognizes the 
authority of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs to limit the inherent sovereign authority of Indian tribes by 
the Solicitor's pen. If carried to an extreme, the Solicitor could by 
fiat significantly erode tribal sovereignty through a series of 
opinions and carry out his or her own termination policy. With the 
exception of the framework imposed by the judicial branch, the 
formulation of Indian policy is virtually the sole province of the 
Congress and Indian tribes. The Congress has never acknowledged 
distinctions in or classifications of inherent sovereignty possessed by 
federal recognized Indian tribes. Tribal sovereignty must be preserved 
and protected by the executive branch and not limited or divided into 
levels which are measured by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 
Department of the Interior. I have introduced this legislation with the 
ranking member of the subcommittee on Native American Affairs to put a 
stop to this policy before great harm occurs. We must not revisit the 
darkest period of Federal Indian policy by allowing the termination of 
tribal sovereign authority through the implementation of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs policy distinction between historic and created Indian 
tribes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.